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”?
The fact only self hating westerners, diaspora and like 00.1% of westernized academics believe in it.
>>2849567this is an anecdote and it means nothing without concrete backing
>>2849584It's literally true, do you think any single person anywhere near power outside the west gives a shit about a bunch of retarded diaspora from the 1970's whose defining moment of racist was someone calling them a slur at Oxford(they were so sad they forget to feed their servants)
>>2849588what does this have to do with material exploitation of the global south from the global north?
>>2849591self hating westerners and retarded diaspora who want the global south to be their holy meat shields
Third worldism inevitably descends into doomer tribalism where people end up defending completely reactionary regimes because 'they're fighting imperialism' or whatever and nothing socialist ever happens anywhere.
third-worldism was a fringe current of about 100 people max of a fringe current of communism (which is already in the fringe of contemporary politics)
now the fine gentlemen of /leftypol/ and somehow the US state dept on twitter discuss it like it's the most pressing matter in leftist political discourse
it's "AIIIIEEE MUH TANKIES" all over again, isn't it?
what is third-worldism?
>>2849622To be fair, its proponents are pretty zealous about it. If you have a growing section of the left loudly insisting that this particular framework is the only valid lense through which to analyze the world and that all first worlders have some sort of irredeemable original sin it’s going to come up.
>>2849616True, it also leads to endless cope about how the anti imperialist aes countries just have to do market reforms / neoliberalism / minority killing / police states / collapse because western imperialism is over bearing and they need that to survive it. Well then I guess we're just back at square one and revolution needs to happen in the developped world first huh?
>>2849650That’s honestly one of my biggest criticisms of it just on instinct. Maybe it’s some sort of mental problem but I will say that enough JDPON posting has worked its way into my psyche that I genuinely have started looking at myself and my place in the world as this sort of innate irredeemable evil. I have access to goods at a price and in a quantity I otherwise would not without a level of exploitation abroad that I have never experienced in my life despite being poor as fuck and even being homeless for a time. It does impact how I see myself and the people around me and I struggle to square the circle between my place within the class structure of my own nation and the material benefits afforded to me by virtue of living in that nation alongside the horrible cost that comes at.
>>2849657>Lenin the liberal supported something Is this supposed to be an endorsment lmao
>>2849657Bakunin was a third worldist and Marx and Engeles were anti third worldist.
> Will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance? Only liberals and reactionaries care about the working class getting exploited by foreigners and want it to get exploited purely by the local capitalist class instead.
what is third-worldism?
>>2849710Non-white ethnonationalism masqeurading as marxism.
>>2849710Global SJWism:
> Will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? >>2849567fpbp and /thread
>>2849563>Is there a true “proletariat” within the global north?Yes, but these workers carry with them the original sin, namely white skin and the standard of living it brings.
>>2849622Third-worldism has become the dominant radical left position this decade.
>>2849733>>2849622It's worth clarifying the terminology. Post-colonialism was a major component of the New Left, which dominated left-wing academic and political discourse for about fifty years and you could characterize that tendency as Third-Worldist if you want.
Most of "third-worldism" is just pro-brown folx sentimentalism and therefore cannot generate anything besides social media posts. It's not even it's often explicit edgy anti-western content that is the problem it is just completely unserious, since it's just sentimentalism.
Also in the even le Revolution happenning lots if not most of "brown people" would be our mortal ennemies as most of them are incredibly reactionary, and i do not mean that in the anti-gay sense but in the real historical sense, savagely anti-communist or easely bribed into being so. Breznhev Afghanistan will look like a humanitarian operation in comparison.
>>2849763Relax, it’s just going to be a conservative Army officer. It’s almost always a conservative Army officer. Every revolution will eventually get subsumed by some Army officer. Thus the left’s goal should be to get that message into the Army officer’s ear. He won’t ever listen to “liberals” or academics, so it has to be delivered by people he sees as ordinary and relatable.
>>2849707Marx and engels were retarded, lenin became a hegelian during ww1, but couldn't just tell the whole rsdlp "we're doing left hegelianism now" sp being a pragmatist he just said his position was "marxism properly understood"
Marxism-leninism is actually 3xisting hegelianism, the true legacy of marx and engels are kautsky, plekhanov, trotsky, bordiga, etc (i.e., western chauvinist retards)
Juche is accused of "idealism", but it is the true inheritor of leninism, which is precisely why they disposed of the " marxism" label
Third worldism is a psyop that is beneficial to the bourgeosie of both the first world and the third world. For the third world, the benefit is obvious, its just plain nationalism and propagandizes the proletariat to stay loyal to the ruling class that exploits them. For the first world, apart from the falsification of Marxism, it also creates an environment where communists think that other countries will eventually abolish capitalism and that they dont have an urgency to do anything at home. As long as you have the belief that communism will be magically achieved, you dont feel the need to think deeply and figure out what actually has to be done at home.
>>2849852Israel is part of the third world tho
Revolution isn’t happening anywhere unless the CIA allows and abates it, I’m a CIA worldist, trust nothing and no one
>>2849863Israel is in the west by any sensible definition.
>>2849863It’s occupied Palestine which is third world but Israelis the invaders and colonizers are first world. Just like Boers and Pied Noirs.
>>2849870
Half of Israelis are Iraqi and Yemeni, they’re the main base for Likud
>>2849863you can’t make this shut up lmao
>>2849877
They and all the doctors, engineers, and tech bros have left Israel since 10/7, Sinwar won the long game
>>2849657No he wasn't. He considered workers to be the majority in industrialized capitalist societies and held the orthodox Marxist view that these would be where the real revolution would take place. He viewed Russia's own revolution as ancillary to an eventual revolution in Germany that would mark the true beginning of the socialist era. He never said anything approximating the line that there was no proletariat in imperialist countries, which is the defining feature of third worldism.
>>2849882Marx called the British proletariat a bourgeois proletariat and said the only way to break that was full Irish independence
>>2849890He said “only”, not “Euros all suck, I will only break bread with Sun Yat Sen and the Emir of Afghanistan “
Define "third worldism" otherwise I consider its use as a snarl word by coping Euroids and zionists.
>>2849890Lenin said this including Russia in Europe
>>2849907The belief that there is no substantial proletariat in the imperial core besides a handful of migrant workers, penal workers and so on.
>>2849890There is nothing "third worldist" about that statement. Third worldism denies the existence of a proletariat with revolutionary tendencies in imperialist countries. Lenin never denied this (in fact he regularly affirmed it), he just established a theoretical connection between the proletarian revolution and the liberation of oppressed nations.
>>2849886Marx observed imperialism as having a cooling effect on class antagonisms in developed countries. He never denied that a proletariat existed in these countries or that it had revolutionary potential.
>What are the best arguments for or against third-worldism?
There is no argument. "Third-worldism" is a meaningless thing. It is a label smacked on anything these days but itself is nothing and has no basis in reality.
>Is there a true “proletariat” within the global north?
yes
>How culpable are the rank and file citizenry in first world nations?
To what? For what? By whom? Third-Worldism is just fantasy revenge porn for schizophrenic misanthropes who themselves are living in the modern world with all its comforts.
>Do first world nations have potential for proletarian revolution from within, or can they only be destroyed externally by “proletarian nations”?
This is a completely stupid view of the world. If we gauge the concept of revolution as a thing that has "potential" to occur rather than something that will have to occur due to contradictions and the collective power of the revolutionary class then we relegate organizing, class struggle, and the creation of a revolutionary party to be completely moot because well *checks chart* "there is just no potential". By this very own logic Third-Worldism doesn't even hold up to its own standards. Almost all "Third-World" nations are not rife with socialist revolution. To say that revolution within the weaker links of capital is more likely than in its center is vastly different than stating revolutions can and only will occur within the weaker links in the chain. Also the entire concept of socialist construction destroys any semblance of "third-worldism" because a socialist nation would no longer be a "third-world" nation, it would become more advanced than "first-world" (if they can consider themselves that at that point) nations over time. Since there are no modern socialist nations in the world today we cannot see that difference. Third-Worldism also collapses within the opposite side of this logic. Imperialized nations can eventually become capitalist juggernauts themselves, just look at Imperial Japan.
So Third-Worldism just becomes relegated to a label, it has no meaning besides a nation less "developed" than imperialist nations. There is no third-world alliance that holds any power over how the world functions (they would cease to be third world nations if that was the case). It lacks any real understanding of class society and simplifies varied complex geopolitical, cultural, systemic contradictions in these nations (including the shadow of imperialism) under one label rather than individual things that coexist and work off one another that must be further understood to truly see why certain things happen the way they happen, which leads to a lot of disappointment to many Third-Worldists when lets say a revisionist "socialist" government institutes laws that sell out its own people, or why certain resistance groups under the thumb of another regional power never push beyond a certain threshold against the enemy. Instead of seeing the situation as more complex than what they originally thought or even knew, they just blame the citizenry of the "First-World" unironically reinforcing a bizarre form of "white-man's burden" by stating things like, "only you [westerners] could have done something to stop this" as if the leadership and masses of the so called "third-world" are complete invalids incapable of any form of thought or structure within their affairs or actions with the only true giants that can spin the wheel of history is some fat chump living in New Jersey, or Arizona, or Bumbfuck Ohio. It's pathetic and childish.
>>2850069Correct take, end of discussion
Every single moral argument supports third worlist thought.
Engles definition of the proletariat as a the working class of the 19th century whose existence depends on the cost of labor doesnt apply anymore.
The west's "workers" lives dont change based on the changing value of their "labor" they goods in which they consume, their prices which is powered from imperialism, has more determination on their life.
The so-called "work" they do in the first world is mostly unproductive labor dealing with treats, ie. Baristas.
>>2849563>Is there a true “proletariat” within the global north?Yes and no. The purpose of analyzing classes is to look which structural interests they possess. It's undeniable that certain of the immeserated workers in the global north, like food delivery drivers or illegal farm workers, have a structural interest in overcoming the capitalist MoP.
However, it's also undeniable that the majority of white collar workers in the global north hold an advantage that they risk loosing by overcoming the global capitalist MoP. This is much less the case in eastern and southern Europe but it holds true for the West. This is not to say that the proletariat there don't have an interest in communizing, but that their communization would likely only restrict itself to their own country and with many limits.
>How culpable are the rank and file citizenry in first world nations? It's an irrelevant question because marxism isn't a moral critique. That said, not much. They didn't "choose" to make the global south poor. They structurally don't have much of a choice tbh
>Do first world nations have potential for proletarian revolution from withinNot much. As explained earlier, the lives in the west are too comfortable for a revolution there to become the center point of a global revolution. There might be democratization of enterprises and green planning but that's it.
Think of it this way : why would a communist GB decide to stop supporting the EU, the US, and to close itself ? The immediate consequences would catastrophic. It doesn't make sense for the UK to stop its imperialist relations because it yields great benefits to it.
>can they only be destroyed externally by “proletarian nations”?Not destroyed as in militarily invaded, but destroyed as in economic catch-up and rivalry. I mean it's historically what happened and happens too. The USSR served as a model before it degenerated. China nowadays inspires many in the West to rethink their economic model.
>>2850069>rather than something that will have to occur due to contradictionsincorrect teleologic reading
>Almost all "Third-World" nations are not rife with socialist revolution Mostly incorrect. Socialist movements are stronger militarily and politically in third world countries than in the West overall. The chances of a military coup in a western country are almost 0.
>socialist nation would no longer be a "third-world" nationYeah ? It'd be socialist then lol
> Third-Worldism just becomes relegated to a labelI agree with this. Most people that are TWorldist are complete buffoons that have revenge fantasies on whites. That said, there is a theoritecal kernel that holds true : the west simply doesn't have the same revolutionnary potential than under-developed countries where the contradictions behind capitalism hits the hardest. Larping as "le 1917 bolsheviks" in a micro-party will never amount to change in the West.
>>2850172>Algeria is a good example, postcolonial theorists often hold it up as a great anti-colonial cause, yet the leaders of the independence movement and later of Algeria itself were Francophile army officers.LOOK AT ME.
I AM THE TREATLER NOW.
>>2849890yeah that's saying that democracy and socialism are now a worldwide issue, not that europe is now unable to be socialist lmao
>Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists … but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America's more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.
>A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm Third worldism is retarded and just anti-industrial false conscious
>>2849815>Marx and engels were retarded,MODS!
>>2850455mid post
>>2850456shit post
>>2850029>or that it had revolutionary potential.”will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland"
Seems pretty clear cut. As long as colonialism and imperialism exist - no revolutionary potential
>>2850069>third worldism is false, we just have to organize!>immediately does strasserismSo far hasn't been proven wrong
>>2850502That still isn't third worldism, since third worldism denies the existence of a first world proletariat altogether. Marx also never ceased agitation among English workers, indicating that he considered them to still have a revolutionary capacity. He also didn't believe that the revolution would begin in the colonies and subdue the metropole.
>As long as colonialism and imperialism exist - no revolutionary potentialIf that's what you believe (Marx didn't) then socialism is impossible because imperialism and colonialism will always exist alongside capitalism.
>>2850515Which means the direct tas (the primary contradiction if you will) is to attack colonialism and imperialism.
Ie, getting rid of ierland.
Which means socialism can't be built in the west until imperialism is defeated.
By agitating around "socialism for the first world" (strasserism), you are disagreeing with marx
You retards love calling china social imperialist, so why are you trying to buold social imperialism at home?
>>2850502History litteraly proves you wrong as revolutionary movements happened in France and Germany, and succeded in Russia, which are in the top five colonialist imperialist countries. Most retarded post.
>>2850523>Which means the direct tas (the primary contradiction if you will) is to attack colonialism and imperialism.No, it would be to agitate the workers in the imperialist countries at the same time as you agitate for national liberation in the colonized ones. This is what Lenin argued for. Marx for his part placed very little emphasis on national liberation apart from specific examples (Poland, Ireland) and at times even supported colonialism outright (India, America). Neither Marx nor Lenin were third worldists who considered workers in imperialist countries to be net exploiters, inherently reactionary, or not worth organizing. Just supporting anti-imperialism, recognizing that the contradictions are generally sharper in the periphery, or that revolution is more likely in a colonized country isn't third worldism.
>Which means socialism can't be built in the west until imperialism is defeated.Circular reasoning. Imperialism can't be defeated unless capitalism is defeated, and we know from the experience of the Cold War that socialism can't survive if its confined to the periphery. There needs to be a revolution in at least part of the imperial core (even if that core moves from the West to another region) if there is going to be socialism.
>By agitating around "socialism for the first world" (strasserism)This is a practically nonexistent position. There is virtually nobody who supports the abolition of capitalism in the first world but the continuation of imperialist relations between periphery and core.
>>2850528This is also an important point to note. The Bolsheviks considered Russia to be an imperialist country and "prison house of nations", yet they successfully staged a revolution in the Russian heartland which was the prerequisite for the liberation of those oppressed nations. According to third worldist thinking this should be impossible, and national liberation in the oppressed nations should cause socialist revolution in the oppressor nation instead of the reverse. Ironically Russia today is probably the most pro-Soviet of all ex-Warsaw Pact countries, while the oppressed nations that achieved liberation as a result of the October Revolution are generally far more anti-communist and pro-imperialist.
