Yes, You're A Communist

[JQPublic1]

You don't know????????

I want to know when you believe it started. I already know.

PROVE YOU KNOW…heh heh heh!

You're weaseling, douche bag. Answer the question: When did capitalism start?

Why shouldl I tell you.You already know….. don't you?

It's obvious that you don't want to prove to the entire forum what a foolish ignoramus you are.

Says the village idiot!

 

[JQPublic1]

There is so much stupid shit in this post I don't even know where to start.

At some point you must just admit that this person is not interested in the truth, logic, reason or evidence. This is a common trait among the low IQ liberals. Suffering from some serious dunning-kruger there as well. I bet that if this person took an IQ test he would be in for some truly spectacularly special surprises.

You are basically still equating being poor with slavery. And you are still clueless about the definition of capitalism as well. It's been explained about 83 times now!

And yeah, being taxed is a subsidy. The ignorance is bizarre with this guy.

You've been WRONG 83 times. When will you give up and stop trying so hard to look bright? Chattel Slavery was a capitalist enterprise and function. That you would publicly deny such common knowledge is beyond comprehension. Are you posting from a mental hospital bed?

Please find us the text-book regarding capitalism which has the chapter "the trade of human beings" "Slave economics". I haven't read, Adam Smith's piece, but I can pretty much guarantee that you won't find one chapter advocating for slavery there. How dumb can you seriously be?

How many times does it have to be explained... Just because slavery existed does not mean it's an integral part of the ideology. That's possibly why capitalism ENDED slavery. If capitalism so vehemently supports slavery, why was slavery ended under perhaps the most capitalist era we have seen?

Damn the low IQ...

Capitalism and an industrial economy aren't compatible because factory work requires skilled and motivated workers. Slaves are only good for brute labor.

read post # 845 Jerk! Warning: it might cause skid marks in your underwear.

I posted #845, numskull.

Did you read it? heh heh heh!

 

[JQPublic1]

You don't know????????

I want to know when you believe it started. I already know.

PROVE YOU KNOW…heh heh heh!

You're weaseling, douche bag. Answer the question: When did capitalism start?

Why shouldl I tell you.You already know….. don't you?

It's obvious that you don't want to prove to the entire forum what a foolish ignoramus you are.

Hey, watching you prove YOU ARE a foolish ignoramus is a lot more fun! I am still waiting for your answer!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well now that this thread has determined that rightwingers believe that everyone (including themselves) is a Communist,

can we all move on now?

 

[Contumacious]

Well now that this thread has determined that rightwingers believe that everyone (including themselves) is a Communist,

can we all move on now?

I know you think that you are being facetious, but you are not.

Unless you can explain how the US became a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

 

[Mac1958]

Ironically, I find myself asking the same question of the same people I asked, "so who is NOT a RINO?"

So, who is NOT a communist?
.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It is pretty fucking obvious how much the left is communist by the fact that there favorite leaders are communist from all over the world. Name me one communist that they didn't like.

 

[Dr Grump]

Social costs are bullshit measure invented by leftist to justify their enslavement of other people. Not coercing others is FREE, and in this case free really means free.

Only an idiot would be a commie apologist in this day and age. We know what the ideology represents, there are no questions whether it works or not. We know it does not.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either.

Whether you like it or not, there is a social cost to capitalism. Not everybody can be rich or even moderately wealthy. If it were possible you would have hyper inflation. One of the great myths of capitialism is that if everybody works hard they'll all be well off. What a crock of shit. All societies will have overachievers, underachievers, brainy boxers and dumb arses. And they all have to be dealt with in their own way.

 

[bripat9643]

I want to know when you believe it started. I already know.

PROVE YOU KNOW…heh heh heh!

You're weaseling, douche bag. Answer the question: When did capitalism start?

Why shouldl I tell you.You already know….. don't you?

It's obvious that you don't want to prove to the entire forum what a foolish ignoramus you are.

Hey, watching you prove YOU ARE a foolish ignoramus is a lot more fun! I am still waiting for your answer!

Wow, brilliant comeback. I'll bet you really wow them down at the local pre-school.

 

[bripat9643]

Social costs are bullshit measure invented by leftist to justify their enslavement of other people. Not coercing others is FREE, and in this case free really means free.

Only an idiot would be a commie apologist in this day and age. We know what the ideology represents, there are no questions whether it works or not. We know it does not.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either.

Sure it does. The closer a country gets to pure capitalism, the faster its economy grows.

Whether you like it or not, there is a social cost to capitalism. Not everybody can be rich or even moderately wealthy. If it were possible you would have hyper inflation. One of the great myths of capitialism is that if everybody works hard they'll all be well off. What a crock of shit. All societies will have overachievers, underachievers, brainy boxers and dumb arses. And they all have to be dealt with in their own way.

