Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Ye?
Ayden Collins
Tyler Nelson
Kevin Lee
>What about when the fisherman leaves that fish shop to his son in his will? And his son leaves it to his son? That dead labor compounds to great enough heights to oppress living labor.
What if the fisherman was immortal and he compounded the labor himself? Would his fat stack of bezos jewgold then be legitimate?
Additionally, is the fisherman oppressing the shopkeeper by employing him in his single shop? If not, why does this become oppression when scaled up with thousands of shopkeepers and fishing shops?
Brayden Fisher
>Buddy you keep asserting morality and I keep telling you morality is dictated by propaganda.
Sounds like some postmodern bullshit to me. Truth is objective. Some actions are objectively good, some actions are objectively bad. The only people that benefit from confusing that is liberals and fascists.
>If hitler won your textbooks would be written by gobbels. What good is your history then?
If my textbooks were written by Goebbels, the historical method would still allow me to figure out that the bad guys won. Historians, proper historians at least, analyze propaganda to read through the lines all the time. No proper historian takes a book, especially not a history book, at face value. Even just what's left unsaid speaks volumes.
>Isn't it your meme that cletus hates the niggers while properly educated folk love and respect them? What on earth makes you think workers give two fucks about gay rights or niggers?
More disingenuous bullshit. I refer you to this post I made earlier: To sum up, "Cletus" is the working class, and the "properly educated" are the wokelord children of the petty bourgeoisie who will get shot when the revolution comes. PC bullshit is a liberal value, not a Marxist-Leninist one.
Carson Barnes
Christopher Fisher
The immortality clause only holds for a proper comparison if all the other workers around him are immortal, in which case they could similarly build up wealth in the same manner and he would be unable to employ anyone unless he paid them the full value of their labor, because they could always just go work for themselves for the full value of their labor. Universal immortality would destroy capitalist relations.
>Additionally, is the fisherman oppressing the shopkeeper by employing him in his single shop? If not, why does this become oppression when scaled up with thousands of shopkeepers and fishing shops?
If that shopkeeper isn't paid the full value of his labor, with equal democratic rights as all the other workers at his workplace, he's being oppressed.
Hunter Brooks
Jaxson Hall
>The immortality clause only holds for a proper comparison if all the other workers around him are immortal
No it doesn't. Immortality is a thought experiment to see if death and generational wealth is wrong. If the immortal guy is also in the wrong, then the problem isn't that the money is handed down until some brat grandkid ends up with a bunch of money he didn't personally earn, its something else.
>If that shopkeeper isn't paid the full value of his labor
How do you even determine that? By the existence of profit? What's the fisherman's cut for using his deferred labor to build the shop?
Gavin Lee
>Some actions are objectively good, some actions are objectively bad.
Okay sure, pretend there was some morality system that everyone agreed upon, like aggressors bad | self defense good. Gobbels could still twist history so that the romans were always the defenders and the gauls are always the aggressors. Objective morality doesn't conflict with twisted history. I'm arguing twisted history, not subjective morality.
>Historians, proper historians at least, analyze propaganda to read through the lines all the time.
What makes you think propaganda ends? Gobbels existed in 1945 and we know he tried to rewrite the historybooks. What makes you think the modern day analog isn't doing the same thing? Modern scholars aren't objective neutral observers, they play teams just like everyone else.
You came in with the stalin was justified because [thing historians said happened], and that just sounds like hitler was justified because gobbels said the jews stabbed him in the back. Take historians with a grain of salt.
>I refer you to this post I made earlier:
Okay but this doesn't answer what I'm saying. What makes you think construction workers give two fucks about nigs and fags? The whole assumption that the bourgeois are shilling fag acceptance to placate the masses assumes the masses actually want fags and nigs. Which they obviously don't, since the bourgeois use the government has to force them by law to let them in with anti discrimination laws.
The workers don't want niggers and gays. If the bourgeois hate fags and niggers, why they keep shilling for them?