Origin and nature of slavery

[rupol2000]

Slavery is a direct product of agricultural civilizations. A simple principle was used there: slaves worked on the land and supplied the state in the person of slave owners and multiplied. Slave owners formed troops from these slaves, and seized territories where they repeated this cycle again. This is the main meaning of "added value" - slaves are self-growing capital.
Agricultural civilizations could not grow without slavery because they had a limited resource for life. The population could not grow unless there was additional land. The condition for growth is conquest and colonization, all of which was organized by the slave owners. Imperialism was a direct continuation of agricultural civilizations.

Now, after the complete suppression of the revolution, we have returned to pure imperialism, only land production has been expanded by industrial production. But this is a return to the same model that was before the American Revolution, and now that America itself has become a victim of imperialism, there is no longer a force that organizes resistance. They only have to colonize America until the end, then they сolonize South America, and this is the end of the game.

 

[rupol2000]

That is why Reagan said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”

 

[rupol2000]

The time from the American Revolution to Obama was a grand attempt to break imperialism, the legacy of agricultural civilization. It was an attempt to destroy slavery on earth, whenever the anti-federalists came to power, they did it, they fought for Freedom.

 

[alang1216]

Slave owners formed troops from these slaves, and seized territories

Somehow I don't see arming your slaves as a very smart idea. The territory they're most likely to seize is yours.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Somehow I don't see arming your slaves as a very smart idea. The territory they're most likely to seize is yours.

That was one reason why the South lost the war, they didn't want to arm the millions of slaves they had because they thought it was a bad idea. Probably would have been, too.

 

[rupol2000]

Somehow I don't see arming your slaves as a very smart idea. The territory they're most likely to seize is yours.

The armies of the left were extremely subordinate, they could not organize themselves for rebellion. It is for this very reason. If they needed professionals, they hired federates outside, mercenary units. This remains now. Purely volunteer army only in the USA.

 

[rupol2000]

Somehow I don't see arming your slaves as a very smart idea. The territory they're most likely to seize is yours.

In fact, these armies were not even controlled by the military, but by officials. This is the Prussian model of the army. The military solved only minor operational tasks, and tactics were extremely primitive.

 

[rupol2000]

Аs a rule, all their tactics boiled down to moving forward in extended formation along the front, with heavy losses, constantly closing ranks. Sometimes they lined up in separate groups, but this is almost the same. They were taught to be hardy, to be able to quickly rebuild and follow orders unquestioningly. They couldn't do anything else. Officials dealt only with issues of rebuilding, offensive and retreat.

Therefore, such an army was not a threat to the state.

 

[rupol2000]

Somehow I don't see arming your slaves as a very smart idea. The territory they're most likely to seize is yours.

In addition, we are talking about slaves here, and slaves get used to submission, and it is unlikely that they even thought about organizing a rebellion. For them it was like sacrilege. Even in conditions of freedom, the slave mentality makes itself felt. Slaves voluntarily reject freedom, they subconsciously seek their masters, they do not like freedom and do not know what to do with it. They themselves want to be built and indicated to them the rules of behavior, which they fulfill with joy. Like a dog will not feel better without the owner, even if he beats it, it will be faithful to him, it does not know where to find food, and the owner feeds it.

 

[rupol2000]

The greatest danger in context of rebelition, to colonial empires is not their own slaves, relocated to new territory, but the peoples whose lands are colonized. If they are assimilated, it incurs additional costs and risks. Therefore, they prefer to exterminate them. For British imperialism, it is now the people of the USA. For China - the Uighurs. And they try to do it without too much noise.

 

[rupol2000]

This is exactly what happened in the USA. British farmers moved to the West, there they were resisted, and thrown out of America. And then this flame of Revolution spread to France, and than spread to all Europe. After Great Hungarian Revolution Europe was Free, then began counterrevolution from Prussia.

 

[rupol2000]

Now they are rewriting these events in such a way that supposedly the Hungarian revolution was suppressed with the help of Russian troops. But this is a lie. After that, liberation reforms were carried out in Eastern Europe and Russia and slavery was abolished. Even if Hungarian revolution was supressed, than only temporary. In 1861 Revolution win everywhere

 

[The Irish Ram]

The time from the American Revolution to Obama was a grand attempt to break imperialism, the legacy of agricultural civilization. It was an attempt to destroy slavery on earth, whenever the anti-federalists came to power, they did it, they fought for Freedom.

Obama's open border creates and supports slavery. He is truly a horrible person...

 

[rupol2000]

Obama's open border creates and supports slavery. He is truly a horrible person...

I mean the time before Obama came to the White House. Before 2009