99.9999% of fights on leftypol are over whether the top pic or the bottom pic is true.
https://strawpoll.com/GeZARkvDRyVSo which is it leftypol?
1: The 1st world bourgeoisie and 1st world workers are trying to crush the 3rd world bourgeoisie and the 3rd world workers
2: The 1st world bourgeoisie and 3rd world bourgeoisie are trying to crush the 1st world workers and the 3rd world workers
If you look at the south in the US its basically a third world country
>>2880893Like it really is getting bad the proverty rates are getting higher and the united states has been declining in GDP for decades, this whole third world vs first world is a psyop.
Its exploited people vs the exploiters, all major countries have this dynamic (rural russia, rurual and urban china, southern and western USA, rural and indigenous canada, scotland, wales, northern ireland in UK, south of france and corstica in france, southern italy, central spain and catalonia, etc…)
>>2880886For me it's everyone allying against the kind of people who support Trump (or your local temu equivalent.)
There is a progressive and a reactionary faction of each broad group, when split in such a simple binary. (When you sub-divide further, you'll find the anchor point of this group is usually petit bourg, lumpen, retired, or in a highly protected sector, plus of course the utterly insane tech-right types.) It is the militant branch of all of the worst human impulses, all of the most reactionary desires of the most destructive parts of capital, all of the worst warmongers. It is for anyone of any serious persuasion the worst of all possible options. The most progressive faction of the bourgeoisie is of course still nothing compared to the proletariat, but that does nothing to diminish just how bad the most reactionary factions are.
A superficial third worldist analysis will lead you to celebrate their deleterious effect on the west, never realising that the developing world is hit too and will be hit the hardest in the inevitable wars that follow.
I make no direct proposals on how to fix this. This is not a call to "vote blue no matter who". I do not for a second believe your vote matters, but I regard this as a very serious problem.
>>2880886Dialectics, third world bourgeois and proletariat against first world allied with first world proletariat then once third world bourgeois throws off the shackles of the first world imperialism and colonialism then third world proletariat against their own bourgeois
>>2880886Communism versus 3rd world nationalism. Its really sad if anyone picks top option.
>>2880959Big bunch of words with no bearing on the thread. Thanks for your contribution.
>>2880960
Very presumptive and entirely wrong.
>Plutocratic vs proletarian nations
This debate was settled by the time the Comintern still existed.
Still too early to tell, but I don't get the impression a lot of people here agree with the top, but the ones that do are very loud about it in every "geopol" thread.
No, due to your lack in ability to take into account the complexity of time as well as all stratas involved, you are not seeing it clearly enough.
The pyramid needs to have about x2 the layers.
The fact that it's missing a time dimension is catastrophic.
And fuck your poll.
saged
>>2881083I'm saying that originally the notion behind "allying with the national bourgeoisie" was materially sound a century ago during the Baku Congress, as the globe was mostly agrarian, illiterate, formally colonial, comprador-oppressed.
By the end of the 20th century most of the issues acting as blockages to a new proletarian communist revolutionary wave (illiteracy, rural, non-industrial environments, comprador-colonialist "development") are no longer there, as capitalism is truly global.
There no longer is a viable alliance with the national bourgeoisie or even petty-bourgeoisie for the global south, but, dialectically, there also is no viable alliance with the labor aristocracy in the global north (think academics, managers, the (mis)leaders within the CIA-approved labor unions and reformist parties).
>>2881098yeah that seems totally reasonable. I have no objections to anything you said.
>>2880886Neither. It's 3rd world workers versus everyone.
Capitalist competition means the bourgeois solidarity is fake and they will, eventually, devour each other. Through this conflict, 3rd world workers get an opportunity at communism.
>>2881098academics are a slightly unfair one and should be subdivided. the large number of young aspiring academics in insecure or non-academic employment, the small number of secure academic positions available, and the fact that old boomer academics in secure tenure are living longer and longer each year (meaning their position doesn't roll over to someone younger) basically bodes well for the left. obviously the secure academic has nothing to gain and everything to lose, but the situation is precisely reversed for the aspirant.
>>2881105>It's 3rd world workers versus everyone.seems hopeless
>Capitalist competition means the bourgeois solidarity is fake and they will, eventually, devour each other. Through this conflict, 3rd world workers get an opportunity at communism.i hope that you are correct
>>2880993Well it would be better if the proletariat immediately did a proletarian revolution, but anti imperialism is also good too.
