Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "David Hoffman"
channel.
-
13
-
8
-
@marko1263
Claims:
1. Communists aren't afraid to think:
Yes they are, which is why they avoid debates and always resort to violence. They don't like to be comforted by other ideas that are far better justified.
2. Your world is dying:
False, since the movie was made and predictions made by marx. Capitalism has survived and literally every communist regime on the planet has failed. Countries with free market capitalism has stayed the same and strong. Can't really be dying in that case.
3. Imperialism/colonialism.
Wasn't a thing in modern day, nor at the time. In fact it was the communists who did imperialism and colonialism. USSR is great example of how they abused satelite states.
4. Hitler was national socialist and he had literally nothing to do with violence that communists committed globally.
5. Wars, depression, big business goverment:
Every country has wars. Depression was caused by federal reserve on purpose and they admitted it. Big business government lol wut? That is socialism in nutshell.
Bigotry? Least bigoted country in the whole world. Worse... Every communist and socialist alive are bigots.
6. Eastern oil, china lobby.
China lobby never heard about this. Eastern oil, is vital for infrastructure.
7. Freedom to conform, proper responses to propaganda putton:
Yes, well you don't have freedom to conform, you are forced to comfort in communism and socialism. You either conform or die in those. In capitalism person X just dislikes you, that's all you get for not conforming. And same with propaganda.
You just got owned.
8
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@marko1263
You call that as lot of words? Then you come up with poorly segmented wall of text.
I'm not American and my understanding comes from actual communist and socialistic sources. Done thousands of debates with them and read their literature.
1. If they weren't so afraid of debate, then communist states wouldn't advocate for censorship. Then they wouldn't rely on violence and fear, but instead would do open debates without trying to shut down their opponent.
Writing a propaganda piece is not the same as willingness to be in intellectual debate. Nor does the quantity of writings determine quality of the belief.
2. Only countries that went through communism, weren't even free market capitalist democracies. They were poor feudal societies. Also America wasn't losing Vietnam war. They had literally won every encounter they had. Only reason they had to back down was because of the public opinion. Had they stayed, vietnam would've been same as south-korea. Also Vietnam war ended with a peace treaty that communists broke the moment Americans left Vietnam.
And again... His prediction failed. Free market capitalist wasn't dying. Not a single one of those countries had the same political and economical structure as the west. Instead what we saw over time that each and every single communist and socialist society collapsed or gave up with their ideals.
3.
Definition of imperialism:
"The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."
This fits perfectly to how USSR functioned.
"USSR on the contrary not only didn't exploit other socialist countries "
They illegally conquested them, then proceed to massacre natives in massive numbers. Ukrainians was the most famous massacre they did. Stole their food and sold it off to USA, while Ukrainian families were starving to death.
While Finland who they had peace agreement after WW2 was forced to pay ridicilous sum of money and resources to USSR, which was incapable to sustain itself. For a war that Russians had started.
4. Hitler was national socialists. And instead of wanting to own means of production, he controlled them. I have actually read the policies that germany had back then. Unlike you, you have only read about the murders they had commited. Hitler was openly against capitalism, and his policies reflect that.
5. Sure... Which is why communists have never caused a war or murdered anyone? You're a joke. Capitalism doesn't cause wars. In fact we actually live in the most peaceful era in world's history.
Thanks to capitalism which allows people to trade resources freely without having need to go to war for them.
6.
Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
You are strongly partial to communism and you don't tolerate capitalists.
Every ideology claims to fight for the peace and prosperity of the world. What really matters is how they do it, and what the actual results will be. Communists have proven to always do it through bloodshed and hatred, while the results have ended up into more desperation and oppression.
IT comes down to "if only everyone would be like me, then world would be perfect". Which is the most tribal form of thinking one can ever have.
7. So trading oil with another country is bad?
8.
"In capitalist society you are only allowed to choose as long as it doesn't threaten the existing power of the ruling class. "
You're allowed to threaten ruling class. That's why we have elections generally every 4-years. You're just not allowed to conduct physical violence.
"where it will be impossible for one man to subjugate and exploit anothe"
That's funny, because whole concept of communism is based on subjugating and exploiting other people.
"and all men and women will finally live as one united family"
Actually communists were against families, that was even written in their manifesto.
"as it was first written in various ancient books. If this isn't the greatest cause in the history of mankind then you are frankly delusional."
Look at yourself. You're behaving like religious fanatic. Yet you call me as delusional?
"People oppose this because at the moment they cannot see the forest for the trees"
The opposite. People oppose this because they are smart enough to understand that it doesn't work, and the results will bring the opposite of what you claim.
"but in 500 years nobody will give a fuck about the pseudo arguments you just mentioned. "
But in 500-years not even single socialist/communist society has ever deliver it's promised utopia.
"because power will never give way peacefully so it is necessary to struggle against it. "
Actually... History is filled with cases of peaceful exchange of power. It's clear to me that you're not a fan of history.
You do not even understand what you're promoting, nor are you capable to even give fundamental structure of how it would be implemented and how it would work in reality. You're basically evangelists yelling that there will be heaven if you only believe in marx.
