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>>2774243>despite the most common assumptionsIt's literally one retard spamming.
Stop giving him what he wants by pretending he represents a consensus.
Engels was a factory owner for fuck's sake.
>despite the most common assumptions
This is also something only assumed by people who have never actually read Lenin's writing on the labour aristocracy. He defines it as the managerial elite of the labour movement (trade union officials, socialist party politicians, etc.), not all relatively well-paid workers. It's also worth noting that the pattern you're describing holds true for other revolutionary movements as well. For example most of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were from the upper crust of the slave class, and included people like house slaves, enslaved overseers, skilled workers, etc.
>>2774243>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.Didn't the February revolution start with a womens' march in Petrograd? The police beating and arresting the women, including a lot of working class mothers, then subsequently got the men to come out too?
>>2774243>cannobody said they couldnt
>well paid workers thats not labor aristocracy
and high paid w respect to what? all your examples are nationally relative not internationally.
>>2774389>Lenin's writingEngels implies that under hegemonic conditions large blocks of the proletariat proper can become "a bourgeois proletariat"
>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 AfricaNot everywhere because labour aristocrats cannot exist in the exploited nations because exploited nations do not reap super-profits. Charles Post and his proponents have already proven themselves fools. Where they do exist, they always support imperialism. That is why Lenin calls them them labour aristocracy, only attacks them, and never worships them unlike Charles Post.
>>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.Complete nonsense. The mensheviks were supported by the labour aristocracy from the beginning until they were destroyed, aligned theoretically and practically. The lowest workers, agricultural industrial, were bolshevik.
>>2774389>This is also something only assumed by people who have never actually read Lenin's writing on the labour aristocracy. He defines it as the managerial elite of the labour movementQuestionable. Lenin implicates that all imperialist workers are labour aristocrats because he explicitly says that only the uppermost stratum of which is actually bribed.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm>Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their “own” country) it is possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is just what the capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing: they are bribing them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.If only the uppermost stratum and leaders of the labor aristocracy are actually bribed, who comprises the lower stratum?
>>2774389>never actually read Lenin's writing on the labour aristocracyfrom the article OP posted
<Frederick Engels first introduced the notion of the “labor aristocracy” in a number of letters to Marx stretching from the late 1850s through the late 1880s. (2) Engels was grappling with the growing conservatism of the organized sectors of the British working class. He argued that those British workers who had been able to establish unions and secure stable employment – skilled workers in the iron, steel and machine making industries and most workers in the cotton textile mills – constituted a privileged and “bourgeoisified” layer of the working class, a “labor aristocracy.”and
>British capital’s dominance of the world economy – its industrial and financial “monopoly” – allowed key employers to provide a minority of workers with relatively higher wages and employment security. Engels saw the resulting relative privilege, especially when compared with the mass of poorly paid workers in unstable jobs, as the material basis of the growing conservatism of the British labor movement.the American proletariat, like Jeffrey Epstein's friends, have nothing but contempt for their globalist slaves who are never allowed to do their own nationalist development thanks to the IMF/World Bank enforced austerity finance. The Iran coup in the '50s happened for this exact reason of refusing naitonal development, and recently we've seen how every labor aristocrat has nothing but hatred in their hearts when it comes to Venezuela's attempts at their own nationalization of oil. I heard the new leaders of that country have been considered safe after Maduro was kidnapped by the Zio pedo mafia, but I'm sure workers still seethe with contempt at the country for still existing
>”For a contemporary example of [imperialist elites bribing the working class], all we have to do is look at the 2004 presidential elections. Statistics show that working class whites in the United States voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush in an election that could be read as a referendum of the empire’s war on the Iraqi people. An analysis that solely focuses on class would suggest that working class whites had and have an interest in opposing a war that, if nothing else, is costing them billions in dollars. But clearly that ain’t what happened. Working class whites voted overwhelmingly in support of the war on the Iraqi people. The majority of working class whites, despite their own exploitation, tie their own interests to white supremacy and the dominance of “America” in the world.” If American setters are not labor aristocrats, why did they all react to the 9/11 attack on the Jeffrey Epstein class in the "World Trade Center" (child traders btw) as if it was an attack on them and their lifestyle and their "freedom" to be petite Epsteins who do rape culture in their cop suburbs? You already know the answer of why Zionist settlers are such soulless demons whose entire personality is being misogynist monsters
Liberals literally bought TikTok because of the zoomer trend of finding out that 9/11 was anti-Zionist. In fact The Guardian removed Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to America' because young people are now so impoverished in every sense of the word that they simply see Zionists as other enemy force trying to attack them rather than offering them a satanic pact of mutual wealth accumulation in their pensions or 401k finance funds or whatever
https://www.nst.com.my/world/world/2023/11/979228/guardian-removes-osama-bin-ladens-letter-america-after-it-goes-viral >>2774651another problem that comes up with that definition is that international pay gaps don't account for the gaps in the social standard of living between workers, petty bourgeoisie, well-paid workers, and the rest of the bourgeoisie. the second question that should come up then is whether you should measure that internationally or on a national scale.
