Can someone give me non-bullshit explanation of how exactly Western PROLETARIAT benefits from imperialism?
The West exported their investments and know-how and helped in the industrialization of the third world. Not just China, but also SEA, Asian tigers, India, Brazil, Poland, Malaysia etc. This resulted in the exact opposite of what happened in colonialism. The Western industries were hollowed out this time, and outsourced to the third world. Now sure, the Western bourgie benefited from this, but the money didnt trickle down much. That's why in the 1970s you could support a family and live a decent life doing a simple blue collar job and now you cant. So where exactly did the Western PROLETARIAT benefit from this imperialism?
1% of the Brazilian population earns 20k BRL or more per month. It's a very bougie income cut. But that's only 4k USD per month.
exploitation of the third world and control over the global financial system and the world reserve currency allows western governments to build up productive forces by making non westerners do all the hard labor, freeing up their own population to pursue more specialized work/education, feeding again into an expansion of the productive forces, technological advancement, advanced social welfare systems, etc. Basically, westoid proles benefit by not being the ones in sweatshops making sneakers all day
You see, buying sneakers and iPhone makes western proles immune to capitalism. It's a +3 counter against the -2 attack of capitalists owning the means of production. So the western prole working in a shipyard or a restaurant has more priviledge than a capitalist living south of the Mediterranean. They are in serious need of checking their privilege!
>>2536067You should look at purchasing power parity. GDP PPP per capita of Brazil is like 1/3rd average European country. So not that poor. Brazils main problem is extreme corruption, sclerotic government, bad industrial policy etc. All self caused problems.
>>2536071But eastern euro countries did very well economically post USSR. In fact they are some of the few Western countries that actually grew quickly in this period. So overall if the relationship between East Europe and West Europe can be described as imperialistic, then imperialism actually benefited the poorer country in this case.
>>2536096Except the financialization of the economy led to hollowing out of the productive forces. And only a tiny subset of workers work in R&D and IT. They're all being replaced by AI and outsourcing as well. Lots of people don't know, it's not just coding and call centres being outsourced to India, even things like design engineering and sales operations are being outsourced.
>>2536102Lel
Thats nice and all, but can you stop killing black ppl
I think the post-colonial protectionism that 3rd world countries had is actually a successful psyop by Western countries. The West didn't want economic competition, so they successfully convinced leftist academic intellegenstia of the post colonial nations that protectionism was gonna help them. But they knew that the post-colonial countries didnt have the institutions and human capital to make it actually work. So the third world basically delayed it's industrializaition by decades because they got scammed into adopting bad economic policies.
>>2536117>Brazils main problem is extreme corruptionSorry but that's retarded. How many billions in corruption do you think Brazil bleeds per year?
>>2536123Also purchasing power parity is sometimes 1:1 or more expensive depending on the commodities. Technology is more expensive in Brazil even in non-relative price because it's not produced locally. Housing and food are about the same, maybe housing less expensive and groceries more expensive relative to the purchasing power.
As an example of treats, the PS5 costs more than three minimum wages here, and about 50% of the population earns minimum wage or less.
>>2536123>Studies by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV) from 2009 estimate that the Brazilian economy loses from corruption, every year, from one to four percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the equivalent of one value over 30 billion reais.[6] The following year, a study by the Federação das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (Fiesp) found that the annual cost of corruption in the country is 1.38 percent to 2.3 percent of the GDP.] In 2013, a study by the Industry National Confederation showed that each real misappropriated by corruption represents a damage to the economy and society of three reais.And it's not just direct stealing of tax money that's the problem. Pervasive culturally-ingrained corruption makes it impossible to make the difficult reforms needed to set the economy straight, because every economic clique wants to protect its niche and can do so by undermining institutions through bribery, violence, blackmail etc.
>This resulted in the exact opposite of what happened in colonialism. The Western industries were hollowed out this time, and outsourced to the third world. Now sure, the Western bourgie benefited from this, but the money didnt trickle down much
that's an oversimplification, in reality the wealth gap exploded but the shift to services-oriented economy did bolster a large, educated middle class which created the conditions for justifying the disenfranchisement of workers who were unable to "upskill" into the service and corporate and professional roles. it was a bifurcation of the working class that remains a core contradiction of the Western world. that's the essence of the so-called professional-managerial class.
if you're a burger, the benefit is even more clear. there are tens of millions of suburban households in America that are a net negative on the global economy. they work completely unproductive jobs and businesses that are more like Disneyland stands than economic output, and exist to consume commodities paid for with the dollar which in turn bolsters the dollar even more as you consume products and resources from foreign lands bought with the dollar for dollar-holders.
The main privilege Westoid proles have is not being bombed and sanctioned to death, the absence of disadvantage is itself a privilege
>>2536132Americans consuming commodity is the only positive thing Americans contribute for the global economy. There are two moment in which the dollar collapsed and Amrricans were unable to consoom, the first is during the 1973 oil crisis which singlehandedly killed developmentalism and pan africanism in the Third World due to collapse of export to Europe. The second is during the 2008 crisis which coupled with bad loans from opportunistic American firms plunged Africa into a second warlordist period and paved the way for the Arab winter. World systems theory had simply become outdated in the face of these two shocks because it proved that an autarchic model of growth is nigh impossible and we need to follow the China model
>>2536151And now the US and EU is restarting protectionism while also destabilising the world through wars. A double whammy to development in the third world. China can help the global south by massively increasing imports. But a more hands-on solution is to straight up invade the West and force them to accept unequal trade terms.
you dont get bombed when porkies have a melty
>>2536135Harrison Bergeron ass take
>how exactly Western PROLETARIAT benefits from imperialism?
By its very existence?
>>2536135Nobody should be bombed and sanctioned to death
They don't really.
>>2536534If they don’t benefit from imperialism, why hasn’t thee been a successful communist revolution in any imperial core country?
>>2536117>But eastern euro countries did very well economically post USSR.didn't someone here do the math a while ago showing that ukraine still hasn't recovered economically
>>2536536Lack of organization. That's slowly improving.
>>2536536How do you show the difference between "western porkies let wages rise enough to allow for some savings" and "western porkies transferred net superprofits" in an SNLT transfer accounting for things like developmental differences?
because it actually starts getting very weird trying to make any sense of how marx described capitalist rules if you don't actually keep that primary
>>2536536I would say the petty bourgeoisie benefits from imperialism while the proletariat is simply eroded, and their numbers dwindle. In the core also you have a lot of prisoners. There's a reason the USA has more prisoners per capita than any othe country. These are used as slaves to perform jobs that a proletariat would otehrwise perform. Proletarian jobs in the core are outsourced, or given to desperate immigrants, or given to prisoners. People are encouraged to become class traitors, like cops, or security guards, bodyguards, prison guards, etc. The ranks of the petty bourgeois home owner swell. Everyone is kept distracted with identity politics and forever war.
one example I've seen given recently is that the IWU made an exception for Israeli cargo and other "national security" cargo during one of their more recent strikes, i.e. they refused to load ships with harmless commodities, but still loaded ships as long as Uncle Sam Government declared it crucial to the burger reich's plunder. So there are instances where imperial coreu unionized workers (if not workers in general) can be seen to either benefit from, or turn a blind eye to, imperialism.
>>2536537According to official world bank data, the overall inflation adjusted ppp gdp per capita growth rate in the former USSR since 87-88 is abysmal, but in Eastern Europe its only meh overall (Although overall gdp growth for given country tends to be worse then its per capita because of higher death rates & emigration lowering the total population)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=RUYou can add an easy 7-12% to get the 87-88 peak figures (ie. pre-perestroika)
>>2536547Not saying that it wasn't scum-shit behavior but that doesn't really explain how it benefitted the dockloaders. (for accuracy's sake, it was the ILWU).
>>2536064<Can someone give me non-bullshit explanation of how exactly Western PROLETARIAT benefits from imperialism?It doesn't, the western bourgeoisie does, and the only reason the proles had it good from 1945-1975 is socdem/fordist keynesian order of wealth re-distribution, social services and and unionized factory jobs. The western prole has been getting less and less and is a on a decline in terms of living standards since the late 70s till today. In exchange a few more jobs in high finance and technology were created but only accessible to certain people and doesn't create the mass employment of manufacturing so Chadwick the Harvard legacy gets to get his MBA and become a product manager of bullshit at Google or VP at wealth management goldman sachs while Jimmy the prole is selling homemade knives after his job at the coal mine or widget factory went away while his daughter is selling her body for opioids.
People talking about muh privileged western proles are living decades in the past, when you talk about actual PROLES, not petit bourgeoise landlords or wealthy retirees or kulak tier petit rentier farmers with like $20 million worth of land worked by illegal mexicans while they LARP with a overalls and shiny F series truck, when you talk about actual PROLES, they have it worse than ever.
The fact is as far as quality of life goes a high tier thirdoid civil servant lives an order of magnitude better than an out of work coal miner of west virginia and even getting paid lower wages in a thirdoid country allows them to hire the cheap as fuck labor because there's so much cheap labor around, and have a maid and a butler and all kinds of shit westoids haven't had since the victorian era.
>>2536536That's now how logic works. You first have to prove your assumptions
>>2536761Thank you for saying this. I live in a Western European country and all I see are the living conditions degrading endlessly, year after year. I'm currently homeless, most of my friends earn the minimum wage or even less. The price of rentals, food and public transports have doubled if not tripled in the last ten years, while wages remain stagnant.
