What are the best arguments for or against third-worldism?
>Is there a true “proletariat” within the global north?
>How culpable are the rank and file citizenry in first world nations?
>Do first world nations have potential for proletarian revolution from within, or can they only be destroyed externally by “proletarian nations”?
387 posts and 36 image replies omitted.>>2856340you're the hitlerite here
>>2856343But there are 4 weeks in a month ?
>>2856340quote what Sakai says about AIDs and what Park says about pedophilia
the online left has the opsec smarts of cheech and chong
why does the astroturf around settlers now have to work so hard to seperate it from it MIM
>>2856431post what the MIM policy on pedophilia is
contrary to what you probably have see on reddit : impoverished people do not exist as props to win online debates
you owe them solidarity. not racial fetishization.
>>2856433I don't care about the MIM, you can post it if you think that's interesting or at all relevant to the point somehow
>>2856435It's just an illustration of different conditions. If you'll notice there are racialized people in both images. Just because you don't like what you are seeing doesn't mean anybody is being racially fetishized. Showing solidarity would be an acknowledgement of their condition, rather than an equalization and flattening of their struggle
>>2856431left
>high-value labour power>porky must invest in MoPs to make sufficient profit off of them>is not squandered (relatively speaking)right
>low-value labour power>porky does not have to invest in MoPs, as we can plainly see by their use of hand tools>are squandered >>2856321That's how it's defined everywhere dummy.
>inb4 some boomer conservative tier rant about how poor people should just survive on gruel and ramen and pull themselves up by their bootstraps >>2856444solidarity is based on the recognition that the interests of the working class is one despite historic and economic divisions
you can sneak in racist and essentialist denial of developmental conditions if you want to promote MIM Theory (itself racist) but you must accept if you do this you are rejecting the communist concept of "solidarity" and instead endorsing a merger of liberal and anarchist values
slapping Maoism language on the top like a halloween costume doesnt change anything. if you start thinking this way its likely you'll end up with racist assumptions even if you dont intend them
>I don't care about the MIM, you should care about the origins of the ideas you type
how is this not all just "economism" in a new form
>>2856473Economism was a critique leveled at a time when there was a real present self organizing working class that could potentially springboard a revolution
>>2856628>self organizing working class sure about that?
>>2856631Uh, yes? Do you think marx invented unions
>>2856447the value of labor power is determined by the cost of reproducing the laborer, it has nothing to do with what kind of machines are used, and furthermore doesn't affect how much profit or value is produced in the process
>>2856450you have savings you aren't living paycheck to paycheck fuck off
>>2856715Yes the proletariat of the time would organize themselves into unions or councils. Is there some confusion?
>>2856844If you can only cover one month's expenses with one month's wages then you are.
>>2856889"Expenses" and it's various froms of paying yourself
>>2856875is all organization communist organization? does all working class organization involve "class consciousness" in the same way?
this falls into the essentializing trap that marks out certain parts of the working class as capable or incapable of revolution BEFORE they are organized into consciousness.
the LA idea (if we steelman it) does not apply to anything innate or essential but rather to what incentives and repressions happen at the level of consciousness. LA is not anti-revolution in its immediate and natural organization and composition. it is anti-revolution because its consciouseness is bourg and not prole.
this SHOULD dismantle both vulgar western workerism and the reductive 3W-ism. but it does not because people are talking about theory and history more than they are studying history and theory.
>>2856842>the value of labor power is determined by the cost of reproducing the laborer,mhm
>it has nothing to do with what kind of machines are usedthis is where you're wrong
>doesn't affect how much profit or value is produced in the processthis is also wrong. high value labour power produces more value per hour worked, even when adjusting for the productivity of the MoPs used. it is
not the case that a German and an Indian mechanic produces the same amount of value, despite them performing the same job (fixing cars). the Indian mechanic can reproduce himself at an income that a British mechanic cannot
>>2856890Absolitely ridicolous lmao. Do I have to extrapolate that unless I immediatly spend my wage the hour I receive it, I have savings?