the condition of the proletariat is much more complex than wages measured in dollars
yeah and every time this comes up i also bring up that lenin says only the union bosses, but/however it depends on conditions. for in america is it most workers? most wage workers? most stably employed gainful wage workers? are gig workers proles? are precariat proles? are uber proles?
are door dash lumpen, does that mean they arent revolutionary subject? how many people work equivalent of doordash vs $15/hr 40hr weeks with insurance? is insurance necessary to be a prole in a world of for profit finance or does that make you petty borg equivalent? what about wage workers with 401k? what about wage workers with a mortgage? what about wage workers who paid off their mortgage?
what about democrat voters, are they proles? what about suburban republican voters with 401k mortgage a jet ski and 90K/yr but still hourly wage worker? what percentage of the population fits the demographic of wage worker/voter? are they responsible for the wars their country engages in?
and what percent of workers dont vote? what percent of them have the same wage job with continuous employment for more than a year? are they lumpen or prole? can there be a lumpen aristocracy?
these are all questions of differences in material conditions people fail to consider. personally i think the vast majority of politically active americans proles are genocidal hogs, but they actually represent a minority of american workers. most workers in america dont vote and are not proletariat, and are not the kind of people tweeting support for israel either. but are they the revolutionary subject? can lumpen have revolutionary consciousness under hegemonic imperial conditions? does a tendency towards criminality for them still exist and is it such a liability that they are not worth organizing? if so does that make the third world thesis correct, or is there another revolutionary subject? are precariat and gig workers actually the same as lumpen? is the gangster criminality of the american economy actually significantly different from lumpen activity?
Dishonest word games
Lenin referred to union bosses as the "upper strata" of the labor aristocracy. Meaning there's other strata, in the form of bourgefied well paid workers. This was back when the west had an industrial proletariat.
After deindustrialization, this "lower strata" of labor aristocrats forms a whopping 40% of the western working class.
In this context, referring to "the average worker" is obfuscation of real material interezts and class character of "the average worker"
We must consistently refer to and appeal to the bottom 50% of non-bourgefied workers in the imperial core
Everyone, unfortunately, can be a class traitor. Labor aristocrats have a duty to help the true proletariat, same with left booj.
Workers of imperialists countries in Marx or Lenin times were atronomically wealthier than their southern counterparts compared to know where evenworkers in burundi gets treats like primary education and mobile phones, if the imperialists workers all killed themselves at that time we would live in socialism rn
>>2774674
/thread
if all the brown thirdies killed themselves at the same time would live in utopia right now
>>2774674
>when it's the third world dismantling US hegemony
That's literally irrelevant
>>2774671>labour aristocrats cannot exist in the exploited nations because exploited nations do not reap super-profits.You are fucking stupid, anon.
>>2775672No, patrick. Cuban doctors are not labour aristocrats.
>>2775806Cuba isn't the only "exploited" country you retarded uyghur
>>2775669why do you think so
>>2775672not a real argument
>>2775886you're so reactionary
>>2774671Unsourced nonsense. You don't need superprofits to buy out a small elite of union leaders.
>>2774707>>2775530>>2775546The richest workers were also the most revolutionary and were the most engaged in their respective struggles. 90% of the seething about "labor aristocracy" is turd worldist nonsense.
>>2776138You are utterly incorrect. Lenin LITERALLY says superprofits are needed to buy off in the text ive already provided you. Read it again.
>With the Anglo-Boer War fresh in his mind, Hobson describes the connection between imperialism and the interests of the “financiers,” their growing profits from contracts, supplies, etc., and writes: “While the directors of this definitely parasitic policy are capitalists, the same motives appeal to special classes of the workers. In many towns most important trades are dependent upon government employment or contracts; the imperialism of the metal and shipbuilding centres is attributable in no small degree to this fact.” Two sets of circumstances, in this writer’s opinion, have weakened the old empires: (1) “economic parasitism,” and (2) the formation of armies recruited from subject peoples. “There is first the habit of economic parasitism, by which the ruling state has used its provinces, colonies, and dependencies in order to enrich its ruling class and to bribe its lower classes into acquiescence.” And I shall add that the economic possibility of such bribery, whatever its form may be, requires high monopolist profits.>Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their “own” country) it is possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy, and that is just what the capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing: they are bribing them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.>The richest workers were also the most revolutionary and were the most engaged in their respective struggles. 90% of the seething about "labor aristocracy" is turd worldist nonsenseLabor aristocrats all supported ww1. menshevik supported the war. They all attack the proletariam revolution. They all unite against proletarian dictatorship.
>turd worldistAnd you are racist. Do you not feel any shame
>>2776138>The richest workers were also the most revolutionary that explains why there have been so many socialist revolutionary attemps in the US
>wealthier people have more economic strength
>this disproves (somehow!) the existence of labor aristocracy
Amazing.
Westoids, not even once.
>>2776195>And you are racist. Do you not feel any shamethese are channers. of course not. they come here to mask off.