I know the situation in Eastern Europe isn't any better, where wages are even lower while prices approach Western European levels, but I have a really hard time seeing how do we benefit from the abstract concept of "imperialism", which involved in Lenin's time
capital investments abroad under subjugation by a powerful military force, because all I see around me are more crackheads in the streets. When we hear third-worldists, the West is both simultaneously crumbling while every Western prole is a mega-porky earning a 400k yearly salary while owning ten thousand houses. It's either one or the other.
I like how for westoids "homeless" means "doesn't own real estate"
>>2537049No, it means I can't rent anything easily because I'm unemployed and I don't have the guarantees landlords want (someone in my family earning 3 times the amount of the rent in one month), even if I have enough money to rent something small. So I sleep on the couch of friends right now.
For me, it's rather telling that you think it's a matter of owning real estate. Not everyone is a bitter petit bourgeois failson like you. Some people are poor in the West and don't own real estate. Again, get your story straight: either the West is crumbling, or we all own 2 private jets and 5 McMansions. It can't be both at the same time.
>>2537053Most people in the 3w live in one place with their extended families, your complaint is that you can't gentrify an urban area
It's the internally colonized and marginalized who first bear the brunt of imperial decline and most harshly
>>2537066The house of my family is small and there are basically no jobs there. They get by earning less than the minimum wage.
What you say might sound morally righteous on xitter, but you seem completely disconnected from the reality of how the world functions for a normal prole. Saying "third world people live with their extended families" doesn't amount to anything, as if I could say that to my family and everything would be solved immediately. And keep in mind, I'm already considering moving back to my family place for a while, even if it means being stuck in the middle of nowhere without any job opportunities.
Enjoy your treats, you don't have to LARP as bargain-bin Maoist to feel good in the comfort of your family home. You just want to shame poor people with a red veneer, but deep down inside, you have the same ideology as neoliberals when it comes to blaming workers for their poverty, while never ever criticizing the bourgeoisie.
>>253612630 billion BRL is chump change in the grand scale of public investment in Brazil.
>le brazilian people are le culturally corruptThis is reactionary propaganda, mutt's syndrome. This is not material analysis. You're retarded.
>>2537075nta, but dude don't compare our situation in western europe, even being homeless in western europe, with the state of the third world. People have options here man, social welfare nets, economic opportunity that simply does not exist elsewhere. The wages alone are an immediate indication, despite them having been stagnant for decades they are still vastly preferable to almost anywhere else, thousands and thousands of people upend their entire life in their home country, risking their lives in some cases, just for the chance to live here and maybe send some of that money back to their families. This is all interlinked. Just because there is also poverty here and the imperial decline/decades of neoliberal austerity policy have caused a massive decline in standards of living and previously mentioned economic opportunity, doesn't mean that the people living in the imperial core don't benefit from living there in comparison to those who live on the periphery, even when they are not bourgeois. It doesn't make you some larping maoist to acknowledge that
>>2536064>Can someone give me non-bullshit explanation of how exactly Western PROLETARIAT benefits from imperialism?The bourgeoisie feeds them treats made by the workers and peasants therefore they are bourgeois who subsist from surplus-vaue. A class of imperialist worker aristocrats has indeed enjoyed a higher standard of living at the charity of the bourgeoisie. They are no longer members of the workers' ranks, but renegades of of the proletariat. These worker aristocrats who have been bought by the bourgeoisie must be eliminated.
>The West exported their investments and know-how and helped in the industrialization of the third world.Wrong. The supreme law of monopoly capitalism, the law of uneven development, dictates that imperialism is the greatest fetter upon third world productive forces.
>>2536102The treatlerite admits they expropriate wealth from the third-world, yet they attempt to tell us they are not exploiters. Middle classes suffer in any system of exploitation. The term middle class denotes that are still exploiters.
>>2537075Your situation seems dire and of existential importance to you,and in a way that's true: when middle classers, petty booj and boojs fail to reproduce the class they were born into, they lose their subjectivity (becoming "losers") and join the grey mass of the declassed that nobody even wants to even think about as "fellow citizens/people" (immigrants, internally colonized, marginalized, etc.). And that sucks.
But for the actually oppressed, it's not a matter of losing subjectivity. It's a matter of survival. They *have* no parents home to go back to, they just die. Either from social murder, or being directly killed by the state.
BOOMP
>>2537088I do agree that people in the West have better living standards, better wages, and in some cases better social welfare (not the case in the USA though). But guess what? This isn't 1965 or 1995 anymore, the social welfare systems of most countries have been gutted, the wages aren't indexed on inflation anymore, a normal worker can't buy a house or rent easily, etc. Also what's the point of earning more if in the end, we spend more to reproduce the material conditions of our existence? It makes traveling abroad more attractive, but that's it.
And that doesn't change the fact that I don't see how I currently profit from imperialism. Was the cheap Chinese phone I own produced because of imperialism? If you say yes, you basically says China is complicit in Western imperialism.
Third-worldism is an incoherent ideology for petit-bourgeois kids who discovered Marxism a couple of months ago and feel guilty about enjoying treats while living standards are collapsing around them. "If you are poor, you deserve it" is the final message, the same exact message that capitalists use to justify their exploitation of workers worldwide.
So yes, I do agree that people in Western Europe have it better than most people, but I won't simp for the third-world bourgeoisie who earn infinitely more than I will ever do and already own 5 villas on the Italian coast and Switzerland.
Maybe most of you have zero problems in life, but it's not my case and I refuse to self-flagellate to show to the world I'm morally superior compared to a boogeyman that exists only in the mind of maladjusted online activists.
If any of you went outside for once, you would see some people are dirt poor in the West and I don't see how they "benefit from imperialism". Really that's my problem with the whole shtick. Does someone begging money in the streets "benefit from imperialism"? Are they exploiting the third-world every time someone give them a 20 cents coin? This is never explained by third-worldists, they use big words to make grandiose statements, but they never talk about concrete situations.
I already disagree with the implication that *if* western imperialism doesn’t benefit the western proletariat, then it’s not their problem and it’s solely up to the victims to resist.
>>2537109>This is never explained by third-worldists, they use big words to make grandiose statements, but they never talk about concrete situations.Ironic. This fascist typed all of these words merely to double down in support of their imperialist system of exploitation in defiance of Marxist principle of national sovereignty.
>>2537120You say this but 100 years of western labor movements engaging in tailism, workerism and opportunism shows that material interests still trump all.
It started with cpusa patsoc shit and culminated with aoc, bernie, mamdani, and now a mercenary with a totenkopf tattoo. Total capitulation to neoliberal fascist establishment.
>>2537120Nobody said this, of course the western proletariat should for example sabotage weapon shipments to Israel. Third-worldists love arguing against positions nobody believe in, so they can assert the western proletariat is ontologically evil and the third-world bourgeoisie is wholesome like the good lapdogs of capital they are.
>>2537129Well then what’s the relevance of the question in the OP?
>>2537126More big words, no material analysis of the situation of the proletariat neither in the West nor elsewhere. Also Marx never praised "national sovereignty", if anything he wanted capital to dissolve national identities so the worldwide communist revolution would be kickstarted. Lenin was not Marx.
>>2537137I honestly don't understand your question.
>>2537150>I honestly don't understand your questionIf the implication is not
<if I don’t benefit from it, then I shouldn’t be held particularly responsible for stopping itthen what is the relevance of OP’s question? What are we to conclude from the answer either way?
>>2537150I used small words. The material analysis was decreed by lenin stalin mao. The imperialists exploit the workers and the peasants. You are dogmatic revisionist imperialist. Marx himself stated that he was not a marxist nor did he live in the age of proletarian revolution so his abstract incidental formulations have no meaning
Before imperialism, no spices in Europe, spices expensive
With imperialism, suddenly theres spices and sugar
>>2537160I honestly still don't understand your point. OP's question is "How does the western proletariat benefit from imperialism?". I think OP wanted concrete examples of how the western proletariat is profiting, or not, from imperialism.
My answer is that they might benefit from a higher standard of living, perhaps indirectly in part due to imperialism (whatever that mean, online MLs can't even define it properly, they just blurb something "exporting capital" without providing current-day examples like I don't know, precious metal mining in Congo and who is profiting from it), but the general class distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie still remains.
An African or Russian capitalist who owns a villa on the French Riviera doesn't have a worst standard of living than a cashier at Walmart. Yes, a worker in Germany can buy a phone for cheaper than a worker in Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean the German cashier working at Lidl is bourgeois or directly exploiting the third-world.
That was the diagnosis, then there is the question of "what should be done about this?". Well I can say for sure posturing about how western workers are evil on the internet and telling them they are treatlerites won't change shit. The answer is international solidarity.
>>2537163>You are dogmatic revisionist imperialist. Buzzwords. Wake up grandma, Khrushchev died 55 years ago.
>Marx himself stated that he was not a marxist Indeed, because he thought the people speaking in his name were morons, and the historical trend is continuing.
>>2537193I can define it quite easily.
It's the flow of labor from the third world to the imperial core.
It's why smartphones are so cheap while healthcare is so expensive.
The former is made in china and you have to pay a chinese assembler and a congolese cobalt miner to make it, while for the latter you have to pay a westoid's wages to live.
