Why do third worldists completely ignore the entirely unique forms of repression workers in the imperial core face? The level of chemical butchery in the imperial core is just astounding.
>>2401774Third worldists cry about actual material deprivation that first worlders cause regardless of class
>>2401773They’re part of the problem, remittances are not a productive way to build an economy
>>2401777volunatrism in the reverse. the proletariat just needs to
will itself outside the production process + faux luxemburgeois understanding of imperialism. try again
>the entirely unique forms of repression workers in the imperial coreAOC's neurotic settler allies are not simply German style nazi genocidaires, they are also German style neurotic crazy people who are literally falling over out of their mental distress like the guy in Zone of Interest
https://reason.com/2019/08/05/at-the-democratic-socialists-of-america-convention-clapping-chatter-and-gendered-language-are-considered-triggering/>chemical butchery"medicine is actually oppression" imagine being this privileged lmao…lets just say these degenerates aren't having babies born with flippers for hands like their slaves in India whose water and air and homes are full of deadly toxins that exist for the sake of the parasite class
https://interplasinsights.com/plastic-industry-insights/latest-plastics-industry-insights/top-10-countries-responsible-for-most-plastic-waste/Top 10 countries ranked by most waste exported per year:
Germany: 688,067 tonnes
Japan: 606,374 tonnes
United Kingdom: 600,000 tonnes
Netherlands: 576,702 tonnes
United States: 431,841 tonnes
Belgium: 391,263 tonnes
France: 344,367 tonnes
Italy: 205,621 tonnes
Canada: 201,780 tonnes
Austria: 174,976 tonnes
Collectively, these top 10 countries export more than 4.4 million tonnes of plastic waste per year, representing 71% of all plastic waste exports. Additionally, all these exporters are high-income, developed nations - with seven of them in Europe.
>>2401798>define labor aristocratA prole with a foot in the ruling class, this includes everyone with a US, EU, or Japanese passport. Only the proles with
NOTHING TO LOSE have an interest in overthrowing capitalism.
>>2401802>A prole with a foot in the ruling classvague and hard to define, there's plenty of those in the "third world" too. in fact i'll get you an accurate definition of labor aristocrat without this jargon, a worker in a nation who directly benefits from imperialist plunder and works to protect the imperialist system (like labor unions in early 20th century australia), the problem is that this definition really is only a small number of any proletariat in any of your "three worlds"
>>2401801please sir, take your meds
>>2401816>your relation to capital is defined by your nationalitylets stick with proletarians being reserveless and propertyless instead of this essentialist bullshit thanks
>>2401821>all unions are proletarian in naturecmon dude
>>2401835the anarchist mind is so funny. they say, we need to go among people that are in the working class struggle. and then they look at real existing working class organizations (yellow reformist syndicates) and claim those are not
real syndicates - like you dumbass what's real is what exists not what you think it should be. you not wanting to work among the current rotten syndicates makes a you a retarded anarchist and leftcom (no surprise, this is the new hype among the 'youth')
>>2401860half of those are correct LMAO
marx, engels or even lenin had nothing good to say about university students or even teachers
>>2401845there is no JDPON and there never will be
>>2401842how does war crimes affect a country's class position lol
>>2401872>how does war crimes affect a country's class position lolits bait
>>2401879>reflectionso they arent the main cause so why even bring them up
>>2401885nope, considering communism as a highly biased movement rejects any cross-class demands
>>2401886its as retarded as defining the middle class as "collects funko pops". sure, many of them do that, but bringing that up instead of a more fundamental analysis about property and reserves and relations to capital is stupid as fuck
>>2401900>Hence why communism is generally considered "the far left"By whom and why should I care? That term is even more retarded and vibes-based. Communism is its own thing and not a part of any other movement.
>"Leftism" as an umbrella term includes both reformist and ""revolutionary"" trendsHow can you write this shit and still not get it?
Who will tell these retards that communists supported shit like women's rights or national democracies only insofar as they advanced the cause of class not as ends in themselves? That historical condition no longer exists today, yet kids continue to champion these causes out of sentimentality.
>>2401916>le rightoidsYep, it's all vibes here. You're a fucking retard whose only """analysis""" comes from spite, not actually looking at things how they are.
>we're not like those dirty rainbow haired transgender leftistsWho the fuck said anything remotely like this in the whole thread? Take your meds you schizophrenic retard.