>>2775935>why do you think soNone of the countries dismantling US hegemony care about socialism
>not a real argumentI am not arguing, you don't arguee with a child, you don't arguee with a dog, you have no real understanding of society, rhus we are not arguing.
>you're so reactionaryBoo boo not my problem
>>2776195It's profoundly shortsighted that a few leaders can only be bribed while there are superprofits and it's impossibile in any other occasion.
Meanwhile you keep spouting ourageous nonsense, because the labour aristocracy and the well paid workers are NOT the same thing, in fact the latter constituted the bulk of the radical movements all across the globe
>>2774243>>2776199I'm still waiting for a socialist revolt in the maldives
>>2776561You present quite the intelligible argument. I stand corrected. Labour aristocrats are "the base of all radical movements." One problem is that if labour ariatocrats are minority as you say, how do they constitute the BULK?
>>2776195>Read it again. implying they read it in the first place
>>2774331Factory owners of the world, unite!
>>2776138>The richest workers were also the most revolutionary and were the most engaged in their respective strugglesLiterally every single US labor movement was reactionary
>>2776561Are Hamas labour aristocrats?
>>2778348hamas are bourgeoisie sitting in qatar with their assets secure while palestinians get bombed
>>2778570>hamas are bourgeoisie inside every leftkkkom is a zionist screaming to kill more palestinians
>>2774674
>when it's the third world dismantling US hegemony
And building their own
>>2778570>The people operating against apartheid from inside the world's largest concentration camp are bourgeois >Lemme repeat some hasbara about hamas billionaires in qatar while im at it tookys disgusting ziorat
>>2774674
Iran, China and Russia are basically the labor aristocracy of the third world
>>2776138>You don't need superprofits to buy out a small elite of union leaders.No you see only TRILLIONAIRES who make superhyperkillercomboprofits are capable of ever bribing someone. Read a book.
>>2778885Just like your mom is
basically sucking my dick every day
>Tell leftypol class division exists inside Hamas, as Hamas has not veen able to overcome capitalist logic and is forced to operate within it
>They are visibly upset
Did you also made a fucking tantrum when mom and dad told you Santa did not exist? When you realized The Flinstones were fake because humans did not coexist with dinosaurs?
Why don't you explain to us how Hamas, a political and paramilitary organization, was able to overcome class structure?
>>2778885>until this number (US selling more weapons to israel than all other countries combined) is 0 i don't give a fuck what WESTOID labor aristocrats are doing<BUT WUDDABOUT RUSHA CHYNAH AND EYE RANwhat about them
>>2774671>Lenin implicates that all imperialist workers are labour aristocrats because he explicitly says that only the uppermost stratum of which is actually bribed.If that were his intended meaning then he wouldn't have considered revolution in the imperialist countries to be a possibility at all, however this was clearly not the case since the Bolsheviks regularly called on them to rise up, actively tried to foment revolution in Germany, Lenin personally wrote appeals to American workers to rise up, etc. He also argued that the tasks of communists were to subvert the labour aristocracy, and that these labour aristocrats represent only a minority of the workers. He also states that even real proletarians with revolutionary interests can be led in spite of those interests into league with capital, i.e. he recognizes the existence of false consciousness.
<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm>If only the uppermost stratum and leaders of the labor aristocracy are actually bribed, who comprises the lower stratum?Fair enough, but my above arguments still stands. The only way you can argue that Lenin considered the entire proletariat of the imperialist countries to be part of a reactionary labour aristocracy is if you ignore practically everything he said and did after 1914. He appealed to these very same workers directly through open letters, he wrote that their real interests were aligned with socialism and against imperialism, and the Bolshevik government literally waged wars to help bring about revolution among these workers. It's also worth noting that similar tendencies have now begun to appear among workers outside of the imperial core, e.g. the Communist Party of India essentially becoming a second SPD, even to the point of unqualified support for fratricidal wars against Pakistan, support for the occupation of Kashmir, restricting their activities exclusively to parliamentary and legal spheres, and supporting the Indian government in repression of armed revolutionaries. This demonstrates pretty clearly that labour aristocratic tendencies can exist even absent imperialism, and the whole concept needs to be rethought.
>>2779199
Kaczynskists like you deserve the rope
>>2779207
>>2779205
Mods, ban these misanthropes and revisionists now.
>>2779207
Engels and Lenin were clearly wrong that imperialism was necessary to generate labour aristocratic tendencies. This remains true in both rich and poor countries. I'd say it's a simple fact of class society in general that the relatively well off among the oppressed are typically less likely to be antagonistic to whatever system they exist within, even as they are paradoxically more likely to take a leading role during revolutionary crises. Frankly I think the events that inspired the labour aristocracy thesis can better be explained by capitalist societies finally managing to get a handle on the fallout from the transition to industrial capitalism. When Marx began writing this transition was still in its early stages. In addition to the complete upending of established ways of life caused by the industrial revolution, emerging capitalist society was also facing new social contradictions which it had neither the institutional nor ideological tools to properly contain. Feudal society managed its own class contradictions through various means like guilds, feast days, debt jubilees, reciprocal feudal obligations, Church-based welfare systems, etc. Ancient society did it through manumission, systems of patronage, the grain dole, etc. These succeeded in managing feudal and ancient class contradictions for the most part, and there was never a successful peasant or slave/proletarii revolution in this period. I think the phenomena Engels attempts to explain using the labour aristocracy can better be explained by the ending of the lag-period between the emergence of capitalist class contradictions and the development of the ideological and institutional tools to manage them. Eventually porkies just figured out the modern equivalents of what their feudal and slaveholding predecessors figured out in past centuries.