>>2850528They won in russia specifically by organizing around anticol9nial and anti-imperialist lines, and allying with the peasantry (ie with the non-proletarian oppressed), not by doing bernsteinism and kautskyism harder
>>2850530>There is virtually nobody who supports the abolition of capitalism in the first world but the continuation of imperialist relations between periphery and core. They don't explicitly say it, but this is their praxis: bribing the white middle class with promises that socialism will get them more mcmansions and superwages, while claiming that imperialism is just a le morally bad thing capitalists do, not the thing that gets them mcmansions in the first place
The western worker is way smarter than the western communists, and know where their bread is buttered, so naturally they ignore the idiot communists
The problem, of course, is that you are so condescending to the working class, is that you think the only way to get them to do socialism is to bribe them.
Lenin, instead, advocated for raising tbeir level of political consciousness to encompass all struggles
>>2850531I am pretty sure a lot of the organizing was around "join us because the government will send you to die in WWI, also like half of the populace freezes to death every winter"
>>2850583So what's the western communist propaganda?
"Join us so that you can own land sooner?"
"Join us so you have more spending money aftet paying your 401k?
" join us so your minimum wage can be even higher than the value you actually produce"?
One of the most vile beings on Earth are small capitalists of poor developed countries
>>2849657Let's ask Lenin
>The social revolution cannot be the united action of the proletarians of all countries for the simple reason that most of the countries and the majority of the world’s population have not even reached, or have only just reached, the capitalist stage of development.>We stated this in section six of our theses, but P. Kievsky, because of lack of attention, or inability to think, did “not notice” that we included this section for a definite purpose, namely, to refute caricature distortions of Marxism. Only the advanced countries of Western Europe and North America have matured for socialism, and ii Engels’s letter to Kautsky (Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata)[5] Kievsky will find a concrete illustration of the real and not merely promised “idea” that to dream of the “united action of the proletarians of all countries” means postponing socialism to the Greek calends, i.e., for ever. Socialism will be achieved by the united action of the proletarians, not of all, but of a minority of countries, those that have reached the advanced capitalist stage of development. The cause of Kievsky’s error lies in failure to understand that in these advanced countries (England, France, Germany, etc.) the national problem was solved long ago; national unity outlived its purpose long ago; objectively, there are no “general national tasks” to be accomplished. Hence, only in these countries is it possible now to “blow up” national unity and establish class unity. The undeveloped countries are a different matter. They embrace the whole of Eastern Europe and all the colonies and semi-colonies and are dealt with in section six of the theses (second- and third-type countries). In those areas, as a rule, there still exist oppressed and capitalistically undeveloped nations. Objectively, these nations still have general national tasks to accomplish, namely, democratic tasks, the tasks of overthrowing foreign oppression.All countries now reached the capitalist state of development. Simple as that. In fact, it was socdems and communists that made that happen in the global south in the 20th century. So, Mensheviks won.
>>2850441reddit and other glowing platforms where known provocateurs two decades ago still have admin access
How else do you explain the fact that no revolutions have happened in the imperial core outside of Germany in 1918 when they were literally starving?
>>2850820me screeching about lenin offering food to people, accusing him of ripping it out of the mouths of already starving siberians, forcing them to freeze to death cutting wood so muscovites can stay cozy
>>2849815>turd worldists: oh my allah how dare you cite bordiga he was a heckin' vvestern chauvinist ermm??? his followers literally say poc iranian bourgeoisie doesn't have a right to exist sweaty??<bordiga: <However, even if the 'Portuguese' blacks do not move of their own accord, it is inevitable that they will feel the pressure of the rebels on the Congo border and let us hope that the same 'exportation of revolt' may spread to Rhodesia and southern Africa, will finally throw off the bloody reign of the apartheid torturers, and other not dissimilar insects. It will be the best welcome to the veteran Verwoerd.<In Mexico, in a lake called Patzcuaro, there is a little island called Janitzio. 2350 meters above sea level a stunning landscape opens up before visitors: tranquil waters, mountains, torturous slopes, a sky so close you can almost touch it with a finger. Descendants of a proud race, the Tarascan Indians did battle against the Spanish conquistadors. They were beaten, and they adopted the Christian religion of the invader: but the saints whom they revere have kept the character of ancient divinities: the Sun, the Water, the Fire and the Moon. The Tarascanos are skilled in leatherworking and woodcarving, silversmithing and weaving wool. They are just as good fishermen. When they haul in their nets (strange things that look like huge butterflies) they are always swarming with fish. And although they are hard workers nowadays, the Tarascans remain very primitive. Indeed they consider life a transitional state, a brief moment that we must pass through to reach the blessing of death. Death no longer means an inevitable doom but on the contrary is considered a good, the only good thing whose value cannot be calculated. This is why the Day of the Dead is not a day of sorrow for the inhabitants of Janitzio. The party kicks off early in the morning. The houses are decorated for the festival and all the images of the saints are decorated with lace and paper flowers. The portraits of the dead are displayed and lit up with dozens of candles. The women cook the favorite meals of their dead relatives so they will be satisfied when they come back to see the living. >>2850987>platforms where known provocateurs two decades ago still have admin accessso leftypol.org
>>2849634>>2851007a purely American phenomenon that happened in harvard and yale in the 1980s as a reaction to the New Communist Movement
proto TWism had very early internet presence in the 1990s when there was little or no communism available.
since then every few years there is a wave of people 'discovering' this and insisting condescendingly that it is the authentic truth of brown people and not centered on American universities
most TWism is heavily revisionist of Maoism and notably rejects almost every single thing Mao himself wrote about class struggle and imperialism in favour of new, US-Centric interpretations of unequal exchance and other theories that were fashionable in the 70s
>so leftypol.orgquite possibly
>>2850998There hasn't been a third world socialist revolution in like 40 years.
>>2851027and most of the ones that happened were chimera socialist-bourgeois-democratic revolutions headed by communists which were unable to overcome capitalism decisively. Nevermind the logical leap of the argument in the post you're replying to
>>2851027Nepal got really close in 2006, also there’s an argument to be made for Hugo Chavez after the failed coup
>>2850998retard, all of them were nationalist
revolutions
t. third-worlder whose local socialists literally praise the ancient kings of our country
>>2851178Am I supposed to care?
>>2851040>>2851037I think that given the fact that third world revolutionary movements fizzled out roughly 40 years after imperial core ones did, we need to move on to another explanation for why this happened. Clearly just being poor doesn't produce a revolutionary movement.
>>2851702
>just being poor produces a revolutionary movement.As your avowed third-worldist enemy, I can say with near complete certainty that no serious third worldist claims this.
The best way to phrase things is that socialist revolution is the least unlikely in the third world.
That is to day, revolution is generally unlikely everywhere most of the time, and the claim is just that for reasons of relative exploitation & material conditions, that it is relatively less unlikely in the poorest regions.
But I have said this to you before over the years.
End of the day, we are never going to agree because our goals are different: I seek to aid revolutionary movements where they have most potential first & then go from there, you are committed to each country's movement concentrating resources mainly on itself (and let's be honest, near exclusively on itself in practice).
While it appears as conflict over analysis & means, its actually a conflict over ends. You have attachments that I don't & vice bersa.
>>2851753> seek to aid revolutionary movements where they have most potential firstWhich is also the leninist position btw
>>2851753>As your avowed third-worldist enemy, I can say with near complete certainty that no serious third worldist claims this.that's why you all rub yourselves off over people with nothing but their chains and smear MIM's noble savage condescension over every discussion of imperialism you can force your determinism into.
all you can do is appeal to relative probabilities as if that is any way a product of serious analysis.
it is a question of means because "poor" is not what third-worldism claims. it is not the abstraction that MIM and others who polluted the anti-imperialism movement treated it as. if you are a poor, then you lack important things. you lack tools and means. you lack ability to both give and receive support. you lack the liberty to choose between tactic and strategy. you lack control over communication and education. it is harder for you direct your discipline towards chosen goal. actually think about what it means to be part of the worlds poor in a way that isnt fetishizing them as hobbits marching to mount doom to kill the dark lord on your behalf
the collegiate meme that is "third-worldism" cares about nothing about any of those ideas beyond aesthetics and tired intra-left semiotics and memes. it only cares about promulgating its racist condescensions and lust for the exotic and the authentic.
it began as a way to win arguments in periodicals and basic history will tell that is why it had a second life as a way to win arguments on forums
grow the fuck up and stop reading books you barely understand
>>2851753>I can say with near complete certainty that no serious third worldist claims this.Seems like your movement is made up of mostly unserious people then, considering how 90% of TW discourse you see online is about how first world workers deserve to be put in a meat grinder because they have air conditioning.
>that it is relatively less unlikely in the poorest regionsPossibly, but there are counter tendencies to this, such as the potential for upward development with means other than socialism (e.g. what you see happening in most BRICS countries). By contrast first world countries are completely stagnant and have very little potential for improvement, while also being more sensitive to declines in standards of living by virtue of it being higher. Frankly I think if revolution is more likely in the third world (a question I remain agnostic on) it has less to do with poverty as such and more to do with the weakness of state institutions there. This is also part of why I think revolutions in the third world have mostly fizzled out. The shaky, inexperienced, and dubiously legitimate post-colonial governments have actually managed to establish somewhat functioning institutions and consolidate themselves, and that alone has been enough to stem the late 20th century tide of third world revolution. In short, they've developed some basic tools to manage class contradictions that Western countries figured out about 50 years earlier.
>While it appears as conflict over analysis & means, its actually a conflict over endsThere's an obvious conflict over analysis since third worldists consider first world workers not as comrades to be won over but as enemies to be defeated.
>>2851772>>Seems like your movement is made up of mostly unserious people then, considering how 90% of TW discourse you see online is about how first world workers deserve to be put in a meat grinder because they have air conditioning. the unseriousness is the point. a read of any of the material going back to the 80s will tell you that the defining feature of TW discourse is not the centering of TW welfare or revolutionary potential but using stereotyping language about occupied or colonized peoples to glue together as much unacceptable, bad faith aesthetic politics as possible. from scientific racism to nambla, from hitler to garvey, from quoting the protocols of zion to justifying rape : if you want to poison the well, there is a TWist microcult somewhere waiting to welcome you
it is as racist as a dreamcatcher tattoo and means almost the exact same thing
>>2851772 > since third worldists consider first world workers not as comrades to be won over but as enemies to be defeated.it is a deeper kind of revision. it considers them not as workers because it denies that exploitation happens. it just rhetoric because exploitation is an emotive word. it is hard to think about exploitation if you picture a senior software developer who drives a tesla. therefore it must not be exploitation
so complete ignorance of the fact exploitation is a technical term and not just poetry
the same goes with "superprofits" which are treated as if that means they have magic powers now and can leap tall buildings with a single bound. since every TWist also seems like a juvenile pop culture junkie it makes sense. settlers just means muggles to most of them
>>2851772>>2851775Until they change their consciousness, they are 9bjectively the enemy. Same is true of any vacillating stratum with ambiguous interests.
You are the 9ne who treat mere working class or proletarian status as granting some kind of progressive essence to any actually existing group of people. Lenin, on the contrary, emphasized the subjective factor, consciousness, and ideological work. It's such a metaphysical way of reading marx, similar to "capitalism's contradictions will make it collapse on its own we just have to be ready" vs countervailing tendencies and capitalism's ability to adapt.
Since you neo-kautskyists have no interest even in acknowledging that the contradictions of imperialism create an antagonism between western and third world workers, enemies they will remain.
What lenin said of workers' spontaneous consciousness being bourgeois trade union consciousness, is doubly true of imperial workers today.
Btw here's che guevara on the topic:
https://redsails.org/amiga-o-enemiga/ >>2851822Btw, this is simply the global scale equivalent of marx's own analysis that capital splits the working class into mutually antagonistic strata (reserve army vs wage worker etc), and the only way out is broad class consciousness, not tailing the "productive" "real proletarian" workers
>>2851822guevara is of course correct about workers unions and who guerillas should be prepared to fight. but are you really certain that means what you think it means?
i am not the one talking about essential. you are the metaphysician here with your "strata" and treating antagonism as some innate property of things based on abstract position and not real contradiction. what makes a "group" into a "group" in your eyes?
the way TW-ist write about "consciousness" is almost spiritual, as if it is a naive reflection of real essence that allows theme to make groups as Good or Bad based on imaginary wars in their heads
understand first what work and production are and why they are relevant for war and conflict at all. before you proceed to reduce Marx to Gary Gygax as you have done here.
>>2851823except that it is no longer marx's distinction and becomes incoherent when projected on a global scale.
you cannot scale these things up and down and expect them to remain descriptive. marx's analysis is precise and historically specific. scaling it "globally" removes the relationship to production
"simply" is the right word because what you are doing is a reduction
besides the idea that Marx saw intra class divisions as ever essential or "mutual" is joke. it is not independent to in itself/for itself distinction
that is that marx only ever advancing these themes in order to show that class unity and solidarity is possible and (historically) necessary despite divisions.
sweep away the mystification and metaphysics, and you have distinctions that drive history and cannot be overcome without struggle and revolution (working class v bourgeosie) and those are overcome in the working classes coming to consciousness (privileged strata of workers v labour at large)
you use "consciousness" in an absolutizing way that doesnt contradict marx division of the working class into antagonistic groups so much as it contradicts the more fundamental distinction between class and abstract group of people.
TW-ism fails because it treats class as just any group of people and "consciousness" and "ideology" as interchangeable terms that essentialize these groups with their own interests. not only is none of that Marxist - none of it really reflects Leninist thoughts on class complicity within Imperialism. or the thoughts of those actually engaged in people's wars.
it all comes from people slapping incoherent ideas from Wallerstein and other bourgeois sociologists onto groups of people because they like it how it sounds. if it sounds like Lenin to you it is because we are removed from Lenin by a century of a war and technology. we need to go back to the drawing board not back to trade unions or to the cute yet racist pop cultural delirium that is TW-ism
cool now both kinds of racist are in this thread
>>2851822>Until they change their consciousness, they are 9bjectively the enemyI see no evidence that the consciousness of the third world workers is any more advanced, at least not currently. Since the fall of the USSR socialist consciousness had collapsed globally, and in the third world its been replaced by a plethora of sectarian and ethnonationalist ideologies like Islamism, Hinduvata, etc.
>You are the 9ne who treat mere working class or proletarian status as granting some kind of progressive essence to any actually existing group of peopleI simply acknowledge that if they are gripped by reactionary thinking that this is contrary to their real interests.
>the contradictions of imperialism create an antagonism between western and third world workersWhatever contradictions that may exist between them are minor and non-antagonistic compared to the contradictions between the workers of all countries and the bourgeoisie of all countries.
>>2851991>I simply acknowledge that if they are gripped by reactionary thinking that this is contrary to their real interests. "their" interests.
therein lies the kernel of bernsteinism. what is in their interests can veryt well be against the interests of the proletarian class
again you fall into essentialist framing where you equate "their interests" with the "interests" of the proletarian class as a whole, as if they hold some kind of "proletarian essence" within them. in actuality, their interests = what they consider to be their interests, and if they have reactionary consciousness, then their really actually existing interests are reactionary
PROLETARIAN CONSCIOUSNESS, on the other hand, has to be brought from without. all talk of "one's material interests" is economism, the task of building communism is broader than any one group, person or stratum's immediate interests
>>2852009
denying actually existing division and antagonism within the working class that capitalism creates essentially reproduces an elite-conspiratorial account of history where the masses are controlled and manipulated by a small group of people
in reality, capitalists are actually irrelevant, capitalism runs on workers competing with each other THROUGH capitalism
which is the entire reason scientific socialism, analysis and organizing is needed: to become aware of these contradictions and UNITE as a class
which is why lenin didn't give a shit about "workers' interests"
every western chauvinist deviations comes from not understanding this
>>2852008This argument is the essentialism you think that you're arguing against. "consciousness" is the part you're reducing to shorthand. Do you think consciousness is simply a matter of identification or self categorization?