>>2856916By description yes
"the value that the workers pay themselves" the munchausen labour theory of value
>>2856896>this falls into the essentializing trap that marks out certain parts of the working class as capable or incapable of revolution BEFORE they are organized into consciousness.The biggest reason marx saw the working class as revolutionary was because they were independently organizing, that is to say, what they were doing was a self replicating mode of social organization. Remember theorycel that part of Marxism where you have to give a shit about what happens in the real world? Do you think Marx expected to enter a cheat code and unlock some level of consciousness in factory workers of which they were just previously completely unaware? Just because he was so good at theory?
>>2856956>theorycel>quotes theorizationthe question is the kind of organization. the post i replied to was "self organized to springboard a revolution" with "springboard" here exactly as stupid (really its functionally identical to) your "cheatcode" thing
no, the one agreeable point 3W-ist apologists are making in this thread is the idea that consciousness can never come for free it has to be caused by outside
if that means finding selforganized and building on top of it
>>2856976>Just because he was so good at theory?if he wasnt so good at this we wouldnt be talking
if real world is real is all that matters he'd have just written A = A on the back of a beer coaster and called it a day and went back to work at the newspaper
>>2856976I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here. Everything you typed seems to be a half finished thought that doesn't go anywhere. I can't tell whether or not you're disagreeing
>>2857105i am sorry, i was very drunk
the point is the "springboard to revolution" notion is the same bad reasoning as your "cheatcode" strawman. its wrong for identical reasons
and 3W-ists are wrong about class consciousness and interests. they are right that class consciousness doesnt come for free out of mid-air, it has to be caused by exterior things and usually that means leading not tailing. i was disagreeing with two things and agreeing with one
>>2857393>the point is the "springboard to revolution" notion is the same bad reasoning as your "cheatcode" strawman. its wrong for identical reasonsBad reasoning? I'd love to hear this.
>>2857490believing that revolutionary consciousness or potential is innate to a group of people just because they're materially poor is the same idealism as workerism and saying its innate just because they're the workers.
what people online like to do is pull out slogans like "nothing to lose but your chains" to imagine that the state of having nothing to lose already grants either consciousness or means to revolt. it does not any more than simply being a worker would grant that. this should be obvious and it is obvious where the idealism is happening here. making it a point about wagering and risk (the less at risk the more freely one can act) is also idealist but less objectionably so since it is an idealism marx and lenin themselves carry over
but that doesnt change where the maoism and 3Wist positions are correct. it is two wrong idealist or essentializing points joined to a correct point about subjectivity being a materially process that must exist in relationship to other things.
it's been true to different extents at different times throughout the 20th century and will continue to be so into the 21st, though i don't think it will survive it, first world workers should acknowledge and implement strategies to prevent exploitation abroad if they're truly dedicated to international solidarity, the third world will answer in kind
>>2856913>more value per houryou're producing more hours per hour? the correct formulation is "using less labor-power per hour"
>>2857582to be fair I bet 50% of americans would think this was the official US policy before trump, particularly the older ones
>>2857584its funny considering how unique 3Wism to america how much this aligns with extremes of american foreign policy
i think 50% of americans would identify what sakai and chums wrote about hamas and iran as pre-trump us policy
>>2857531>believing that revolutionary consciousness or potential is innate to a group of people just because they're materially poor is the same idealism as workerism and saying its innate just because they're the workers. I'm not an analyticalcel, I'm not making some a priori argument about 18th century workers. I'm talking about the observable historical reality of workers self organizing that is also observably absent in the modern day.
>>2857659> I'm talking about the observable historical reality of workers self organizing that is also observably absent in the modern day.how do you observe the past, hippy? do you have a time machine
>>2857608they believe in american exceptionalism and conflict of civilizations just as much as any other NeoCon they just disagree on who le good civilization-state is and still think the world revolves around america and americans.
>>2857667i agree. strip out the very superficial use of slogans and jargon and you can sort them into two categories: liberal idealists clinging to anarchism and agent provocateurs
>>2857665Read a book uygha
Unique IPs: 20