3
-
2
-
@marko1263
1. Actually communist states exists. And yes they all propose censorship. Name even single socialist/communist state where people aren't persecuted, imprisoned or killed because of their political opinion.
" but because of very real threat of counter revolutionary activities. "
Aka they are afraid of debates. Because they know that they can't justify their belief intellectually. Because you know that you would lose to "counter-revolutionary" ideas.
2. You might actually want to read actual history. Not some propaganda written by far left winger teenagers. Calling those societies as free market capitalist in same manner as the west, would be highly ignorant. They still had REAL class division. Aka peasants were literally slaves who weren't allowed to own private property. They didn't have such thing as free market capitalism.
"Regarding the Vietnam war, contrary to what you believe, the U.S. public opinion started turning against Vietnam War only after their sons started coming back in coffins."
Literally won every conflict and caused more casualties to the Vietcong forces. Unlike you I have actually read reports and watched analysis about the war.
"Ho Chi Minh was by far the most popular candidate for president and according to most historians would've won the elections that were scheduled to happen before the war broke out."
Unlike you, I actually know vietnamese people and you're full of it. After the war, the far leftis persecuted and murdered Vietnamese people.
3. "In the Soviet Ukraine the majority was for the USSR,"
Outright false. Soviets committed genocide on Ukrainians because they feared that they might revolt.
"There weren't any "massacres" in Ukraine, it was a natural famine "
It was literally manmade caused famine. Families were killed for eating the grain that they themselves had grown. There are actual historical records about this and most of the historians agree on this.
USSR stole their crops and sold them off.
"USSR actually sold many goods to the new socialist countries at a price far below world level."
No wonder they collapsed.
"Also the U.S.S.R did not start WW2, "
I didn't claim that they did start ww2. They started the war with Finland in WW2. We literally did nothing to them, and they started the war with us.
However It's well known fact among historians that WW2 would've never had happened if soviets didn't have secret allience with germany. Which is also proven fact, Soviets even admitted this decades later.
" They made a non aggression pact with Hitler"
Oh more than that. They literally divided Europe According to their agreement. And even backed up each other's war efforts.
4. No he wasn't. Hitler was actual the happy medium. In fact this is why he considered his way of socialism superior. He was able to turn country into socialism without bloodshed. It's well established fact that government had extremely tight lease on business. They could literally fire CEO and confiscate their property, if they didn't follow their commands. Which they did several times. Calling it as "big business", "pro capitalism" is just ignorance over what pro capitalism is.
Since when following things were considered as free market capitalism:
1. Regulations.
2. Minimum wages.
3. Price control.
4. Confiscation of private property by government.
5. Enforced worker "rights" by the political party.
5.
False, capitalism didn't even exists back then.
"European capitalists fought between themselves for the division of world colonies which would help their economic development and that's why WW1 started too"
False, colony wars had literally nothing to do with business men.
Second WW1 started out of alliances and assassination of politician.
"WW2 was also a result of Hitler's ambition to make Germany an empire that would stand up to the British by subjugating the Soviet Union "
Another ridicilous claim. That was not his ambition. He simply wanted to take back what was once german's and secure existence of German people. He even tried to ask peace from the British government multiple times. War with soviets was must have, since they knew that you can't trust a communist. As history has proven.
"The U.S.S.R stopped this and saving more than 250 000 000 million people from famines (look up generalplan ost), slavery and murder."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. USSR suffered constantly from famine, shortages and had slave workforce and murdered people constantly. "saved" XD.
2
-
@marko1263
part 2
6. You're not medieval peasant. And neither was marx.
" Go read a sociological book or two"
Yeah you are proving my point...
Only reason you take these far left ideas seriously because you actually think that field of pseudoscience is somehow legitimate field of science. No empirical studies, no real tests. Just bunch of claims made by people who never had to live outside of academy. Who never had to do a single day honest work in their life.
"Second point, the years leading up to WW1 were also the most peaceful in human history up to that point and it all changed because capitalism"
Wtf... How little you know about history? Were you born in third world country or something? Also you just contradicted yourself. You said that 1500+ was era of war because of capitalism, and now you say it was most peaceful era in history.
Dude.. It's statistical fact that we are currently living most peaceful era.
7. So you should abandon needs of your people, because you disagree with politics of another country?
Good job, you just justified Cuban blockage and sanctions.
8.
"Elections cannot change society fundamentally because elections are a part of bourgeois order, not an instrument with which to overcome it. "
Ahaa... Which is why mysteriously for some reason... Same party is extremely rarely winning multiple times during every vote. Which is why worker's party doesn't exist xd?
" Plus, elections only allow you to vote in a small part of state power. The rest is not up for voting. "
Man I'm dealing someone who has no education at all. Do you understand why we vote for representatives? Of course not... You probably think it's some bourgeois plan or something while ignoring that socialist countries do this as well. We vote for representatives because it's impossible for normal citizen to vote for policies and being informed over it.
Law texts are very dry and hard to read for many people. Not to mention that the knowledge in order to fully understand the implications of the new policies. Normal person doesn't have time nor interest to put their mind into them. Hence they cannot be informed voters on policies.