>>2537088>nta, but dude don't compare our situation in western europe, even being homeless in western europe, with the state of the third world. People have options here man, social welfare nets, economic opportunity that simply does not exist elsewhere. The wages alone are an immediate indication, despite them having been stagnant for decades they are still vastly preferable to almost anywhere else, thousands and thousands of people upend their entire life in their home country, risking their lives in some cases, just for the chance to live here and maybe send some of that money back to their families. This is all interlinked. Just because there is also poverty here and the imperial decline/decades of neoliberal austerity policy have caused a massive decline in standards of living and previously mentioned economic opportunity, doesn't mean that the people living in the imperial core don't benefit from living there in comparison to those who live on the periphery, even when they are not bourgeois. It doesn't make you some larping maoist to acknowledge thatnot a europoor but plenty of middle countries are approaching if not exceeding europe living standards. East asia in particular. Euro living standards aren't even that good I mean just look at any Chinese city or even Japanese vs modern day Paris, and the level of cleanliness and public infrastructure and modern buildings. I mean yes if you are comparing Scandinavian levels of social welfare then no, but in actual historically "imperialist" countries like the UK/France/etc. the level of historical looting doesn't seem to have trickled down to the man on the street? Europe is fucking depressing I can't imagine living there.
>>2537193>Well I can say for sure posturing about how western workers are evil on the internet and telling them they are treatlerites won't change shitYeah I get that's the point behind OP's question and your rant, but I suppose what I'm getting at is how does that relate to
>The answer is international solidarity.Because either answer to the question seems to be
<The western proletariat doesn't benefit at allor
<The western proletariat does benefit, but only in a very minor way, get over itbut what difference does either make when surely the connection between the western proletariat and western imperialism is not one of moral obligation, but just simply both share an origin, by which western imperialism stops when the western proletariat gets organised against the western bourgeoisie. Isn't the solidarity here an understanding that this represents liberation for both half of the world? The garden AND the jungle? That therefore makes it of global importance, no?
So why the outrage against the concept of "treatlerism"? It is a question why western leftists aren't united in that understanding, the framing of the utility that the western left has the best chance against western imperialism as a moral panic "because smartphones", comes across to me as crybullying.
Is
>Oh SURE, I'm not rising against the bourgeoise BECAUSE of the iPHONES, ha! find me some Marx that mentions iPhones pleaseactually sarcasm?
>>2537109Your problem is that you only look at the problem of imperialism as some sort of moral question of who is to be condemned or who personally individually has a better or worse living standard. Again with the comparison to the homeless, being homeless in the third world can be a lot worse than being homeless in for instance western europe where in many cases there is a lot of accommodation and social welfare programs designed to alleviate those conditions that people in third world countries simply don't have access to. The benefit a homeless person receives from living in the imperial core is that they're not a homeless person in the third world.
Also third worldism isn't a real ideology bro, you're mostly shadowboxing with imagined opponents
>>2537297Yeah the imperial core seems to be in decline for the last few decades, but that doesn't automatically erase the build up of previous decades/centuries. We do seem to be at a turning point, or transitionary era, historically speaking
>Europe is fucking depressing I can't imagine living there.There's a lot of worse places to be man, you could be american
>>2537321Maoism Third Worldism is an actual ideology though
>>2537252i would also point out that a lot of things that got cheaper were things that were a lot easier to increase automation in development. Electronics and screens have had pretty huge technical overhauls since 2000.
>>2537351Frankly the issue with imperialism isn't simply the cost of goods, though that's a good reason why people may be reluctant to oppose it, to understand it, pricks who say things like
>online MLs can't even define it properly, they just blurb something "exporting capital"must ask themselves whether the resulting profits and investments stay in the country of export, or repatriated back to the country of origin?
>>2537355The main benefit of imperialism is psychological, seeing poor people getting killed and exploited far away provides a sense of safety and security no matter how false. It can be summed up as
>better them than me and my family >>2536978almost like averages are skewed by outliers. look at median
>>2537376200k is the median
though i think this is also including housing value being absurdly inflated
>>2537355But the corollary to this is assuming that the profits is retained by proles in the West, when it is just fact that most rich people do not transfer their profits into the national economy through consumption but either hoard it or reinvest it back into expanding production (in the third world!) which is why their consumption index is so jarringly low. Indeed, the only part that is still valid from this critique is the absurdly low price of commodity, but even this entails export of investment to the third world. This is why classical economy used to assume that given time imperialism will equalizes the economy of the world
>>2537364I feel like a lot of you guys who keeps saying this or that about the first world worker has never actually talked with first world workers (or indeed, any workers outside of your social circle). This is the root behind the completely absurd conjectures online maoists made about imperial core workers, which operates in the same logic of exoticization that /pol/tard conspiracy theories about Jews thrive on
>>2537392I am a first world worker, so is my boyfriend, that’s what he told me
>>2537150>Also Marx never praised "national sovereignty", if anything he wanted capital to dissolve national identities so the worldwide communist revolution would be kickstarted.Sort of. The revolution starts in various nations at the national level, but spreads internationally. This is why in both
Principles of Communism and in
The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels talk about confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels during the course of the revolution. Marx and Engels anticipated bourgeois flight from countries where revolution was proceeding rapidly to countries where reactionaries were still dominant. We see that today with the USA being the host of anti-communist emigres from every nation that has ever even tried to have a socialist revolution. For Marx and Engels, national sovereignty as a construct that arises in bourgeois society is still useful insofar as it can be used by a revolutionary government to fortify its gains while the world revolution proceeds perhaps more slowly than desired. This is why Stalin ran into the question of Socialism in One Country, which for him was never a matter of Socialism being permanently confined to one country as some people pretend, but rather being confined for the time being, until further notice.
You can sort of see the contradictions of world revolution being played with between points 18 and 19 of
Principles of Communism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmLook at how often the nation is mentioned in point 18. National banks, national factories, national capital, national labor, national schools and daycares, national transit…
then in point 19 is the more vague idea not of a world revolution, but of a 1st world revolution, taking place simultaneously in "civilized" countries, here the limitations of the 19th century thinkers show themselves. The 20th century saw socialist revolution not in the European and North American core, but in "backwards" countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. What we saw in the 20th century was the total attempt to destroy socialism by the core, in the form of CIA coups, and so forth. So Marx's imperial core revolution still hasn't happened even though that is what they anticipated. Instead the core produced national socialism, a reactionary distortion, in Marx's homeland of Germany, and then produced the most vicious anticommunist campaigns of sabotage in the American CIA.
So clearly some predictions of Marx and Engels either are happening way later than they anticipated, or Marxism has evolved beyond the thought of both Marx and Engels….
> Lenin was not Marx.Precisely. Lenin derives his ideas from Marx, but builds upon them, and uses the context of early 20th century imperialism to ground his theory. Just like Lenin built his theory on Marx in some respects, but also allowed for evolution of theory based on new conditions, so did Mao, and everyone else who came after Lenin. What we have today is a pluralism of Marxist thought. This frustrates people who are looking for one Orthodox line, but I think a pluralism of approaches is good and allows for a variety of attacks on capitalism. What did Engels say after Marx died? He said the Marx-Engels doctrine is one of Evolution, not dogma. So of course Lenin was not Marx. Lenin evolved the doctrine to address evolving material conditions. People who cling to Orthodoxy claim capitalism is exactly the same as it was in 1867. I think this is wrong for many reasons but I will stop here to keep this post from getting any longer.
>>2537364>The main benefit of imperialism is psychological, Vibes lmao
>>2537389>But the corollary to this is assuming that the profits is retained by proles in the WestThis is still going down the path of considering imperialism to be a moral panic.
The point is that Capitalism in the imperialised nations does not manifest in the way it does in the imperial nations, because the latter has a bourgeoise and is therefore subject to the fundamental limitations of capitalism that is staved of by this expansion of markets, while the former have compradors at best who are the aforementioned Africans who surprise surprise choose to spend
their earnings on "villas on the French Riviera".
>or reinvest it back into expanding production (in the third world!)If you're imperialising a country for its labour, then it's the low cost of labour that is attractive, because it's cheaper than the upfront cost of increasing automated production. If automated production is pursued, then it is often installed back in the imperial core as "bright entreprener saves forgotten community with 3D printed capsule home production line" as a narrative but really because property is most secure at home.
Ultimately, you have to look at this picture and think they're equally close to the brink of mass, efficient automated production as we are in the west, that seizing the means of production goes beyond just stealing a sewing machine from the sweatshop and assume solidarity is expecting them to view us as equally oppressed as we feel ourselves when our iPhone just fails to scratch that itch after the 7th one we've bought of the bastards.
>>2536064I think the TWist line that the imperial core is not exploited is erroneous. At the same time, I think that the principal contradiction in the imperial core is not between the workers and the capitalists. In the same way that in the periphery the principal contradiction may be between the oppressed nations and the oppressor nations, the imperial core can also have a different principal contradiction. Not really sure what the principal contradiction in the imperial core is though. It probably has something to do with mass incarceration or something. I don't think it's quite as simple as racism but race (not imperialism) is probably a part of it.
The imperial core is still capitalist and workers are still exploited by the bourgeoisie but I don't think the principal contradiction is between workers and capitalists.
Also read Mao "On Contradiction".
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm The imperial core cobbles together a monopoly of an industry, either through trade barriers, brain drain abroad, extortion or through open war to under-develop industry abroad and become the sole provider of a particular commodity or service. You may recognize this as what economists call "being at the top of the added value chain". What it actually is, is a monopoly contained within the core. And proletarian workers in the first world benefit from increased salaries because they have virtually no competition abroad. It is at a certain point where an industry stops being profitable enough where it needs to expand towards the imperial periphery in pursuit of cheaper labor force where the imperial core loses the monopoly and the proletarian in the core starts to hurt, you may recognize this as a recession. Thus the imperial core quickly begins developing new industry and repeat the cycle.
