Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "History Hustle" channel.

  1. Reds had more support from the general masses. So many promises they would soon break. I still remember reading horror stories from the 1920s and 30s on how horrible working conditions were in the Soviet Union. One story in particular, an American college kid went there as a welder all hyped up he was going to be part of something great. He ended up working in the ass end of no where helping build a factory. Conditions were terrible, everyone lived in tents, it was the middle of winter. Workers were dying as a result. He discovered that many were even there by force, had no choice, bayonet and the gun was their motivation, when those ones died the others made jokes like "They were only a Kulak." I doubt that is what those people fought for, an supported.
    45
  2. More like everyone writes their own history unless forced otherwise. Japan wrote it's own history and yet lost the war. Many German historians and memoirs are littered with intentional distortions of WWII from the German perspective in spite people claiming "Germans have owned up to their actions in WWII" but in reality they have not in most respects and just pinned it all on the Nazis and SS ignoring it was literally a generational thing. That was the "German Perspective" for roughly 50-60 years. The most brutal German general in WWII was a member of the Heer for example, not the SS. There is no greater example in US history than the Lost Cause Narrative revolving around the American Civil War. It dominated American Civil War studies throughout the first 3/4s of the 20th Century and Americans are still dealing with it in the 2020s as many have grown up with that false narrative and defend it as if their life depends on it.
    20
  3. A war I didn't hear of. Thank you for bring light to this none Dutchman. As an American I know of our own conflicts against colonial assets like the Filipino Insurrection. But I never heard of the Indonesian War of Independence.
    19
  4.  @nikhtose  And Lenin's policies led to a famine that made Stalin's two famines look not so bad. Lenin's war on the Kulaks lead to the destruction of entire villages, arrest and murder of untold numbers. This lead to the largest famine in known history within the former Russian Empire. In fact it's the primary reason Lenin "Liberalized" agriculture, ie gave farmers some Private Incentives, and stepped away from the ore Socialist style of agriculture Stalin would later impose. Yes Lenin pushed for a Liberal Economic style of Agricultural system to repair the damage that was done to their agriculture during civil unrest, and his handling of the peasant revolts. ie he allowed Farmers to be Capitalist. This more "Liberal" approach was the primary divide between Stalin and Trotsky as well. I mean liberal not in the 1930s style modern liberalism, but just general liberalism ie individualism. But to be blunt. Under Line, hundreds of thousands of Cossacks were killed, a few hundred thousand peasants were killed. We know that around 50,000 or so White Russian supporters were murdered. Between 4-8 million died through famine. All that with a shorter lived regime than Stalin or Hitler. Let alone the fact that Lenin's movement was the Counter Revolutionary movement, which by armed force Leninist crushed the Mensheviks which was the ruling Socialist party at the time in 1917. So ironically those who opposed Lenin were counter revolutionaries against an already existing counter revolution.
