Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "History Buffs" channel.

  1. Shogun 2 naval battle voice made me laugh my ass off :D
    5
  2. Yeah, nothing will change unless people start sueing shit out of these companies.
    3
  3. +bob smith "Nowhere in the definition of communism is there any sort of connection to totalitarianism" As Marx said, dictatorship of proletarians. It's totalitarianism. Also communism by it's very nature promotes totalitarianism. For this reason, literally every time communism has tried, it has always ended up into totalitarian system.
    2
  4. I think it was the opposite. British did overestimate zulus, hence ended up losing the battle. I don't see any tactical brilliance in just blindly running toward your enemy.
    1
  5. Well you need to understand on part of france and japan. Both countries were overstretched. It was not like whole France army was there or japanese one either. Both of them had wars on multiple fronts and france was still trying to recover from losses of ww 2.
    1
  6. Cody King Exactly, French military haven't been taken seriously for long time. 
    1
  7. Fuck... even seeing that ending part again made me cry.
    1
  8. You shouldn't complain that actor wasn't arab. You need to take into account how hard it's to get good arab actors to USA. For the very same reason whenever chinese movies have westerner in it, they are poor actors. Hence you cannot have arab in movie of that period of time acting in major role. Also difference in face between europeans and arabs isn't that big.
    1
  9. Sue them. Seriously these people will prey on everyone unless people finally start to sue them for false flags and lost profits.
    1
  10. Name a single long lived communist society that didn't end up being dictatorship. Communism creates dictators, that is why it's loved by psychos.
    1
  11. +bob smith First of all, anarchism doesn't work. Also what do you expect that will happen to anyone in anacho-communist society if they don't wish to be anarcho-communists? Yeah, ladies and gentlemen you guessed it right. They would be killed.
    1
  12. +Bob Smith There have been people trying to have anarchism, but it never lasted long. Not only that but there are rational arguments why it cannot work. "And no, in an anarcho-communist society people would not be killed for disagreeing." Ah, so what is stopping me from creating anarcho-capitalist society within anarcho-communist society? "That would be totalitarian, which would require a hierarchy," Yes, and for communists hierarchy is determined by mob rule. Also no, hierarchy is not incompatible with anarchism. Existence of state is. Ah wait... I see... You didn't even know that human beings create hierarchies naturally. Even among friends you create hierarchy according to who you like the most. Even among them you follow someone who says something, depending of course do you like them. This has been human nature for since our specie became social one. Just like with every social species on this planet. Hierarchies are natural.
    1
  13. Communism is totalitarian society. All of that you said that would happen in communism would happen through force, fear, and murder. Communists are totalitarians. There is a reason why every communist regime on this planet ended up into dictatorship.
    1
  14. +morgalucci I agree whit most of your post but disagree on part of you humanizing politicians. They are well known to be career psychopaths. For this reason career politicians are always terrible and deeply corrupted. While when non-politician joins congress or gains some power, they end up actually doing change.
    1
  15. +noah masi Soviet union didn't improve quality of life. That has been long debunked myth that was spread by soviet propaganda artists. Also Russian soldiers died often because Communist were incompetent military leaders. That is why small country like Finland kicked their assess. Communism and socialism are cancer. Anyone who supports them can be compared to the flat earth believers.
    1
  16. +Morgalucci They are humans that are mainly made out of sociopaths/psychopaths /narcissists I was part of a political party and worked as board member. Not only that but I have followed politics deeply for over a decade, plus read history. Normal smart and kind people have no insensitive to become politicians, it's just pain in the ass. Only ones who thirst for power try to become politicians. I'm not saying this because disagreeing with their politics. I'm saying this by following their actual behavior patterns. Broken promises, corruption, constant lies etc... There is a reason why every country that decided to let politicians to decide literally every aspect of their lives. Got fucked up so badly.