>>2779231
I wouldn't say that follows, because there is still the issue of cyclical crises, the falling rate of profit, and the need for constant exponential growth. Feudal or even slave societies can develop these kinds of institutions to manage class contradictions, and they can chug along for centuries without much change because once an understanding has been reached between nobles and peasants, there's no inherent need to upend it. Capitalism cannot operate this way, it cannot rest on its laurels or accept a permanent ceasefire between labour and capital. Eventually its need for growth exceeds its capacity for it, and it must begin to cannibalize the previous compromises it made between the classes, thus reigniting conflict.
>>2779243
>If proletarian revolution in developed capitalism was possible it would have happened by now, it hasn’t so we know it wont
Complete non-sequitur. You might as well say that because we haven't yet cured cancer then we never will.
>>2779253
The first proto-bourgeois republics were established in the 8th century. Feudalism wasn't challenged as the dominant mode of production until 1000 years later.
>Proletarian revolution won’t do any good in 50 years when most nations have been swallowed by the sea and agriculture is impossible
Ridiculous exaggeration, and also moot because capitalism has proven far less stable than anything that came before it. It came close to being superseded already in the 20th century, much closer than feudalism was during a similar timeframe from its emergence.
>>2779278
Yeah well generally it's impossible to produce evidence for things that haven't happened yet.
>>2779288
And yet the only country in the world that scores high on both sustainability and human development is Cuba. Socialism won't automatically solve the ecological crisis, but it's the only system that can. Surely you agree that these problems cannot be solved without careful, long term economic planning, eliminating the need for constant growth, the prioritization of profits above all else, etc.
>>2779297
Then either kys or at least stew alone in your pessimism without infecting others. This board is for people who haven't given up yet.
>>2779305
>but you live in one of the only few places that won't be destroyed by climate change so in that sense it is an exaggeration, for you
So your climate change drivel won't result in human extintion then
>>2779318It's not unlikely.
>>2779200>If that were his intended meaning then he wouldn't have considered revolution in the imperialist countries to be a possibility at allexcept lenin was talking specifically about the conditions at the time he was writing and not giving a variable analysis for all times. 1900 was interimperialist and not hegemonic, engels, writing at the peak of british hegemony, said the opposite.
instead of appealing to lenin's universality in conditions it doesnt apply, analyze current conditions and show how they are multipolar or hegemonic, analyze the extent of unequal exchange, the extent of bribes, and show how one or the other analysis applies.
>>2783829>except lenin was talking specifically about the conditions at the time he was writing and not giving a variable analysis for all timesObviously, but people are very clearly trying to argue that Lenin was of the opinion that workers in the first world as a whole were members of the labour aristocracy even as he was writing. This was not his view, and it can't be the case today either if you actually read his writing carefully. The condition of the working class in most Western countries can't really be characterized as being dominated by a "bourgeois labour party" like he describes, instead they're characterized by a complete lack of organization of any kind. The worker's movement hasn't been pulled into the orbit of capital, it's been destroyed. The labour aristocracy thesis was meant to explain the deviation of an extremely well developed and well organized labour and socialist movement away from Marxism and towards social chauvinism. It was never meant to explain the absence of such a movement altogether. The very strata of people that he cites as the backbone of labour aristocracy (trade union officials, narrow craft unions, bourgeois "socialist" politicians) are far LESS prevalent and influential in the West today than they were in his time. So in other words, the entire concept of the labour aristocracy was developed to explain a completely different issue than the one we're facing today.
>analyze the extent of unequal exchangeThe actual Marxist economists that developed the theory of unequal exchange like Micheal Roberts argue emphatically that it doesn't benefit workers in the first world.
<To suggest, as some do, that the welfare state, pensions and national health services in the North were only possible because of the imperialist exploitation of the South is economic nonsense. After all, the great period of imperialist exploitation was in the neo-liberal period of globalization since the 1980s, when the welfare and wage gains of workers in the North were taken back. Globalisation of the late 20th century was a response to falling rates of profit in the North (as it was in the late 19th century). It is also a political insult against the class struggles made by Northern workers to achieve those gains in the first place. Both the workers of the South and the North are exploited by capital. It is capital that is the enemy of both.https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/hm2-the-economics-of-modern-imperialism/ >>2783872>even as he was writing. This was not his view, of course not
>and it can't be the case today either if you actually read his writing carefullywell it cant be the case ever
>as a wholeyou basically made a strawman. you didnt even say "as a majority" or even plurality.
