So, it appears that despite the most common assumptions, labour "aristocratic"/well paid workers can and have been notable partecipants in the class struggle, everywhere from Italy to Chile and from the UK to South Africa
> The most important counter-example is the Russian working class in the early 20th century. The backbone of Lenin’s Bolsheviks (something he was most definitely aware of) were the best paid industrial workers in the Russian cities – skilled machinists in the largest factories. Lower paid workers, such as the predominantly female textile workers, were generally either unorganized or apolitical (until the beginnings of the revolution) or supported the reformist Mensheviks.
> German Communism became a mass movement when tens of thousands of well-paid metal workers left the Independent Socialists and joined the Communists in 1921. The French and Italian Communists also became mass parties through the recruitment of thousands of machinists who led the mass strikes of the postwar period. These highly paid workers were also overrepresented in the smaller Communist parties of the United States and Britain.
> In Chile between 1970 and 1973, and Argentina between 1971 and 1974, copper miners and metal workers engaged in industrial struggles and took the lead in mass mobilizations against the military and the right. In Brazil, it was the well-paid metal workers in the suburbs of San Paolo who led mass strikes in the 1970s that created the CUT
> it was the highest paid Black workers in South Africa – in mining, auto, steel – whose struggles in the 1970s created the radical and militant FOSATU trade union confederation.https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/129.html>>2784959>no? not even a little where did you get that idea>>2784625I literally called you a classcuck for implying that.
>>2785350This must go hard if you're fucking stupid.
>>2785354>>2785350Jewish negro posts
>>2785873Someone ban this retard already I am tired of his jewish negro posts
>>2784719the natbooj fight the compbooj and occupiers but don't like the commies. it's like the kuomintang and commies teaming up against the japs before fighting each other. it's not that hard to understand. countries need to have their own 1776 before they can have their own 1917. capiche?
>>2786126That was in the context of WW2 and the US was supporting the Chinese.
>>2786126>countries need to have their own 1776 before they can have their own 1917The problem is that the natbourg simply turn on the communists and kill them all to prevent a 1917, then sell out to imperialism and necessitate another 1776. This exact thing happened in China btw, when the KMT launched a White Terror in 1925 and then became Western proxies which they remain to this day. Remember that the distinction between national and comprador bourgeoisie is not one of class, but political orientation. As such one can easily morph into the other, and they do it all the time. They simply aren't reliable as allies or as a force against imperialism. Even in the Chinese context, the KMT fought the Japanese invaders sure, but they were totally fine with the neo-colonial subjugation of China by the West.
>>2786359How are you still missing the point this hard? Yeah, the national bourgeoisie are progressive compared to imperialism. Yes, there is space for collaboration with communists. Yes, a national bourgeois revolution is better than imperialism and should be supported against it. That doesn't change the fact that the progressive capacity of the national bourgeoisie is limited. Their capacity and desire to resist imperialism is limited. They have a long history of throwing out the imperialists only to welcome them back in 20 years later (after exterminating all the local communists of course). National bourgeois revolutions can create conditions more favourable to socialism on a global scale, but they are not a substitute for an actual communist revolution, and without communists actually subjugating the national bourgeoisie they
always sell out and become compradors eventually. What are you not understanding? When has a national bourgeois government ever led to socialism?
>>2786359Quotemining negro award
>>2786379>Yeah, the national bourgeoisie are progressive>They have a long history of throwing out the imperialists only to welcome them back in 20 years lateThese are contradictory arguments
>National bourgeois revolutions can create conditions more favourable to socialism on a global scale, Not even close.
>>2786406Spamming slurs but not brave enough to use the actual slur, maybe you are actually a leftcom
>>2786410It’s easier to make overthrow bourgeois in your country than it is to overthrow those thousands of miles away
>>2786410The national bourgeoisie are progressive relative to imperialism, but the problem is that they can't be relied upon to stay that way when left to their own devices. In other words they can help defeat imperialism but then must be subjugated by the workers and peasants as soon as possible before their backsliding tendencies can manifest. I don't think this is contradictory.
>Not even close.Complete nonsense. A weaker and more divided international bourgeoise is obviously more favourable to socialism than one united by hegemony. The national bourgeoisie also pursue policies that promote industrialization and urbanization, thus laying the socioeconomic foundations for socialism. Finally they undermine the ability of the imperialist ruling class to placate their own populations, making revolution more likely in the imperial core.
>>2786410>National bourgeois revolutions can create conditions more favourable to socialism on a global scale<Not even close.Read Lenin. Read Stalin. Read Trotsky. Hell even read Bordiga. No communist writer has ever disagreed with that basic notion.
>>2786413I am not replying to a garbage quote you have spammed multiple times.
>It’s easier to make overthrow bourgeois in your countryAnd yet you want to allign yourself with those bourgs instead
>>2786415>The national bourgeoisie are progressive relative to imperialismThe natbooj works together with imperialists, there are very few countries where this isn't the case, most of the blobe is either an ally of the US, a colony of the US, where the natbooj actuvely support imperialism, or with China, where the natbooj benefits from Chinese capitalism
>A weaker and more divided international bourgeoise is obviously more favourable to socialism than one united by hegemony. Irrelevant because they all join forces when it comes to fighting against socialism, just see what happened in the Russian revolution.