You're clinging to a reduction that is selfrefuting even in the few lines that you've typed here
>>2852013Said and Fanon are decades apart
Said is of the post-structuralist school and his thought is traced to Nietzsche and Heidegger not Marx and Engels
Fanon is a Hegelian through and though, and although he is adopted by both TW-ism and postcolonialism as a mascot figure, he does not fit either except on the level of rhetoric and the colorful nature of his prose.
and you can't use Fanon to make TW-ism and Postcolonialism into the same movement either
>>2852019>which is the entire reason scientific socialism, analysis and organizing is needed: to become aware of these contradictions and UNITE as a classwhich is why lenin didn't give a shit about "workers' interests"
>every western chauvinist deviations comes from not understanding thisthis is true. but so does every racist mystification that reduces historical movement to matters of agency and perspective.
>in reality, capitalists are actually irrelevant, capitalism runs on workers competing with each other THROUGH capitalismthis is completely backwards. the divisions inside the working class are not the same as the "competition" that functions within and defines capitalism
get off the internet and read Capital. then come back
this thread has two kinds of posters: racists and people who don't know the difference between an argument and a slogan
the TW-ists are both at once
>>2852008>in actuality, their interests = what they consider to be their interests, and if they have reactionary consciousness, then their really actually existing interests are reactionaryThen socialism is impossible and it's over, since the third world masses are just as reactionary.
>>2852027Have you tried not tailing tho
>>2852027this is the ideological function of it
a fatalism that washes our hands of having to care at all since the true proletariat is always elsewhere
even in the TW the TWist will tell us the real revolutionary class is elsewhere, to come sometime in the future
just another version of "grillpill" for people who want to appear more serious than other online, pop culture addicted leftists
>>2852026From Postcolonialism VSI:
>“ To give up on the term ‘the third world’ now is also to give up on the memory of a potent political history during which the greatest political actors, such as the Martiniquan psychiatrist, philosopher, and anti-colonial activist Frantz Fanon, one of the earliest to use the term, offered their ambitious and visionary plans for the future of the world of people of colour.”Third world liberation truly has become a fetishisation of dysfunctional post colonial states. We really need to go beyond the 1st world and 3rd world, and just move to a "1 world" with "1 global proletariat".
>>2852030>>2852027here we come face to face with the worship of spontaneity and tailism
if you tell them that the working class doesn't actually spontaneously have class consciousness and a "proletarian soul", they think all is loss
vanguard party? bringing political consciousness from without? agitate, educate, organize? nah, never heard of it
it's LAZY and COWARDLY. you want the struggle to be easy, where the job is already "half done", where the masses are ready-made, so you can just give them a lil' push with your big marxism brain and sit back while the revolution happens.
sorry bub not how it works
>>2852027Uuuuh it's called dialectics chuddy…
>>2852039>here we come face to face with the worship of spontaneity and tailismin what you have posted, what is the word "consciousness" doing other than spontaneity?
you're the one inferring a proletariat soul and then tu quoquing anyone who calls you on it.
can you answer the question: what is it specifically about CLASS that relates it to CONSCIOUSNESS (in historic and not metaphysical terms) that no other social or communitarian category has?
if you answer that question, you will see why the lenin and che you quote disagree with the memes you're parroting
>it's LAZY and COWARDLY.lazy is relying on slogans not investigation and study
hit the books, son
bored of this memelord now
lets make more jokes about sakai quoting hitler and MIM trying to legalize pedophilia
>>2852036>a fetishisation of dysfunctional post colonial states.this plus less technology = muh authenticity
>>2852039>if you tell them that the working class doesn't actually spontaneously have class consciousness and a "proletarian soul", they think all is lossNobody said anything of the type. You're the one who said that proletarian interests are entirely subjective and that if workers are not socialist, then this is a reflection of their real interests. This is the exact opposite of what Lenin argues, since he points out that they are gripped by trade union or other forms of false consciousness.
>vanguard party? bringing political consciousness from without? agitate, educate, organize? nah, never heard of itThe entire third worldist thesis is that its pointless to even attempt this in the imperial core.
>>2852115there's no such thing as "false consciousness" in marxist theory, it's just some bullshit made up by academics, sorry
lenin never claimed that trade union consciousness was "false" (like, how are you going to tell someone that their "interests" are wrong, when interests are inherently subjective? you'd be reifying an abstraction, by positing a "real interest" that doesn't have any concrete determinations in actual living people).
he said it was politically wrong, for the task of abolishing capitalism
>>2852140>interests are inherently subjectiveYou’re a full on postmodernist
>>2852153Nope. Subjectivity is materially produced, therefore real. The worker's desire for higher wages is a real interest produced by his social relations.
Rather, you're a mechanical materialist and schematist, i.e. idealist who thinks there's some abstract "real interest" floating above that the workers' really existing subjectivity is "fake"
This is the same vulgar mistake as saying "money isn't real"
Social relations are real. Trade union consciousness represents real material interests. It's just that they're politically insufficirnt for abolishing capitalism
>>2852154Okay where is the economic kernel in capitalism for communism if it isn’t in unions, the worker coop, or the state owned enterprises?
>>2852176it's in the fact that the proletarian class, as an economic relation, is in a structural position to abolish itself (and its "interests" within the wage system along with itself)
in order to actualize this structural possibility, it has to change from a class in itself (a collection of actually existing wage workers doing random shit) into a class for itself (an organized subjectivity conscious of itself). in fact, having such a subjectivity, and a consciousness of oneself as a Class in the broadest sense, is a material necessity for abolishing oneself and capitalism along with it
this subjectivity is not a given, but is produced in the process of struggle.
the theory, vanguard, organization is the mechanism by which this consciousness arises
in short, "proletarian" is a real abstraction that identifies a contradiction in capitalism, but is not an "essential quality" of any actually living worker.
so workers merely pursuing their interests doesn't produce communism, they have to "make it real" by turning into revolutionary subjects.
it's kind of like… grasping the latent possibility in the concrete conditions and actualizing them through praxis. but it's not an automatic process, you have to actually do it through theory and praxis. lenin talks of this in empiro criticism and stuff, and that's what the whole passage about "dreams" in WITBD is about
this is because ideas aren't just some bullshit floating around reflecting material changes, they are a material necessity for enacting change in the world
so if some stratum of workers has reactionary ideas or has material incentives to keep imperialism/capitalism around you have to struggle with/against them until they put the interests of humanity over their own interests. which effectively means defecting and committing internal sabotage in the belly of the beast. and if that seems far fetched and unlikely, well, maybe it's strategically expedient to focus on the strata of workers who *don't* have short term material incentives for keeping imperialism/capitalism around… this is what lenin argued for in targeting the "weakest link".
Starting to sound a lot like third worldism innit…
>>2852140>there's no such thing as "false consciousness" in marxist theoryYes there is. Lenin in particular often talked about how workers are misled away from their real interests by social democracy and social imperialism.
<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. >>2852154> Trade union consciousness represents real material interestsExplain how this "representation" works without abstraction. How do you meaningfully differentiate "consciousness" "representation" and "interest" in this sentence seeing as you are using them interchangeably to defend an idealist thesis
people who believe MIM adjacent things are the most credulous cohort of the most gullible sector of the left. maybe you if put all those key words and slogans back into your bag, mixed them up and pour them out randomly again they'd fall into an order that isn't self-refuting nonsense
everything is name calling and accusations. the state of the online left
> this is what lenin argued for in targeting the "weakest link".
lmao people believe this
sincerely, it is uncritical liberal racism to expect people who have "nothing to lose" in your eyes to do violence because you associate poverty with nobility (and receptiveness to your own, personal ideology and moralism)
find the part of your town where there are refugees. chat to them. locate the one you perceive to be most knowledgeable about english-language marxism. tell them you believe this. see what happens. you'll likely realize your people are not the international proletariat but posters on r/communism
>>2849622>US state dept on twitterEating shit, and having someone be gleeful at you eating shit bothers some people.
>>2852247>it is uncritical liberal racism to expect people who have "nothing to lose" in your eyes to do violencethe call is coming from inside the house
>>2852214Yeah, it would definitely be against a worker's interests to go and get gassed in a trench for nothing.
Saving up for a mcmansion on stolen land and two cars assembled in mexico and fueled with arab blood while enjoying limitless consumption and accumulating capital in the form of 401ks, on the other hand…
>>2849646
>huh, I'll plug it into Google translate
Well then… Flattered to be on Mossad's radar.
>>2852252>the call is coming from inside the houseyour memes are from the same decade as your politics
>>2852252> accumulating capital in the form of 401ksdoes anyone else remember when words used to have to mean things?
>>2852267It’s literally a stock and it’s tied to weapons companies and zionist contractors
>>2852271yes. but what kind of capital is it literally, wordsmith?
>>2852279Fictitious capital doesn’t make you fictitious bourgeois
>>2852280
You’re mistaken, third worlders are fully humanbut someone always has to die and I’d prefer it not to be me
>>2852286neither does consumption, mi laddo. the words you use interchangeably are supposed to have fairly fixed meanings. you can rattle as many equivalences as you like but you are not going to persuade anyone who doesn't already share your chauvinism and racist assumptions about the global poor
hit the books
not gpt lol
>>2852291Oh no, i’m aware we’re all selfish animals at the end of the day, which is why the biggest unions in India are Rss affiliated
>>2852295>we’re all selfish animals at the end of the daymaybe you'd be more comfortable on a rick and morty forum
>>2852297You realize this is the home of Stirner memes right? Marx didn’t even refute his argument in The German Ideology
>>2852302fascinating. i'll keep 2012 informed
>>2852291The more you consume, the more you have to lose than your chains, it’s literally that simple
The spread of the cell phone to the third world destroyed its revolutionary potential, now everyone has access to infinite distractions and entertainment
>>2852401The only revolutions in the last 40 years have been CIA coordinated color revolutions
>>2852413Really makes one think.
Nobody ever denied that the West exploits the Rest. That their wealth is gained on the backs of others. That they then used that wealth to violently enforce their dominance.
But the moment the Rest stands up for themselves. Successfully. Those saying that this is a
good thing for the world and communism get labeled as fascists, nationalists, chauvinists, anti-communists, campists. Interesting.
You can only gaslight and project for so long before your target catches on.
>>2852436how many socialist revolutions have there been in the third world recently? maybe third worldists would have a point if they were constantly popping off. third worldism is just fed shit, "noooo first world workers shouldn't do anything but just cry about how they're inherently evil"
>>2852340the only thing "literally that simple" is how simple your over confident reductions make it
that is not what any of this means. you might as well say the proletariat of any historical period had "more to lose" i they had any qualitative difference to other proletariat. we don't have a telepathic way to measure how more or less we have than others. stop treating marxism as a league table of value judgements
"consciousness" means nothing magical. neither does "interest"
>>2852401yes, remember all those marxists who thought the yellow vests were legitimate socialist revolutionaries
try to type an idea without using a meme or the phrase "really that simple"
>>2852443>third worldism is just fed shitdon't read settlers, google henry park
>>2852443Indonesia aligned with China recently and that pissed off the globalists enough to try and stage a color revolution there like the ones that took down the anti-imperialist governments of Nepal and Bangladesh
>>2852454aligning with china isn't the same as socialist revolution lol
>>2852457Communism isn’t the mindless worship of the abstract concept of “revolution”. It is bot a set of policies to be adopted, nor a checklist of good things that you want. Communism is and always will be THE REAL MOVEMENT. At this present time in the age of multipolarity the real movement lies with the anti-imperialist states of the world led by Russia and China. They are opposed to the system, as was Indonesia which is why the globalists targeted it. Or do you deny the “Gen Z” riots were literally funded by the Open Society Foundation?
half of you are in 2012 and the other half in 1962
>>2852461>It is botyeah well something in this thread is a bot alright
>globalists
talk to the well poisoning guy
>>2852472It is not a set of policies to be adopted. You are capable of reading yes?
>>2852252>Saving up for a mcmansion on stolen land and two cars assembled in mexico and fueled with arab blood while enjoying limitless consumption and accumulating capital in the form of 401ksThird worldists have the same mentality as boomer conservatives lmao. What year do you think it is man?
>>2852488stop shadow boxing
>>2852493can't run from 80s nostalgia
>>2852461so true bestie
>As the class struggle within a nation is waged for the readjustment of unequal distinctions, so war between nations for an honorable cause will reform the present unjust distinctions. The American Empire is a millionaire possessing wealth all over the world; and Russia is a great landowner in occupation of the northern half of the globe. China with her undeveloped productive forces is one of the proletariat, and she has the right to declare war on the big monopoly powers. The socialists of the West contradict themselves when they admit the right of class struggle to the proletariat at home and at the same time condemn war, waged by a proletariat among nations, as militarism and aggression . . . If it is permissible for the working class to unite to overthrow unjust authority by bloodshed, then unconditional approval ' should be given to China to perfect her army and navy and make war for the rectification of unjust international frontiers. In the name of rational scientific socialism China claims possession of Australia and Eastern Siberia.-Deng Xiaoping 1980
>>2852449> you might as well say the proletariat of any historical period had "more to lose" i they had any qualitative difference to other proletariatCorrect and that’s why proletarian revolution wasn’t worldwide and never will be. Class struggle ended with the invention of nuclear weapons, suburbanization, social democracy, and mass media.
>>2852524"worldwide" is something we of the mass media/global age project back into the writings of the 19th century who couldnt have thought about it in the same way that they did
TW-ism acts as if "global" awareness or consciousness is something innate to every human and either activated or repressed through "bribes" and treats
the moment anyone wants to generalize the idea of "worldwide" or "global" and make it transhistorical you know they're gonna hit you with that Metaphysical Idealist Stare
>>2852530Literally all the poorest people have cell phones now
>>2852533shit!!!! just like Lenin said
"look for the weakest link the blockchain "
Name any effective form of resistance anyone has to deterritorialized capital
>>2852542i'm Anne Robinson and welcome to LINES OF FLIGHT
>>2852443>Sri Lankan government collapses>they elect a former communist guerilla>Burkina Faso>but that's not real communism or anti-imperialismHere comes the part where you raise your standards so that nobody, not even Lenin or Mao, were real socialists. Go ahead.
Forever intentionally misunderstand that the "real" part of "the real movement" is used in direct opposite to "the ideologically pure".
>>2852449>yes, remember all those marxists who thought the yellow vests were legitimate socialist revolutionariesUnlike you, I have actual memory, and visited the threads here cheering for the protests, the violence against police, and hopes that real socialist revolution was about to happen. Look! Melenchon is singing The Internationale!
And every time I expressed doubt this would go anywhere, posters would get shitty at me. I was never proven wrong, posters just get more shitty at me, without ever proving me wrong. Only more well poisoning. Now, even US State Dept. is getting shitty at me. Hey, where did the meme starring Pretty Fly (For a White Guy) go?