>The very strata of people that he cites as the backbone of labour aristocracy (trade union officials, narrow craft unions, bourgeois "socialist" politicians)in his time
>the entire concept of the labour aristocracy was developed to explain a completely different issueconsidering that lenin did not invent it, this is not true
>The actual Marxist economists that developed the theory of unequal exchange like Micheal Robertspretty sure he didnt come up with that either
the position im suggesting is that a plurality of proletarians in G7 countries and a majority of those that politically participate in their respective bourgeois democracies, that is gainfully employed wage workers(not gig) with full time(not part time) and benefits(not contractors) who own their home with or without a mortgage and have a retirement savings and vote in elections(approximately 30-40% of Americans) are equivalent to the reactionary 'bourgeois proletariat' that Engels(not Lenin) described about England at the height of its economic power, and that similarly, since they are the politically activated section of the proletariat, that this does in fact mean that the proles of G7 countries are
currently incapable of revolution and like the British workers towards the Irish hold no international solidarity to a meaningful degree. note this is proles not workers, or masses, who may not be a majority of citizens in some countries, and the alternative is to assume someone other that strictly proles are the revolutionary subject.
>>2784239>you basically made a strawman. you didnt even say "as a majority" or even pluralityIt's not a strawman, the statement I was responding to was
<Lenin implicates that all imperialist workers are labour aristocrats because he explicitly says that only the uppermost stratum of which is actually bribed. >>2774671In other words, people are unironically trying to claim that it was Lenin's belief that all workers in imperialist countries were part of the labour aristocracy.
>considering that lenin did not invent it, this is not trueEngels coined the term but he was describing the same phenomenon, not atomization or a lack of organisation but the falling of the worker's movement into the orbit of the ruling class, the establishment of a bourgeois labour party, etc. Lenin also fleshed out the concept far more thoroughly than Engels did so I'd credit him with the modern understanding of it.
>pretty sure he didnt come up with that either He's one of the leading modern theorists on it. I've never seen an actual economist that studies unequal exchange suggest that it benefits first world workers.
>that this does in fact mean that the proles of G7 countries are currently incapable of revolution At the moment proles have proven incapable of revolution everywhere in the world, and in the stronger countries of the periphery even display labour-aristocratic tendencies as I mentioned vis a vis India. This is what leads me to question the thesis in its entirety, since this seems to indicate that imperialism isn't even the basis of this behaviour.
>>2784526Your mistake is thinking that for a third worlder, revolution entails first attacking their own small bourgeoisie, rather than the main enemy: the imperial bourgeoisie
On that front the third world is doing the revolution as we speak.
The active battle happens in specific flashpoints, but the whole world is trying to undo the gordian chains of western imperialism. And it's working
>>2784536>Your mistake is thinking that for a third worlder, revolution entails first attacking their own small bourgeoisie, rather than the main enemy: the imperial bourgeoisieSo in other words, labour aristocracy is good when they do it. That's also forgetting the fact that most third world countries are ruled by compradors not the national bourgeoisie, and even in these countries there is no strong worker's movement. That's also forgetting that the national bourgeoisie are a poor substitute for the working class when it comes to fighting imperialism. They confront it half-heartedly, reluctantly, to the minimum degree necessary, and jump at the chance to reconcile with it. Just compare the actions of Iran or Russia to the DPRK (or the USSR in its day) if you have any doubt. Finally, that's ignoring the fact that national capitalism simply creates conditions more conducive to socialism, but is not a substitute for it and can never actually destroy imperialism (which is an inevitable outgrowth of capitalism). So no, I'm not ignoring anything. The workers of the third world must rise up against their own ruling class too, and if they are failing to do so and falling into their political orbit the same way Western workers did, then you need to ask whether the labour aristocracy thesis ever had any merit to begin with.
>>2784541Learn the concept of tbe primary contradiction and go back to the drawing board
>>2784577Crypto trotskyist bullshit idealist concept, death to Mao, death to China
>>2784580It's basic leninism
A kind of trotskyism would be to say that, for example, all countries need to first simultaneously overthrown their own bourgeoisie before tackling the actually immediate problem
>>2784541>most third world countries are ruled by compradors not the national bourgeoisieisn't it precisely that state of affairs, the installation of compradors by imperialists, that leads to the third world focusing more on national liberation struggle than class struggle in the first place? Not the anon.
