/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Same as most of the founding fathers, a spoiled slave owner who started getting real idealistic when his money was even lightly fucked with. No love, no respect, and I'm not a military history dude but as I understand it he was a pretty bad general.

>>2732300
I agree, I don’t think the British was good either but I don’t think we could ever adapt the founding fathers legacy to be socialist like how Cuba does with José Martí or Venezuela does with Simón Bolívar

>>2732301
Would you say the germans should adapt the legacy of hitler to be socialist because he fought both britain and the usa?

Colonies that seceded from the empire they were a part of have always been genocidal and racist as fuck to gain and keep more territory. So, anti-imperialist my ass.

>>2732302
No, I wouldn’t compare Washington to Hitler but even if, Hitler wasn’t the founder of Germany, they existed as a national identity way before him

>>2732304
Uygha you’re retarded

>>2732305
Provode an explanation you Bitch! Are you saying that he was just as bad as Hitler or are you denying that Germany existed before Hitler?!?! Nobody can tell what you are trying to convey when you ask a question and reply to may answer only calling me a retard you dumbass!

He was a bourgois revolutionary that freed America from foreign domination, united the colonies, and created a bourgois democracy
>>2732299 (OP)
>obviously he owned slaves and that is really bad
Yes, it's bad if we examine it in the modern context but slaver interests were too great and could only be resolved by the 2nd American Revolution(Civil War/Radical Reconstruction)
>anti-imperialist enough
Imperialism as Lenin described it didn't exist because capital didn't reach those heights of development. Expansion was needed to expand the capitalist mode of production and exchange.
>no way that the founders would incorporate socialism into the constitution.
Socialism wasn't a necessity or a reality then

>>2732306
>washington
Genocidal
Owned slaves
>hitler
Genocidal
Didnt own slaves

Yankqui BTFO

>>2732308
>”hitler didn’t own slaves”
So i guess concentration camp prisoners were given full wages and pensions?

Washington was as bad as hitler

>>2732309
Read Settlers. Washington put natives in camps. Washington was worse than hitler.

He didn't have wooden teeth, he had slave teeth
>>2732307
But Britain already had a bourgeois revolution, which was essentially sparked by the whole "no taxation without representation" argument about 100 years earlier. The English killed king Charles for levying taxes without parliament's consent.
The colonies were being taxed by parliament, but didn't have any representation in said parliament. Essentially, the colonies got too rich too fast and demanded a spot at the table, but I doubt that would have saved their bourgeois appetite.

>Socialism wasn't a necessity or a reality then
Industrialization was already taking shape during this time, with the first atmospheric pump in England being patented in 1711. The industrial revolution was taking place while the slave owners of the colonies were clinging onto their old Luddite ways and doing anything they could to save it.
Socialism had some sway in the English civil war with the diggers and levellers. Thanks Saint Thomas Moore.

>>2732311
>luddite slavery
complete nonsense. it was the slave masters who utilised the cotton gin to increase demand for slaves.

>>2732310
Uygha, where the fuck did the nazis send political prisoners? Hotels?

>>2732312
You are right, I misinterpreted the backwards-ness of American technology at the time. It was Britain who hampered the colonies technologically, with Britain's main idea that "the colonies should not be permitted to manufacture so much as a horseshoe nail"
my bad g

>>2732313
Washington genocided and put entire nations in camps. Hitler lost and washington won. That alone is why the yanqui zioleft worship burger hitler

I hate him for being a closeted homosexual

>>2732311
The English Civil War settled the struggle between monarchy and bourgeois forces inside England. It produced parliamentary supremacy after the execution of Charles I. That change applied to the English state, not to colonial political sovereignty. British North America was still subordinated to the Parliament of Great Britain. Local property-holding classes had economic development but lacked political control over the state governing them. That contradiction generated the conflict leading to the American Revolution. Metropolitan bourgeois revolutions do not automatically transfer sovereignty to colonies. Colonial elites frequently lead independence struggles once their economic development conflicts with imperial rule. The concept of Uneven and Combined Development explains why bourgeois transformations appear in different places at different times. England’s revolution in the 17th century and the American one in the 18th century reflect uneven development within the same world system. The American Revolution was a progressive bourgeois revolution that established a sovereign republic and removed imperial political control. England’s earlier revolution is historically related but does not negate the necessity of the colonial one.

Socialism emerges as a coherent doctrine with the rise of the modern proletariat in the 19th century. Industrial capitalism must first create a wage-working class before socialism becomes a material political program. In the mid-17th century this class barely existed. The English Civil War occurred in a society still largely agrarian. Groups such as the Levellers and Diggers fought for expanded political rights, equality before the law, and in the Diggers’ case communal land experiments. Their ideas arose from small producers, artisans, and rural poor resisting landlord power. They were precursors of later egalitarian ideas, not representatives of a proletarian socialist movement. Early inventions like Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 atmospheric steam engine were precursors to the later Industrial Revolution. The decisive expansion of factory industry and the mass proletariat occurs later in the late 18th and especially 19th century. The plantation system was deeply integrated into global capitalism. Cotton slavery expanded precisely because British textile industry demanded raw cotton. The contradiction was between slave labor and emerging capitalist social relations, not between “industry” and “backward farmers.”

>Thomas Moore
Thomas More predates socialism as a historical movement. Utopia is a utopian precursor, not socialism rooted in the proletarian class struggle that develops with industrial capitalism.