Inherent contradiction with the standard right wing thought

Have you noticed the inherent contradiction with the standard right wing justification for capitalism as a socio economic system ?

Whenever they attempt to justify capitalism they do so on the grounds that it has increased production - therefore standards of living - However this argument means that, Roman slavery ect was justified considering it resulted in higher standards of living - increased innovation ect - they proceed to deny this and in doing so contradict themselves.

As seen throughout history capitalism slavery and exploitation go hand in hand -

The funny part is that when you confront them with this by mentioning the historical means used to build capitalist wealth they try to CHANGE the DEFINITION of capitalism to - Lassie Faire ' which has never been implemented' ! - They do so in order to remove capitalism from its historical negative effects, the stupid thing is that in making a case FOR capitalism they use the benefits created by state capitalism therefore justify the means used to attain those benefits !

They say capitalism is wonderful because of economic growth in the early US - or the British Empire

Mention that this wealth was derived from slavery and conquest and they are compelled to reply with -

'Well that was the state - not capitalism' - however without the state enforcing such oppression and conquest the very economic benefits they use to justify capitalism would not exist !

They are aware of this contradiction but prefer to ignore it - they deceptively work to uphold the buguarsie agenda and undermine class struggle.

Quote :

buguarsie

lol nice one.

the right wing agenda is dumb because it uses morality nuff syed

... its the other way around you fucking idiot dear sir. God I'm patient and all but you just keep saying the same dumb weebo again and again and again.

quit deceptivle holding up the bugwarsee agenda. bugwarsees use morals. revulotionayr communists use the proletarian science

... your just hopeless, and I'm sort of proud I'm a Communist that opposes such a ignorant ridiculous and self-opposing theory such as yours.

i am a siuntific boy with siuntific thoeries about siuntific proletarian siunce. you could say im a siuntific proletarian siuntist. while you discuc your polotics il be testing my siuntific thoeries.

Do you mind not spamming up this thread

all idealist systems are contradictory

Yeah I'm just happy I oppose Melon's theories - I dread the thought that I might actually find them relevant...

that is why they must perish and be replaced by drum roll please COMMUNISM!

Alright you kiddies, now quit fighting. Let's get back to topic here.

Hey Cyprian! Remember that IY weeabos site us "ebil commies" raided? Well, at least you guys did for teh LOLZ. That so-called "economics" guy said America was more free in the 1800s than 2000s. All simply because the economy grew a lot, while deliberately ignoring the plight of African slaves and white servents.

I had a grand LOLERCAUST.

I don't remember much of the raid seeing I was the first to fall xD but then again I was the wayfarer of this expedition, so its sort of obvious - But then again the guy was mormon... and he was posting on a Inuyasha forum... if that doesn't spell "faggotry" I dunno what dose.

well the late 1800's was extrem fre market era which had a lot of problems sparking the progressive era. by that time usuallly slavery is gone. they already celebrated juneteenth. they dont need to celebrate anymore.

Slavery IS slavery, and no silly meme will ever make it right.

wow just look at all the people that spam. im reporting you to jeiro. JEIRO: look at this its spam.

Watermelon wrote:

well the late 1800's was extrem fre market era which had a lot of problems sparking the progressive era. by that time usuallly slavery is gone. they already celebrated juneteenth. they dont need to celebrate anymore.

wrong thread?

and the there was no progressive era.

After the pull back of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments and the freedmans bureau then the "progressive" era was merely an attempt to get those freedoms BACK.

The civil war signified the last progressive act of the bourgeoisie

im not saying its progresive. thats what its called. they regulated industries and stuf and made meat packing places be sanitary instead of puting rats in the meat.

Sry, I don't speak human.

On topic. Cyp's right. Slavery is just what it is. Only difference is that America somehow justifies it cleverly, while all other countries can't think to SOS.

... lol?

Watermelon wrote:

im not saying its progresive. thats what its called. they regulated industries and stuf and made meat packing places be sanitary instead of puting rats in the meat.

here
https://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/people-s-library-f10/juneteenth-and-the-political-eras-t1001.htm#18658

yeah i posted there. read your pm's

inkus2000 wrote:

Have you noticed the inherent contradiction with the standard right wing justification for capitalism as a socio economic system ?

Whenever they attempt to justify capitalism they do so on the grounds that it has increased production - therefore standards of living - However this argument means that, Roman slavery ect was justified considering it resulted in higher standards of living - increased innovation ect - they proceed to deny this and in doing so contradict themselves.