>>2784577I understand the concept of primary and secondary contradictions. I'm saying first that in most third world countries, the ruling class are compradors and therefore the struggle against them is the primary contradiction since it is also a struggle against imperialism. Second, even countries ruled by a national bourgeoisie, this alone isn't enough to defeat imperialism because the national bourgeoisie are spineless and cowardly when confronting it. The workers and peasants will eventually have to confront them, possibly during the course of the anti-imperialist struggle (to prevent them from cucking out and becoming compradors which is their natural inclination) and definitely afterwards. Third, even where there is a national bourgeoisie waging an anti-imperialist struggle worthy of the name, it doesn't follow from this that communists and workers should surrender their independence and fall into the orbit of their local exploiters. Mao coined the concept of primary/secondary contradictions, and argued in favour of the United Front with the KMT (and was right to do so). But during this period the CPC did not surrender its political independence, did not surrender control over its liberated areas, did not surrender its armed formations, etc. Throughout the war against Japan they fought and maneuvered in full knowledge that they would he fighting the nationalists the moment Japan was defeated. In other words their behaviour vis a vis China's national bourgeois government was completely different than the sort of activity (or lack thereof) that you're defending. Multipolarism is about creating conditions for socialism, not surrendering it in favour of the national bourgeoisie who will eventually just recreate imperialism anyways (assuming they don't surrender to it).
>>2784592>A kind of trotskyism would be to say that, for example, all countries need to first simultaneously overthrown their own bourgeoisie before tackling the actually immediate problemTrotsky explicitly believed the opposite of that.
<I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy.https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm>>2784595Yes but national liberation can and should be led by the workers and peasants wherever possible. The national bourgeoisie are not only less reliable in the struggle against imperialism, but the first thing they typically do once regaining national sovereignty is repress communists.
>>2784609Yes, even trotsky knew better than you
Yours is a similar category error to his "permanent revolution"
>>2784597I'm not making a theoretical argument, I'm pointing out the fact that the weakening of western imperialism *is* the global proletariat freeing itself, concretely, in reality. It is a material fact, and we all know that only masses move history.
The only section of the proletariat not doing anything or working against this movement is the western one
>>2784536>Your mistake is thinking that for a third worlder, revolution entails first attacking their own small bourgeoisie, rather than the main enemy: the imperial bourgeoisieClasscuck drivel
>>2784625Leftcom analysis:
The US marine who did 7 tours killing brown people with impunity and got a collwge tuition and a dodge challenger out of it is merely fooled rather than an active collaborator.
The third world soldier who is fighting to prevent the american from killing his children is a footsoldier for the bourgeoisie.
Both are class cucks.
This is a very advanced form of liveral ideology that elegantly does two things at once: paints the genocidaire as an innocent victim and the resistance as a traitors.
>>2784617>Yours is a similar category error to his "permanent revolution"I'm not making any error, I agree with Trotsky's assessment, as well as what Mao says vis a vis imperialism and primary/secondary contradictions. What I'm saying is that this doesn't explain or justify the passivity of workers even in the third world, their lack of independent organization, or their relationship with their ruling class. What you're seeing there isn't a strategic decision by a robust and independent communist movement to tactically align with the national bourgeoisie. What you see is for the most part the atomization of the workers movement and their absorption by the local ruling class. This is completely different than what the Chinese communists did for example, which is the correct way to conduct such a tactical alliance.
>>2784640Based, I would kill you in exchange for a Dodge Challenger given the chance
>>2784617>>2784641>I'm pointing out the fact that the weakening of western imperialism *is* the global proletariat freeing itself, concretely, in realityBut it isn't, because without independent communist organization it won't actually lead to anything. The fact is that national bourgeois revolutions very rarely result in socialism. The typical cycle is something like this:
<Communists ally with national bourgeoisie to defeat imperialists <Imperialists are defeated<Natbourg turn on the communists and destroy then<Natbourt cuck out and become compradors 20 years laterEgypt, India, China, Indonesia, Iraq, and Algeria are a few examples of where this happened off the top of my head. It would've happened in Iran too if Trump hadn't been such a moron and let Obama's deal stand.
>The only section of the proletariat not doing anything or working against this movement is the western oneAnd this is the fundamental mistake you're making. You're substituting the national bourgeoisie for the proletariat as the agent of revolutionary change. The fact is that the working class in the third world has proven no more capable of creating a serious revolutionary movement by and for workers and peasants than their counterparts in the first world. They are similarly captured by their local ruling class. The difference isn't in the character of the workers, but of the ruling class that has captured them. The bourgeoisie in the third world has some progressive potential, those in the first world do not.
>>2784641>>2784656The masses aren't passive, they are moving history
The fact that a vanguard was not able to organize the masses and direct their movement is wholly the fault of the vanguard.
And this error of the vanguard stems from the inability to face the conditions as they are, and discern the movement of the masses, instead trying to dictate their preconceptions from above.
The vanguard is failing to offer the masses a better way out, by invalidating their concrete experiences (telling the us marine labor aristocrat they are exploited, telling the colonized their enemy isn't the marine)
>>2784668>The masses aren't passive, they are moving historyAs long as they lack independent communist organization and class consciousness then they are very much passive. They are in the orbit of the bourgeoisie and are thus not a force unto themselves. If the vanguard is failing in its role in both the first and third world, then clearly the answer can't be imperialism. My personal theory is that the labour aristocracy comes into existence not just in imperialist countries, but in all capitalist countries once they reach a certain level of development.
>>2784670Yes, every country has its own strata of "native westoids" like gusanos, academics, petty bourgs, etc., who are functionally westoids, "vitizens of the world", etc.