>>2537504There are no contradictions within the imperial core
>>2537535now that is simply an untrue line
>>2537745If there were contradictions in the imperial core, the imperial core wouldn’t exist, but it does
>>2537769contradictions take time to resolve
>>2537777If it hasn’t erupted it’s not a substantial contradiction
>>2537792i mean, i disagree, but at the same time, there is no theorist who uses these terms how you are. mao's contradictions were ever present - there are tensions (and a great deal of tensions) in everything constantly in flux and changing. for marx, engels, lenin, hegel, the presence of contradiction in all things is pretty fundamental
if you dont agree with the thought (or even definition of the word) of any marxist theorist, then why use the word at all
>>2537443Man, you really glossed over everything i said. I have demonstrated that the superprofits gained by the bourgeoisie is not reinvested back into either automatization back home (which is completely lacklustre, otherwise the US would not be dealing with a production crisis) or consumption of goods (which you just completely gloss over, probably because you do not understand the implication of this vis a vis the Maoist understanding of comprador vs the bourgeoisie)
>because the latter has a bourgeoise and is therefore subject to the fundamental limitations of capitalism that is staved of by this expansion of markets,The topic is not about capitalism being saved by expansion of markets. The topic is about whether the workers of the first world benefit from this to such an extent that they become non-revolutionary. Again all indicators shows only dubious correlation between corporate superprofit and welfare of proles
>the aforementioned Africans who surprise surprise choose to spend their earnings on "villas on the French Riviera".Again the low consumption index and seeing actual flow of investment shows that the distinction between a comprador selling ground rent and an imperial core bourgeois reinvesting in better production method is much more vague than Maoists want it to be. Most imperial core bourgeoisie also invest in French Riviera properties, for example, and the idea that compradors do not reinvest back into production in the third world is laughable; even for excerable food stuff exporters like palm oil exporters or ranchers you cant just export shit and invest the money abroad. You need better roads to transport your goods, you need local fertilizer and harvester production to improve production output, same with pesticides (even one under the aegis of core companies like Monsanto) etc etc. The assumption that compradors all drain local wealth is just not scientific, otherwise we wont have protectionist laws in the TW or cases of them supporting protectionist government.
>If you're imperialising a country for its labour, then it's the low cost of labour that is attractive, because it's cheaper than the upfront cost of increasing automated production. If automated production is pursued, then it is often installed back in the imperial core Anon you dont actually understand how foreign investments work or what improvement in productive forces mean. When companies export capital to countries with low wages they are not putting them into serfdom, they are employing WAGE LABOUR in production lines. This IS improvement in production, especially in countries where the prevailing social relationships are rural ones (you bring up a photo of a cloth producing sweat shop- in Bangladesh when they closed down these factories a lot of the women have to end their education since they have to return to the fields, and many are forcefully wedded off by their parents). Of course there is a valid avenue of criticism here; P. Patnaik mentioned that the logic of cheap labour caused global competition to focus on wage suppression, resulting in global demand collapse in the third world; but this is not an intrinsic aspect of foreign investment, and again we have strayed from the original topic of how much first world workers benefit from this
Bump
>>2536064All the benefits of living in the imperial core have been stripped out by neoliberalism.
>>2537504It's internal colonies vs settlers (land owners, gentrifiers)
>>2536096Marx didn’t see working in fucking service as preferable to being a factory worker, in fact he referred to the alternative life to being a manufacturing prole “domestic slavery”
>>2537098Is there a reason why MLoids completely dismiss class analysis and only engage in maoist race and national analysis very consistently?
I haven’t seen an ML reference class relations in over 5 years now, it’s all national grievances and revenge against the evil ethnicities with you freaks. Probably because the decades’ long death of the ML pseudo-movement has finally ended in MLoids and racial idpolers fusing into the same people.
The real horseshoe theory is that when you go deep enough into MLism as a westerner you come out as a race obsessed radlib every time
>>2536761It’s actually funny as fuck to watch crack smoking ML faggots rant about how third world bourgeoisie has it better than first world proletarians yet my actual ex-gf who was literally from Jamaica always used to rant about how her dad was a professional engineer at home and her family owned their home and a plot of land in Jamaica but came to America to be poor asf
Probably because almost all MLs themselves hail from the petit bourgeois suburbanite background, unironically think most Americans are themselves and their neighbors, and usually want to kill their own neighbors out of a bizarre sense of guilt and resentment
Or they are themselves third world nationalist idpolers who openly reject international solidarity and behave exactly like black idpolers forcing some spineless white leftoid to let themself be bullied by them (am black, I can tell you this is a real thing that happens and if you aren’t an idpoler fellow black leftists will often immediately demand “proof” that you’re “really” black)
>>2537031Third worldists are nationalist psychopaths that explicitly want to genocide proletarians
That is your actual answer for why they are this way. “The enemy is strong and weak” is normal for fascist propaganda.
>>2537066“Le one place with le extended family” can easily be a huge home with a massive yard you can actually grow food on compared to a ratty fucking single bedroom apartment housing five people like it was for my gf, petit bourgeois failson piece of shit
Your logic 100% relies on racism ironically enough, you assume a fucking massive multifloor home with a huge backyard in “le third world country” is genuinely worse than a single bedroom apartment in an NYC slum
Delusional honkie
>>2537126>If you don’t simp for 3W porky u r a fascistLe maoist third worlder (noble savage hitlerite) or normal xitter radlib (noble savage hitlerite but gay), you decide!
They don't and this has always been the position of labor as a political force. They are always anti-war and against any sort of imperial mentality. US had a large middle class, and within that class, those who favored imperialism and eugenics dominated everyone else. The working class has always resented everything about eugenics because they were the primary victims.
These talking points were part of the great psyop to destroy any political thought among Americans, and this means all Americans. The ruling class wouldn't even be allowed political thought as such. They were trained and raised to be cowardly "yes men" who could only march in lockstep with a program created by social engineers.
You see this with the political class from 1980 onward. Capable political minds were replaced with professional political grifters (many of them being the current really fucking old members of Congress who sit forever), and then were replaced by literal actresses and influencers. The political class was stripped of any real political knowledge or ability because they don't actually have the ability to do much. That power was moved behind a curtain and can overrule anything an individual politician does. Of course, most of the politicians do not want to do anything. Doing things is bad for business.
Increasingly you see the rich heirs and heiresses just walking into government without any sort of contested election, because that's what we are now. They're not there because they're going to be great leaders with a vision. They are there because they are the natural leaders who have the most reason to make sure the poor are killed off, and that's all they believe in.
>>2546148>They are there becausetheir privileges and status have been engraved, written, and stamped with a heaping amount of blood and stolen assets.
>>2546150Yes that is a grand moral argument against the bourgeoisie
Can you disprove that third worldism is the opposite of marxism?
Fuck falsifiers
ML is third worldist.
First world "ML" tailists apply ML analysis to the narrov confines of their imperialist countries, which is not just dogmatic, but reactionary in the 21st century because imperialism already existed in Lenin's time
>>2546196It makes no sense to be a Marxist or Hegelian of any kind within the imperial core, dialectics do not apply there, there are no contradictions
>>2546133Western expansion of productive forces and developed economies doesn't mean that everyone is a waiter dude. It's also not about what Marx personally found to be preferable or whatever. His writings were about identifying the revolutionary subjects, not whatever type of job is most preferable to have
>>2546250This still doesn't mean everyone is a waiter dude. Or that Marx would have thought it to be preferable to be an 19th century industrial worker or a 21st century first world service worker
>>2546255over 70% of workers in the US are in service
thats not "everyone", but thats still "most".
>>2536096>Basically, westoid proles benefit by not being the ones in sweatshops making sneakers all dayBy that logic near-periphery proles benefit by not being forced to mine cobalt or harvest cocoa at gunpoint. This sort of nonsense is just oppression Olympics, asserting that X group "benefits" because they aren't at the absolute bottom of the totem pole. It has nothing to do with relations of production or the Marxist understanding of exploitation.
>Can someone give me non-bullshit explanation of how exactly Western PROLETARIAT benefits from imperialism?
they dont; in fact, things have only seemed to get worse for the west as industry was shipped off to the third world.
Little treats like coffee and bananas
>>2546296Get ready for vivid descriptions of dead kids and hyperbolic claims you want to “save imperialism” or something.
>>2546358which are not hyper-exploitative products anymore, what a wonderful thing that is, isn't it?
>>2546268It's not about oppression olympics but global income.
Global average income is between 8 and 13 usd an hour. That's the average global income.
If you earn more, you are a net exploiter, if you earn less, you are exploited.
No ideology, simple math and material analysis
>>2546392>That's the average global income. If you earn more, you are a net exploiter, if you earn less, you are exploited.That's not how exploitation works. You are only a net exploiter if you appropriate a surplus produced by somebody else. It has literally nothing to do with income, although obviously income over a certain level is only possible through exploitation. This is basic Marxist class theory.
>>2546268>By that logic near-periphery proles benefit by not being forced to mine cobalt or harvest cocoa at gunpointIt does benefit near-periphery proles not to be periphery proles yes. Though not as much as core proles obviously
>This sort of nonsense is just oppression OlympicsNobody is talking about that, this is pure projection on your end.