As seen throughout history capitalism slavery and exploitation go hand in hand -

The funny part is that when you confront them with this by mentioning the historical means used to build capitalist wealth they try to CHANGE the DEFINITION of capitalism to - Lassie Faire ' which has never been implemented' ! - They do so in order to remove capitalism from its historical negative effects, the stupid thing is that in making a case FOR capitalism they use the benefits created by state capitalism therefore justify the means used to attain those benefits !

They say capitalism is wonderful because of economic growth in the early US - or the British Empire

Mention that this wealth was derived from slavery and conquest and they are compelled to reply with -

'Well that was the state - not capitalism' - however without the state enforcing such oppression and conquest the very economic benefits they use to justify capitalism would not exist !

They are aware of this contradiction but prefer to ignore it - they deceptively work to uphold the buguarsie agenda and undermine class struggle.

Ok slavery was the reson the roman empier got rich but not the acumulation of nearly all the know world at the time, sure.....

in a very shorsighted persons eyes slavery is very profitable for the econamy but it also hampers growth in technolagy becuse 1/5th of the nation can´t think and the rest are living a life they don't want to change
the roman empeier is a good example, in it's 3 century exsistance tecnological advancements were very little.

the brithis created the biggest empeir ever to have exsisted and they got pretty much monopolyes on evry fucking thing there is in the world.

the us got circa 70 million immigrants wich increased it's population, like 5 fold in 50 years.

bottom line is that slavery isn´t profitable.

and since when have capitalists ever faivored slavery more than communist, I mean teh mayjoraty of you want pepole to be sent to slave work if they don't work there asses off.

mattabesta wrote:

inkus2000 wrote:

Have you noticed the inherent contradiction with the standard right wing justification for capitalism as a socio economic system ?

Whenever they attempt to justify capitalism they do so on the grounds that it has increased production - therefore standards of living - However this argument means that, Roman slavery ect was justified considering it resulted in higher standards of living - increased innovation ect - they proceed to deny this and in doing so contradict themselves.

As seen throughout history capitalism slavery and exploitation go hand in hand -

The funny part is that when you confront them with this by mentioning the historical means used to build capitalist wealth they try to CHANGE the DEFINITION of capitalism to - Lassie Faire ' which has never been implemented' ! - They do so in order to remove capitalism from its historical negative effects, the stupid thing is that in making a case FOR capitalism they use the benefits created by state capitalism therefore justify the means used to attain those benefits !

They say capitalism is wonderful because of economic growth in the early US - or the British Empire

Mention that this wealth was derived from slavery and conquest and they are compelled to reply with -

'Well that was the state - not capitalism' - however without the state enforcing such oppression and conquest the very economic benefits they use to justify capitalism would not exist !

They are aware of this contradiction but prefer to ignore it - they deceptively work to uphold the buguarsie agenda and undermine class struggle.

Ok slavery was the reson the roman empier got rich but not the acumulation of nearly all the know world at the time, sure.....

in a very shorsighted persons eyes slavery is very profitable for the econamy but it also hampers growth in technolagy becuse 1/5th of the nation can´t think and the rest are living a life they don't want to change
the roman empeier is a good example, in it's 3 century exsistance tecnological advancements were very little.

the brithis created the biggest empeir ever to have exsisted and they got pretty much monopolyes on evry fucking thing there is in the world.

the us got circa 70 million immigrants wich increased it's population, like 5 fold in 50 years.

bottom line is that slavery isn´t profitable.

and since when have capitalists ever faivored slavery more than communist, I mean teh mayjoraty of you want pepole to be sent to slave work if they don't work there asses off.

The Roman Empire was built on slavery - without it Rome wouldn't have achieved anything - Its est that on average 1 in every 3 people within the empire where slaves. The slaves built all those huge temples ect they built and maintained the empire. Thats why conquest was essential to Rome - the legions needed to take slaves for the empire.

The British Empire is the same shit different day - they invaded nations for natural resources and availed of slave labor at home - the working class during the indusrial revolution where no different from the indentured serfs of the feudal era. Child labor and workhouses where commonplace - workhouses being establishments where orphan children worked from dawn to dusk in return for food and shelter. Peasants still toiled for landlords for fear of eviction ect ect ect

All large empires are built on conquest - exploitation - rape - pillage and plunder.


Slavery was immencely profitable you idiot - and it still is. To say slavery wasn't profitable is like saying sex dosn't sell. Human labor is the one thing that can produce more value than it costs to buy - this is why capitalists LOVE slavery in all its forms.

Since communism seeks to do away with profit altogether its a contradiction to call communism pro slavery - in fact communism by definition must be anti - slavery and if its not then guess what ----- ITS NOT COMMUNISM.

Capitalism on the other hand requires labor for the cheapest amount possible which means that capitalism by its own nature gravitates towards slavery.