The problem is that what you tbink of as the " vanguard" are those very people. The kautskys, the proudhons, etc.
The "real" vanguard is those who go *lower* into the masses, rather than speaking to their middle to upper middle strata peers. Both nationally and internationally
>>2784675>every country has its own strata of "native westoids" like gusanos, academics, petty bourgs, etc., who are functionally westoids, "vitizens of the world", etc.Aren't those who you want to join together with to fight against "le empire" though?
>>2784696Plus if they exist in every country then its almost like it's a question of class and "le westoids" have nothing to do with it.
>>2784696>>2784701It's a matter of which class is the majority and embodies the national consciousness, who is the "default".
In the third world, spiritual westoids are seen as alien.
In anti imperialist countries like Russia, iran, china, palestine, cuba, dprk, vietnam, venezuela, burkina faso, etc, they are suppressed
Your job, as a westoid, is to be the vanguard for those in your countries who are excluded from the imperial nation's self consciousness, not those who constitute it
>>2784701Correct, in his stupid, miniscule brain, inside every third world country there is an ultra-nationalist bourgeois, who distinct themselves from "le compradors" that wll fight until the end for "national liberation", and that actively supports communism and understands Lenin and Mao, and will gladly risk death to fight against the proles to be able to install communism once le empire falls
Who knows where this country is, because everywhere in the third world the bourg always bends the knee and end up collaborating
>But le US Marine! >>2784717My job is to cut, weld and grind metal though.
>>2784717>In the third world, spiritual westoids are seen as alien.Wonderful baseless sweeping statement about the opinions of billions of people made without evidence. Definitely not projection/wishful thinking that borders on a noble savage trope.
.>>2784719
>to fight against the proles
Along* the proles
>>2784830The Iranian, Argentinian and Venezulean people should join forces with these comprador bourgeois, they should all hold hands and fight against Darth Vader's empire
>>2784830Funny you mention Venezuela and Iran, since the former cucked out and became compradors and the latter would have done so if the Americans hadn't bombed them.
>>2784526>In other words, people are unironically trying to claim that it was Lenin's belief that all workers in imperialist countries were part of the labour aristocracy.no thats not what is said
"implicates" is not the same as "all are" its more about potentiality
they are pointing out that only the upper stratum are bribed, meaning lacking potential revolutionary consciousness, where the rest its temporary and circumstantial.
>Engels coined the term but he was describing the same phenomenon,yes? and?
>He's one of the leading modern theorists on itthats not really what he is known for. samir amin comes to mind way before and he definitely says that. its the classic position, tho it is controversial i admit. i dont think the benefits are direct, and i definitely deny the fw workers exploit, they dont, and dont have the political or economic power to do so. but i do think they benefit second order by proxy from increased infrastructure, im not talking about pensions or healthcare, and from wage differentials and purchasing power, and from decreased costs from increase in productive technology. its a lot more complicated than "fw workers steal from poors" which no one suggests
>At the moment proles have proven incapable of revolution everywhere in the worldyeah i dont think thats true either
>in the stronger countries of the periphery even display labour-aristocratic tendencies as I mentioned vis a vis Indiabut the liberal comprador ladder climbers are a minority of major city dwellers and not the majority of proles in those countries
>this seems to indicate that imperialism isn't even the basis of this behaviour.i mean i think being a comprador because you are directly bribed by imperialists does maybe have a little to do with imperialism??
>>2784541 >labour aristocracy is good when they do itbasically, but they arent labour aristocracy
>the fact that most third world countries are ruled by compradors not the national bourgeoisiealso not true. its like every post you are just making shit up
>is not a substitute for it and can never actually destroy imperialismwhy even bring this up when literally no one ever says it does? every writing on alliances with nat borg explicates the temporary nature of if predominantly
>>2784609>Yes but national liberation can and should be led by the workers and peasants wherever possible. The national bourgeoisie are not only less reliable in the struggle against imperialism, but the first thing they typically do once regaining national sovereignty is repress communists.Why are you acting like communists are endorsing support for national bourgeoisie over and above and as a revolutionary replacement for the proletariat? who is saying this? please quote them
>>2784641>justify the passivity of workers even in the third world, their lack of independent organization, or their relationship with their ruling class.idk man that sounds like projection and not something actually happening
>>2784675
>Yes, every country has its own strata of "native westoids" like gusanos, academics, petty bourgs, etc., who are functionally westoidsyeah they are overly represented in media but dont actually make up a significant part of the population, theyre more like occupiers than representative of the third world working class
>>2784696>Aren't those who you want to join together with to fight against "le empire" though?no? not even a little where did you get that idea
fake sabo even real sabo isnt this dumb
>>2784916Westoid doomerist cope (gloating)
Western leftoids treat geopolitics like spectacle, a disconnected series of (what they perceive as) advebturist lashouts and betrayals. A desire for everything to happen on your schedule and your playbook or else you'll talk to the manager.
This is because your "support" for global south struggle is secretly a desire for third worlders to kill themselves advancing ypur narrow domestic interests.