    1
  17. Science and historical records disagree with you. There was studies about where most of the psychopaths go for career. It's not just communist rubbish, any system where politicians have too much power will end up being shitty. There is different insensitive for CEO's than for career psychopath. CEO cannot control your whole life, he can only provide service which you can voluntarily buy. He is in highly competitive environment and to survive in such environment it takes actual brains. Meanwhile politicians? All you need to do is to make promises and pull off a fake smile. Which is something that psychopaths are fairly talented in. They earn well and have a lot of power. They benefit from subjugating people and enslaving them. They have power and will to do so, and lack of empathy to give a fuck about fellow human. While even if CEO was a psychopath, it would still serve his interest to provide service good enough to attract customers. The difference is... CEO's provide voluntarily service, they don't force it to others. While politicians use force. But you guessed right, I'm libertarian. Ask from normal human being... Would they like to be politician? Most people would say "hell no". Corruption is not a loose term, it's well defined. You seem to subscribe into thought that humans are naturally shitty people, in which I disagree. It's true though that good willing people can do shitty things, but almost no one who poses a good will, is willing to become politician. IN fact... Name even one career politician that is not corrupted. I dare you. I bet I can find shit on them on spot.
    1
  18. +Bob Smith Marxism is not synonymous with communism, that is true. But denying his influence over the issue would be like saying that Darwin had nothing to do with theory of natural selection. " is supposed to represent and look out for the interests of the working class," Nope, if you read his actual work, it was about to oppress other classes. Kill them, persecute them, "re-educate" them, exile them etc... In way to slowly build society made out of sheeps. Aka society where everyone wants same, thinks the same and acts the same. Basically to create a hivemind. "Stalin just took power, surrounded himself with people loyal to him and called it a dictatorship of the proletariat. " Yes, because communism and socialism are prone to such moves. Extremely vulnerable to such moves. But Stalin did follow Marx vision by the book. "Most "examples" of communism are not communism." Ah yeas... Classical, "not true communism". Good old "no true scottsman fallacy". Yet every time it has been tried it has ended up in same results. " Stalinist Russia was not communist. China is not communist." Correct, they were socialists countries led by communists. As according to marx theory, communism can only be achieved through socialism. "Could you provide a source or some sort of evidence to support your assertion that "communism by it's very nature supports totalitarianism"?" Literally every historical example, whenever it has been tried to create. "Capitalism is also inherently hierarchal" Yes and no. You only can decide over the property you own and for you own life in capitalism. Nothing forces you to work under someone else. Especially in modern western world where unemployed people live better life than kings of the past. Capitalism is simply the best system there is. It provides most freedom, and most benefits to the society and individuals as whole.
    1
  19. +Morgalucci Communism by definition has abolished state. Hence state cannot have ownership of industry. Though they would have some form of a government, or "council" which controls it all. Communists fall into different category only based on how they believe they would reach the final state. Ones who believe it would be achieved through socialism, and ones who believe it should be done immeadantly. Both of them are delusional.