Capitalism is a global system where those who gain do so at the detriment to those who lose. So yes, group X benefits by not being lower on the totem pole, objectively that is a benefit compared to being at the bottom. I don't really see how it's objectionable.
>>2546453>Nobody is talking about that>So yes, group X benefits by not being lower on the totem poleThat's oppression Olympics.
>I don't really see how it's objectionable.Becuase its corrosive to class solidarity. It frames all but the most brutalized and destitute as "beneficiaries" of imperialism.
>>2546456>That's oppression Olympics.No, it's not. Unless you think just describing the position people inhabit in the global system is some sort of moral statement about who has the most oppression points or something
>Becuase its corrosive to class solidarityIn what way? Because I think a western prole does not inhabit the same position in global capitalism as a congolese cobalt miner? I think it's corrosive to solidarity to not understand that difference and more importantly why that difference exists
>It frames all but the most brutalized and destitute as "beneficiaries" of imperialismIt's not an either or situation my friend. Someone can benefit from imperialism by being exploited less than someone else or by living in a place that benefits from the exploitation of others. Like why do you think proles migrate so much from the third world to the first to be a prole there if not for the benefits they receive from doing so?
>>2546250Proletarian norway vs imperialist brazil
>>2546259Bitch can you even read the graphs you yourself post?! That's % of the GDP, not employment by sector, you super retard.
Absolute retard take considering many african countries dont have stable electricity, a healthcare system, or access to cheap commodities like food considering the average monthly wage is barely enough to feed yourself. The chauvinist west benifit a lot from their countries politics and i say this as an American. You dont get a population that brags about how child slaves have died to make their commodities and those people not be privileged
>>2546487in most countries with a stable trading network, food is not scarce since it's either locally grown or sold at relative fractions of what you buy it for in more developed nations, likewise some african countries beat and rape others purely to increase their own standards of living, like rwanda, a country with a model healthcare system and many other things as well, most countries by this logic benefit from imperialism unless they are as horrifically underdeveloped as some countries in africa are, meaning even if you're a cambodian industrial worker, since you have it better than a nigerien farmer, you are exploiting their wealth, you may even say that "this is stupid, but da west benefits the most!" but so do even many a developing nation! it would be absurd to argue a country like kenya, morroco, etc, do not outright benefit from imperialism under this model, despite being developing nations themselves
>>2546477>No, it's notIt is if you're going to insist that only the most oppressed have a vested interest in resisting capitalism.
>In what way? Because you're pitting one segment of the working class against the other and framing them as enemies simply because some have it worse than others. Its the same shit radlibs do when they argue about which demographics are most oppressed, leading them to centre one legged transgender lesbians and other extremely niche identities instead of building a broad coalition movement.
>>2546495Look its pretty simple. The western nations can get a influx of cheap commodities in their domestic market because the proletariat of the most resource rich countries in the world like nigeria and congo are forced to work grueling hours for 10 dollars a day with no social safety net. And of course on top of all that their nation is permenantly impoverished through resource extraction. Revolutionary western left my ass
>>2546508no it's not, because even poor countries benefit from quite literally everything you're describing, a country like indonesia or the philippines also enjoys many of these cheap commodities and stable electrical grids, even brazil, peru, ecuador, bolivia, all benefit from these cheap international commodities, i can keep naming them but quite literally every benefit you've described is just… something any country unless it's horribly underdeveloped benefits from?
>>2546508>Revolutionary western left my assThere isn't a revolutionary left outside of the west either and this fact alone destroys the third worldist thesis.
>>2546512You just compared indonesia to nigeria. A country that actually does have a history of being an imperialist vassel state. Your an absolute moron looking for excuses.
>>2546513Average facist pro imperialist western lapdog vs revolutionary third world prole actually willing to do more than protest
>>2546520>Your an absolute moron looking for excuses.i can also spell words correctly, you also left out the other nations there, are you just gonna make an excuse that since they were vassals, this prevents them from being considered poor countries who also happen to enjoy the fruits of imperialism?
>>2546520>revolutionary third world prole actually willing to do more than protestAnd where are these proles? Which third world countries have major revolutionary communist parties anywhere close to taking power?
>>2546528they're no more exploitative than regular industrial agriculture is the point, palm oil is far worse than bananas or coffee beans
>>2546523So youre arguing that imperialism benefits the third world? Your not exactly proving me wrong about the western proletariat here
>>2546525Both kenya and sudan have big influential communist parties btw
>>2546525Also u literally have no room to criticize. Your a western leftist and u sit on the internet having irrelevant opinions about things you dont care about right? Your proving the very thing you argue against
>>2546532the point is that it benefits literally every nation than the especially impoverished and isolated, so making an argument that "the third world is more revolutionary because it doesn't have treats!" is moot, since it does and it isn't, also the CPK is a growing party, and the "communists" in sudan (i say that because the country is a military dictatorship, in civil war, and the only ones closest to that are irrelevant paramilitaries) are basically small militias, they are not much of anything
>>2546489Produce a marx quote that contradicts what I said.
>>2546511
That's fucking retarded, and if Mao said it, then he was being a retard
>>2546536Your analysis is laughably anti materialist for someone who i assume is a marxist. So the west does resource and profit extraction but conveniently no countries are actually left impoverished because of it. Sounds very ideal. Dont complain about the bourgeoisie when u literally use the same reasoning
>>2546520We're all awaiting for the Maldives and CAR revolutions
stupid turd worldists. the USAnian proletariat (small business owners) will vote in the global revolution. be there or be square
>>2546501>if you're going to insist that only the most oppressed have a vested interest in resisting capitalism.Where did I insist on such a thing?
>Because you're pitting one segment of the working class against the other and framing them as enemiesIm not doing that, the divergent interests between the differently positioned proles are already a fact,with or without my acknowledgement of them. Large segments of the western working class believes that their interests diverge from those workers of the third world. Now of course, I don't believe that their interests are actually that far diverged in the long run, but that doesn't mean there is no real difference in current, direct interests between the two groups. It also doesn't mean that they have absolutely no interest in overthrowing capitalism at all
Can you answer my question of why third world workers would migrate to the first, to be workers there, if it did not benefit them?
>leading them to centre one legged transgender lesbianstouch grass man
>>2546534Shut up bitch. Wher the fuck is the Kazak revolutionary front? And the Botswana one?
>>2546529>regular industrial agricultureWeird to set that as the bench mark when it’s also a product of imperialism tbh. Coffee is typically unaffordable in the countries they take it from so I’m not seeing how it’s not hyperexploitative.
>>2546547you're a hitlerite who should commit suicide
>>2546543you can't even spell, nor can you read apparantly (my point isn't that imperialism is some good thing, rather that it is a thing that exists and benefits most people on this planet) and that the less developed nations are not more likely to be revolutionary because of it, because many of them precisely aren't, most communist or socialist parties in the third world act similarly to the ones in the west, in the sense that they sheepdog you back into liberal democracy, they go out of their way to protect liberal democracy, and so on, because they are not much different to us, the only difference being that we happen to have better public infrastructure (not always true) better housing (also not always true) better goods (also not always true) and so on!
mamadani will lead the reform of he democratic party and the usa will be the first nation to reform it's way to communism!
>>2546551Kazakhs and botswanians can merely exist and do nothing and still be more revolutionary than shitalians, because the latter are part of the global imperialist system and the former aren't
>>2546555it's unaffordable because they're exported to gain money locally, the same is true with other export-heavy agriculture, the point though is that it's no more obscene a commodity to own than corn
>>2546565how would that make them more revolutionary? that should actually make them less revolutionary since being at the heart of the imperialist system means they can strike greater blows in it, than the kazakhs or botswanians can ever do no matter how hard they try
>>2546557Genuine question. How old r u and do u still live with ure mom?
>>2546565Bitchass you can't even write. Are these two countries I gave as an example operating outside of the world market? They're part of global economy and the imperialist piramid as such.
And second, you're using your own thesis as a backing for it: the pure simple fact is that the third world isn't any more revolutionary than the first, as evidenced by the lack of revolutions.
>>2546568How did being "in the belly of the beast" work out for the western left in the last 100 years? No results.
One way westoids are responsible for imperialism is by denying that westoids benefit from imperialism. It's why they keep voting for aoc every 4 years
>>2546577how did being outside the sphere of western imperialism work for the less developed nations? it didn't, barely produced much of anything besides voting for some "communist" sheepdog every few years
>>2546567Are you seriously going to link random pages from Marx and pretend they're backing the garbage you're spewing?
>>2546557Claims he”s not a facist first world proletariat>>
Imperialism is good!
That country with 200 million people is just insignificant and thats why their poor!
This is why nobody take fag leftists seriously
>>2546576Everyone is part of the world market.
The question is who benefits from this arrangement. If you think that the world market is a neutral institution that merely mediates trade "fairly", you're more brainwashed than a globe emoji on twitter.
Also dunno about botswana, but kazakhstan has had several government crippling mass uprisings in the last decade & two
>>2546581It's not random, labor power explains value transfer from the 3rd world to 1st, but bourgie firstoids have learned to center surplus value over labor power because they fundamentally have a bourgeois perspective.
>>2546566Name an agricultural product the U.S. mass exports that is unaffordable to the majority of the population but is affordable to the majority of the population it exports to.
> the point though is that it's no more obscene a commodity to own than cornThat really depends on where you live.