This is because you and your ilk are petty bourgeois in spirit.
>>2784952>"implicates" is not the same as "all are" its more about potentiality No, Lenin is very explicit in his wording. The labour aristocracy is a minority and can only ever represent a minority. Workers may be drawn into their orbit even if they are not members of the labour aristocracy itself, but they do so against their own interests.
>its a lot more complicated than "fw workers steal from poors" which no one suggestsPeople on this site say that constantly. Scroll /usapol/ for ten minutes and you'll find plenty of posts claiming such things.
>yeah i dont think thats true eitherThen where are the proletarian revolutions? What country has recently had or realistically looks like it's going to have a revolution led by and for workers/peasants?
>but the liberal comprador ladder climbers are a minority of major city dwellers and not the majority of proles in those countriesI'm not talking about those people, I'm talking about the conduct of self-described socialists and communists in the third world, who (especially in the stronger and more advanced periphery countries) have now begun to display the same kind of behaviours that Lenin decried as evidence of labour aristocracy. The Communist Party of India is the best example, since they (like the SPD) represent a huge segment of the Indian left and trade union movement, but they also renounce revolutionary struggle, help the state hunt down revolutionaries, support reactionary wars and occupation, and offer what is essentially a social democratic program. What is the meaningful difference between them and the Western left?
>i mean i think being a comprador because you are directly bribed by imperialists does maybe have a little to do with imperialism??This isn't about imperialism or becoming a comprador as such, but about renouncing revolutionary struggle and the political independence of the worker's movement, and subordinating themselves to their ruling class.
>also not true. its like every post you are just making shit upIf that were true then imperialism would already be defeated. You can't claim one moment that imperialism is too powerful and an alliance with the national bourgeoisie is necessary, but then also claim that compradors have been defeated in most countries.
>why even bring this up when literally no one ever says it does? every writing on alliances with nat borg explicates the temporary nature of if predominantlyI was responding specifically to a post arguing that the strengthening of national bourgeois tendencies in the third world is the "real movement" and that it supplants the need for independent worker power.
>>2784956>Why are you acting like communists are endorsing support for national bourgeoisie over and above and as a revolutionary replacement for the proletariat? who is saying this? please quote themHere
>>2784617<I'm pointing out the fact that the weakening of western imperialism *is* the global proletariat freeing itself, concretely, in reality.>>2784959>idk man that sounds like projection and not something actually happeningThen show me a country in which there is a large, well organized, class conscious, and militant proletariat that has a real chance at seizing power. It's true that in many third world countries there are relatively large communist parties, but these typically don't exceed the size or influence of Western European communist parties in the 1950s-70s. If a labour aristocracy could exist in France or Italy despite having large communist parties, then why can't they exist in India or South Africa?
>>2784964Whatever you say man, I'm sure that everything will be fine after Delcy's next meeting with the director of the CIA.
>>2784992>The labour aristocracy is a minority and can only ever represent a minority>onlynot true either. he quotes engels saying all workers in britain
>Scroll /usapol/yeah i think ill not
>You can't claim one moment that imperialism is too powerful and an alliance with the national bourgeoisie is necessaryyou can
>then also claim that compradors have been defeated in most countries.i didnt
>It's true that in many third world countries there are relatively large communist parties, but these typically don't exceed the size or influence of Western European communist parties in the 1950s-70sok so they are as big as the biggest point they were in the west? that sounds a lot better than all countries being equally comprador
>Then show me a country… and why is that the metric? why must be perfect and pure to get critical support?
>If a labour aristocracy could exist in France or Italy despite having large communist parties, then why can't they exist in India or South Africa?because they are not imperialist?
this is getting pretty old. you just keep asserting things that are not true
>>2785002>not true either. he quotes engels saying all workers in britain <They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.t. Lenin
Here he is saying clearly and without any wiggle room that the labour aristocracy consists of and represents a minority, and that this was the case both in England when Engels was writing and in Germany (and other countries) while he himself was writing. He isn't implicating the working classes in the imperial core as a whole.
>i didntThen in what way am I making anything up when I say that most of the third world is ruled by compradors?
>ok so they are as big as the biggest point they were in the west? that sounds a lot better than all countries being equally compradorI didn't say all countries are equally comprador, I said that the third world can and already has developed a labour aristocracy. I'd also argue that a labour aristocracy can exist in both a comprador and national bourgeois state, though of course the former is more destructive.
>and why is that the metric? Because it's the only metric by which you can argue that the third world currently displays more revolutionary potential than the West.
>why must be perfect and pure to get critical support?They don't. I critically support virtually all national bourgeois governments, especially Iran in the context of the present conflict. However that's irrelevant to my main points, which are that the labour aristocracy does not consist of or represent the real interests of the vast majority of first world workers, and that a labour aristocracy has already begun to form in the third world.
>because they are not imperialist?So? My whole argument here is that imperialism isn't necessary to produce the tendencies which Lenin and Engels identified as indicative of a labour aristocracy.
>>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: 61