    12
  5. I think it's better to say the German Russo-Polish War than the German-Polish War.
    11
  6. Finland could always just use Stalin's excuse. We wanted to narrow the front line and provide a superior defensive position against future Soviet Acts of Aggression. Sarcasm
    9
  7.  @charlesdaloz2547  Issue with that is the Lenin era was awful. The Stalin era was horrific. Not really until the 1960s did lives in the USSR really started to improve... but the the USSR almost instantly started going into economic decline throughout the 1970s and would collapse by the end of the 80s. We know it was not good under Lenin or Stalin because of the famines. People blame the wars, but neither WWI or the Civil War explain the famine of 1921, as the Reds had won thar war by then. Any improvement in living standards literally only happened for the privileged minorities who lived in Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev who benefited from the robbery of the rural peasants. Prodrazverstka was the State forced confiscation of grain for the Workers by the State regardless whether the peasants would have grain for seeding. The War is often blamed but the famine happened far from Poland, Western Ukraine, Crimea, Finland and the Baltic where most of the fighting happened. So it's lunacy to blame the war. Definitely being it happened after it was over and the Bolsheviks had established control. War isn't an excuse for the famine of 1932/33 either which was the worst of the great famines under the USSR. Which happened during peace time. War can be argued for the 1946/47 famine if.. it wasn't for the fact Stalin refused aid which the west was providing prior to keep Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians alive, so many millions of tons of food shipped to the USSR during the war, for free by the USA. The USA continued to supply food aid throughout Europe after the war but Stalin cut the USSR off from it as if he believed now that the war was over they didn't need it? So even though for the 1946/47 famine can be blamed as a result of the war it was still the failure of the State as a solution was there.. The first Link I provided earlier also States that people were pretty much starving in the Soviet Union from the USSRs founding up until Nikita Khrushchev who finally got the USSR's sh*t together and made food production more important than industrial and military... for the first time in the regime's history. In most respects it's the only reason the USSR survived into the 1980s. The USSR was a 50 long year humanitarian disaster.
    8
  8. Kind of a coincidence as I ran into someone the other day who was in utter denial that was the horror of the Soviet Union during the 1920s-50s. How Soviet Aggression drove so many countries into the arms of Nazi Germany, an very similar scenario you see today in Eastern Europe with NATO... Russia wants it's former soviet republics not to join NATO but acts in a way that drives those former republics literally into NATO's arms. Issue was the Soviet Union did the same thing. Listed off all the territory/countries Russia forcefully annexed, and nations she went to war with between 1919-1940. Because he didn't seem to realize that the Soviet Union invaded or annexed so many countries prior to WWII. He actually thought and I dunno where he got it from but he literally acted as though many of these countries didn't even exist in the Interwar period, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, he even tried to justify the invasion of Finland when I brought it up "Oh the Finnish aggressively banned communism." With my reply being "And I wonder why they'd aggressive ban communism when they had a hostile communist state right next door."
    8
  9.  @nickyman5557  Lol the famine of 1946-1947? War was over. Stalin declined foreign aid despite the devastation the war had on the USSR basics stopped receiving food aid which kept Soviets fed during the war at Stalin's request. For some prideful reason he rather his people Starve. Also if you know anything about Economics GDP and wages doesn't equal improvement of the quality of life. USSR suffered from terrible inflation throught it's history and GDP only means value of production regardless what is produced.
    7
  10.  @nickyman5557  In spite of one of the largest famines in European history? Nothing says quality of life like starving children. We know it didn't improve during the 40s for many reasons including the war. We also know even by the 1960s standards of living still didn't hit pre war levels meanwhile the Soviet Union started going into decline in the 1970s. So when was life in the Soviet Union good? There are plenty of images from rural Russia and Ukraine from the 50s which looked as though people still lived in the mid 19th Century. The UshankaShow a channel hosted by a former Soviet Citizen claims the only reason people look back at the USSR fondly is because people had a comfortable poor life. They also remember the good memories like nostalgia but forget the bad. As the example he used remembering mushroom hunting but forgetting all the Mosquitos. My favorite quote he used was that the USSR achieved equality... that everyone was equally poor.
    5
  11.  @HistoryHustle  I think that had a lot to do with Politics/Fears. Germans never trusted the Poles, wouldn't allow volunteer formations even when some Poles offered to form them. Late in the war The Warsaw Uprising crushed any last ditch attempt by Poles to form such units as well, as some preferred to keep the Soviets out of Poland, even if it meant getting in bed with the Nazis. So it wasn't like some Poles were not Willing, the Nazis were not willing. It's odd as well, as just about every other country in Eastern Europe the Nazis, allowed such formations, even Belarus and Ukraine. I think it may have a lot to do with the Nazi view of Poland at the time, as a country that "Shouldn't Exist." Allowing such units to form would mean the "State" is recognize Poland as a Nation/People. Which they couldn't allow.