Beside the fact that it would be a huge mess to do voting in the first place. Politicians vote daily for new laws. But you fail to even comprehend how big of an issue it would be to conduct "elections" every day for a new policy and law.
"you can only elect a group of people who control a very small part of the state machinery"
I guess ultimate power over whole state is "small part of the machinery".
"If Communists won elections tomorrow and started doing their program, the military and police would simply depose them because they defend the rich."
False, we have countries were socialists or communists have won elections and none of that has happened. Then there is some where military did step in like in Chile. However as I said, there are cases.
"So what if they were against family?"
The most fundamental aspect of human evolution and society? Yeah.. So what if they are against people protecting interest of their genetic line... Literally the meaning of every life form on this planet. And you wish to deny people right for that.
"obviously not all 8 billion people are gonna live in a single family unit. You lack both reading comprehension and education."
Poe's law. I guess you never even heard about it. And ironically you didn't comprehend my point.
9. England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland. First ones that comes to my mind. Especially Finland, we managed to gain autonomy and independence peacefully. For other nordic countries the crown gave more power to the people, to the point that they are now just over glorified celebrities who don't actually hold any power.
10. Literally nothing you just contributed to communism, happened thanks to communism. Hilariously the western capitalist countries are least sexists and racists. You made lot of claims but provided 0 evidence for them. There is no connection between any of the stuff you spouted and communism.
"Stop watching Paul Joseph Watson and start reading actual literature and then we can debate as equals."
Watch him only for entertainment. By actual knowledge comes from literature. While you have shown high amount of narcisism, elitism and looking down on your opponent. Even though all of your sources are from far left propaganda artists. I doubt you have even read about "the wealth of nations". Or any actual book made by people who do work on those fields or have actual academic backround in them.
So far you are glorifying sociology over the real science. Heck even dismissing field of history since it doesn't comfort your fanatical belief.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fede2
1. You're the one who brings up irrelevant points to the discussion. Basic red herring. Good evidence of you being psychopath. Also I didn't move goalpost, I simply responded to your irrelevant add. You're literally incapable to even fathom what moving goalpost means.
2. Objectively false. One being wealthy, doesn't ensure political success or influence. There are multiple examples of this, even in recent history. Where Hillary basically had whole mainstream media, biggest corporations, and billions of donations to her campaign. While Trump and Bernie got out with less than that.
But it seems that you hate the rich instead of liking the poor. That is why you hate the fact that those who are more productive would be paid for their talent and effort.
1. No it doesn't. Since it had nothing to do with correlation an causation. Index showed factual data.
2. My sources are irrelvant when they don't mention performance? What does performance even has to do with this? It was index about economic liberty. You're free to check performance or corruption index else were. But you can do it case by case and try to find country that is not doing well while having free market.
Spoiler alert: There is not a single country like that.
"At this point, you're just asking me to educate you on a whole chunk of this discussion that is clearly beyond your grasp. "
Once again it's proven that you're psychopath who is incapable to honesty. You see at least I did share my sources, while you're trying to weasel out of it. That already puts me morally on higher ground.
" You can't question empirical data that I offer simply because you're personally unfamiliar with it."
Ah classic... Our priesthood has the secret knowledge, but we can't share it with you because you wouldn't be able to understand it. ;D
" but I'm not required to in terms of intellectual honesty."
Actually you are required in terms of intellectual honesty. If you make an argument over data point, you need to prove that such data exists.
"I know. it's also fallacious"
Yes, it's logical fallacy where you're trying to discredit one's argument on basis of their personality, history, experience, age, gender etc...
Which is literally what you did before when you claimed that I must be wrong since I'm not part of your cult's priesthood. I simply insulted you, I never refuted you on the grounds of you being bloodthirsty psycho.
1
-
@fede2
"Yeah, pretty much a Merriam-Webster definition of an ad hominem. Have a nice day."
nope, insults and statements about the person are not ad hominems. Google the difference. Scrub like you has never been in real debate.
" except the ones I mentioned"
Expect literally none of them had said that western world doesn't have free-est market.
"we're talking about whether or not income inequality is good or bad"
Nope, that came on later when you made red herring. Anyone can go back to the comment log and see how much you lie right now.
"If your index on economic freedom has nothing to do with whether or not a country performs well"
again with the word twisting. It's as if that is only thing that communists are capable of. You're talking about performance, while I were talking about economic prosperity. Literally every country you can find from that list, that has mostly free market. Is a rich country.
"As for the rest, there's no secret to the performance and policies a country adopts. Presumibly, you have a search engine or something "
But the thing is, I can't know which policies you are referring to. You do realize that politicans make hundreds of new laws every year?
"Workers self-management is pretty basic conceptial language in the socialist tradition. If this strikes you as vague, "
It's extremely vague. Since it doesn't tell how those workers organize their management. Who calls the shot? How shots are made? Things get extremely complicated, but I'm not surprised that communist lacks brain capability to understand how complicated organizing a production can truly be.
So easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1