>>2852574same thing happened with BLM riots, retards are so eager for something to happen they will convince themselves the most brain dead lib protest is revolutionary
>>2852577This applies equally to farmer’s protests in India organized by their “communist” larty
>>2852574all about you, ain't it
unlike you, i visited the protests. have fun on the internet though
>>2852587Congrats you contributed to a CIA operation
>>2852587Do you even understand that every word out of your fucking mouth just reinforces Third Worldism? Or do you have no self-awareness at all?
>first reaction to a comment about social movement >brag about being in internet threads ten years agohow do you not die of shame
>>2852591i didnt tell you what i was doing, dingus
>>2852594The proletariat isn’t the revolutionary class in either the first world or the third world, it’s capital itself
>>2852594>no self-awareness>brags about internet presencelol.
shameful display. go for a jog or something
>>2852601Literally a racist meme, also gooning is literally better for you than exercise or diet
>>2852609>gooningi mentioned anne robinson, how much solidarity do i have to show?
you fellas post too hard for me to keep up. you're such veterans
>>2852613> third world bootymention gooning once…
you guys are sickos with one track minds
honestly though, how do you not die of shame
>>2852619I don't feel pride for attending failed protests, I am sustained by spilt firstie blood.
>>2852624>tsk nothin personal kiddamn you're hardcore, i didnt know
>>2852628After Holden Bloodfeast's, my turn.
getting painful to read. have a glass of water and a nap
>>2852633Maybe a vodka too, fuck it, smoke some heroin off tin foil
>>2852651drink some cough syrup, eat a stick of butter and go for a walk at midday. shit your pants and take the first bus home
have four tins of wintergreen altoids, drop an eckyy, neck a shot glass of prune juice and have five espressos and call an uber and tell him to drive down as many high ways as he can
>>2852681to me it feels disrepectful to post Pimp C in this thread
i like everyone involved in that video too much to reference them when talking about either Sakai or trying to force myself to defecate on public transport
Log off
>>2852567So we're counting electoralist social democrats as 'revolution' now? By that logic plenty of places in the first world have also had socialist revolution, like New York
>>2852726what about big moe
>>2852733If you respect UGK too much to smile while thinking about hearing them as you sip a pint of codeine and shitting yourself on a public bus the same should apply to anyone Screwed Up Clique
>>2852735you're right to correct me about this. thank you comrade
For some reason people think revolution = marxist leninist one party state. No, revolution is the shifting of the mode of production from capitalism to communism. In that sense the one party state is the most efficient at it when combined with a socialist market economy as evidenced by China accelerating exponentially towards full automation. Most one party states were constructed by hijacking the capitalist revolutionary wave of overthrowing old feudal structures, an alliance between the communists and revolutionary peasants for the most part. Now that feudalism has mostly been defeated throughout the world the room for huge political shifts into a one party state apparatus has been exhausted mostly. Third-Worldism is correct because it understands that the imperial core has no revolutionary potential due to imperialism. In the Third-World there is still some semblance of this revolutionary energy so an overthrow of bourgeois political control is still possible in different areas.
But truthfully that is quickly evaporating itself as evidenced by the defeat of the maoists in India and the Philippines. The good news is that communism is clearly starting to arrive in force with the rise of automation and ai, so as a result the most revolutionary action any communist can do in the first world right now is doing their best to help rip the use of AI and automation from the hands of the bourgeoisie and place it into the hands of the proletariat. But for some reason modern twitter communists would rather wax on about AI being satan rather than the liberatory force it actually is.
Thus, as a result of a lack of real revolutionary potential at this moment most people have turned towards alternative theories for the radical restructuring of the current order. In this the most promising horizon is China and the BRICS challenging the current imperial hegemony and attempting to accelerate the world towards communism faster by supporting less bourgeois controlled autocratic political structures (even if they aren't distincly Marxist-Leninist). It is a battle of incremental progress towards communism in the form of the BRICS and nomenklatura states or actively delaying communism as long as possible in the form of the NATO imperial domination and bourgeois liberal democracy. Which is why Third-Worldism is becoming more and more popular, it is the most logical conclusion for any modern Marxist who faces the overwhelming power of the labor aristocracy and imperialism in the first world.
>>2852892> overwhelming power of the labor aristocracy this is one of the silliest parts of the theory. if the labor aristocracy are a group with overwhelming power why do they need to be bribed off? since if they are powerful the proletariat of their nature would be no threat to them. remember that the bribery isn't supposed to create a labor aristocracy but rather to motivate the 'bourgeosified' workers to be more militant in defending their privileges. but at the same time as this if they are powerful why do the bribes work? since if they are such an overwhelmingly powerful block inside an imperial nation just buying them off with fleeting spoils wouldn't work
lenins theory is correct for its time because it describes the motives of bourgeoisified workers without denying that those workers are still proletariat. TW-ism misreads Lenin's analysis quite badly and emotionally and creates a class of people who are once so powerful they can stop a revolution of all united minorities in their nation but they are also so weak that they can be bought with cheeseburgers and cartoons.
in reality the labor aristocracy would be a very fragile class who could easily get rugged by their masters. this is what makes them easily motivated against immigrants and minorities and culture war Villain of the Week. you have to think about what makes them vicious and easily directed. don't think pampered treatlers - think junkyard dogs who get thrown meat and kicked alternately to make them aggrieved but loyal
when you mention AI it is an example of this. a lot of liberals with low paid jobs that they think deserve high social status are increasingly turning to delusional anti-science and anti-computer opinions derived from pop culture like Warhammer and Dune out of fear and grievance of their status being taken by the machine. Only I am Supposed To Be Able To Draw Realistic Superheroes - if poors and third world people can use a computer to make art too, it is fake art because I am not respected. What if someone on their phone can make a hit indie game About Identity and Trauma too? the fragile nature of labor aristocracy is exposed in those attitudes more than what the big maroon upthread called "limitless consumption" - its not limitless if it can be taken away, and its the taking away that counts for mobilizing trade unions and socdems against minorities and internationalism
TW-ism correctly identifies the nodes and the general direction and has something of the right direction but it takes all these insights and turns it into an apocalyptic revenge fantasy thats more Nietzsche than Marx (its one true connection to postcolonialism)
"revolutionary energy" is a straight mystification and a bit racist tbh.
>>2852915labor aristocracy is also not skilled or well-paid workers. when marxists referred to labor aristocracy before ww1, they usually meant the high rungs of the trade unions which possessed significant sway over the labor movement and dragged it towards conservative economistic struggles and managerialism. the consequences of this were playing out from the 50s to the 70s, today we are long past the decline of unions, with union membership as a percentage of total workforce oscilating around 10-20% and mostly remaining in the public sector in most places which had a large union movement in the xix and xx centuries. i wish more marxists investigated the terms they use beyond the surface level
>>2852956>>2852915Why would anyone making 40,000 and above with a 401k and health insurance risk revolution? Losing their job, going to prison
>>2852567>Here comes the part where you raise your standards so that nobody, not even Lenin or Mao, were real socialistsIt's not raising any standards to say that communists being elected to run a bourgeois state isn't a revolution. Lenin and Mao would have said the same thing. Best of luck to those comrades in Sri Lanka but they will need to carry out a comprehensive transformation of the state apparatus in order to transform it into a DotP. I'm sure they're well aware of this and don't consider their election to have accomplished it.
The “communists” you guys are praising in Sri Lanka were coalition partners in the government that did the genocide at Elephant’s Pass, everything the Israelis did and are doing in Gaza was also done in Tamil Eelam.
>>2853005thats also because israel had deep links to sri lanka
>>2852992i don't know. ask lenin why he traded his comfy job prospects as a lawyer to pursue socialist revolution. ask british socialists why they advocated for the abolition of capitalism in a country where workers were much better off compared to indian workers. why do people do anything other than eat and sleep?
>>2853019That’s one guy who got lucky
>>2852956exactly.
if the term has relevance today it is noticing who is joining and running unions and governing "labor politics" in the present world and the positions they hold within public service, academia and media.
TW-ism holds explicitly that the western working class are not proletarian and not exploited. these are both anti-marxist positions that reduce exploitation and proletariat to just emotive words without a technical meaning. Lenin is explicit that the labor aristocracy are proletarian and not bourgeois. only bourgeois inside the proletariat. they are still in an uncertain and risky position. therefore bribing them with privileges (and not just consumption or treats) is effective because it gives them something that they lack. to the extent that that will now fight to define it. TW-ism just plays word games around this and selects things based on how emotive they are
the one trap is going from a principled critique of TW-ism to saying labor aristocracy is just another name for PMC. it isnt and cant be.
>>2852992this same argument can be made about any class who went to revolution. why would they since they have X perk or lack X drawback compared to another group? every group of people can be made too look privileged compared to another group if you want to make bad faith comparisons. the grass is always greener or less greener. this is just word games.
bringing up 401k or freedom from prison or war is just "but capitalism made your iPhone" from a different direction of social conservativism/individualism. please consider the historical links between European Maoism and the emergence of "Horseshoe Theory" bullshit and think about how online TW-ism and ReadSettlers garbage is just the same thing cleaned up for a smugger, less well read generation
>>2853019"i am a third worldist who believes no one will give up their comfortable privileged lives and cultured existence for the good of revolution"
"who are your heros?"
"Lenin and Mao"
beyond parody
>>2853037>why would they since they have X perk or lack X drawback compared to another group?Mfs forget that the bourgeois revolutions were literally led by an emerging class that occupied an upper-middle rung of income and wealth in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The guys who chopped King Louis' head off were not poor.
>>2853038Those are exceptions that prove the rule
>>2853041>mfs forgotmf havent read marx they just like how his terminology makes they feel
>>2853042is this the scientific materialism ive heard so much about
also "prove the rule" means test the rule
it just be like that some times
>>2853043The bast majority of lawyers and librarians are neither Stalin nor Mao nor do they have any interest in being such
>>2853041And now that same landowning class comprises 50% of us population
What, are they gonna chop off their own heads?
Or you can just admit you were wrong the whole time and the age of “revolution” is over entirely
I wonder what the average age of a leftypol user is nowadays considering its always just the most low-quality threads that keep bumping while any and all threads requiring just a little bit of Marxist theoretical literacy gets slid like a puck on ice down the catalog
>>2853070the vast majority of homes never burn down
throw away your fire alarm
do any anons know if their are there any third-worldist orgs operating in the global south? we should just shoot them an email real quick.
>>2853138
>That drop off by the '70s
Kill every capitalist roader
>>2853131Ir you can just admit the proletariat is nothing but another bourgeois in the making no matter where they are
>>2853075>And now that same landowning class comprises 50% of us populationI know you're not stupid enough to try and claim that owning a house you personally live in is the same as owning a feudal estate worked by peasants that pay you rent. You can't possibly be that retarded right?
>>2853184To the innocent Afghanis you tortured and butchered it’s a distinction without a difference
>>2853138
Everything after 1924 are capitalist revolutions.
>>2853167except that is not true. due to the relationship between labor, struggle and production the opposite is true
the proletariat remain proletariat no matter how many wollipops and sweeties you give them
both the guevara and lenin quoted in this thread show this
even the extreme state of an imperial 'labor aristocracy' when that formation was at the height its influential they still stress that they are bourgeoisified proletariat not proletariat that got made into bourgeois by the magic of ressentiment
this is fundamental to understanding solidarity and the lack of it. also fundamental to understand why the previous successful revolutions were bourgeois revolutions
we have the choice of thinking critically and looking at how communists concepts were assembled and used
or we can use the words that feel good to use, in the way that feels like it matches up to the world around us
otherwise its the hypocrisy of saying "one divided into two" except the homogeny that i perceive around myself. that is a natural whole and cannot be changed. very convenient and accounts for why TW-ism is a phenomenon of US universities and not global south agriculture or mining
>>2853189I'm sure it's real in your mind.
>>2852915>this is one of the silliest parts of the theory. if the labor aristocracy are a group with overwhelming power why do they need to be bribed off? They aren't, they are a self-concious part of the machine. Just as you aren't "bribing" a member of bourgeoisie to pursue their class-based interested it is the same for the labor aristocracy. It is in their interests to perpetuate imperialism.
The rest of your post is literally just pointless strawmaning and psychologizing about how third-worldists are "bad" people and such. It's stupid as fuck especially since you seem to love to accuse others of moralism.
>"revolutionary energy" is a straight mystification and a bit racist tbh.You are being maliciously obtuse, it is obviously a simplication of Marx's understanding of the development of modes of production. The point is that Feudalism is abolished and there can be no more revolutionary movements to hijack anymore in the first world anymore.
The whole debate becomes trivial if you start with the concrete praxis of organizing: helping people survive so that they side with you
Well, who's precarious and poor enough that you can even help to survive? Not the american middle class
Therefore, you go to the internally colonized and marginalized
>>2853619>They aren't, they are a self-concious part of the machine. Just as you aren't "bribing" a member of bourgeoisie to pursue their class-based interested it is the same for the labor aristocracy. It is in their interests to perpetuate imperialism.If you take this mechanistic conception of class interests seriously, you might say that it is in the interest of the workers to butcher immigrants (this was happening before and during Marx's time as well) or burn and loot the property of Jews/another scapegoat or establish a fascist regime to settle Eastern Europe etc. Yet there were millions of workers historically who joined socialist parties in imperialist countries, workers who bled and died resisting fascism in their countries, people who pursued the socialist project despite being relatively privileged in the hierarchy of workers or being petty bourgeois. Which is to say that you need to hit the books again if this is your conception of class. Marx never claims that socialism is ready-made in the worker as a result of bad living circumstances, it was always a political project which hijacks the existing struggles of workers and turns them in a socialist direction.
>>2853726Third world workers can be exactly that chauvinist too, you should have seen what happened in South Africa this week
>>2853619>They aren't, they are a self-concious part of the machine. Just as you aren't "bribing" a member of bourgeoisie to pursue their class-based interested it is the same for the labor aristocracy. It is in their interests to perpetuate imperialism.This is "consciousness" and "interest" being used interchangeably.
Yes the difference with the bourgeoisie is that the bourgeoisie don't need to be bribe. But the in the Lenin account this is not true for labor aristocracy: their "interests" are not towards imperialism, so imperialism must make it so. therefore the turn to economism. what you are saying makes so sense: firstly, what is "consciousness" if "interest" is something immediate and innate to a strata? and if the labor aristocracy is just part of the machine why i is the machine having to tactically divert spoils of empire to them to motivate them against revolution? if it is in their interests, you shouldn't need the special political condition of superprofits to influence them into supporting it.
Lenin is coherent. The way it is being used by TW-ism online just isn't.
>You are being maliciously obtuse, it is obviously a simplication of Marx's understanding of the development of modes of productions Don't be a clown. Nowhere in Marx is there anything that should lead you to conclude that people who are more materially poor are innately more inclined to revolution because they have "revolutionary energy"
> The point is that Feudalism is abolished and there can be no more revolutionary movements to hijack anymore in the first world anymore.lol. alright.
again: if that is so, why do the one group get "bribes" and the other accumulate capital
is the argument that is just different words for the same thing, its just phrased different for rhetorical effect? it is hard to take seriously. especially when built on racist or almost racist fetishizing of extreme poverty in the global south
>>2852140the anti-intellectualism of this site is a huge contributor to why it is such dogshit. lukacs was some bullshit academic, great
>>2853727Or you could just jesture vaguely at the entire country of India minus Kerala (and even then the CPI are trying really hard to prove that a labour aristocracy can exist in the third world).
