So you believe that exploitation is justified and you would be fine when put subject to it? @Orson Krennic

did they benefit from the exploitation?

Exploitation isn't immoral

So

if the answer is yes then the exploitation is moral

Because nothing is immoral

So you believe exploitation is moral because in the scenario that it benefits you the individual?

if it benefits the nation then it is moral

So if you were cucked from the fruits of your labor, because it benefited the state you would be fine with it?

lol this is your brain on marxism

That doesnt answer my question

''yeh i dont care if you had to invest and organise something you dont deserve and reward''

this is what you think

It's moral because nothing is immoral

Might makes right

There's your justification

But economically

India grew more under Britain than in any time period

Look at their GDP

Who gives you the economic means to buy machinery? @Deleted User

The workers, right?

lmao

what wage does the owner extract for organising the means of production in order to be efficient?

according to you nothing

Because the workers can mutually agree to do that themselves

lmao
indians were gonna build the railroads?

they were gonna do that any day now

gods youre dumb

If the British didnt rob them of trillions then they most likely would have

idk if thats even true
also money does not = tech otherwise mansa musa would have built wakanda lmao

The Indians would've done the exact same with the money

And put it into the world market

And the British had the means to develop the Indian nation better than the Indians could

@Deleted User technology didnt exist so obviously he didnt

lmao this nigga thinks that money = iq

ffs

Dont put words in my mouth

if the indians had some more money they would have been as advanced as the west
ridiculous

oh yeh and the whole 45 trillion line is actually BS https://youtu.be/QAXPIhnQocM?t=1714

its literally impossible

they would have to have looted over 95% of the whole economy