What "social cost" is that, envy?

Where did you get this notion that wealth causes inflation? I've heard some stupid and obviously wrong theories in my time, but that's a doozy. America's wealth grew by leaps and bounds during the 19th century, but the value of a dollar in 1914 was greater than it was in 1789. We had negative inflation.

And it isn't a myth that the vast majority can at least climb into the middle class through hard work. In fact, it's virtually impossible to remain poor if you stay married, work hard and spend your money responsibly. Not everyone is going to become super wealthy. That would obviously be absurd. But very few would live in poverty if the followed a few simple rules.

 

[bripat9643]

It is pretty fucking obvious how much the left is communist by the fact that there favorite leaders are communist from all over the world. Name me one communist that they didn't like.

They all walking around proudly sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt and then claim they aren't commies.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
What "social cost" is that, envy?

Where did you get this notion that wealth causes inflation? I've heard some stupid and obviously wrong theories in my time, but that's a doozy. America's wealth grew by leaps and bounds during the 19th century, but the value of a dollar in 1914 was greater than it was in 1789. We had negative inflation.

And it isn't a myth that the vast majority can at least climb into the middle class through hard work. In fact, it's virtually impossible to remain poor if you stay married, work hard and spend your money responsibly. Not everyone is going to become super wealthy. That would obviously be absurd. But very few would live in poverty if the followed a few simple rules.

I didn't say wealth on its own. I said if everybody was rich. America's wealth has nothing to do with individual wealth.

In order for there to be wealthy people, and even a middle class, there has to be an underclass. Where most western countries outpace third world countries is that our underclasses make up a little part of the population as opposed to the likes of Africa and most Asian countries where it's about 95 percent of their populations.

 

[bripat9643]

[
What "social cost" is that, envy?

Where did you get this notion that wealth causes inflation? I've heard some stupid and obviously wrong theories in my time, but that's a doozy. America's wealth grew by leaps and bounds during the 19th century, but the value of a dollar in 1914 was greater than it was in 1789. We had negative inflation.

And it isn't a myth that the vast majority can at least climb into the middle class through hard work. In fact, it's virtually impossible to remain poor if you stay married, work hard and spend your money responsibly. Not everyone is going to become super wealthy. That would obviously be absurd. But very few would live in poverty if the followed a few simple rules.

I didn't say wealth on its own. I said if everybody was rich. America's wealth has nothing to do with individual wealth.

In order for there to be wealthy people, and even a middle class, there has to be an underclass. Where most western countries outpace third world countries is that our underclasses make up a little part of the population as opposed to the likes of Africa and most Asian countries where it's about 95 percent of their populations.

Wrong. The whole conception of the term "underclass" is bogus. There's no reason the vast majority of people can't earn a middle class income in this country. No reason except the Democrat party, that is.

All you're saying about African and Asian countries is that they are poor. No duh?

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong. The whole conception of the term "underclass" is bogus. There's no reason the vast majority of people can't earn a middle class income in this country. No reason except the Democrat party, that is.

All you're saying about African and Asian countries is that they are poor. No duh?

BS. Check out how many unemployed there are in the US, and how many jobs there are available. They don't marry. And I'm not even going into jobs like Walmart that hardly cover rent and food let alone any other costs.

No, most are poor. Japan and South Korea and Singapore are not.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. The whole conception of the term "underclass" is bogus. There's no reason the vast majority of people can't earn a middle class income in this country. No reason except the Democrat party, that is.

All you're saying about African and Asian countries is that they are poor. No duh?

BS. Check out how many unemployed there are in the US, and how many jobs there are available. They don't marry. And I'm not even going into jobs like Walmart that hardly cover rent and food let alone any other costs.

No, most are poor. Japan and South Korea and Singapore are not.

The fact that people don't follow the rules proves nothing. And if Dimorats would quit fucking up the economy with the incessant meddling and putting everyone on the government teat, then people who get to work and get on a career path instead of wallowing in poverty.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong. The whole conception of the term "underclass" is bogus. There's no reason the vast majority of people can't earn a middle class income in this country. No reason except the Democrat party, that is.

All you're saying about African and Asian countries is that they are poor. No duh?

BS. Check out how many unemployed there are in the US, and how many jobs there are available. They don't marry. And I'm not even going into jobs like Walmart that hardly cover rent and food let alone any other costs.

No, most are poor. Japan and South Korea and Singapore are not.

The fact that people don't follow the rules proves nothing. And if Dimorats would quit fucking up the economy with the incessant meddling and putting everyone on the government teat, then people who get to work and get on a career path instead of wallowing in poverty.

you have totally ignored all I have said. You have no clue.