    1
  20. +Bob Smith "That doesn't mean that you have to take his word as gospel in order to be a communist. " Correct, but he is about 90% of the time the person that every communists takes as gospel. Regargless do you like him or not, the ideology itself is highly flawed. "Please provide a source for your assertion that the objective of communism is to create a "hivemind". " It's funny how you ask sources without providing your own. Look... Communism literally cannot work, unless everyone has the same desires, thoughts and acts the same. You could say that Ants are communists, and that only works because they have no individuality. Now why do they need to be a hivemind? How else would an state of anarchy work without being subjected to chaos? No one would be following any rules or laws, since there are none of them. Hence people would follow their initial desires, their base nature. How else they would avoid society not becoming capitalist? How else they would avoid possible rise of a cult or dictatorship? How else everyone would be happy and satisfied? "Currency still existed under Stalin, class still existed under Stalin, private property still existed under Stalin." Currency that was redistributed by the state. Class didn't exists under Stalin, neither did private property. "Stalinist Russia was not socialist" Means of production was owned by the collective. That is the very definition of the socialism. Socialism is about control/ownership of the industry. Hence your comments about currency, class and property is pointless. "nd China is not either, by definition it is state capitalism." That is simply a cop-out. It was socialism in both cases. Means of production was in hands of the working class. That represented itself in the government. Socialist for years worshiped these countries until the information blockage was removed and truth about their poverty was shown to everyone. "a bit of a dodge" Not, not really. In fact it's direct statement that every time communism and socialism has been tried it has ended up the same. "Under capitalism you are forced to work in order to survive." Literally not true. First of all, if you now just happened to crash on Island which has no human population. Are you being oppressed because you need to work in order to gain food? Now here is better addition to analogue. IF you see a monkey on that Island eating Banana, and he refuses to give that Banana to you. Is he oppressing you? Or forcing you to work? What you say is that you should have right to steal other people's work. That you should have right to take what is their's without providing anything back to them. Also in modern western capitalism, you literally don't need to work in order to survive. All western countries provide some form of a social security system that ensures that no one dies to hunger. " It is only the privileged and the lucky who are able to start their own successful businesses, with very few exceptions." Literally everyone can start their own business. There is nothing preventing you from getting loan, saving money, or finding investors. "in the modern western world unemployed people live better than kings? What? Including the homeless? " You're not homeless due poverty in modern west. You're homeless due mental issues. This comes from a guy who actually has seen homeless people and used to be one of them in the past. Amount of homeless people is extremely small in the west, and most countries provide social security high enough for everyone to have some sort of apartment. You only become homeless if you become drug addict, go insane/depressed. Also to point out that I lived as poor man for almost my whole life, until to the recent point. I have personal experience to state that my quality of life was fucking paradise when compared to kings of the past. I could have computer, medicine, internet, and better food than they ever had. All things that people would've been willing to kill for in the past. It seems to me that you're one of the middle-class privileged little kids who are roleplaying as "revolutionaries". And the great irony is... You would be first one to be killed in the revolution that you drool over. And you would be killed by people like me. Aka the actual proletarian class. " Capitalism is incompatible with freedom" How is it incompatible with freedom? Just because you need to find a way to get food? Holy shit... So living as a parasite is freedom to you? " it inevitably excludes certain demographics from financial success," Objectively speaking false. No other system has provided better social mobility than capitalism. In fact, it's under capitalism that poor people actually have a chance to become rich and wealthy. This is why every country that adopted capitalism, started to lose the amount of poor people they had, and instead became wealthier and wealthier. " it perpetuates and reinforces class" There are no classes in modern world. You're not stuck to which you have been born into.
    1
  21. +Morgalucci Communism by definition is stateless. Look at any dictionary or encyclopedia if you don't believe me. USSR, DPRK were socialist countries ruled by communist parties.
    1
  22. +Morgalucci That's weird... They changed definition. Because if you actually read communists manifesto and marx's books. They are clearly speaking about abolishing the state. Literally all of them. ". As stated, denying that is either an indication to your affiliation with anarcho-communism or a definitive slice of evidence of hypocrisy. " Says guy who's dick is hard on politicians. If I remember right you were the one who spoke about how honest and perfect politicians are, therefore we should trust them.
    1
  23. Name a period in time when communists didn't rule with fear. He is historian, and knows more than enough about the evils of communism. PS: Stalin followed marx's manifesto by the book. You clearly haven't read manifesto.
    1
  24. +apos kos the useful idiot Literally all of those did oppress non communists and did even go as far as kill them. If socialism doesn't work, neither will communism. What Stalin and manifesto has to do with this? Do you understand what manifesto means? That was the unified will of the communists. Socialists were basically giving handjobs to Stalin while he was still alive. "why is it that critics of left wing history always bring up stalin and mao as examples? " Why is it that critics of the nazies always bring up a hitler as example? " have finished sociology in the UoC." Good to know that you studied to become a Mcdonalds cashier.
    1