>>2546239Nope but if he killed proles for a wholesome impoverished third world nation instead of a wicked imperialist first world nation you’d happily shill for his socdem policies 😂
>>2546508> The western nations can get a influx of cheap commodities in their domestic market because the proletariat of the most resource rich countries in the world like nigeria and congo are forced to work grueling hours for 10 dollars a day with no social safety netThe same is also true for the proletarians living in those nations as well
Please read Marx, MLoid, at least once, at least his chapters on value-production and the cheapening of articles over time
>>2546512MLs are often genuinely as silly and racist as other westerners so genuinely believe people in Africa and South Asia don’t have electricity
>>2546520> revolutionary third world prole actually willing to do more than protestSuch as?
Do you mean petit booj adventurists from the 80s who were mostly based in terrorizing peasants and were defeated since their “communist strategy” amounted to doing pointless terror attacks in the cities and forcibly conscripting rural villages like the Shining Path?
Do MLs even know what a “proletarian” is?
>>2546588> Everyone is part of the world market.The question is who benefits from this arrangement
The answer is every bourgeoisie everywhere, and every proletarian everywhere is also reproduced by it and thus as individual constituents of the social division of labour each rely upon it as well
The thing is, the ML and turd worldist position is to accuse bourgeoisie classes with especially impoverished proletarians as simply national traitors disloyal to the volk, so their only solution, rather than international communist revolution, is a true volkish reich capable of bringing the fight to the first world bourgeoisie (who they definitely wouldn’t happily trade with no sir that’s race-treason) and their filthy proletarian bug men footsoldiers who obviously aren’t truly proletarian and are actually useless eater parasites like (insert whatever a typical western reactionary would say but make it woke)
>non-bullshit explanationfuck off loser, if there's no explanation you liberal manchildren will accept, why waste time?
>>2546268>It has nothing to do with relations of production or the Marxist understanding of exploitation.(whining manchild character in The Room) "It doesn't MATTER!…It doesn't MATTER!!!"
>>2548399Does he actually go over what this means for class struggle in the “fully developed” nations?
>>2546453You are conflating personal benefit with a class interest. It is someone's class interest to eradicate the bourgeoisie as a class because the productive forces could yield a greater surplus under social relations more salubrious to it. The amount of the surplus an individual gets right now is historically irrelevant from this perspective. What is relevant is what social position they are occupying. If exploitation means for you the amount of products a person gets then why not become a pleasure activist and hand out free dildos to Congolese miners? You could bring up the utils of personal enjoyment they enjoy so that there can be the global equality you clearly demand before there can be any confrontation of the bourgeoisie.
>>2536064Decolonization and anti-imperialism are the biggest scams nationalists ever sold to the workers' movement. It was such a successful grift that there are still idiots out there who think decolonization is essential and in the name of anti-imperialism, they'll back anyone.
>>2549130Zionist hands typed this
>>2549137>Israel or Palestine not mentioned onceGreat argument faggotron.
>>2549137by grounding politics in heritage, bloodline, or cultural entitlement, your dumbass ideology just reproduces the same bourgeois logic of national property and exclusion the very logic that underpins exploitation and imperialism lol
>>2549152you are american
>>2549156lmfao. every single time
>>2549157You’re far worse because you’re choosing an American mentality when you don’t even have to
>>2536064>So where exactly did the Western PROLETARIAT benefit from this imperialism?the whole point of the proletariat being the proletariat is that theyre immiserated. no proletarian anywhere "benefits" from bourgeois society
morons come at odds with this fact because they fall for their own liberal shibboleths (i.e. democracy) and pretend the proletariat MUST be the majority everywhere, even in wealthy nations, so then you can have non immiserated proletarians who own property, massive reserves and can save up considerable amounts of money too rofl
>>2549130Lenin and mao were decolonizers and anti-imperialists.
Funny how "decolonization" is badevil when it's suggested in the imperial core, when everywhere else it's justvcalled "communist revolution".
>>2549449>Lenin and mao were decolonizerslol. colonization was an inevitable stage of early capitalism you braindead moron
>Funny how "decolonization" is badevil when it's suggested in the imperial core, when everywhere else it's justvcalled "communist revolution".confirmed retard who only understands the world through vibes
to you losers your understanding of imperialism is "the US = imperialism and any opposition = anti imperialism" lmfao. i really doubt that you could explain imperialism in anything other than liberal bourgeois term
Btw colonialism is an ongoing & sustained process in settler colonial countries to this day, just like cyclical primitive accumulation
Stageist brainlets don't get this
>>2549159Believing in racial blood guilt and heroic nationalists literally is the American outlook
You are such a spiritual burger you literally need to shit out excuses for why bourgeois society and capitalism have to exist and launder white guilt as an excuse
You can easily resolve your guilt with suicide, white boy
>>2549161>the whole point of the proletariat being the proletariat is that theyre immiserated. Relative to the capitalist class, and primarily mediated by their relationship to the means of production. While the property owning distinction is relevant, one must also make a distinction between property as capital and wage good property used for social reproduction. Your description falls flat when you look at homeownership statistics, the primary example of the kind of commodity that may be leveraged into capital that a worker might own, poorer nations will usually look better than the United States and the G7 etc. Not to mention the different forms of exploitation that occur via actually existing capitalism following its many adaptations to class conflict. What allows wealthy nations to be wealthy is the exploitation of the working classes that occurs at home. The rentier capitalism (which is what we really mean when we speak of wealthy nations) that dominates the first world today would not be possible without the designation of other nations as industrial hubs, and the same goes the other way around. If then you want to define the proletariat as exclusively tied to industrial capital, and living according to 19th/early 20th century conditions of social reproduction, you will find that capitalism has been abolished.
>>2550250>erm the proletariat doesn't have to be immiserated, of course someone living mildly comfortably would risk their life for Da Revolushun too!Why do radlibs have the most imaginably retarded conception of "relation to capital"? This is what happens when you reduce Marx to sloganeering.
>>2550384Well if the choice is either "risk your life for revolution" or "watch impotently from the sidelines as your material comforts are stripped away by an increasingly despotic dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" a lot of people are going to choose the former
>>2550384>erm the proletariat doesn't have to be immiserated, of course someone living mildly comfortably would risk their life for Da Revolushun too!I didn't say any of that, but again the relative distribution of income and capital is what matters rather than whether you think the Westerner is getting treats or not
>>2550250>>2550884Is the comparison here really between
owning a shack without indoor plumbing and
renting a condo?
The western proletariat doesnt really benefit from impieralism, it gets crumbs of it from very small welfare giveouts. Thats why you still have mass wage slavery, proverty, and homeless populations in the US yet its the richest country on earth.
The western bourgesisie benefits from it
>>2536117all wrong. the US pushes a neoliberal agenda to other countries that they themselves do not follow. its impossible for a country to industrialize with a neoliberal economic policy that limits public investment. and none of the countries you mentioned are industrialized. brazil definitely isnt
>>2551132
its true albeit, and pure third worlder nationalism will not help in the global liberation of the proletariat, you need international support from both the enslaved proletariat in imperial countries and the imperialized countries
is that alan moore
>>2550985How do you imagine the global working class lives?
>>2551466Why are you avoiding the question?
>>2551475The majority of the working class around the world simply doesn't live in shacks with no plumbing now. It's uncommon outside of regions fraught by insurgency and war like Subsaharan Africa, because capitalism has in fact developed most of Asia and Latin America, and even Africa is going to become subject to such development as less profits can be extracted from the rest of the planet.
>>2551503The inequities we face now are not the same everywhere, but they are part of the same tendencies of capitalism, government intervention absent
>>2551503But that is the comparison you’re making, that you may have housing with all the modern amenities and safety standards including a limitation on how many people can occupy the property for fire safety, but you’re renting while third worlders have *higher* home ownership and that equalises in your mind despite said housing can range from a shack housing a family of 12 in Bangladesh to a Khrushchovka housing a couple in Eastern Europe?
>>2551523My point isn't that anything is equal here. My point is that the position of proles in capitalist economies across the globe is very similar and it's not like USanos get a massive advantage over other proles from the purchasing power of the dollar that lets them mass purchase cheaper export commodities.
>>2551551>Not equal just very similarLmao dude okay, that’s not even going into the point I just made that housing outside the west has a lot more variance in quality and safety than you’re suggesting.
I mean even in individual nations in Latin America and Asia, the variance in housing can be huge. Like there’s a big difference in an imperialised nation between the essentially western-tier middle class of people working for either western businesses siphoning off the resources or a domestic comprador business assisting to that end, and the lower class of people having to spend all their lives in the mines and the sweatshops.
The problem is, that “middle class” and the compradors who may enjoy a reasonably nice flat in the capital city or even a villa in the Mediterranean are all essentially employees of western corporations and thus their compensation reflects their salaries, not a level of development.
Nations that do manage to shrug off imperialism, at least to the degree that it does not preclude domestic investment and genuine development by a bourgeoisie, are all the no-no countries that are charged with rocking the geopolitical boat vis-a-vis multipolarism and the imperial states must prepare for armed conflict with.
didn't read the thread but it's more complicated than that.
I recommend reading Imperialism by Hobson for a direct explanation of how it damages the wellbeing of the domestic working class, and reading the Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, specifically the parts about the decay and destruction of ancient Athens and ancient Rome for a preview of what's going to happen soon in USA.
The cliffs notes is imperialism simultaneously declasses the industrial proletariat, without which Marx quite correctly noted in Class Struggles in France 1848 - 1850 there CAN BE NO socialist revolution, and in the backwash of what many call "imperial superprofits", starts to build up a big fund that can be used to buy off JUST ENOUGH of the white wome I mean "labor aristocracy" and the lumpen proles to completely kneecap the development of revolutionary minded consciousness in the superfluous, non slave/prison/immigrant labor population, who are eventually going to be dumped on the social scrap heap more than once alluded to by Engels in his book I mentioned above.
