Jump to content

Willy Mo

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Willy Mo last won the day on July 26 2015

Willy Mo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,214 Hall of Fame

About Willy Mo

  • Rank
    Always Ready
  • Birthday 09/08/1985

Recent Profile Visitors

419 profile views
  1. Serfdom still existed, just by another name and against an even larger class of people, orchestrated by the same class who supposedly abolished it. History shows this. You're literally engaging in pure historical revisionism. I feel bad for you. Impressive though these freedoms first looked, it soon became apparent that they had come at a heavy price for the peasants. It was not they, but the landlords, who were the beneficiaries. This should not surprise us: after, it had been the dvoriane who had drafted the emancipation proposals. The compensation that the landowners received was far in advance of the market value of their property. They were also entitled to decide which part of their holdings they would give up. Unsurprisingly, they kept the best land for themselves. The serfs got the leftovers. The data shows that the landlords retained two-thirds of the land while the peasants received only one-third. So limited was the supply of affordable quality land to the peasants that they were reduced to buying narrow strips that proved difficult to maintain and which yielded little food or profit. Moreover, while the landowners were granted financial compensation for what they gave up, the peasants had to pay for their new property. Since they had no savings, they were advanced 100 per cent mortgages, 80 per cent provided by the State bank and the remaining 20 by the landlords. This appeared a generous offer, but as in any loan transaction the catch was in the repayments. The peasants found themselves saddled with redemption payments that became a lifelong burden that then had to be handed on to their children. The restrictions on the peasants did not end there. To prevent emancipation creating too much disruption, the government urged the peasants to remain in their localities. This was easy to achieve since, for obvious reasons, the great majority of the ex-serfs bought their allotments of land from the estates where they were already living. It was also the case that the land available for purchase came from a stock of land granted to the village and was then sold on to individual peasants. What all this denoted was the mixture of fear and deep distaste that the Russian establishment traditionally felt towards the peasantry. Often contemptuously referred to as the ‘dark masses’, the peasants were seen as a dangerous force that had to be kept down. Beneath the generous words in which Emancipation had been couched was a belief that the common people of Russia, unless controlled and directed, were a very real threat to the existing order of things. Whatever emancipation may have offered to the peasants, it was not genuine liberty.
  2. They weren't free. You can see the situation that the ruling class dealt them, purposefully by the way in order to keep them from true economic freedom. History shows this plainly, your pedantic revisionism is more desperate than it is accurate. Also, if you think a fucking monarchist didn't stand for stringent class divide, then you're simply unintelligent (you are). You would have fought on the side of King George, I assume?
  3. You can’t throw around words like “fucking retard” and then just copy and paste from a website without reading what happened afterward. “Outcomes The serfs of private estates received less land than they needed to survive, which led to civil unrest. The redemption tax was so high that the serfs had to sell all the grain they produced to pay the tax, which left nothing for their survival. Landowners also suffered because many of them were deeply in debt, and the forced selling of their land left them struggling to maintain their lavish lifestyle. In many cases, the newly freed serfs were forced to "rent" their land from wealthy landowners. Furthermore, when the peasants had to work for the same landowners to pay their "labor payments", they often neglected their own fields.[13]:p. 126 Over the next few years, the yields from the peasants' crops remained low, and soon famine struck a large portion of Russia.[13]:p. 127 With little food, and finding themselves in a similar condition as when they were serfs, many peasants started to voice their disdain for the new social system”
  4. The fact that you think that the class divide and the exploitation of workers ended right here is hilarious. Tell me, why did the revolution happen?
  5. Willy Mo