>>2401914Yes yes I've heard it all before, communism is "the real movement" which is totally not an arbitrary category that can be used to justify anything and everything, you have nothing in common with those wimpy degenerate leftists because "the real movement" also means fully buying into rightoid spooks but framing them with communist sounding buzzwords
>>2401923Dude your entire objection to communism being leftists is nothing but vibes, dont kid yourself
>>2401937still cant refute the idea that communism as a highly biased movement rejects any interclassist reform (and ideology in general!) puts it completely at odds with anything that comes from all the bullshit that falls under the left-right bourgeois categories
>while you were all accusing each other of being anarchistsi was the one who got called an anarchist you massive retard LMFAO
>>2401943leftism (just like rightism) is literally a product of bourgeois ideology and fat retarded americans still act shocked when you explain to them why communism by definition is not associated with it lol
>>2401946>in colonial and feudal conditionslol confirmed for not even reading the posts youre getting, the other anon already pointed it out quite clearly
>>2401914<Who will tell these retards that communists supported shit like women's rights or national democracies only insofar as they advanced the cause of class not as ends in themselves? That historical condition no longer exists today, yet kids continue to champion these causes out of sentimentality. >>2401976stop word salading and get the point, communism is a movement to destroy the current world as it exists with a hammer, and build a new one from that, based on the principle of each according to their ability, each according to their need, and that world cannot be defined in the arbitrary labels constructed by rationalist ideologues like "left" or "right", which do not exist in the real world, have no concrete definitions, and are extremely variant, but our goal is not, our goal is that society
>>2401995because anarchism holds to bourgeois ideology, and communism doesn't, it's actually just that simple
>>2401999i don't think that's how arguments work
>>2401988what?
>>2401996source, zero, evidence, zero
>>2402010he who asks, must first provide it himself
>>2401988leftcoms being illiterate example #1230827350823598
in the Communist Manifesto (written years after German Ideology and thus a more accurate summary of his views) Marx outlines a series of demands and even throws his support behind bourgeois movements that he saw as historically progressive.
So yes it is a state of affairs to be established as outlined by none other than MARX HIMSELF.
Also the German Ideology was never even published until 1932 and only then by the Soviet Union. So most Marxists never even SAW these fucking words in the entire history of mankind.
>>2401975uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
like sure what people refer to as "communist society" is simply the proletarian association expanding to cover the whole world and abolishing class, doest mean it doesnt have goals to fulfill
>>2402030>le communist manfiestoAKA a leaflet from young Marx that he ends up revising when writing Capital.
In the Manifesto, capitalism is portrayed as a revolutionary and almost uniformly destructive force.
Later, in Capital (1867), Marx gives a more detailed and nuanced analysis, showing how capitalism works through labor exploitation, commodity fetishism, and surplus value.
You are illiterate and fail to realize that communism is adaptive, retarded reactionary nationalist MLoid.
>>2402039post literally says association expands and abolishes class
did you think this was a smart nitpick to post LOL
>>2402057awful
>>2402058bad but at least closer, these at most only superficially resemble feudalism, but this is mostly just agrarian capitalism
>>2402058>>2402062>peasant classLMFAO called it holy shit
youre such a massive retard you literally conflate agriculture with feudalism
wage labor is the basis of agriculture everywhere on the basis of accumulation of value to be competitive, it is completely bourgeois thus the only class relations that emerge are bourgeois and proletarian you stupid fuck
>>2402082no, you said "slave economy", you're shifting the goalposts
>>2402080do this NOW
>>2402085an unfortunate fact
>>2402094also do this one
>>2402089i have no clue why people do this, it's just weird behavior to go "well actually this has slaves, therefore it's not capitalist!" or "this has peasants, there were no capitalist states with peasants!" it's just silly
>>2402095YOU WOKE UP NEWFAGS?
REMEMBER REVLEFT? I BET YOU DON'T.
>>2402115Yes the proletarians within the composite of the bourgeois state of RuZZia which is ultimately LE LESSER EVIL. It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htmYou VILL side with SVO and the conservative or bourgeois socialist currents which uphold the lesser evilisms of Za world! You VILL join WAGNER during WW3! You VILL find comradery within the real movement of the present state of things of ziggas.
>>2402127Dear REAL COMMUNINISTS, read DUGIN, your movement will not commence anytime soon, while EVRAZZIA shakes the weSSt and LIQUIDATES IT!
>>2402130Its not happening, sorry bro, settle for a realistic option like communist aesthetics <<в составе Россия>>.
>>2402133Notice how when the anarchist is thoroughly embarrassed he resorts to strawmanning his opponents all while using blatantly racist caricatures
Leftypol indeed
>>2402134what the hell are you talking about?
>>2402132no i don't think i will
>>2402134I noticed bro, but he will accept the SVO one day when we GLOBALIZE THE SVO! Eurasia <<EVRAZZIA>> WILL COMMENCE WITH RUSSIA <<RUZZIA>> И КИТАЙ <<CHINA>> IN A SINO-SLAVIC UNITY OF PEOPLES! THE FOURTH POLITICAL IDEOLOGY WILL COMMENCE IMMIDIATELY WITH THE FIFTH!
Z
>>2401598Well there's a simple answer to that, Many Maoist Third Worldists are actually unwitting stooges of the FBI to try to stifle actual socialist thought in America and the first world by doing some spooky pseudo-christian morality to try to make people feel guilty over stuff they never had a hand in doing.