    5
  12. Nationalist "White Terror didn't happen." Marxist "Red Terror didn't happen." Hmm... I smell denialism.
    5
  13. Issue is didn't Goebbel's get his hands on one of these plans for dividing Germany up and used it as anti western Propaganda that if Germany lost she would no longer exist to encourage people to fight harder? God damn didn't even watch the video all the way when I made this comment, a few minutes in there it is. lol
    4
  14.  @MK-jc6us  1. Your argument about the Marshall Plan is a Fallacy. If the USSR could pay for War Aid, it shouldn't of had a problem with post war food aid. 2. What do you think TRADE is? You pay for goods provided by parts of the world outside your own borders. So the fact you see something wrong with the Marshall Plan yet have no problem with the USSR trading in the 1960s is hypocritical. That was the point that even a child should pick up on it. 3. This debate isn't about the failures of the British Empire and it's leaders.. "What Aboutism?" Arguments trying to strawman to other topics deemed similar is a sign of a person who has no argument. This has been about the Soviet Regime and that's the topic. 4. You actually think the USSR had strong economy in 1940? The USSR's GDP figures were entirely in industrial and military production. Not food or consumer goods. Nikita Khrushchev hammered Stalin for his prioritizing making drill presses and planes over potatoes and bread when he took power in the late 50s. He even accused Stalin of LYING about the data and figures ie what numbers you're likely using were never real. All the GDP was consumed and wasted by the State and the Citizens under Stalin did not benefit from it. To sum up how wasted, 14,000 aircraft for the Red Airforce yet the Red Airforce was almost extinct by 1942 why? They cared about showing how many planes they could build for the spreadsheets they'd show to Stalin for the pats on the back, but not the pilots to fly them, fuel to power them, ground crews to maintain them, parts to repair them. Russias entire Airforce was destroyed on the ground.
    4
  15. Ahh... Anarchist, the movement that is built around contradictions.
    4
  16.  @MK-jc6us  Being you so adamant about Presenting Lend Lease as Crippling, just to get the numbers being to my knowledge it was pretty much free. Quite surprisingly... I was right... as the specific cut off Date which ended when the war was over Lend Lease from the USA was 100% Free. So between 1941-1945 most parties involved did not accumulate debt as a result if it was considered essential to the war effort. If you've read the Lend Lease Act we loaned the equipment free of charge. To be returned after the war. If destroyed as a result of the war no parties had to pay for it. For equipment said parties decided to keep and keeping was voluntary... after the war rather than returning to the USA the equipment loaned, like giving back trucks and tanks etc post 1946 the USA offered said nations a 90% discount rather than having to return them where they could purchase all the equipment they still had. USSR paid that in a lump sum in the 1970s. So.. their was never any actual debt to the USSR from Lend Lease. So Lead Lease was ridiculously generous during WWII. In actuality the USA literally paid the bill for most of the nations that fought the war, with little repayments vs what the USA actually handed out. USA didn't want the tanks/trucks/planes back as we had to many already by 1945 making them almost worthless. Hence the 90% discount, we didn't want the stuff back. Why do you think that despite billions of aid the USSR only had to pay less that 700million? Oh to add insult to injury, the Marshall plan didn't exist until AFTER the 1946/47 famine. So it doesn't even play into the argument. Looked that one up for specifics as well as to my knowledge it was a very low interest loan program to help rebuild the continent. Being the USA was at the time an export economy it needed Europe to be back on it's feet. So the USA was willing to help rebuild otherwise there was no one to sell toasters to. So I just find it funny that you use examples that were very positive for the countries effected as a negative talking point.