Imperialism is also downstream of the monopoly formation stage of capitalism, which means the domestic economy has already become uncompetitive and price insensitive. This removes the pressure for the domestic capitalists to hammer down the local rent seeking parasites, and also removes the leverage the proletariat has over capital when the OG capitalists have not yet escaped the need to compete with each other by consolidating into monopolies, transcending into the financial oligarchy, and winning all the wars necessary to blow the world wide open for investing all their extra capital. We are already way past that stage.
(^ note: this post-monopoly cancerous growth of rentierism causes wages to fall under the cost of reproduction of the working class, which tanks birthrates. it's a slow slaughter)
So it's beneficial to the domestic "proletariat" if you mean the domestic "working class landlords" and people who think being a drug addled office worker who eats junkfood all day and gets healthcare from Amazon.com is a great life. It also produces a huge amount of apparatchik jobs for the petit bourge and up's worthless offspring in NGOs, alphabets, the government, media corps, etc. Hobson directly talks about this. But back then it was being shipped off to India to be a worthless loser running part of the colonial administration.
I have read Sakai and HW Edwards and I concluded they are full of shit since their main thesis is being jealous of white boomers. White boomers are on their way to hell where they belong, and no one should be jealous of them.
>>2537417in usapol someone said:
<notice how it's the middle countries, the 2nd world, China and Russia mainly, who are the most effective at fighting US hegemony, even if it is not always for ideologically pure reasons, or using ideologically pure strategies, even if it's tainted by nationalism or whatever. This is noteworth because the past modes of production were never actually overthrown by the poorest and weakest class, but by the middle class. Slavery wasn't overthrown by slaves. There were suppressed servile revolts, but the slow transition to feudalism was managed by local lords after the collapse of the slaveholding empires of late antiquity. The transition out of feudalism wasn't carried out by the peasants, but by the burghers, i.e. the proto-bourgeoisie. The artisans, the merchants, the guildmasters, etc. who became more economically relevant than the landed aristocracy. I similarly think capitalism will not be overthrown by the 1st world imperial core proletariat, or the peripheral 3rd world proletariat, but by the 2nd world proletariat, i.e. the Chinese and Russian proletariat. People don't like this because of complaints about "ziggers" or whatever, but dialectically this makes sense, and historically, this reflects what happened to previous modes of production, which were overthrown by a middle strata. Marx is correct that it's the proletariat who are the revolutionary class, but it's specifically the middle proletariat. Not the 1st world unionized labor aristocracy, or the 3rd world child proles working in cobalt mines, but the the 2nd world Chinese and Russian proletariat. Call me a "zigger" for this but I think this is just the emerging situation. I don't say it out of chauvinism for those countries in particular, I just think they are uniquely positioned to play this historical role, just like the UK, France, Germany, and America were uniquely positioned to bring about global bourgeois rule. >>2536064>what does 2+2 equal and don't say 4 gimme a real answer!if you missed the 20 year imperial war to control oil prices you're beyond help.
>>2555972>notice how it's the middle countries, the 2nd world, China and Russia mainly, who are the most effective at fighting US hegemonyFirst line already implying the end goal is ending US hegemony when capital will just move elsewhere. Not reading nationalist drivel.
>>2555989Yeah those oil prices really benefited the workers under neoliberal reforms!
>>2555972Mfw pure ideology
>>2556006>ummm it's saying something i made up in my head and i'm scared to read it because of my prejudiced objection that is addressed later on in the very text i refuse to readi hate you lol
>>2556006>implying the goal ISN'T to end US hegemony>because "capital will just move elsewhere"America's currency hegemony and world reserve currency status depends on the debt being unpaid, and the debt being unpaid depends on the trade deficit, and the trade deficit depends on importing more than we export, and that depends on deindustrialization. Trump wants to reindustrialize, but he also wants to maintain currency hegemony. He can't have both. He has to pick between one or the other. He cannot be a neo-mercantilist advocate of reindustrialization, and an advocate of America's currency hegemony at the same time. The British and Dutch were also vanquished by this same crisis of hegemony.
This is why China, at least the smarter officials in China, don't want to inherit America's unipolar imperial hegemony. It is a poison pill which destroys you in the long run. Multipolarity may prove to be unstable for different reasons, but unipolar hegemony is already proven to be unstable.Hegemony has proven to be a major crisis of capitalism because it causes a inbalance not just of trade, but of production and consumption, and an inbalance of the very process of proletarianization. If a country becomes too hegemonic, it becomes its own gravedigger. Hegemony has proven to be undesirable for the reasons outlined above, while multipolarity may prove to create regional power struggles. Hegemony doesn't work, and lack of hegemony is just a power vacuum.
The collapse of hegemony is historically progressive from the standpoint of advancing beyond the current concrete situation but not "The end goal" or equivalent to ending capitalism itself, nor was that stated or implied, you were just looking for an excuse not to read and to discourage others to read on a site where all we do is talk. Genuinely it’s kind of sad about how many people, even at the stage of reaching leftypol, just can’t let go of their attachments to their states.
Like, surely no one believes they’re being profound instead of self-serving when they essentially say
>You’re unfairly picking on the US/EU just because they’re the global hegemon, primary imperialists, pervasive interventionists, etc when ahem, have you considered that Mozambique would do the exact same if THEY had global hegemony?
>>2556169>Genuinely it’s kind of sad about how many people, even at the stage of reaching leftypol, just can’t let go of their attachments to their states.And the attachment to other states? As I see leftypol is just in-group nationalists and out-group nationalists arguing.
>>2556164>This is why China, at least the smarter officials in China, don't want to inherit America's unipolar imperial hegemony."Chinese officials" can want whatever they want. The rule of capital will dictate that when the time comes, neolib reforms will come to China, unless a revolution takes place.
>>2556234> neolib reforms will come to China, unless a revolution takes place.but anon, a revolution already took place.
>>2556229No it's more western nationalists-in-denial getting unbelievably buttblasted that discussions of other non-socialist, non-western nations aren't always through a needlessly hostile lens, as they're just in the spotlight for situations usually created by western imperialists intentionally and therefore placed in the position of fighting western capitalists unintentionally.
Like the source of the asspain is that it's felt unfair that the US is exclusively viewed with hostility for starting shit with third world countries, but that's not being balanced by pointing out that said third world nation isn't exactly a haven for what would be considered leftist in the US.
>>2556006US hegemony has historically been the number 1 enemy of socialism, even if capital just moves around elsewhere, will this new hegemon (China) have already a bunch of military bases around the world ready to fuck you up? No, that shit takes time, and during that time revolution has a better chance than under US hegemony. You are a retard.
>>2556148Care to elaborate?
>>2556289>but anon, a revolution already took place.Yeah. A national liberation. Good job in industrialising and growing the cities. Now what?
>>2556430This would be a burn if western leftists weren't also shitting their knickers over contemporary national liberation movements
>>2556234>e rule of capital will dictate that when the time comes, neolib reforms will come to ChinaAlready happening with the increase in retirement age.
>>2556435National liberations over already built nations don't do shit.
>>2556488Syria was sanctioned, bombed, riddled with US-backed terrorists and even having its oil stolen via an occupation and none of that apparently warranted support for national liberation with western leftists based on that same reasoning.
As though because whatever ba’athist Syria had achieved in terms of development, it just became an excuse for tossers to be like
>and where did it get them hmmm? Why can’t they resist the US/NATO/Israel? Perhaps they were just ba’ad at development lolololol let the bombs drop! >>2556430>Yeah. A national liberation. Good job in industrialising and growing the cities. Now what?A national liberation, industrialization, and growth of cities under the supervision of an actual communist party (you will dispute this point no doubt) is different from a bourgeois national liberation. China intends to build socialism.
<Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity. - Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847
<Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience […] the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood. When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working-class socialists of that period could join it – Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists and even the more advanced section of the English Trades Unions; and it was only through this latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and absorbing all these minor sects, […] Had we from 1864, to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform where should we be to-day? I think that all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organisation […]- Friedrich Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, January 27, 1887
<To my mind, the so-called “socialist society” is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible. That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies.- Engels, Letter to Otto Von Boenigk In Breslau, August 21, 1890
<Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845
<[…] it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.- Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845-1846
<Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
<No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.- Karl Marx, from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
<A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls. An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.- Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847), Chapter 6
<The thoughts of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the desire to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this abolition of private property is a true appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let along gone beyond it. (For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist. Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. […] The first positive abolition of private property – crude communism – is therefore only a manifestation of the vileness of private property trying to establish itself as the positive community. […] By reducing the worker's needs to the paltriest minimum necessary to maintain his physical existence and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement. In so doing, the political economist declares that man has no other needs, either in the sphere of activity or in that of consumption. For even this life he calls human life and human existence. By taking as his standard – his universal standard, in the sense that it applies to the mass of men – the worst possible state of privation which life (existence) can know. He turns the worker into a being with neither needs nor senses and turn the worker's activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. Hence any luxury that the worker might enjoy is reprehensible, and anything that goes beyond the most abstract need – either in the form of passive enjoyment or active expression – appears to him as a luxury.- Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Third Manuscript, Private Property and Labor (1844)
<We made the mistake of deciding to go over directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution […] brief experience convinced us that that line was wrong, that it ran counter to what we had previously written about the transition from capitalism to socialism, namely, that it would be impossible to bypass the period of socialist accounting and control in approaching even the lower stage of communism […] our theoretical literature has been definitely stressing the necessity for a prolonged, complex transition through socialist accounting and control from capitalist society (and the less developed it is the longer the transition will take) to even one of the approaches to communist society. […] Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out.- Lenin, The New Economic Policy, 1921
<”We want to do business.” Quite right, business will be done. We are against no one except the domestic and foreign reactionaries who hinder us from doing business […] When we have beaten the internal and external reactionaries by uniting all domestic and international forces, we shall be able to do business with all foreign countries on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.- Mao Zedong, On The People’s Democratic Dictatorship, 30th June, 1949
<The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state. - Mao Zedong, On State Capitalism, July 9th, 1953
<I think China is a socialist country, and Vietnam is a socialist nation as well. And they insist that they have introduced all the necessary reforms in order to motivate national development and to continue seeking the objectives of socialism. There are no fully pure regimes or systems. In Cuba, for instance, we have many forms of private property. We have hundreds of thousands of farm owners. In some cases they own up to 110 acres (some 150 hectares). In Europe they would be considered large landholders. Practically all Cubans own their own home and, what is more, we welcome foreign investment. But that does not mean that Cuba has stopped being socialist.- Fidel Castro, Interview with La Stampa reporter Jas Gawronski, published 2nd of January, 1994
<I am convinced that more and more people will come to believe in Marxism, because it is a science. Using historical materialism, it has uncovered the laws governing the development of human society. Feudal society replaced slave society, capitalism supplanted feudalism, and, after a long time, socialism will necessarily supersede capitalism. This is an irreversible general trend of historical development, but the road has many twists and turns. Over the several centuries that it took for capitalism to replace feudalism, how many times were monarchies restored! So, in a sense, temporary restorations are usual and can hardly be avoided. Some countries have suffered major setbacks, and socialism appears to have been weakened. But the people have been tempered by the setbacks and have drawn lessons from them, and that will make socialism develop in a healthier direction. So don't panic, don't think that Marxism has disappeared, that it's not useful any more and that it has been defeated. Nothing of the sort!- Deng Xiaoping, Excerpts From Talks Given In Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai And Shanghai, 1992
<China is not a free market economy. We tried. We let them into the World Trade Organization. We sent businesses over there. We made trade deals. They are a controlled top-down economy. You will never compete and win against them, unless you take back the means of production.- Hillary Clinton, interview with Chatham House [now deleted from Youtube] (2021)
<China has found a way to use capitalism against us, and what I mean by that is the ability to attract investment into entities that are deeply linked to the state.- Marco Rubio, interview with Face the Nation on Jan. 29, 2023
<The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, 1997
<Taken together, these accounts tell a pretty compelling and straightforward story: a worker state led by a vanguard party has placed the productive forces developed by capitalism under human control once again, for the benefit of the many rather than the few, and so definitively begun the complex and difficult transition away from capitalism and into communism that we call socialism. Capitalists, sheltered and insular in their dealings with fellow human beings, don’t understand that they are not sympathetic characters, so they shamelessly self-victimize in the press in the hopes of winning sympathy from the masses, in a futile effort to rally the necessary fervor for military intervention. The situation looks grim for the forces of reaction. … And then the Western Left bursts onto the scene with a litany of harsh recriminations, determined to build up China into a villain worthy of war: “China has billionaires.” “China still has inequality.” “China still has wage labor.” “There’s no free speech there.” “Suicide nets.” “Free Tibet.” “Xinjiang is East Turkestan.” “Liberate Hong Kong.” “Neither Washington Nor Beijing.” Their indulgence in atrocity propaganda is unparalleled, and they’ll often outdo original sources and even the most vicious reactionaries in their preening paraphrases of Chinese horror.- Roderic Day, China Has Billionaires, 5th of April, 2021
<If private property, money, abstract value production, class society, and the state, are abolished prematurely, when the oppressive logic and power of capital still controls the entire world, China would become vulnerable to both external imperialist violence and internal reactionary sabotage (no doubt under the banner of “democracy”). The Communist Party would be immediately compromised by foreign backed elements; the country might be torn apart once again by civil war, and once again subjected to imperialist domination. The Chinese revolution, what so many millions fought, worked tirelessly, and sacrificed their lives for, will have been for nothing. Marxism is anything but rigid and dogmatic, and has always been about adapting to the ever changing objective conditions of each era, using what ever is available toward revolutionary goals. The opinion of those baizuo who think that China should have chosen the disastrous course of action described above, or at least remained underdeveloped, poor, and weak, in order to satisfy their fundamentalist interpretation of Marxism, should not be indulged. These myopic and short-sighted “left com”, “ultra-left”, or modern “Maoist” types love to denounce modern China as a betrayal of socialism, without considering that it is the failure of the Western left to do successful revolutions in their countries which made it necessary for existing socialist states to adapt to the global conditions of entrenched neo-liberal capitalism. Those who think that 1.4 billion people, who for 200 years suffered so immensely under vicious colonial rule and brutal capitalist domination, will so quickly forget what their true enemy is, don’t know much about capitalism, colonialism, or people.- He Zhao, The Long Game and Its Contradictions, 27th October, 2018
>>2556725Is there even a single Chinese high level politician who even talks about any kind of long term plan to abolish money and commodity production?
The only time they even bring up those things is to shut down people who actually bring up the fundamental goals of communism.
>>2556725Keynes Supremacy
>>2536064Do you think the west only became imperialist in the 1970s?
>>2556169Yeah it's quite discouraging. In my head I justify it by saying that these people are probably still quite young and haven't been able to shed their chauvinistic views yet. Though that might just be my mega cope and all these people are the same age as me lol
>>2556866Such a thing is predicated on the destruction of the west, maybe that's why they're mum about it
>>2556725I love these e-communists that quote the holy gospel of Michael Parenti like he's one of the heads or Marxism. Hes the 80s equivalent of a youtube channel that does bitesized digestible videos on Marxist theory.
>>2556920POV: Finally burning all of Marx’s collected workers and preparing to commit suicide because of my metaphysical evil
t. Honkie suburbanite that thinks “capitalism” is when you are a honkie suburbanite
>>2556986>he's le bad because he's good at spreading infoweird cope
>>2556488so when Vietnam freed itself from France that "didn't do shit?"
>>2556986you got a block of quotes from marx engels and lenin, which you ignored, and then, grasping for straws, you found a parenti quote and decided to use it as an excuse to feel smug instead of formulate a counter argument
>>2557026Why do you identify so much with the "west"?
Communists in 1941: " nazi germany must be destroyed"
Nazi: "they want to genocide us"
Telling on yourself
>>2562257You are wrong on all levels. Stop spreading lies about Communism. This phony stagist line is not the official theory of the Communist Party. The creator of this phony three stagism admits it "follows a very different line" from the Communist Party, but also that it "differs in important respects" from Communist China's on-the-ground economic reality. Theory that fails to correspond to the material and economic base it seeks to describe is idealism. This phony three stage theory is a prescriptive checklist divorced from reality. This immediately nullifies all validity and disqualifies it as a representation of the CPC's theoretical framework.
<THIS PAPER FOLLOWS a very different line from China’s official classification of the primary stage of socialism in terms of productivity and standard of living, which in turn differs in important respects from current economic developments in China. https://dn720006.ca.archive.org/0/items/on-the-three-stages-in-the-development-of-socialism/On%20the%20Three%20Stages%20in%20the%20Development%20of%20Socialism.pdf>>2556866The point of Scientific Socialism is to build Communism, not abolish markets. To negate the commodity aspects of socialist direct social products and to attempt to abolish commodity production is obviously erroneous. Ch’en Po-ta, a renegade and Trotskyite, clamored for the abolition of commodity production and exchange during the period of the rapid development of China’s rural people’s commune movement in a vain attempt to lead revolution and construction astray. Chairman Mao saw through this conspiracy in time and engaged him in a resolute struggle. In the resolutions of the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party personally convened and chaired by Chairman Mao, this was pointed out: “This way of thinking which attempts to prematurely abolish commodity production and exchange, prematurely negate the constructive role of commodities, value, money, and price is detrimental to developing socialist construction and is therefore in correct.” Socialist commodity production must not only be retained, but must also be developed to consolidate the economic link between China’s industry and agriculture and between urban and rural areas in order to promote the development of socialist construction.
>>2562264The counter argument is simple. All westoids are wrong and i will demonstrate
>>2556725>China intends to build socialism.This is wrong. China is already socialist. You cite Mao only to contradict him. He Zhao says China has billionaires, but "billionaire" is an imperialist social relation. There is no capitalist private property in China, so there is neither billionaires nor capitalism in China.
Rodrick is also wrong.
<Taken together, these accounts tell a pretty compelling and straightforward story: a worker state led by a vanguard party has placed the productive forces developed by capitalism under human control once again, for the benefit of the many rather than the few, and so definitively begun the complex and difficult transition away from capitalism and into communism that we call socialism. The "transition away from" capitalism was completed in China in by 1956, so rodrick is wrong because he defies Communist Party.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/8th_congress.htmParenti is wrong because 20 years ago he said china was neoliberal and that the chinese were poor and colonizing tibet. He is wrong today because he suggests that China is not purely socialist and that westoid imperialists and their agents are in fact "pure socialists."
Unique IPs: 115