Not to mention that J. Sakai was definitely a FBI plant doing COINTELPRO with his Settlers book. He did many misinterpretations about Foster of the IWW.
>>2402213You'd think Maoists would all be over the psychiatric oppression of the Black community. I suppose that would require acknowledging the psychiatric oppression of queer people and apparently homosexuality is bourgeois decadence.
I thought it would be interesting to see a third-worldist perspective on works like Robert Chapman's "Empire of Normality" anyhow.
>>2401788Please read Marx specifically the Political and Philosophical Manuscripts where he turns around the question of good economic periods for the proletariat and concludes wages can firstly only rise if the extraction of surplus value is secured much more closely, and high wage periods just set up the stage for deepening poverty when crisis strikes again, this has literally been true for the entire western working class, only turd worldists, being cynical hitlerites that confused themselves for Marxists because, peculiar for a hitlerite, they hate the West and white people, instead of analyzing the fate of western proletarians (despite often being western proletarians) just take bitter schadenfreude in workers they utterly despised becoming poorer
>>2401796The labor aristocracy doesn’t refer to proles who aren’t dirt poor, it specifically referred to the leaders of the labor movement who had a vested interest in collaborating with their imperialist rulers because they had a greater chance at maintaining their own position as the heads of the labor movement by negotiating a settlement between labor and capital that secured continued surplus value extraction while setting up the government to stabilize some of the worst iniquities of capitalism to quell the worker’s revolutionary activities
>>2401802These moralizing garbage rants don’t understand Marx fucking at all, you may as well say it doesn’t apply to *any* worker. The chain is not poverty, it is the wage itself, the worker’s chain is their reliance on the wage and therefore submission to capital simply to survive. Not only is this true in the West, it is so true that possibly the majority of western labor are technically involved in non-productive labor that does not technically generate surplus value in the form of a physical good, however the Western governments nevertheless force these people to work and in fact has sought to dismantle the state handled welfare systems for fifty years now, bit by bit
The chain the worker is subdued by is the wage itself
>>2402213>actually unwitting stooges of the FBI to try to stifle actual socialist thought in America <thoughtGo lecture your slaves in your nazi ghettos sweety, I'm sure they'll love to hear your epic redditor theories about universalism
>spooky pseudo-christian morality to try to make people feel guilty over stuff they never had a hand in doing. Israeli settlers: "Hamas are brutally violent, like the Cossacks, who oppress innocent white workers! Why do you deny our right to defend ourselves from the terror?"
>>2401598I think there is a confusion among some first world communists who cannot imagine an anti-imperialist position following their own class interests, regressing them to some moralistic position of blaming an identitarian privilege to blame other workers for remaining passive as an alternative to liberalism, reformism and other types of class conciliation instead of fighting together with the workers of the world so that the rate of profit of the imperialist capitalists falls more quickly and this is not contradictory to fighting for the labor rights of native and immigrant workers along with solidarity in not tolerating imperialist exploitation in the world outside the country that will eventually be used for pacification, co-optation, bribery and repression to intensify exploitation.
>>2401802>>2401803The labor aristocracy is a small minority where some class traitors opportunistically try to co-opt workers so that they do not organize and have solidarity among themselves, leading to an ideology of class conciliation with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers to weaken the movement collectively.
The communist movement is not a proletarian identity but a radical movement for the proletarian class to gain supremacy in order to abolish private property and profit, thereby abolishing social classes and the proletariat as a proletariat to be organized by the community on a common plan as workers. The working class is the most revolutionary and needs a movement independent of the bourgeoisie, but this movement has to be from the perspective of the revolutionary class so that the other working classes that do not have a direct connection with the means of production can act with what they have in common with the revolutionary class to socialize and advance the movement and not get into anarchist or reformist confusion of class conciliation.
All other classes can become communists if they do not forget the perspective they are fighting for and they must act with what they have in common with the radical movement of the working class to abolish the present state of things so that there is no confusion, therefore you have intellectuals who will serve the proletarian class to assume power, together with the other working classes who recognize their interest in the supremacy of the proletariat. The capitalist class can become communist if it becomes a class traitor for the destruction of its class and sees an interest in the emancipation of humanity and the end of the exploitation of man by man in the future.
The labor aristocracy is a type of representative of the working class that weakens the workers' movement with the opportunism of class conciliation to deceive and divide them, I think it is very likely that the criticism for unions with the co-opted leadership to betray the working class applies in this definition as a type of class traitor. Remembering that the bribe that the capitalist offers is optional as a concession tactic along with repression to facilitate the exploitation of capital.
Let's see what Lenin have to say about the labor aristocracy:
<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”
<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….
<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”[…]
<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.[…]
<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.[…]
<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.
<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.
<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!
<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.
<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.
<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”Source:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm >>2403147>Maoid has no response but national chauvinismTypical
Why don’t you fucking faggots ever go be a guerrilla with the noble savages instead of posting on the internet about how badly you want to murder your neighbors?
Unique IPs: 37