>>2786418Revive Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Bordiga so they can see the current state of the world, maybe they will update their theory.
>>2786420>The natbooj works together with imperialistsThat is by definition not the case. If they are supporting imperialists then they are compradors, not national bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie are defined by their opposition to imperialism.
>just see what happened in the Russian revolutionDuring the Russian revolution the Germans helped Lenin get back to Russia and even had plans to arm the Bolsheviks. They also armed the Irish Republicans who had communist leaders like James Connolly. During WW2 the US aided Vietnamese and Chinese communists, Britain aided Yugoslavian and Albanian communists, etc. Not to mention of course the fact that the Western powers were allied with the USSR. The historical record shows that the bourgeoisie will support communists if they think it will give them an advantage over rival bourgeois states.
>>2786424>If they are supporting imperialists then they are compradors, not national bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie are defined by their opposition to imperialism.These don't exist, not a single country exists as an isolated nation. National bourgs still buy commodities from imperial countries, they trade with imperialists. The world is no longer divide as such.
>GermanyGermany was part of the Central Powers that fought against the Bolsheviks
>>2786436>National bourgs still buy commodities from imperial countries, they trade with imperialists. That's not the same thing as cooperating with imperialism. The national bourgeoisie don't allow their countries to be sucked into IMF debt traps, tow the line of the imperial core on foreign policy, or neglect their own development to serve as sources of cheap labour and resources. If what you're saying was true then there would be no cause for conflict between the imperialists and weaker bourgeois countries like Iran.
>Germany was part of the Central Powers that fought against the BolsheviksNo, they fought the Tsar and later Kerensky, but they concluded a peace treaty with the Bolsheviks and were making arrangements to arm them in the Russian Civil War, but then were defeated by the Entente.
>>2786440>That's not the same thing as cooperating with imperialism. The national bourgeoisie don't allow their countries to be sucked into IMF debt traps, tow the line of the imperial core on foreign policy, or neglect their own development to serve as sources of cheap labour and resources.Literally no country does this, moreover, no country that does has managed to achieve any remotely relevant degree of development.
>there would be no cause for conflict between the imperialists and weaker bourgeois countries like Iran. The Iran conflict has watered down, there was no more money to be made
>but they concluded a peace treaty with the Bolsheviks They supported independence movements on the Eastern front, mainly the Baltics and Finland.
>>2786448>no country that does That tried*
>>2786379I see, critical support to israel in their struggle against the iranian bourgeoisie
>>2786928What has to happen to your brain to get anything even close to that from my post? Iran is obviously progressive compared to Israel.
>>2786448>Literally no country does thisThat's obviously not true and I think you know it. For example, all through the 1960s and 70s Iraq pursued an aggressive policy of industrial development and infrastructure expansion under the national bourgeois Ba'athist government. In more recent years, Bolivia and Venezuela pursued similar policies prior to their natbourg government being removed. I actually went to Bolivia while Morales was president, and the results of his development program are were highly visible. All through the cities and countryside you could see brand new infrastructure that had a major impact on people's lives like public transportation systems, health clinics, sports complexes, community centres, schools, low cost housing, etc. Iran also pursues similar policies, and has an independent and self-sufficient industrial base that has recently proven capable of sustaining a serious war effort against the US.
>The Iran conflict has watered downIt's reigniting as we speak, and if Iran was really a pliable servant of imperialism then it never would have happened to begin with.
>They supported independence movements on the Eastern front, mainly the Baltics and Finland.- So did the Bolsheviks
- The Germans also supported the Bolsheviks against the Whites and Entente forces that intervened on their behalf.
>>2786949When you say that the Iranian bourgeoisie must be destroyed for socialism you are implicitly legitimizing the Israeli destruction of all of Iranian society, including its bourgeoisie.
>>2786928>>2786991Based, I hope the Israel bourg kills the Iranian bourg in case the Iranian bourg fails to kill the Israeli bourg first
A death bourg is always a good thing, unless you are a fucking classcuck
>>2787199The bourgs are the very last ones that become victims in any conflict tho, and even then they flee the country/start collaborating with the enemy before that happens
>>2787264Bur leftypol told me we should support the national bourg?!?!
>>2786991>When you say that the Iranian bourgeoisie must be destroyed for socialismThe bourgeoisie of all countries eventually need to be destroyed for socialism. Socialism as a system is antithetical to their existence.
>you are implicitly legitimizing the Israeli destruction of all of Iranian societyThat might be the case if I hadn't said that the national bourgeoisie are progressive compared to imperialism and that Iran should be supported against Israel for this reason. How about you actually read what I said instead explicitly instead of imagining what you think I said implicitly?
>>2787471You simply fail to recognize that anti-imperialism *is* part pf the overal arc of the proletarian revolution, and that that governments, even bourgeois ones, can have genuine popular legitimacy among the masses, because they, at this juncture, correspond with the interests of the masses.