    3
  17. 4:03 Grins "...two Seemingly Opposing Ideologies...." I have a feeling a few might get triggered by that statement, and I find that excellent. xD
    3
  18. There was some resistance but it wasn't on the same scale the Germans Faced in occupied countries. Some of it lasted for years, but you gotta remember, unlike occupied countries by the Germans, the Germans had no hope. So even if people wanted to resist who were they resisting for? Resistance groups mostly fought to weaken the occupier so someone else could come and save them later, they had no hope/dream of forcing the Germans out. on their own So ask yourself this. "Who was coming to save the Germans from their occupiers?" No one. They had no reason to resist, so even the hardliners who did form some forms of resistance didn't last but a few months to a few years. Even today there is some shadow resistance within Germany, as the Government often does raids on pro Nazi arms stashes now and then over the years, they're rare events but they have happened. So even today, they still exist. On top of that, a lot of Germans welcomed the peace, even if it might be a harsh one. 6 long years of war, and a country mostly devastated, let alone how nasty the Nazi regime progressively became year after year, peace was peace. Some of the reactions by the Allies and Soviets toward resistance was also pretty harsh. Combatants caught out of uniform were liable to be shot and executed by the Western Powers, and the Soviets burned down an entire town in response. One case in the West from a German sniper, caused the local American garrison to evacuate the town, and gave orders for the town to be shelled for hours by artillery. No one was going to put up with it in short, and few Germans had reason to go along with it, whether they wanted to resist or not.
    3
  19. George Washington "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
    3
  20. I think the issue is the Nazis were Socialist, 3:42. TIK literally described the conflict between Nazism and Marxism as a Socialist Civil War, one that is still going on today at an Intellectual level as most Socialist refuse to consider the Nazis Socialist because they don't match their idea of what Socialism is. Many pro Socialist were not Marxist and Anti Communist. Even the Fascist were Socialist yet also Anti Marxist. The German Social Democrats were anti Marxist/Communist despite also being Socialist at the time as well just as many Social Democratic movements eventually becoming Fascist as well. Issue being a lot of Socialist wouldn't mind fighting with the Germans if it meant getting rid of Marxism/Communism even if their idea of Socialism was different than the Nazis.
    2
  21.  @MK-jc6us  Don't know what happened but you're last comment doesn't come up when I try to click on it. However, the source I used was many, I checked the US Government's official website, Wikipedia, and even checked Quora as you often get some interesting answers with references there, none of them said the Soviet Union paid anything more than 722million in debt as a result of Lend Lease. So out of the Billions of Aid the USSR paid but a tiny fraction of it. The reason it didn't happen until the 1970s was because the USSR insisted it would only pay 120million but eventually yielded to a larger sum. Issue is for a "State" a few hundred million dollars is relatively insignifgant. Unless the USSR was literally that poor. So out of 11 billion worth of aid the USSR paid less than 10% of that, the USSR insisted for years that it should only pay 1% of that which is why there was such a delay. USA twisted their arm and they paid around 7%. Being a majority of Lend Lease provided to the USSR was material, like food, coal, iron, fuel/oil with most of the military assets loaned being trucks which was like 14,000+. You can argue it was closer to 10% being who knows how much of the military equipment was lost in battle and would be voided as needed paid for. If you recall 90% Discount 7% is very close to that 10% the USA insisted that Lend Lease receivers pay, when you take into consideration what 722million is compared to 11 billion and that some of that 11 billion was likely lost at sea and in battle and would be forfeit from being repaid. However, that being said, the Math does reinforce that even the USSR was given that 90% discount. So the USSR never had to pay tens of billions back and wasn't really in debt in any significant way. Now I know some people use sources where the USSR spent a few billion USD worth on war materials during the war, but those were for things that Lend Lease did not provide, and much of it was to the UK, not the USA, as the UK had a completely different program. USA didn't have everything, heck not even for herself, like Rubber for example. So there are war materials the USA couldn't provide the USSR and the USSR still had to purchase from elsewhere. Even if you include that it's technically irrelevant as the Axis Powers post War paid the Soviet Union billions in reparations anyways. So