>>2853757Yes, Lukacs was an anti-communist like the rest of western leftist intelligentsia. There’s a reason why he’s relentlessly glazed by Frankfurt postmodernist freaks
>>2853758What else would you call workers in BJP/RSS affiliated unions? The labor aristocracy dynamics exist in the third world too, and with the spread of the cell phone all the poorest and most exploited now have treats that came from slave labor in the congo, infinite distractions, the ability to get petit bourgeois through cyber hustling and fingering your ass on cam sites. Everyone is a treatler now. That’s what third worldists completely miss.
>>2853764Also if you just look at the behaviour of the CPI they're just turning into a Western style socdem party, right down to their support for reactionary wars.
>>2853765Black Lives Matter riots had more of a proletarian character than the CPI organized Farmer’s protests
>>2853757yes, infuriating.
let's flush the whole history of marxism and everyone who took marx seriously down the toilet and uncritically repeat what MIM and LLCO posted on their websites twenty years years ago or more
most of the arguments around TW-ism resemble 2010s "anti-idpol" socdem nonsense in that its angrily anti-intellectual and based around crowding terminology together emotionally so that any term can be the condemnation you want to find if you look hard enough.
>>2853757>There’s a reason why he’s relentlessly glazed by Frankfurt postmodernist freakshow do you not die of shame?
>>2853771
> marxists of previous generations spent hundreds of pages and used the best scientific information and most synoptic historical accounts they could find to painstakingly lay out the terms of the arguments and why each word meant one specific things and was only deployed in accordance to exacting rules. even when they were wrong, they were admirably thorough
All that thoroughness and effort and research, and where did that lead? The current status quo
marxists of previous generations spent hundreds of pages and used the best scientific information and most synoptic historical accounts they could find to painstakingly lay out the terms of the arguments and why each word meant one specific things and was only deployed in accordance to exacting rules. even when they were wrong, they were admirably thorough
but now its the internet age and bullshit online microcults like TW-ism or CPUSA just say "these terms all mean the same thing anyway, you're just being obtuse because of KAFKA TRAP" its the same mix of chauvinism, anti-intellectualism and racial fetishization whether its on the relative right or the relative left. lets stop bleating about postmodernism like it is still 1998 and try to critique the present moment, not the version of the present moment we'd like to be in
>The current status quo
gyorgy lukacs mechanistically lead to the current status quo
hit the books mi laddo
>>2853775Yes, those books led to the current status quo, only the haute bourgeois read them and take them seriously, all that hard mental labor and it’s been nothing but ammo to the enemy
>>2853775Metaphysical naval gazing about how many gender identities can fit on the tip of a manspreading is not and never will be Marxism
>>2853777> only the haute bourgeois read them and take them seriouslyif this is refering to Lukacs, you have revealed how little you truly know about communism in the global south and the third world
the resource are freely available to you. it is not the 1960s: you have no excuse for this
>>2853779It’s referring to the entire socialist book sphere since Marx, working class people don’t read and haven’t read since the invention of the television
>>2853778was this meant to be funny or something
have a glass of water, have a breather and make an appointment with Dr Google
>>2853782i didnt know Archie Bunker posted here
>>2853773>All that thoroughness and effort and research, and where did that lead? The current status quoMarx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao also led us to the current status quo.
>>2853786Almost like they were wrong or something
>>2853005SL govt has never been communist sure.
but the Tamil peelam, LTTE may have started with good intentions and liberatory causes but became violent personality cult ethnonationalist pieces of shit who absolutely had it coming especially after 2002 ceasefire. No sympathy for them. Absolutely nothing like palestine
>>2853762lukacs literally wrote an entire book about western philosophers carrying water for imperialism lmao cope
>>2853635>"the middle class">"the internally colonised"I hate liberals
"internally colonized" sounds like phil hartman at the end of that SNL cereal commercial
>>2850440>the only true leftism is when you drink Marx's semenWhy are marxists like this?
>>2853804The only thing Marx was wrong about was his underestimation of the resilience of the capitalist system and overestimation of the ability of socialist parties to sublate proletarian movements in the direction of internationalism and dotp in the time he thought it would take for socialism to come about
>>2854587Close but it’s that he was wrong about the proletariat being a revolutionary subject, the more advanced capitalism is, the more distant the connection to the land and memories of peasantry, the less interested in revolution proles are. There’s a reason MLism only happened in majority peasant and semi colonial countries, because the peasants can actually feed themselves and feed an insurgency, proles can’t.
>>2854598The Russian Revolution was a worker's revolution. Industrial workers formed the main base of the Bolsheviks. Many peasants supported them as well but on the whole there were highly unreliable.
>There’s a reason MLism only happened in majority peasant and semi colonial countries,Because these were societies in transition, beginning to introduce the social relations of capitalism without the political or ideological tools to manage them. If peasants were really the mass base for socialism then there would have been some kind of peasant socialist revolution some time during the many centuries of feudalism.
>>2854601As soon as capitalism has the political and ideological tools and is cemented, it’s over, the game is up, that’s why the cell phone is the final nail in the coffin, now everyone in any slum in the world can goon their life away and make a few cents on a racist tweet
>>2854614You say that but in the short time it has existed capitalism has proven far less stable and more prone to self destruction than feudalism.
>>2854618The instability of capitalism and its self destruction are why it’s so dynamic and enduring, you can just build, destroy, outsource, build, destroy, outsource, reshore until the sun swallows the earth
Third worldism as a firstie only makes sense in one scenario: breaking the "primary contradiction" of imperialism is the only way to break neoliberalism and deindustrialization and reopen the can of worms that is class conflict. All this "unlimited genocide" shit is a larp by malcontents who only use leftism as a filter for their misanthropy. Not that I blame them, hating your fellow man is the natural result of being American
>>2853083Everything about the internet and its toxicity can be explained by the fact that it's basically immature kids crashing adult spaces and demanding to be taken seriously
>>2854862> "primary contradiction" of imperialismi dont see how the "principle contradiction" rhetoric isnt idealist reduction with maoist jargon layered on top
how does it work that Marxism is supposed to be the worldview that says each stage of history is replete with historically and socially specific forms of production and production only appears in stages that are internally contradictory and unstable
yet just for us, our special time, there is one single global condition that makes every interior struggle and contradiction irrelevant unless we can find a way to make it about the "principle contradiction"
how is this not an idiots version of hegel?
>>2855027Do you think primary and solitary are the same words?
>>2849657Actual results? You mean immediatly cucking to foreign investiments?
>>2855392Leninist states are just worker coops scaled to the level of the nation state, both require outside inputs to operate, autarky is a myth, it’s literally never happened not even Edo period Japan
>>2849660At least in my view, they're the best sponsors of "DEVEND EVROPA"-types. Even from a purely emotional standpoint, if someone (like felix) exclusively goes
> The JPDON must invade the first world and kill every entitled colonialist westoid because they own a house yadda yaddaThen the chuds above suddently seem to have a point, even if their solutions are still obviously retarded
>>2855393My bad, I should have seen that even if it the entire economy is based on labour exploitation for private profit, as long they're waving a red flag they're still socialist, my bad
>>2855396MLs and MLMs literally do think it’s about the intentions of the party that decides if a state is socialist or not. The problem is leftcoms are passive observers of history.
just don't like em simple as
>>2855360no, but third worldists do. that is the point.
where does marx locate "primary" relations and values in his system? does lenin make any changes of that? do you think they happen at the very top of the systems hierarchy at the level of flags and maps?
i shouldnt have to say this but marxist analysis takes historical confrontations analysis not in terms of the actors but the social and political forces beneath them. the attribution of "primary" status to anything like one nation over another or one population over another within a nation is not marxist or communist. it is not postmodern either. the word is "liberal" since tw-ists will tell people to examine their own, individual interests if pressed on where contradictions are truly happening.
tw-ism and the afterbirth of SomethingAwful's pseudomarxism is exactly where liberal anti-intellectualism leads. scorning wide reading and analysis in favor of book worship of one or two niche texts and then smearing a word salad of terminology over it.
a lot of this fails not on a political level but because it makes grand metaphysical claims about the world dressed up as geopolitical commentary. and because everything but a narrow range of ideas are considered "idealist" or "western parasitism" it can be blind to its own idealism and teleology. the inflation of "primary contradiction" and "principle contradiction" to Deus ex Machina in the narrative of history or puppet-mastery behind every single issue or conflict is evidence. it leads anti-imperialist activism with few places to go since if someone agrees with Leninist anti-imperialism because economism cannot distract from political critique, why would other forms of teleology, mechanistic determinism and globalized idealist reduction count? it is simply an anti-intellectual worldview that does not care about organization or the empirical understanding of history. being told to simply look for the more authentic or more true proletariat with more "energy" and better "interests" is either idealism layered on idealism if youre a charitable or idealism masked with a racist fetishization of poverty and authenticity if you are not.
maybe i right to imply that they are bad people because they definitely arent doing anything good
>>2855405If you want to prove them wrong, have a revolution in the first world among the fortnite playing truck drivers making $90,000 while being addicted to their phones
>>2855412There aren't any revolutions happening in the third world either, and there hasn't been since the collapse of European socialism in 1991.
>>2855415There's revolutions happening in china, dprk, cuba, etc.
Revolutions aren't events but processes
>>2855415Almost like the dynamic between capitalism and socialism is what produces this fucking awful status quo
>>2855418You do realize the US just crushed the Cuban revolution entirely right?
>>2855421All thanks to the cowardice and collaboration of the western left, who chose their own personal comfort over the lives of the untermensch
>>2855421Really? was the state dissolved and a new one intalled in its place like in ussr?
>>2855424Why do you want the Weather Underground back? They had virtually no effect on the outcome in Indochina
>>2855426Cops and ceos are but comrades in waiting, up marxism
>>2855425The 2019 constitution is already anti communist
>>2855427Petite bourgeois college students having a chimpout failed to change anything? Clearly that means we have no choice but to let the DSA strengthen the 4th Reich and allow it to enslave the imperial periphery!
>>2855432You won’t make militant guerrilla soldiers out of any westerner period, stop acting like that’s moral failure
>>2855434Your inability to do what is necessary because it would interrupt your flow of treats is in fact a moral failing
>>2855418By that logic we can say that revolutions are happening everywhere, just at different stages in the process. It's still cope by TWs who don't want to accept the fact that third world revolutions were dependent on the success of European socialism, not the other way around.
>>2855426You mean they believe the same things as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao? How embarrassing!
>>2850821One of the most vile beings on Earth are small capitalists
of poor developed countries >>2855446Marx, Engels , Lenin, Stalin and Mao did not believe that you utter retard. They specifically spoke on the corruption of the labor movement due to the imperialist exploitation of the colonies and the super profits this generated
>>2850820> A house, a job, a pension!Needs work but the pillars are these. If there's a war going on, replace the last one with peace.
Also, I know that third worldists only know their own country (america), but a lot of western countries have a pay as you go pension system, which doesn't even remotely resemble yank 401k
>>2855426I love that marxists still exist out there.
>>2855481>They specifically spoke on the corruption of the labor movement due to the imperialist exploitation of the colonies and the super profits this generatedMao and Stalin maybe. Marx and Engels didn't lmao
>>2855481>They specifically spoke on the corruption of the labor movement due to the imperialist exploitation of the colonies and the super profits this generatedThat isn't the same as believing that workers in imperialist countries benefit from imperialism, or that they cease to he proletarians with an interest in the overthrow of the capitalist-imperialist system. You people always pull this motte-bailey crap where you say that workers in the first world are exploiters with more in common with their own bosses than workers in the third world. Then when you're presented with the fact that every communist revolutionary of note rejected this idea, as well as empirical proof that its false, you retreat and claim that you're just saying that imperialism hasn't cooling effect on class struggle, that revolution is more likely in the third world, etc. It's slimy as fuck and obvious to everybody. You're blatantly trying to stretch and warp actual Marxist and Leninist positions to fit your nonsense, and trying to frame opposition to third worldism as opposition to anti-imperialism. The fact is that the Marxist-Leninist position is and always has been that the workers in the Global North and South have identical interests.
>>2855492<Before I turn to the agricultural labourers, I shall just show, by one example, how crises have an impact even on the best paid section of the working class, on its aristocracy.
<the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariatWrong again friend
>>2855412if you want to prove me wrong, show me how people to poor to live past forty-five can take down a private military contractor using nothing but the their authenticity and energy
scoot, hippy
>>2855500>That isn't the same as believing that workers in imperialist countries benefit from imperialismYes it is
>or that they cease to he proletarians with an interest in the overthrow of the capitalist-imperialist systemYes it is. A dude who gets paid a million dollars a year simply has no interest to overthrow the system. He is not reserveless, he has in fact a lot to lose rather than only his chains. This is the case for a large section of the western working class
>You people always pull this motte-bailey crap where you say that workers in the first world are exploiters with more in common with their own bosses than workers in the third world.You are now coping about shit nobody said. All that is claimed is that workers in the first world obviously benefit from the exploitation of the third world. The refusal to accept this basic and obvious truth about the world and the slimey squirmy way you retards try to undermine it is beyond baffling.
I always ask this and never get an answer from your likes. If workers don't benefit from imperialism in the first world, why do we see third world workers migrate to the first by the millions, leaving their entire life, family and everything they've ever known, many times risking their very life, just to clean bathrooms in some westoid country, if it did not benefit them?
>>2855519>he has in fact a lot to lose rather than only his chains. how i loathe the way you racist tw-ists use this phrase
>why do we see third world workers migrate to the first by the millions, leaving their entire life, family and everything they've ever known, many times risking their very life, just to clean bathrooms in some westoid country, if it did not benefit them?because we're exploiting as a endless reserve of cheap labor, you preening racist cunt
self-termed narc "marxist" wants use every explanation except labor to explain the world, blunders into racism as a result
shocked i tell you
>>2855500>You're blatantly trying to stretch and warp actual Marxist and Leninist positions to fit your nonsense, and trying to frame opposition to third worldism as opposition to anti-imperialism. The fact is that the Marxist-Leninist position is and always has been that the workers in the Global North and South have identical interests.true and the bottom line. but i don't think the sleepwalk into racism and ordoliberal hyperindividualism can be ignored. its always the people talking about "treats" who dive headfirst into noble savage ignorance in a way that would make a white tumblr user in 2013 blush
>>2855520>wahh wahhh don't use muh phrase in a way I don't likeYeah keep seething about it faggot. Your impotent crying doesn't make it not true
>because we're exploiting as a endless reserve of cheap labor, you preening racist cuntGo be exploited in the third world then if it makes no difference, retard. Why bother making the trip is what im asking dumbass
>racistUnbelievable cope. Nothing I've said is based on or in racism in any way shape or form
>>2855519A large section of the "western working class" is either impoverished or one missed paycheck away from it, they are certainly not earning a million dollars a year as you cliam
>>2855529now the seething starts. i see
>Nothing I've said is based on or in racism in any way shape or formkeep on thinking that and typing slurs. no one should waste their time trying to change your mind or engaging you at all. it is apparent to anyone reading you what the substance of your ideas really is
>>2855519>You are now coping about shit nobody saidIf you don't believe those things then you aren't a third worldist.