    The Mueller Investigation is Done

    I’m just glad some people on the other side now recognize that the FBI is a pretty evil organization that will target anyone who doesn’t serve the interests of whatever the current protected class is.
  6. I have no tears nor sympathy of any kind for the purveyors of monarchism, feudalism, and serfdom wherein a select few lived in luxury meanwhile peasants lived a life of brutal slavery, purposeful starvation and extreme economic exploitation. That is an evil that needed to be erased by all means. The revolution happened for a reason.
  7. I don’t give a shit about your life story. Wealth in this country is a hierarchy enforced by the capitalist class in order to ensure the populace is kept in boundaries necessary to prevent them from truthfully challenging those who already enjoy the greatest luxuries of our society and keep the safety and political power in the hands of a select few. All of the “wages” of the rich are merely a stolen commodity taken from the hands of those who worked 100x than them to earn it for them. There’s a reason a significant drop in worker pay coincided with massive tax cuts and the destruction of unions. When you can explain to me how a political philosophy centered purely around chasing wealth and creating a lavish lifestyle to those who own it doesn’t lead to monopolies and huge wealth divides as those with the capital use that capital as power in order to keep the security they have leeched from the people solely for themselves, maybe I’ll buy the bullshit of capitalism. Until then, you can keep pushing the fantasy of a purely free market making everyone free, but recognize it as just that, fantasy.
  8. They are. Also, again, your assumption that all of the poor are poor because they're lazy is just nothing more than pure misanthropy.
  9. Then why do you oppose the estate tax?
  10. The Romanovs deserved it.
  11. The fact of the matter is, the existence of welfare and food stamps and the like is merely a compromise created under a craven society. Those things wouldn't need to exist in a state where wealth inequality was not an issue. If I had to build my perfect nation, I wouldn't include those things. Because there wouldn't be an entire class of poor people alienated from society and in desperate need of help to be able to stay alive.
  12. Viewing people through solely what they produce and their place in a capitalist hierarchy instead of their status as a human being is just pure evil, not much more to it. Every human has a right to a house and other basic necessities to live, yet again we live in a society where so many are depraved and yet the "productive people" have an absurd surplus. Tell me, what is your idea of a "productive person"? Someone born impoverished, working 8 hours minimum wage, and yet who is unable to afford the obscenely high rent prices in San Fran while balancing paying for food and clothes on their back, or someone in Hollywood who moves a camera on a tripod around for an hour or two yet gets paid a ludicrous amount of cash because they were born into a higher place on the wealth hierarchy in the richest state and therefore have ten times the opportunities available to them? I'll take 1 homeless person over 1,000,000 Jeff Bezos, because I know one that homeless person works or has worked harder in the past than 1,000,000 Jeff Bezos' would ever have in their entire lifetimes. Your idea that the poor in this country are people who just aren't lifting their fingers hard enough is nothing more than pure classism at best, and genuine misanthropy for "lesser" people at worst. Perhaps you should try to understand better how wealth functions as a hierarchical boundary determined by a status not under your control. Also, your idea of nobody wanting to work for their money is flawed because you've been conditioned by our broken society to equate a commodity with a necessity. Things such as a place to live, water, electricity, healthcare, etc. are basic human rights in the 21st century, yet we've conditioned to see them as a precious commodity because they will get cut off and taken away if we don't slave away for them. Sidenote: think about the pure barbarism of that for a quick second. I can starve to death or die in the cold if I don't earn enough money, regardless of economic or generational wealth factors placed upon me. It's unhealthy for a society, and completely uncivilized to be frank. Regardless, the second your water and your housing is afforded to you without having to run the risk and immense stress of having them removed, commodities and wants become much more abundant because there's more money laying around. That actually makes people want to work more. Marx talked about this as "the alienation of the worker" from their product and the fruits of their labor, wherein each worker is viewed as an instrument rather than a person who has any right to enjoy himself beyond his allegiance to his economic overlords which he produces for. Because most traditional workers are in factories in which their very own salary prevents them from affording the product they produce. Let's say people didn't have to pay rent or a loan on a house though. Or a water bill. Or an electric bill. In that society, consumers have a much better range of wealth, choice, and freedom without having to slave away for things essential to life. Now of course, this society has been structured this way on purpose. The capitalist class needs to workers to be as miserable and free of usable capital as possible in order to narrow their choices and further dig in their allegiance to a corporation, or a brand, or a boss that oversees them in order to make sure their capital is secure. In a sense, our work is not in our control until it is not required for one to make a living. By the way, the laziest people in our entire society tend to be the rich. CEOs, stock market traders, bankers, oil barons, tech moguls, and the like don't work hard, not one single bit. The true value of work rests in those who actually need it to be able to live, not those who are gifted with wealth from birth.
  13. To the homeless problem in San Fran? Since Cali is the richest state, it's an easy answer: Start taxing Hollywood and Silicon Valley, and the rest of the pigs there, at 85%+ and put that money into a state housing program where it actually belong. If you think a society where we have so much capital floating around that we can just spend 100 million dollars on 2 hour movies, yet at the same time won't drop a dime to help those who need it the most is a healthy and normal one, you're outta this world.
  14. California is socialist? Tell me, how much of it's industry is nationalized? How much of the resources and commodities are distributed by the state? Is the housing free? Is the healthcare free? Are the landlords and bankers in prison? Is the education free? Are the unions strong? Do the state and people in prioritize a greater society over the accumulation of capital? Is there a fixed earning ceiling? San Fran is of the most capitalist, unequally wealthy hellholes out there. As are most Democrat cities, because that's what they are. You think anyone who wants to raise taxes on the richest people and preserve a social safety net for seniors is a socialist. Holla at me when they turn Amazon into an arm of the state and start forcefully redistributing the earnings of Jeff Bezos among the poor.
  15. Willy Mo

    Official OIG Report Released

    Also, if the Democrats run on impeachment, they will get blown out. It's not only an absurd fantasy, but it also shows the voters that they really don't have any better ideas to offer them, they just want to kick their opponent out the game. Which nobody will be on board for.