if the USSR had to spend a few billion on war materials she was paid back with billions of material supplied by her former enemies. Quote for example.. "in addition to the large reparations paid to the Soviet Union by the Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany and the eventual German Democratic Republic in the form of machinery (entire factories were dismantled and shipped to the Soviet Union) as well as food, industrial products, and consumer goods...." "... amounting to approximately $12 billion in total..." cut out the bits about how much Italy, Romania, and other Axis powers paid, they collectively tie into that 12 billion but the quote would of been really long otherwise. So the USSR not only had to pay only 722million to the USA she received 12 billions in reparations, not even including the use of forced labor from Axis POWs well into the 1950s for construction projects/rebuilding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w btw this guy uses statistics often provided by the Soviet Union to prove that the USSR even by 1960s still haven't reached Pre-WWI levels, let alone Pre-WWII levels, even though the video is titled WWII. Being Grain figures in the USSR was still lower in the 60s than it was during Pre-War 1913 Imperial Russia, and he is using Soviet Statistics. They only topped out those 1913's figures after Nikita Khrushchev started a re-privatization program similar to Lenin's New Economic Policy which was also a Privatization Policy of Agriculture in spite what Soviet propaganda tries to state. Ushanka show and TIKhistory have pointed out that 80% of potatoes and grain in the USSR by the 1980s were produced by PRIVATE farms not collective farms. Yes the USSR had a privatization program, they just skirted around it and never used the word privatization.
    2
  22. Interesting note, very few Fascist organizations in Europe were racist. I know the Spanish, Hungarian, and Italian Fascist were not racist. Italy you can argue post 1938, but that had more to do with appeasing Hitler for an Alliance, which is why they didn't really enforce antisemitic oppression. I would say the Puppet State of Croatia under Nazi Germany is perhaps the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but being a Puppet State influenced by the Nazis, it's understandable. So it really lets you realize that Racism, is not one of the core parts of Fascism. I know Italian Fascism in particular it was about bringing all of Societies groups together through Nationalism, you were Italian first, Christian/Jewish/Sicilian second etc etc. This is dramatically different than how the Nazis viewed Nationalism. Which is why I kinda agree with TIK that the Nazis and Fascist should be viewed separately, not as the same movement. Influencing each other but still not the same.
    2
  23. I'm glad you make videos like this. Even if their perceptions were wrong/false. It's important to understand other people's perception of history/events so you can counter their claims when they try to bring them up. If you do not understand them how can you ever hope to debate/argue against them? It's why I've read books like Mine Kampfy Chair, and The Fable of the Duck and the Hens, let alone stomaching horrible pro Nazi works on the internet like The Greatest Story Never Told. It's important for people to understand "How" they viewed the world at large, why they justified what they did. Because the concept of Good/Evil are inherent human constructs. Few do such horrible things thinking they're doing them for bad reasons, they find reason to justify what they're doing so they can cope with what they're doing. The "Greater Good" argument, often used by idealist. Helps them sleep at night, if not maybe with a bottle of bourbon. What I'm referring to is how you explained why the Germans had such negative opinions on French African troops, presented some facts on why they had these negative opinions, then presented truth on why those opinions were wrong. You didn't just damn them into the mud, but presented them as angry and ignorant. It's a proper way to go about such things.
    2
  24.  @ShubhamMishrabro  Watch TIK'S videos called Marx's Antisemitism and Hitler's Socialism. He comes to some striking conclusions. Marxism and Nazism are pretty much hostile self hating siblings.
    2
  25.  @HistoryHustle  What I love is the hypocrisy. Claiming say the Red Terror is anti Leninist propaganda because some people still view Lenin as a saint apparently. But then they will proceed to talk about crimes committed by the White Russian forces. It's the same tactic you see a lot of German historians during the mid 20th Century use. They will talk about Russian crimes, while skirting around crimes committed by the German Army. TIKhistory pointed it out in his Courland series, and it was pretty blatant. The author he cited didn't mind talking about crimes Soviet soldiers were committing but never mentioned the concentration camp in the area that was hurriedly liquidated as the front line was collapsing.