>If workers don't benefit from imperialism in the first world, why do we see third world workers migrate to the first by the millions, leaving their entire life, family and everything they've ever known, many times risking their very life, just to clean bathrooms in some westoid country, if it did not benefit them?Because living in a developed country is better than living in an undeveloped one. Your mistake is in construing this as benefiting from imperialism, rather than simply benefiting from development. Is imperialism necessary for a country to industrialize and develop? To provide for the needs of its citizens and build decent infrastructure? Of course not. Socialism can provide all this and more, and if they can derive greater benefits from socialism than they can from imperialism, then they don't actually need imperialism and don't benefit from it. Your argument and framing is on the same level as claiming that people benefit from capitalism because they have iPhones. They can only be said to benefit from it if it gives them things no other system can, but it not only fails to do that but imposes a whole array of hardships on them that would disappear alongside the capitalist-imperialist system. They have an interest in smashing this system.
>>2855531but don't you see comrade, those are SUPERPAYCHECKs that are work a million dollars relatively because of… something Lenin said if you ignore what he immediately said before and after it
dont waste your effort typing to this race obsessed illiterate
>>2855535Lenin was a third worldist as long as you ignore everything he said and did.
>>2855536yes but if you have the right words and you can draw pictures on maps you don't have to read anything but slogans
>>2855533>Your mistake is in construing this as benefiting from imperialism, rather than simply benefiting from development. this is not a mistake. this is where the essentialism is working in the argument. they mean what they imply. and what they imply is racist.
>>2855532>A large section of the "western working class" is either impoverished or one missed paycheck away from itCompletely pulled out of your ass. The western working class is better off than any other group of workers on this planet, due to imperialism. If you think that makes western workers more likely to than not, you are simply not a materialist
>now the seething starts. i seeStill coping I see? Still not answering my question I see. That's what I thought. You simply have no answer for it and now you are reduced to absurd accusations of racism lmfao.
>keep on thinking that and typing slursAre you really going to pearlclutch about slurs on leftypol.org? Grow a spine retard
>no one should waste their time trying to change your mind or engaging you at allI have hardly ever seen such cope lol. Just answer the question moron, you won't because you can't
>>2855533
>If you don't believe those things then you aren't a third worldist.Try to stay on topic rather than get into semantics please
>Because living in a developed country is better than living in an undeveloped oneSo you are admitting that workers in the first world benefit from living there, benefit from the exploitation of imperialism. Glad we agree, but what's with all the subsequent cope about shit nobody cares about?
>Your mistake is in construing this as benefiting from imperialism, rather than simply benefiting from developmentCapitalist development is imperialism you absolute troglodyte. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism is it not? So brazenly you separate economic development it the first world from imperialist exploitation, and you have the balls to try and lecture me on marxism and what the big five would say or think.
>Is imperialism necessary for a country to industrialize and develop? To provide for the needs of its citizens and build decent infrastructure? Of course notWe're not talking about some abstract nonsense retard, we're talking about the real world. It was entirely interlinked with the development of the first world
>Socialism can provide all this and more, and if they can derive greater benefits from socialism than they can from imperialism, then they don't actually need imperialism and don't benefit from itOf course, but the relative wealth they do have in actuality is built on the exploitation of the third world, so their position in relation to revolutionary struggle is different than those who simply have little to no wealth to begin with
> Your argument and framing is on the same level as claiming that people benefit from capitalism because they have iPhonesNo, that´s just your pathetic cope strawman. Higher wages, social welfare, better infrastructure, better quality of life, less polution, these things are not comparable to "having an iphone"
>They can only be said to benefit from it if it gives them things no other system canNo they can be said to benefit from a particular system, if that system gives them gains relative to other people in that system, which it does
>They have an interest in smashing this systemMany don't
>>2855540>>2855544>>2855542You are retarded dude, keep coping with your racist accusation lol. You can't even describe how anything I said was racist
>>2855549slogans and gotchas
bored now.
>Try to stay on topic rather than get into semantics pleasele irony
>>2855554Lmfao you gotta be trolling, either way I accept your concession. Now go kill yourself dumbass
>>2855556i'm glad you had fun, now run along
> industrialize and develop
> abstract nonsense
> retard
the state of it
>>2855559How about you kill yourself instead
>>2855560Industrialization and development in the hypothetical is abstract nonsense. I was talking about the actual industrialization and development as it actually happened in reality
>>2855561why is all tw-ist rhetoric "you have no answer to this" junk like a creationist asking why are there still monkeys?
dont get made though, we're all friends here. its a bit of fun
>>2855564can you talk about the posts as they actually happened in reality next time for a change or are you happy to repeat the same two lines over and over
have a supercoffee and sit down, im sure it'll come to you
*thinks* if i go from adamently wrong to explosively angry i'm sure my friends online will find this persuasive
>>2855565Because I always ask it to "first worlders don't benefit from imperialism" tards and they always start coping and seething. You are a prime example, that's why you bring up copes about what the argument is like, rather than address it directly :)
>>2855568Keep seething lil bro. Or come up with an actual arg, but I doubt you will
>>2855549>Completely pulled out of your ass. The western working class is better off than any other group of workers on this planet, due to imperialism. If you think that makes western workers more likely to than not, you are simply not a materialistOh cool we're doing the "everyone in the first world lives in a McMansion and collects tons of funko pops" discourse. I'll pass
>>2855571Is it literally impossible for you tards to address what Im saying without resorting to strawman copes lmfao? Western working class is factually better off than the rest of the world, that is why people move there in the millions and not the other way around. That is no statement about mcmansions or funko pops or anything else
>>2855570dont get seethe says the fella who posts like donald duck spilling his groceries
here's a hint: if you post "try to answer that, you can't can you?" it sounds like the only person you're interesting in persuading is yourself. there is nothing in your posts anyone hasn't heard before and nothing to engage with beyond "if not treatler, why immigrant?" level racism
alwite gunga din?
i'm sorry. i meant supergroceries
>>2855574You cant actually pinpoint how the working class supposedly reaps so many benefits from imperialism that it renders class struggle impossible, only repeatedly assert that it's the case and reacting with hostility and incredulity any time you're challenged on it without using any arguments to back it up
>>2855580i think there is another issue here where tw-ism thinks "class struggle" is only liberation struggle and not a dialectical stuggle to the death
most tw-ist literature, even the more factually grounded, tends to have a very childlike and manichean worldview where there is only one struggle worth noting - the upwards struggle of the oppressed against idealistically portrayed oppressive villain forces that are like disney or tolkein villains
its very liberal and obviously culturally close to the folksy 'only punch up' sort of thinking because it comes from the same sort of places (rich universities and private education, creative and media industries) so its got the same moral tone even if the arguments seem different.
people want The Empire to be like Star Wars and the scrappy rebels to win. its a storybook view of history that must be hard to shake if you grew up on the internet and acquired all your opinions through peer pressure and memes
"The other, of course, involves orcs"
>>2855576>w…watch your tone buddy! You sound like blablaPathetic
>Still coping about supposed racism, that cannot be identified in any wayAt this point I can only conclude you are projecting
>>2855580I already did, the problem is that nobody is able to address it. They reap the benefits of living in advanced imperialist economies, with greater access to better healthcare, social welfare, infrastructure, education, higher wages, etc. All these things are only able to be produced in the current system due to the extraction of profits from the periphery. Workers understand this and are thus disincentivized to partake in revolutionary struggle. To most of them it is better to keep what they have than risk losing it in some gamble on the victorious revolution. This is why Marx adressed the working class in the manifesto with "you have nothing to lose but your chains" rather than "you gotta risk it all". I don't know if that makes the victory in the class struggle for the proletariat in the first world impossible, but it is certainly a major obstacle that must be considered
>Y…you're being hostilePlease grow up
>>2855583If you can only argue about the perceived personalities and subjectivity of your interlocutors just give up dude. It's embarrassing
>My opponents think that the world is like star warzz Christ
>>2855609>This is why Marx adressed the working class in the manifesto with "you have nothing to lose but your chains" rather than "you gotta risk it all". first - hearty lol if you believe that. and arent just repeating from twitter to troll this site
second - a slogan isn't an argument
>>2855609yeah, you're right. i agree with you now. the world really is black and white
>interlocuterschrist
what else does Marx refer to as "chains" or "bondage" throughout his mature work, i wonder? thinking, thinking… nothing is coming to mine.
but thats ok. the one line everyone knows means i dont have to bother reading the rest. its all postmodern gender theory like notorious anticommunist gyorgy lukacs (he sucked until he made star wars)
core, periphery
>like marx said
alright boys see you later
>>2855614>earty lol if you believe thatYes Marx believes that one of the primary reasons for the revolutionary tendency of the working class was that they had nothing to lose. I don't see what's funny about that.
All you can do is cherrypick my slogan example, which you can't even counter argue against lol, only assert that it's somehow used out of context. Come on dude, address the actual argument. Just try it, it won't hurt
>the world really is black and whiteI never said it was black and white. Is this strawmen and cope all you have? Why can't you just address what Im saying? If it's sooooo stupid, it should be easy, yet you are not capable of providing a single counter argument
<Interlocutors>ChristWhat's the problem? It means people who Im arguing with
>>2855617Lmfaoooo, double post seethe because you don't like my example. Get over it dude, Im begging you to stop the cope
>>2855626> Come on dude, address the actual argument. there isn't one. you barely understand the rudimentaries of basic marx and you're trying to leap forward to stew of ideas from systems theory, network theory and emmanuel.
i dont have to cherry pick because you dont understand how these terms relate to each other - you string them together because you found them used together by other people online and you think repeating the terminology counts as an argument. it does not. i am telling you plainly.
people are not rebutting you not because they cannot but because you are the one who is only presenting empty verbiage and slogans. there is nothing beneath this level
either move beyond forum culture and twitter to hit the books. or just shut up. your choice.
now piss off
>>2855629>there isn't oneYes there is, you are unable to explain how there isn't one beyond asserting so.
I am perfectly willing to engage with the argument further or on a deeper level or whatever. You have not presented any concrete argument for how anything I am saying is wrong. Literally this post is:
<You dont know marx and are "stew of ideas" of systems theory and blablablaA complete assertion with no concrete basis in example of how anything I've said about marx or in relation to marxism has been incorrect
<You relate the quote of marx, about having the workers of the world having nothing to lose but their chains, with the concrete socioeconomic status of workers in the real world because you've seen "terms" used by other people in that way onlineThis is firstly a cope because whether or not I've seen other people use this same relation is of no consequence as to whether it is correct or not. Secondly I have not seen anyone in particular make that relation to that quote and the status of first world workers. I just made it because I thought it was apt.
<You only present empty verbiage and slogans. there is nothing beneath this levelAgain, just an assertion. I disagree. I think I have provided honest concrete arguments, even a bunch of images with data, for what I have asserted itt. Your inability to counterargue them is not proof of their shallowness
Now either provide an actual arg for why I am incorrect, or kill yourself
>>2855654>Now either provide an actual arg for why I am incorrect, or kill yourselfmy argument is that stringing terminology from radically different schools of thought with a diagram you've found online is not really an argument and shouldnt be treated as one. especially when its all attributed to marx himself
you have found those terms and slogan used together online. it had an effect on you. you're trying to summon that effect on others and it isnt working as you think it should. so you are raging and telling people to kill themselves.
i dont think the notions of core and periphery belong in the leninist interpretation of marxism. if you want to argue that they do - be my guest. but you will have to read Lenin and Wallerstein first to construct a proper argument. and i do not think you that you have. i encourage you to pursue these ideas but as of now i do not think your worldview counts as an argument.
there are plenty of scholars who i do respect who put these terms together well yet they still do not convince me either geopolitically or in the idealist/mechanistic reading of Marx this creates. your "can't argue, can you?" trolling isn't going to move the needle compared to that.
happy?
Revolution isn’t happening in the first, second, or third world outside of CIA backed coups, there’s only one solution, entryism and takeover of the CIA itself.
>>2855684what if i'm already in the CIA, should i start a reading group?
>>2855698start by getting some of your comrades jobs inside and building a network.
>>2855698Kill Bari Weiss and Benjamin Netanyahu
>>2855709they're both WFH
>>2855710So are most assassinations today, get to work soldier, before I report you to your CO
>>2855716im in HR i outrank you
>>2855717outrank this
>kills you with UAV >>2855681Dude obviously Lenin and Marx lived in completely different eras and weren't talking about core and periphery and shit, I mean maybe lenin was touching on the idea a little bit, but not so directly of course. Im not attributing it all to Marx and Lenin as if they invented systems theory or something. I use these terms as shorthand for the discussion we're having. I can assume you know what I mean when Im talking about the imperial core/periphery and how it relates to the ideas of Marx and Lenin, even if you don't agree that they are one and the same interpretation or that they per say belong together. Something I also don't necessarily think is the case lol.
I posted that video of the trotskyists basically saying there's no difference between being a first world worker or a third world worker and that the former don't benefit at all from imperialism
You and sabo were ready to jump on their dick for that and sabo claimed that b5 actually agree with that, which is ridiculous. Even in Marx's time, when capitalism was still relatively underdeveloped, there were noticeable divisions and traitors amongst the working classes of the world, tho they were relatively minor then.
If you don't think my arguments are concrete enough or lack theoretical foundation, that's fine but I much prefer this kind of discussion where you actually address what I'm saying (tangentially, you're still mostly talking about the type of argument rather than the argument itself) to plain assertions and dumb copes
>happy?it could have just been like this from the beginning
>>2855725
>If you don't think my arguments are concrete enough or lack theoretical foundation, that's fine but I much prefer this kind of discussion where you actually address what I'm saying (tangentially, you're still mostly talking about the type of argument rather than the argument itself) to plain assertions and dumb copesif this is sincere then i encourage you to take the terminology you use seriously enough to be critical and historical about where it comes from and address who used which terms and why. this is a main issue with tw-ism: it is a mishmash of ideas from competing school of marxism and sociology with little argumentative machinary beyond "look at these charts" - not all of it, but it seems like some of the most famous works suffer the most from this (Settlers, Divided World Divided Class, Principal Contradiction for example all come to mind)
my advice to you as a critic of TW-ism from an anti-imperialist perspective is to look at the terms of your own argument and try to trace those terms to the original works and studies that they came from. what you have written in the above post is "lenin and marx lived in different times" and therefore the terms are "shorthand"… I think if you are sincere this attitude betrays and undermines the argument you wish to construct by saddling it to unnecessary presentism and a deterministic or idealist view of "class consciousness" that TW-ism and anti-imperialism shouldn't need.
you are making teleological and probabilistic statements. you are telling us what you think probably will and probably won't happen. you need a lot more in order to back that up. exactly what is it about material comforts that make people not want to revolt even in an era where legal rights, privacy, social contact and democracy are contracting? to me this sounds like a Mazlov Hierarchy but if it is truly materialist - you have to floor to tell us why
if you want to create the strongest possible version of this i would advice ignoring the fashionable but intellectually worthless meme-books like Settlers, FNFI and DWDC and instead trace one or two of your key points to Emmanuel, Amin or Frank. i would recommend Frank as a starting point (I assume you know him somewhat already but if you went deeper your assumptions would be challenged)
if you want to reconstruct Lenin's anti-imperialism for the age of monology capital and fortress europe this will give you a better standing. i would still likely disagree with you but it is in everyones interest to have strong, information rich and original arguments about this. not just a world salad, chart and "you can't argue, can you?"
my main problem with what you are saying now is how you are using undeveloped/developed. yes, i still think there is a racist undercurrent there (undevelopment is something that happens to a people or nation not a trait of historic epoch) but you won't accept that because you are invested in the easy, manichean answers that TW-ism supplies
my other problem with TW-ism is that most online TW-ism read no other history or theory of history and have an anti-intellectual attitude to non-MLM history writing and theory. i think this is road to irrelevance. it pays to engage with as many ideas as possible.