All that so you can flatten the first world workers, who are aiding imperialism or doing nothing, with the third world workers, who are opposing it, as both "not doing revolution"
It is very transparent
>>2788523>You simply fail to recognize that anti-imperialism *is* part pf the overal arc of the proletarian revolutionIf you think I've failed to recognize that then you don't understand a word of my point. Anti-imperialism (even when bourgeois led) is obviously part of the socialist struggle, but unless it is followed by a revolutionary socialist government of workers and peasants, it becomes an exercise in futility. National bourgeois governments can accomplish important historical tasks without which socialism would be impossible, but their progressive potential is highly conditional, limited, and prone to disappearing as they reach a modus vivendi with imperialism. This has happened over and over again, and it is exceedingly rare for a national bourgeois revolution to result in socialism. Far more common is for the anti-imperialist orientation of such governments to gradually fade before evaporating completely (after neutralizing the local communists), bringing us back to square one.
>All that so you can flatten the first world workers, who are aiding imperialism or doing nothing, with the third world workers, who are opposing it, as both "not doing revolution"I stand by that statement. Workers in the third world are not displaying much more in the way of independent class power and consciousness than their Western counterparts. They are absorbed into the political orbit of their bourgeoisie. The only difference is that the third world bourgeoisie which has absorbed them has some progressive potential, whereas the first world bourgeoisie do not. The working people of national bourgeois countries are absolutely being led into a better cause, but the problem is that they are being led rather than leading. This is the obvious origin of your impulse to substitute national bourgeois for proletarian politics and regimes, and your reluctance to acknowledge the clear limitations of the national bourgeoisie as a progressive force. If you were to acknowledge first, that the national bourgeoisie cannot supplant the proletariat as the ultimate revolutionary subject, and second, that the third world proletariat is captured by their bourgeoisie, you would be forced to abandon your chauvinist, anti-Marxist notions that replace class struggle with geopolitical cheerleading. I hope Iran utterly defeats the US and Israel, and shatters the American empire into a state from which it can never recover. That way the Iranian workers can destroy their bourgeois government without fear of it resulting in an imperialist takeover of their country.
>>2788523>that governments, even bourgeois ones, can have genuine popular legitimacy among the masses, because they, at this juncture, correspond with the interests of the masses.Kek, you are fucking retarded
>>2792212Well are they striking rn? The genocide is still going on you know
>>2789840Yes, famously it's the proles who make these decisions.
Literal retard, go back to twitter.com
>>2792336What happened to the epic bacon labor unions?
I thought the advanced western proletariat had this shit on fleek?
so what you are saying is the privileged well-paid male workers are the ones who are most psyched about top-down revolution and appointing themselves as the new elitist vanguard and taking over the government so they can decide everything for everyone, while the low paid workers and the women and the unemployed cripples and other marginalized superfluous masses are the ones who are into silly utopian ideas like democracy and self-governance and bottom-up anarchist reform.
maybe this is the reason why every communist revolution has failed at doing anything other than recreating the same authoritarian social order only with a different branding.
>>2792484"women" are not marginalized. But there are marginalized women.
PMC, bourgeois, petit-bourgeois white women that benefitted from colonialism as well are still fucking bourgeois they enjoyed all the fruits of patriarchy, of imperialism. They didn't have their stomachs ripped open and their unborn children crushed underfoot. Nobody is more protected than a whitoid female.
>>2789012> This has happened over and over again, and it is exceedingly rare for a national bourgeois revolution to result in socialism. Far more common is for the anti-imperialist orientation of such governments to gradually fade before evaporating completely (after neutralizing the local communists), bringing us back to square one.Lets see the data for your claim. Are you comparing ALL bourg revolutions? all since communism idea invented? all since fist commie rev? all bourg rev vs all since first commie rev? all that had side by side military alliances of red and white? how many even had communist movements of note to be betrayed? what is even considered of note? are you including every country that had a rev and book club with 4 members?
>>2792212thoughts on Giovani Palestinesi d’Italia ??
are they campists or aristocrats?
>>2792555>They didn't have their stomachs ripped open and their unborn children crushed underfoot.if only someone had ripped your mother's "stomach" open and crushed you underfoot we wouldn't be reading this drivel
if you really want to be a part of some kind of leftist revolution you're going to have to figure out how to achieve permanent ego death and deprogram your brain of all the sexist, racist, classist, ableist, etc. nonsense that the capitalist system has instilled into you, otherwise you're just going to be a confused weak poseur and you will only get in the way.
>>2792555>>2793994the question is not of who's oppressed or ideological programming
>>2787199>A death bourg is always a good thing, unless you are a fucking classcuckHad the developing Turkish bourgeoisie been defeated in the 1920s, would that have been good or bad? What about the French bourgeoisie during 1789? What about the Chinese national bourgeoisie during the 1930s? Would their defeat had been a good or bad thing?
>>2786991>legitimizing the Israeli destruction of all of Iranian society, including its bourgeoisie.Total war fantasy that's not gonna happen
Unique IPs: 24