    2
  26. 1:38 Looks like an M3 American SMG combined with a British Sten SMG.
    1
  27.  @HistoryHustle  Love my M3. The Magazine position and barrel assembly looks like the M3 SMG, minus the screw cap. The American M3 was perhaps the best cheap SMG design from the war and it continued serving in the US Army into the 1980s, with the conflict being Operation Desert Storm by vehicle crews. It's been pretty much replaced but I heard it's still an option for special forces like navy Seals because of a suppressed version that was created, American Special Forces get their own personal choices on weapons to use which is nice I guess. It was a very good SMG as it could be quickly converted from .45APC to 9mm Lugar by only swapping out a few parts, it was a requirement of the design as .45APC may not of been available to all allies they were issued to. It's why the barrel had a screw cap around it, you could literally unscrew the barrel.
    1
  28.  @nickyman5557  https://youtu.be/kPVo9w79D6w Guy explains it very well.
    1
  29.  @markomatic5469  more like Commiboo, Commiservative and Communazi denialism.
    1
  30.  @charlesdaloz2547  https://youtu.be/aA8n5xYIQx0 Former Soviet Citizen debunking the very CIA report you're claiming. He even makes a note how he got banned from the Reddit Communist forum for trying to tell the truth because Commiboos live in a state of denialism. Despite being an author and doing public speaking in US colleges.
    1
  31.  @MK-jc6us  So letting your people Starve to death voluntarily is a superior alternative than allowing foreign aid? How daft must someone be to believe that was a good decision? This is why I refer to this as denialism. You literally destroyed your own argument by making the Soviets look like Psychopaths and better. Proving my claims that the Movement is more important than the people they pretended to care about. Oh yes btw how do you think the USSR this slump a famine every decade? By massive importation of foreign food starting in thr 60s.
    1
  32.  @juliankraus1011  Glad to see someone finally show up who isn't a Commiboo Denialist. I swear they're in the same catagory as Holocaust Denialist. Just they worship a different red flag waving suedo religion.
    1
  33.  @jacekszkutnik6294  To be brutally honest, Slovakia technically fits into the same category as the Protectorate of Bohemia. Basically Slovakia in 1939 is in the same position Belarus was in 2022, functionally a puppet of another power.
    1
  34. Why ask the question? They can be both yes? It's like the phrase, "One person's hero is another person's villain." It's moments like this in history that make that ring true. Meanwhile it's the job of history geeks to keep composer and be neutral, and allow these questions to be asked, instead of carrying the "HERO" banner or "VILLAIN" banner. Estonians were stuck in a very bad situation. You can even call those that fought for the USSR as collaborationist as well, because the USSR also had no intent to give Estonia independence no more than the Nazis did. If Vets, and their Families want to hold honors and services for Estonians that fought in the German Army, or Waffen SS, no one should stop them. Antagonization just causes bigger rifts to form definitely in complicated subjects like this. History buffs can handle the controversy more so than friends/families of those involved in the real events can because we have no stake in it as outside observers.
    1
  35.  @HistoryHustle  but I see no cats on vacuum cleaners. 😆
    1
  36. @Fabian Kirchgessner I mean at a fundamental level. It's the 1920-40s you will find racist virtually everywhere. Nazism Racism is literally inseparable, as it's core to their ideology.
    1
  37.  @HistoryHustle  but by today's standards almost everything is racist almost. 😒
    1
  38.  @wurzel9671  Agreed. It's like choosing between Fake Cry, and Cry Fake. USSR and Nazi Germany are too similar to deny the terror that they brought upon Europe. Even Fascism is a step up in the right direction when compared to the Nazism and Bolshevism and that isn't saying much as it was also a totalitarian system.
    1
  39.  @fitfrog65  Relevance how? Outside of self gratifying sword rattling of course.