CIA tea break over
>>2855737We only drink cold brew actually
>>2855735Im going to be honest with you man, I don't think TWism is real. MTWism is already a niche of a niche ideology, with little to no presence in the actual world, and TWism as a broader category in the way it is used online is just "People I disagree with on the question of labor aristocracy or "bought-off proletariat" in the west" or "People that aren't western chauvinists".
Now while I appreciate your encouragement towards learning the exact origins of each and every term I am using, I do think it's a bit pedantic and not really that relevant. But I will save your post and your recommendations.
>I think if you are sincere this attitude betrays and undermines the argument you wish to construct by saddling it to unnecessary presentism and a deterministic or idealist view of "class consciousness" that TW-ism and anti-imperialismIn what way? I guess I am saying that all these ideas exist in continuum with each other, that they relate to each other across time, but I don't think that's really presentism. My view of the development of class consciousness is that it is develops dialectically through material circumstances and theory or thought or whatever into concrete political action (party), I don't really see how what I am saying is idealist or deterministic. But if you can explain how I am open to hear it
>exactly what is it about material comforts that make people not want to revolt even in an era where legal rights, privacy, social contact and democracy are contracting? to me this sounds like a Mazlov Hierarchy but if it is truly materialist - you have to floor to tell us whyThe things I have described are not just material comforts. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that? A higher wage is not just some Mazlovian pyramid slice. It is a real difference in relative exploitation. There's even far more that could be said, for instance about the value of the currencies that those wages are paid in. Then there's infrastructures, educations, all kinds of material benefits that go beyond mere comfort, that living in the west grants to a worker over not living in the west. But it all seems rather obvious to me tbh
>my main problem with what you are saying now is how you are using undeveloped/developed. yes, i still think there is a racist undercurrent there (undevelopment is something that happens to a people or nation not a trait of historic epoch) but you won't accept that because you are invested in the easy, manichean answers that TW-ism supplies I will admit that this pissed me off lol. I can see how you might think Im making some universal statement, but I do think that's mostly bad faith on your part. I would go further and say that underdevelopment is something that is done to people/nations, not something that just happens to them. Regardless, none of it from my pov has anything to do with races of people or whatever it is you're trying to say I am implying.
>my other problem with TW-ism is that most online TW-ism read no other history or theory of history and have an anti-intellectual attitude to non-MLM history writing and theory. i think this is road to irrelevance. it pays to engage with as many ideas as possible.I find this to be more of a problem with maoism in general rather than the nebulous TWism
Reason:
>>2855791>>Im going to be honest with you man, I don't think TWism is real. MTWism is already a niche of a niche ideology, with little to no presence in the actual world, and TWism as a broader category in the way it is used online is just "People I disagree with on the question of labor aristocracy or "bought-off proletariat" in the west" or "People that aren't western chauvinists"I agree. I don't think it is a real movement. So many of the books involved have questionable origins and only a tiny amount of the books associated with what is called MTW or TW-ism online reach even a low level of scholarly standards.
Most "TW-ism" writing I have seen says exactly nada zip nothing about the third world and has no input from third world politics at all. It simply froths and "seethes" about the domestic left and psychologizes ideologies as a product of individual 'privilege'
we used to call that rejection of socialism "liberalism"
>In what way? I guess I am saying that all these ideas exist in continuum with each other, that they relate to each other across time, but I don't think that's really presentism. My view of the development of class consciousness is that it is develops dialectically through material circumstances and theory or thought or whatever into concrete political action (party), I don't really see how what I am saying is idealist or deterministic. But if you can explain how I am open to hear itI think it is idealistic because you posit groups and interests FIRST and historical likelihoods SECOND. What are your argument sounds like to me is that you are looking at the material relations and the historical movements and then trying to 'get behind them' to see the real motives and interests - which you think call consciousness. my criticism would be that you obviously don't intend to lead people to this conclusion. you intend to make us think that subjectivity and consciousness are a by-product of material conditions and interests. that's fine. but i think you are elevate some arch-categories like "core" and "periphery" in a way that sees them function as incorporeal motors of the process. this is self-refuting on a logical level and potentially racist when you use it to divide between "developed" and "un(der)developed" peoples. i think this is the general problem with arguments that suggest that Lenin *would have used World System theory if it was available for him to use it*
>The things I have described are not just material comforts. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to frame it like that? A higher wage is not just some Mazlovian pyramid slice. It is a real difference in relative exploitation. There's even far more that could be said, for instance about the value of the currencies that those wages are paid in. Then there's infrastructures, educations, all kinds of material benefits that go beyond mere comfort, that living in the west grants to a worker over not living in the west. But it all seems rather obvious to me tbhI think you are condensing a myriad of social functions into one singular incentivizing force. When Lenin wrote about Labor Aristocracy he was very specific in who they were, how they acted and exactly what benefits they had that made them opposte revolution. But just as you point out that working class has developed almost unthinkably since the 1910s the complexity of this situation has also developed. M-TWism and modern 'labor aristocracy' theory wants us often to believe the opposite: that the situation has simplified, the working class has consolidated into divided blocks, that unitary and interchangeable incentives ("treats", "houses") have emerged.
Or more extreme (in the case of Sakai, Cope and MIM) that exploitation no longer occurs within the borders of western nations. Which is an argument from emotional language more than material conditions. Since explotation means something other than this branch of MLM suggests
I do not think any of this is case. I agree there is a labor aristocracy and they are the enemy. But they are also the enemy of the DOMESTIC proletariat. Both Guevera and Lenin are clear about this. They so say directly in the cited texts. It is a relatively recent comforting idea that everyone is a treatler anyway, including most of the third world, so why bother doing anything?
I bring up Mazlow in part because its a sociological reduction just like core-semi-periphery and periphery is. but also because the situation is incredibly complex. the sort of structure seldom seen in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Lukacs or any of your favorites. The way the proletariat in developed or "core" nations are manipulated by post-liberal capitalist democracies happens across a multiple of fronts. The amount of different incentives and threats you can get vary dramatically depending on your race, gender, place in the production chain, level of education, level of health, age, whether your parents owned a home or not. There are two idealists conclusions to this: the first is liberal intersectionality where we say everything is gosh darned complicated that we can't understand it anyway. The second is "TW-ism" where you do the reverse and say all the class divisions on the interior of a nation don't really count (even for 'internal colonies' in many cases) because everyone is high off material supply and nothing else. This is the same conclusion hiding between two competing kinds of sophistry. either the world is too complex for theory. or theory is too complex to match the simplicity of the world.
if you think this is a reductionist strawmen I do encourage you to read on unequal exchange and dependency theory and then ask yourself what it is in those concepts that was lost in the online version and rags like Settlers and A White Proletariat?
Instead I think there are issues that press the working class into positions where rebellion is possible. Privacy, precarity, social health, special economic zones (why aren't these 'internal colonies' - is there a non-racist answer why?), policing, the abuse of the very young and the very old, the normalization of the rape of working class women, the quite frankly abysmal standard of living immigrant working class people can be stuck in even two generations later because they're pulled in to save dying economies…I could go on. I just don't think there is a hierarchy here where we can pull out one level and say "well, this level of the pyramid overcomes all others - therefore its material benefit from imperialism" this sounds like a conclusion desperation for a justification it just isnt finding in social reality or the charts
the real labor aristocracy are there to be found. saying it is "everyone who isnt lumpen or in prison" is intellectual cowardice
>I find this to be more of a problem with maoism in general rather than the nebulous TWismcompletely agreed if we are talking about western adoption of maoism.
and this why racial anti-leftist conspiracy theories (a broad church including things like MIM, Great Replacement and Horseshoe Theory) have grown out of Maoism.
however as a global movement - this is not at all true about maoism
>>2855868>>2855871I think you are making TWism into to much of an actual grouping. It is what you want it to be, as it has no actual form
>I think it is idealistic because you posit groups and interests FIRST and historical likelihoods SECOND. What are your argument sounds like to me is that you are looking at the material relations and the historical movements and then trying to 'get behind them' to see the real motives and interestIm not sure what do you mean by this? Historical likelihoods as in the likelihood for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Historical materialism? What does to "get behind" mean in this context? I do "intend to make us think that subjectivity and consciousness are a by-product of material conditions and interests" or at least that is what I believe to an extent. I don't know if I would call it a "by-product" though. Seems to be those things are material conditions themselves as well, but that's getting a bit obtuse maybe
>but i think you are elevate some arch-categories like "core" and "periphery" in a way that sees them function as incorporeal motors of the process. this is self-refuting on a logical level and potentially racist when you use it to divide between "developed" and "un(der)developed" peoples. i think this is the general problem with arguments that suggest that Lenin *would have used World System theory if it was available for him to use it* Ok but that's not really the argument that I am making. I just think that there's objective and to be honest quite obvious differences in capitalist development across the world, whether you wanna call it "the east west", third and first world, north and south, whatever, doesn't really matter. That doesn't mean Im putting the horse before the wagon so to speak, and using the terms or categories as the basis. I just think they describe a material reality. That you think that means I am elevating categories to historic motors, to be frank, I think it's a reach. An economic and historical relation is not some incorporeal thing
There's obviously always more to talk about, I do not think I am condensing social functions, I was merely listing ways in which people economically and socially benefit from their geographic and sociopolitical status, beyond it being some comfort or "treat" for them.
Again it does feel rather like you prefer describing arguments rather than refuting them. I am not the nebulous TWist who has all the TWist beliefs about everything, I do not believe such a person exists and yet it feels like you think that's what you're arguing with.
>I do not think any of this is case. I agree there is a labor aristocracy and they are the enemy. But they are also the enemy of the DOMESTIC proletariat. Both Guevera and Lenin are clear about this. They so say directly in the cited texts. It is a relatively recent comforting idea that everyone is a treatler anyway, including most of the third world, so why bother doing anything? Sure, but we should also reckon with the growth of this labor aristocracy. I think a substantial section of the western proletariat can certainly be seen as a sort of global labor aristocracy, the idea of the golden billion comes to mind. This doesn't mean that all is lost of course, that there's no proletariat at all in the west anymore. But these things need to be considered and not just handwaved away as some irrationality. That in itself seems like a reflexive emotional response to me tbh
I don't think it's an entirely reductionist strawman, but there is a lot of presumptions about things I have not said or in my eyes implied
There are factors that posit the western working class towards revolution still of course and I think your attention towards them is excellent. But the factors of economic difference do exist and do need to be considered. To say there is no benefit to being a worker in the first world as opposed to the third is on its face ridiculous.
>completely agreed if we are talking about western adoption of maoismOf course
>however as a global movement - this is not at all true about maoismOf course
>>2855549>So you are admitting that workers in the first world benefit from living there, benefit from the exploitation of imperialism.That's like saying Victorian workhouse inmates benefit from the workhouse because they get to eat gruel. No they don't benefit from it, because it gives them less than they would get from an alternative. Meanwhile it actively suppresses that alternative.
>Capitalist development is imperialismLets follow this logic. Capitalist production is exploitation, so does this mean workers (including in the global south) benefit from exploitation because they consume its products? After all, without that exploitation they would all starve to death! Again, this is the boomer iPhone argument. You don't benefit from a system just because you consume its output if a superior alternative is available. Imperialism may give them development, but so does socialism, and socialism would also give them liberation, empowerment, and even greater material wealth and security in addition to everything they get from capitalism. So tell me, how do they benefit from a system that keeps them locked into a worse life than the alternative? Would you say that a better kept slave benefits from slavery when they could just be free instead?
>Higher wages, social welfare, better infrastructure, better quality of life, less polutionAll things socialism could give them and more.
>if that system gives them gains relative to other people in that system, which it doesBy this logic everybody but the absolute bottom of the barrel "benefits" from the system. Latin Americans are typically much better off than people in Sub-Saharan Africa. Do they benefit from imperialism too? In Africa people in the cities are typically better off than people in the countryside. In the African countryside men are better off than women. Among African rural women, able bodied cishet ones are better off than disabled queer ones. This isn't Marxism, it's liberal oppression Olympics. Marxist class analysis isn't about who is better or worse off, it's about locating sites of class antagonism. Nothing about anything you've said alters the fact that the logic of capital still applies to the relationship between first world workers and their employers. The latter are still structurally compelled not only to exploit the former, but to do so as much as possible, as aggressively as possible. Every "benefit" they get is something their rulers are constantly working to claw back and undo, and they only had them in the first place because they fought and bled for it. In other words the central class antagonism still remains.
>>2855405>"primary" contradiction implies that all contradictions stem from individual choiceWhat the fuck are you talking about
>>2855918>What does to "get behind" mean in this context?It means the idea that behind the material and concrete there are always bigger and higher (up the pyramid) forces that overpower smaller issues. This is an idealist tendency - for example arguing that political power as an abstract force dictates division of labour. The risk with using network theory and systems theory instead of class struggle is that there is a risk of supposing immaterial forces and 'networks' and 'systems' dictate production and labor not class struggle. at worst the argument could be that core and periphery are absolute categories into which all nations fall - and this overrides production relations and class. this is what i mean by "idiots version of Hegel" and while it is not all TWist or MTW some of it definitely is like this.
your argument struggles because you want subjectivity to be an entirely material process (i agree) but you also want interests to come before the process (i disagree)… this is a consequence of a deterministic or ideal idea of class. the idea that a persons position comes before the processes they're engaged in and determines the outcome and 'consciousness' that they have no matter what. the marxist answer to this is fairly simple: no, things are determined not by position but by the last instance.