 

[Norman]

Slaves were taxed as property, owned as property,and sold as property. Slavery was part of different economic system in history. Perhaps we are still in the age of enlightenment and reason that spawned our government and Constitution?

If looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, it IS a DUCK. Chattel slavery is capitalistic by every definition there is.

Yeah, but communism has never truly existed...

The facepalm.

No capitalist advocates for slavery, not one that I can think of.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson are dead now but I thought I would resurrect them just for YOU, dumbass! Can you guess why?

I am not so sure these men deserve the name "capitalist", since I am not aware of them contributing to the ideology of free trade in any intellectual way, which is what I meant. Anyway, I am not that familiar with the old American thinkers anyway, and maybe they wrote the greatest pieces on free trade and it's benefits... Let's just say you are right:

George Washington:
"He owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime, but his views on slavery evolved to support abolition".
- Wiipedia

Jefferson:
"As an older man, he advocated freeing and returning slaves to Africa."
Jefferson's Views on Slavery - Poplar Forest

So there you go.

Free mareketism and lack of coercion just tend to be kind of incompatible with slavery... Unlike the soviet system with its forced labor.

Just because George and Tom changed their opinions about slavery on their death beds doesn't mean St Peter is going to forget their long life advocacy of it! I gave you a valid answer to your question. End of story….

But I can't let you get away with that low information thinking that puts your IQ near the bottom on the left side of the bell curve.
Capitalism by any other name ( free marketism?) began violently and with coercion. Here I come:

The basis for my premise that chattel slavery is a subset of capitalism wasn't something I created in a vacuum. Scholars more erudite than anyone posting here have supported that premise. But after careful consideration I have found that its the other way around. Capitalism is a subset of slavery.:

In his seminal work circa 1914, French socialist Jean Jaurès unearthed the economy of bondage in his four volume Histoire socialiste de la Révolution française . It was Jaurès who saw the the crucial nexus between slave trade profits and the growth of industries and ideologies of capitalism.

In 1938, C. L. R. James made a similar observation in his monograph, A History of Negro Revolt: "Negro Slavery seemed the very basis of American capitalism."

US Historian Sven Beckert continues to validate my premise in his book entitled empire of Cotton: A Global History.

"wealth accumulation marked by African enslavement, the expropriation of aboriginal lands, coercion and killing as means of labor control and territorial conquest, and the rise of an imperial state whose laws and policies served an emergent capitalist class. “We usually think of capitalism, at least the globalized, mass-production type that we recognize today, as emerging around 1780 with the Industrial Revolution. But war capitalism, which began to develop in the sixteenth century, came long before machines and factories.” He continues, “When we think of capitalism, we think of wage workers, yet this prior phase of capitalism was based not on free labor but on slavery. We associate industrial capitalism with contracts and markets, but early capitalism was based as often as not on violence and bodily coercion.” Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism” whose history has been erase by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Beckert emphasizes the role of slavery in the rise of capitalism. While slavery is not capitalism, per se, it has played an integral part in the evolution of capitalism. I had it wrong. Capitalism is a subset of chattel slavery, not the other way around. But that still doesn't change my basic premise all that much. And you will always be a megalomaniacal idiot!

Capitalism is a subset of slavery? Before taking the IQ test, perhaps mental evaluation is in order.

Did you somewhere in your analysis forget that words have actual meanings?

Anyway, this is the history of capitalism. The history of a complete success... which before nothing seemed to succeed at all.

Here is a hint to you as to when the economy started to turn into more freedom oriented:

And just because there was some coercion somewhere STILL doesn't have anything to do with the ideals of capitalism. Capitalism is a voluntarist ideology, how many times does this have to be stated?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well now that this thread has determined that rightwingers believe that everyone (including themselves) is a Communist,

can we all move on now?

I know you think that you are being facetious, but you are not.

Unless you can explain how the US became a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

The author of this thread asserts that every liberal is a Communist.

Subsequent posts by others assert that if you support something like public education, you're a Communist. It goes on and on.

Once you've broadened the definition of a Communist to include practically everyone in the country,

what's the point?

 

[jillian]

It is pretty fucking obvious how much the left is communist by the fact that there favorite leaders are communist from all over the world. Name me one communist that they didn't like.

They all walking around proudly sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt and then claim they aren't commies.

ah...if only you knew anything, anything at all about economic and political theory.

 

[jillian]

Well now that this thread has determined that rightwingers believe that everyone (including themselves) is a Communist,

can we all move on now?

I know you think that you are being facetious, but you are not.

Unless you can explain how the US became a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

The author of this thread asserts that every liberal is a Communist.

Subsequent posts by others assert that if you support something like public education, you're a Communist. It goes on and on.

Once you've broadened the definition of a Communist to include practically everyone in the country,

what's the point?

the wingnuts use it as a blanket description of anything they don't like.