    1
  40.  @coreylevine3856  To be honest, Stalin wanted to join the Axis at one point to so... but Hitler's long term plans meant that was impossible any notion of which was pretty much rejected. But could you imagine? A German Soviet Alliance? Thought is scary, two raging collectivist ideologies joining forces.
    1
  41.  @HistoryHustle  I know post Stalin the USSR also wanted to join NATO originally.
    1
  42.  @d.c.8828  "Allow me to preemptively state that defensive violence in the face of territorial conquest is justified." I do not see why anyone would think otherwise. So I don't get what the point of that statement is. "Organizing collectives and having a known "leader", figure, or spokesperson, is not the same thing as centralizing power." Centralized Power is a result of Organized Society. A Collective will always result in the creation of Centralized Power. Maybe not right away, but it is an inevitability. So the only way for Anarchism to work is to not have a collective, and to have no organized society. Why I said it is a contradiction is because, most Anarchist are Collectivist, which is the contradiction. If you're part of an organized society you're not an Anarchist. However, the concept of having a Collective will result in creating a Social hierarchy, which in turn will create Centralized Power, and it only gets worse when said society gets larger, and larger. As it becomes next to impossible for individuals within said society to have any real possibility of representation in that hierarchy, and that doesn't matter whether it's a Monarchy, a Dictatorship or even a Democratic or Republic system, you will not be represented, as you're at the very bottom of that social hierarchy. As I said though, hierarchies will always form, even within a collective. Very simple example a union gets large enough the workers have to have some form of control/management of some kind, even if it's elected among themselves who will be in charge of paper work, and maybe representation when communicating with the outside world, those people get a fancy office chair while the workers who elected them bones wither away while mining as a small example. USA being a pretty darn good example of that actually. America was founded by people who wanted no centralization, the very first iteration of the USA was a Confederation for example as an attempt to hopefully not have centralized power. However, it didn't work out very well. We in turn created a Federal Government but one with a lot of checks/balances in some hope it would keep those in power, checked, or locked in a way so they couldn't gain absolute power. Which is how the USA operated for relatively a century afterwards. Yes there are many in the USA who want to erode those checks/balances and it's sad to see. Most of them really have no effect on curving power anymore. Despite this... people still fled the eastern United States to the western territories to escape an unfair system. Long before the erosion began. Because, despite being a collection of States, internally all those mini states also developed social hierarchies. Land was scarce, you had to play by rules you may not agree with created by people you may of never even supported politically among many other things. People, a lot of people didn't like it, it wasn't the freedom that the American Dream promised. In many respects it shows how unfair democracy is, for those who are not represented ie those who fail to gain a voice politically in said society. I hate to quote a character played by Mel Gibson but "An elected Legislator can trample the rights of a man as easily as a king can." I will circle back to the beginning as a reminder. If a Social Hierarchy forms, you will have centralized power. It doesn't matter what kind of system you're living under either. This is why Socialist systems turn into tyrannical systems. As to have a socialist system you to put society in control of the state, in who runs a socialist society? Those at the top of the New Revolutionary movement, or "New Society." Because? Even within a Socialist movement you have a social hierarchy. Despite that a socialist movement is supposed to be a populous movement, or a collectivist movement, in which everyone should supposedly be fairly represented, but never is. Because push comes to shove, individuals in society are selfish and greedy, if you have a choice between a office chair or a shovel you will take the chair, and you will do whatever you need to do to ensure you get that chair. This goes all the way to the top of society. ^ Actually why I laugh my ass off at Socialist who call Capitalist greedy. I would just reply "And Socialist are any different?" History has proven that socialist are literally no different.
    1
  43.  @therewaswith186  lol Yes... all society require hierarchies. Even the management of a railroad, so that actually works. it's why a corporation basically functions like a State/government. The management of a Corporation or Business, or even a Public School is very little different than how a Government operates. Government is just the very top of the social ladder. Whether a president, a king, a dictator, etc. all relatively the same thing.