>Sure, but we should also reckon with the growth of this labor aristocracy. I think a substantial section of the western proletariat can certainly be seen as a sort of global labor aristocracy, the idea of the golden billion comes to mind. "golden billion" runs close to conspiracy theory imo. im not saying its that but be careful.
what do you mean by "growth" here? because there are several possibilities at play. Has it grown in raw numbers? Yes, probably. But has it grown in numbers relative to the rest of the western working class? That is harder to argue. What about relative to the global population as a whole? That seems false to me. And does "growth" mean stability for the labor aristocracy? Are they more stable than they were a century ago? I think the answer to this is parts of them a lot more stable and other parts a lot less. Which calls into question the absolutization or essentialization of Lenin's category (especially if its translated directly into racial terms)
> To say there is no benefit to being a worker in the first world as opposed to the third is on its face ridiculous. but no worker will ever make this choice. even a migrant. this is not a real relation: its a purely abstract one. but it also calls into question how i think of the labor aristocracy in engels and lenin. i think of them has having a direct and real relationship to the proletariat in their own nations and neighboring nations and having a non-sublimated or at least enthusiastic endorsement of imperialism. nowhere in early anti-imperialist do i get the impression that it is COMFORT and CONSUMPTION that makes the labor aristocracy THEMSELVES not rebel. instead i understand the labor aristocracy as people who are being BRIBED to ENTHUSIASTICALLY and CONSCIOUSLY surpress revolt in OTHER members of the working class. not themselves, the others. this is why historically it brings to mind trade union leaders and the like.
it makes the category muddy to me say the least. if it is true there is a substantial or supermajority part of the western working class who are not exploited and comfortable to the point that they won't ever revolt (not just given a magic communist revolution, but not revolt at all) then these people aren't really functioning as a labor aristocracy since "aristocracy" implies some sort of a direct relationship of value to others. a labor aristocracy with no labor peasantry to distinguish them from is just rich labor - and lenin isnt talking about rich labor in general. he's talking about group with a very specific function regarding imperialism and war.
the thought of believes that are given the pejorative "TW-ism" (I would prefer we just call it "MIM Thought", because that what it is) through most of this nuance and intellectual history out of window almost immediately by imagining that the labor aristocracy is a smooth, homogenous with no significant interior conflicts and no classic interests to undermine or revolt against "interests" (understood in a vague, idealist kind of way) - this is frankly farcically stupid and anyone who believes it *AFTER* having read the origins of the ideas should walk around in a perpetual cloud of shame and self-hatred. one divides into two, except not where i live - thats all one baby, so i dont have to do shiiiiiiit and can smoke blunts and buy comics.
it runs exactly contrary to where a serious consideration of labor aristocracy should take you. and also contrary (but for different, economic not political, reasons) to the idea that the insulated and ideological nature of the western working class has something to do with a callousness or indifference towards the suffering of the third world
the last point is especially misanthropic and galling to me because i think just meeting people will show you its not true. most people these days who arent raving fascists are trying to reduce consumption, educate themselves about issues, take part in communities. while you do met fascists and indifferent people frequenty there is also genuine solidarity and ignoring it because Muh Settlers is reality denial just reducing communism in an ARG where you guess whats inside the heads of strangers
if you aren't seeing real solidarity or you are and you're letting the internet tell you that you know better than others, that the solidarity you see is actually fake and corrupted by SuperBribes you probably we're on the right team to begin with and like so many others you're better off as a free market liberal
>>2855989because it evacuates social relations within nations and chains of productions and reduces everything to the atomic (individual) and the global/total. have you read TW-ism or seen how TW-ists talk? its all about the individual and their privileges relative to the grand totality and any questions of class or inequality on any different scale is just dismissed or wiped away. to them "ideology" and "interests" devolve into thinking about an individuals personal privileges within a global system
it is just not a serious way of thinking to me. i am sure there are some people out there who use this frame to think about relations in a more sophisticated way but if so they're pretty obscure
>>2855995I am not arguing that western imperialism, is some immaterial force exerting itself from above reality. To me it is simply the highest stage of capitalism as an economic system, that we have seen so far. The particular composition of that system come out of historical reality, ie there are various concrete reasons for these particular political and social blocks of people to develop into the positions they have
I think that a persons position comes out of their process in the world, as in the things they do, the way they sustain their live, it is in essence just a reflection or an extension of that process. It is not a static thing that you can beep boop some numbers and get a static predisposed outcome, if that is what your think I believe
>"golden billion" runs close to conspiracy theory imo. im not saying its that but be careful.A bit of a reach tbh, it just describes disparity in general income levels of different parts of the world. Maybe you can say it's implying there's some conspiracy to facilitate this? That would be very bad faith interpretation of that term imo
>what do you mean by "growth" here?That in Lenin's time the labor aristocracy was a handful of leaders in the labor movement that were able to enrich themselves due to their entrenched position in said movement. But in the century since then ,the position of labor in these countries has changed drastically and in my opinion this has changed the shape or form of this labor aristocracy to expand and incorporate a broad range of people into this higher fraction, managerial, social democrat types that work to placate the masses and manage both the workers and their movement on the behalf of the ruling class. Now these are not exclusive to the first world by any means, but I think it's a larger fraction because those people are useful to the bourgeoisie and they have the money to afford to support them. I don't think that Lenin's category, nor anything really, should be essentialized, but Im having a hard time seeing how it would be translated into racial terms. You mean like whitey is the labor aristocracy or something?
>nowhere in early anti-imperialist do i get the impression that it is COMFORT and CONSUMPTION that makes the labor aristocracy THEMSELVES not rebel. instead i understand the labor aristocracy as people who are being BRIBED to ENTHUSIASTICALLY and CONSCIOUSLY surpress revolt in OTHER members of the working class. not themselves, the others. this is why historically it brings to mind trade union leaders and the like. That is not what I a saying either, what I am basically claiming is that the labor aristocracy has expanded to encompass the broader upper section of the proletariat, due to the economic growth of imperialist nations, financialization, hegemony, etc. It is hard to say where this upper section ends, perhaps it is a bit of a vague qualifier. But it is no longer restrained to particular trade unionist or the like. But does still suppress the other members of the working class, consciously or not, but also blends into them imo.
But again, this is mostly about relative economic position, rather than personal subjective comfort.
>it makes the category muddy to me say the least. if it is true there is a substantial or supermajority part of the western working class who are not exploited and comfortable to the point that they won't ever revolt (not just given a magic communist revolution, but not revolt at all) then these people aren't really functioning as a labor aristocracy since "aristocracy" implies some sort of a direct relationship of value to others. a labor aristocracy with no labor peasantry to distinguish them from is just rich labor - and lenin isnt talking about rich labor in general. he's talking about group with a very specific function regarding imperialism and war.You can call it PMC if you want or beneficiary proletariat or something, but it does have its roots in what Lenin described as LA imo. I don't know also if I would say they aren't exploited at all and would never revolt. Again just that there relative position in the global system of capitalism might preclude them in several ways from finding interest in revolutionary class politics.
All in all I would say that there is a certain misanthropic or perhaps nihilistic angle to the idea of TWism, were it not such a nebulous signifier, there is an obvious self defeating redundancy in the idea that westerners can never do revolution (because then why even try) But I do think there are reasons for the lack of successful social revolution in the west and that a partially bought of proletariat is one of those causes. That doesn't mean it's the only cause or primary cause or anything. Not to mention the current form of world imperialist system seems to be collapsing atm, so things might become quite different quite quickly. But regardless, it is a factor to consider rather than disregarded out of fear that it might be true. Lets say for example that 20% of the western proletariat is labor aristocrat or PMC or bought-out or whatever to a global average of 5%. It's only a small difference and neither is a majority, but it could drastically affect strategy and approach
>>2856089
>A bit of a reach tbh, it just describes disparity in general income levels of different parts of the world. Maybe you can say it's implying there's some conspiracy to facilitate this? That would be very bad faith interpretation of that term imo"golden billion" is a conspiracy theory that exists amongst american nazis and ukraine and russian nationalists already. thats why i said be careful. i'm not accusing you of going off on a georgia guidestone tangent but be careful
>You can call it PMC if you want or beneficiary proletariat or something, but it does have its roots in what Lenin described as LA imo. I don't know also if I would say they aren't exploited at all and would never revolt. Again just that there relative position in the global system of capitalism might preclude them in several ways from finding interest in revolutionary class politics.this is the exact contrast between what is called "TW-ism" and anti-imperialism in general. if you think the LA exist as an active group that are incentivized to suppress socialist and revolutionary politics amongst other parts of the working class then you're just a regular leninist. if you think there is no proletariat in the west or you think no western worker can be called materially "exploited" then you are a TW-ist or MIM theorist.
>But regardless, it is a factor to consider rather than disregarded out of fear that it might be true. Lets say for example that 20% of the western proletariat is labor aristocrat or PMC or bought-out or whatever to a global average of 5%. It's only a small difference and neither is a majority, but it could drastically affect strategy and approachfor my own thinking i wonder if "bought out" or "bribed" is outdated. since what the contemporary LA has is maybe not significantly more wealth but a very pampered and fluffed up position in left politics and intellectual culture around it. for example - the DSA isn't just made up of gentrifiers and downwardly mobile P-B. there are lots of poors involved. however the cultural halo around them confers all kinds of cultural and hegemonic status that cant be cashed out in rent or healthcare. you get the whole world bent around your interests, your tastes are listened to, your trivial political issues become important, community becomes available to you. these people can still be exploited and precarious and relatively poor (to other people who live in the same cities as them) but culturally their influence is outsized and the have a very hedonistic, individualist and me-first kind of life that is actively hostile to the idea that we might have to sacrifice in order to help others. whenever someone says "we should perhaps have a general strike against genocide" someone will say "omg no thats super ableist because i need money for my self care" … this is an aristocratic attitude within the working class. their feelings come before solidarity and they're disruptive to socialist organizing.
the ironic thing is that a lot of the people ive just described like to use TW-ism and LA in order to advance this. if the Labor Aristocracy are a group defined as relatively privileged people who exert pressure on the left, through cultural and academically influential positions, not to revolt or rebel…. this describes a lot of TW-ism. just like it described postmodern in the 90s or hippy anarchists of the 60s.
>>2849567It pretty funny cuz all you have to do to refute this post is show a so-called third worldist org from the global south and 300+ posts later no one has done so
>>2855931Dude I see in no point in arguing with you if you're just going to make up some different thing to argue against about iphones and kids eating gruel and treats and idk what
What you are talking about is class interest. What I am talking about is direct economic benefit. Working less for more money, better schools, better infrastructure. That is not a treat or some abstract consumed product like a hypothetical iphone. What I am saying is that those direct economic benefits that imperialism brings forth, capitalist development in the first world, are a boundary to the fulfillment of their actual class interest. Because people see that it is generally better, more beneficial to them directly, to live in the first world, than to overthrow the system and hope for a potential better future under socialism, even though socialism would actually benefit them and the world at large far more in the long run. Because to them that is just a hypothetical for the most part, an unknown, whereas the current situation is a concrete fact of the matter.
Of course different countries and places have different class compositions and antagonism. The difference in relative "benefit" I am describing between the first and third world is one such class antagonism, as it relates you to the means of production in as a whole. It is a far greater than any of these other things you mentioned and again has nothing to do with comfort or subjective happiness
>the central class antagonism still remainsI agree, I wouldn't suggest otherwise
>>2856112What are some third worldist orgs in the global north? Genuinely curious if you could show any
>>2856114Whatever Unruhe is tied to through Canada.
LLCO.
MIM (Prisons).
Probably more, I'm not even from north america and I know about the ones mentioned due to their internet presence. Surely a lot more since the politics is completely compatible with the US superstructure (wrecking potential revolutionary praxis).
Do any of you fucking cunts do any research? I couldn't imagine finding myself in USSA and not know jack shit about my surroundings posting on a communist website.
Apparently it was mentioned previously in thread but anon ragequit before getting the chance to describe
what it was they shared lmao
>>2853768 >>2852140"False consciousness" comes from Marx and Engels. Not Lukacs. Lmao.
>>2856097>"golden billion" is a conspiracy theory that exists amongst american nazis and ukraine and russian nationalists alreadyWhat like jews or smt? There's not that many jews tho. What is this conspiracy lol?
>for my own thinking i wonder if "bought out" or "bribed" is outdated. since what the contemporary LA has is maybe not significantly more wealth but a very pampered and fluffed up position in left politics and intellectual culture around it. for example - the DSA isn't just made up of gentrifiers and downwardly mobile P-B. there are lots of poors involved. however the cultural halo around them confers all kinds of cultural and hegemonic status that cant be cashed out in rent or healthcare. you get the whole world bent around your interests, your tastes are listened to, your trivial political issues become important, community becomes available to you. these people can still be exploited and precarious and relatively poor (to other people who live in the same cities as them) but culturally their influence is outsized and the have a very hedonistic, individualist and me-first kind of life that is actively hostile to the idea that we might have to sacrifice in order to help others. whenever someone says "we should perhaps have a general strike against genocide" someone will say "omg no thats super ableist because i need money for my self care" … this is an aristocratic attitude within the working class. their feelings come before solidarity and they're disruptive to socialist organizing.Yes, though I don't know about the particularities of poor people in the DSA and their hedonistic lifestyle or the cultural aspect of it. We shouldn't forget that there is still also a good chunk of people that get paid to be literal laborcrats. Think about the outsized effect this group of sort of thought leaders of the western left has, it's social democrats as far as the eye can see. And they control the majority of information and knowledge production for the left too, think of our old pal Chomsky for example, you know there's a lot of that sort of labor aristocratic tendency there in those kind of spheres. The whole university system, I mean it's a whole other can of worms
The question is can you politically frustrate a labor aristocrat social democrat to the point where they’ll pick up a gun or try to talk some army officers into doing something funny
>>2856113>What I am saying is that those direct economic benefits that imperialism brings forthI'm simply saying these aren't benefits if they are part of a system that prevents something better. What you're trying to argue here is basically that everybody who is not at the absolute bottom of a system "benefits" from it, which leads to absurd results when taken to its logical conclusion. There is pretty much always somebody worse off than you, even as far as most of the third world is concerned. Do you think these same factors apply to people in India or Latin America since they're considerably better off than people in Sub-Saharan Africa?
This is just the house vs field slave argument
>>2856135But they are benefits, they are current benefits as opposed to future benefits however. The difference between economic status of s-sa and india is relatively minor when comparing either of them to the global north
>>2856139does wikipedia mention how the incel guy who ran MIM got accused of rape then went crazy and ranted about having CIA handlers and said the age of consent should be twelve or some shit
thats where settlers comes from
>>2856129the golden billion and georgia guidestone conspiracies are nazi theories that say globalist elites are deliberately maintaining the population under a billion or 500 million
there are other versions
its not always about jews, its eclectic. references club of rome, cultural marxism, all kinds of things depending on the country and version
aside from MIM even the most idiotic TW-ism doesnt touch this level of brain rot
From what I can remember back when doing research on Gonzaloite left-revisionism last year, "MIM (Prisons)" 3W:ists still have an active internet presence, on Reddit. Some virtual cadre guy was posting up walls of texts constantly to try to mislead baby-Maoists trying to understand basic concepts in regards to like the Chinese revolution or what the Mass Line is.
>>2856159there is a shit load of astroturf around MIM on reddit (funny considering its supposed to be an active militant cell)
they're trying to distance themselves from MIM specifically now since Park's reputation is now common knowledge and it makes Settlers harder to push by association
What are the best arguments
>for
Americans
>or against third-worldism?
Americans
/thread/
>>2856143I'm gonna kick you in the balls three times and then go kick an African guy in the balls ten times. Make sure to thank me for the benefits you're receiving!
>>2855519Getting paid a nominal million tells you jackshit about their interests and class positions. There are western where people in the nominal global top 10% lice in shitboxes because the bourgeois milks them dry of every oenny they make, and they can do that because they control the means of production, capital and housing
>>2856312Petty bourgeois self victimization
Those shoeboxes are in urban centers where children of the suburbsn middle class willingly travel for opporgunities in order to reproduce their middle class status like their parents
Failure to do so is presented as "unable to survive"
One thing I don't get is why do firstoids need to lie about the precarity of first worlders and benefits of imperialism in order to affirm the first world working class's revutionary potential
This only makes sense if you have a profoundly workerist mindset
>>2856315Do you think paycheck to paycheck is a metaphor?
>>2856233You are a chauvinist
>>2856330Yes, when first worlders say it, it's a metaphor for not accumulaying savings fast enough
They use reports made by "personal finance consulting firms" as evidence
>>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: 100