    1
  44.  @therewaswith186  Actually being I'm playing Genshin Impact right now it reminded me of that Contradiction. The City of Mondstadt in the game is supposed to be a Anarchist Society ie the City of Freedom. Yet there is an organization within it called the Knights of Favonius who are the Government basically. They're the Police walking the Streets, they're the ones managing imports/exports of wine/goods within the city, they're providing security for the trade routes, make arrest toward citizens who break laws. Yet... it's supposed to be an Anarchist city? It's comical that even in a work of fiction trying to portray Anarchism just comes off as a joke.
    1
  45.  @dalstein3708  History itself. What I mean is... why do you think Anarchism has never existed in modern history, or honestly past history? Even in Tribal societies you still had hierarchies and those are the closest the world has ever been to Anarchism, even then it was only possible at such a tiny scale. Yet still wasn't anarchism. Once you go beyond that because of the concept of a Social Hierarchy which is inherent to organized society, ie required of Society to even function, anarchism becomes impossible. Anarchism is a pipe dream dreamt up by specific groups of Socialist in the 19th Century and WILL NEVER be possible. Because they believe an organized society would fluidly function without a hierarchy which history as proven when in practice just isn't true, a hierarchy will form and honestly MUST form. Anarchism, in short, in the concept of Organized Society, or Society itself just isn't possible. It's a contradiction because to be an Anarchist you have almost no choice but to be against the very concept of having a organized society otherwise your idea of Anarchism will be impossible.
    1
  46.  Just An Observer On The Internet  Well that is nonsense. Do you really think there is a possibility of having a Just Hierarchy? That is hopeless romanticism. We humans are too fickle for that to be a possibility, it's impractical to think it would be. The concept of a Hierarchy literally prevents that. Good example being, a phycological analysis of most political is that they're narcissist self obsessed people, getting higher up the political ladder isn't for the people but for their own EGO, Putin is a good modern example of this, as well as Trump, both narcissist, ego driven public figures which their followers who support them view them as the highest of society, ie best of society and drool over them... yet... in most cases these narcissist political figures don't even give a crap about their own followers just use them for their own ends. Similar analysis of CEOs is that they're psychopaths, often to rise to a ranks of a business as large as a multi national corporation pretty much requires a person that willingly crushes their rivals with no mercy, no remorse, which often leads to psychopaths getting to the top of the social ladder of major corporations as more morally excellent people are the ones they crush and exploit. But partners, including other stock holding employees don't care they just care about how successful the company is so if that means said individual can get away with absolutely destroying the lives of their rivals. These are not good qualities but yet seem to be universally common among Public Figures, and yes CEOs are public figures. You see it in Hollywood among writers and actors as well. So... yes people who rise up the social ladder rarely if ever do so for good reasons. There is no Justice, and having anything but an unjust hierarchy is literally a pipe dream. I mean it's why Twitter emotionalism is a joke that people often make fun of as again, ego driven narcissist constantly finding battles to fight for to make themselves feel better than they are, because they enjoy the social recognition ie narcissism.
    1
  47.  @HistoryHustle  Shrugs almost every negative accusation people make about the Nazis and her allies can be compared to the Soviet Union at the time. Even Hitler Stabbing the Soviets in the back by breaking their non-aggression pact. I mean Stalin broke his Non-aggression pact a few years later with japan for example, so Stalin is just as back stabby as Mr Toothbrush Noise.
    1
  48.  @JDDC-tq7qm  And? I fail to see your point.
    1
  49.  Thanos 6.0  Yes It got deleted wonderful.... tried to send a comment explaining how messed up their belief system was but kinda went bye bye because of Youtube bots.
    1
  50.  Thanos 6.0  and it got deleted again even after censoring out a lot of words... seriously this is just cancer. You can not discuss antisemitism, without bots deleting comments, it's almost as if youtube helps Nazis. Sighs
    1