The only difference between first and third world workers is that first world workers have more class counsciousness and refuse to be exploited by the capitalist class to the same degree as thirdies
>>2880886it's 1st world workers vs 3rd world workers
AND
1st world bourg aligned with 3rd world workers
AND
3rd world bourg against 1st and 3rd world workers
>>2880959You are also distorting Marx's analysis of the development of the theory of productive workers among the bourgeoisie and its vulgarization by the bourgeoisie itself with Marx's opinion that, if you had read him, you would see that the issue of productive and unproductive workers has to do with being productive to the capitalist in order to generate surplus value to be extracted by the capitalist as profit from the sale of commodities in the market.
You are confusing what Marx is writing in the text, in the same text you can see that If a worker is exploited by an entrepreneur to generate profit, their labor is structurally productive for capital. If you hire a worker directly out of your own pocket to fix your house, they are structurally unproductive, no matter how physically grueling or "useful" their work is.
<Productive labour is here defined from the standpoint of capitalist production, and Adam Smith here got to the very heart of the matter, hit the nail on the head. This is one of his greatest scientific merits (as Malthus rightly observed, this critical differentiation between productive and unproductive labour remains the basis of all bourgeois political economy) that he defines productive labour as labour which is directly exchanged with capital; that is, he defines it by the exchange through which the conditions of production of labour, and value in general, whether money or commodity, are first transformed into capital (and labour into wage-labour in its scientific meaning).
<This also establishes absolutely what unproductive labour is. It is labour which is not exchanged with capital, but directly with revenue, that is, with wages or profit (including of course the various categories of those who share as co-partners in the capitalist’s profit, such as interest and rent). Where all labour in part still pays itself (like for example the agricultural labour of the serfs) and in part is directly exchanged for revenue (like the manufacturing labour in the cities of Asia), no capital and no wage-labour exists in the sense of bourgeois political economy. These definitions are therefore not derived from the material characteristics of labour (neither from the nature of its product nor from the particular character of the labour as concrete labour), but from the definite social form, the social relations of production, within which the labour is realised. An actor, for example, or even a clown, according to this definition, is a productive labourer if he works in the service of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more labour than he receives from him in the form of wages; while a jobbing tailor who comes to the capitalist’s house and patches his trousers for him, producing a mere use-value for him, is an unproductive labourer. The former’s labour is exchanged with capital, the latter’s with revenue. The former’s labour produces a surplus-value; in the latter’s, revenue is consumed.
<Productive and unproductive labour is here throughout conceived from the standpoint of the possessor of money, from the standpoint of the capitalist, not from that of the workman; hence the nonsense written by Ganilh, etc., who have so little understanding of the matter that they raise the question whether the labour or service or function of the prostitute, flunkey, etc., brings in returns. |303||
<||304| A writer is a productive labourer not in so far as he produces ideas, but in so far as he enriches the publisher who publishes his works, or if he is a wage-labourer for a capitalist.
<The use-value of the commodity in which the labour of a productive worker is embodied may be of the most futile kind. The material characteristics are in no way linked with its nature which on the contrary is only the expression of a definite social relation of production. It is a definition of labour which is derived not from its content or its result, but from its particular social form.
<On the other hand, on the assumption that capital has conquered the whole of production—and that therefore a commodity (as distinct from a mere use-value) is no longer produced by any labourer who is himself the owner of the conditions of production for producing this commodity—that therefore only the capitalist is the producer of commodities (the sole commodity excepted being labour-power)—then revenue must be exchanged either against commodities which capital alone produces and sells, or against labour, which just like those commodities is bought in order to be consumed; that is, only for the sake of its particular material characteristics, its use-value—for the sake of the services which, through its particular material characteristics, it renders to its buyer and consumer. For the producer of these services the services rendered are commodities. They have a definite use-value (imaginary or real) and a definite exchange-value. For the buyer, however, these services are mere use-values, objects in which ||305| he consumes his revenue. These unproductive labourers do not receive their share of revenue (of wages and profits), their co-partnership in the commodities produced by productive labour, gratis: they must buy their share in them; but they have nothing to do with their production.
<Karl Marx, 1863,Theories of Surplus-Value, [Volume IV of Capital], [CHAPTER IV] Theories of Productive and Unproductive Labourhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htmYou forget that workers who transport commodities are productive workers creating value by selling their labor power.
<Quantities of products are not increased by transportation. Nor, with a few exceptions, is the possible alteration of their natural qualities, brought about by transportation, an intentional useful effect; it is rather an unavoidable evil. But the use-value of things is materialised only in their consumption, and their consumption may necessitate a change of location of these things, hence may require an additional process of production, in the transport industry. The productive capital invested in this industry imparts value to the transported products, partly by transferring value from the means of transportation, partly by adding value through the labour performed in transport. This last-named increment of value consists, as it does in all capitalist production, of a replacement of wages and of surplus-value.
<Within each process of production, a great role is played by the change of location of the subject of labour and the required instruments of labour and labour-power — such as cotton trucked from the carding to the spinning room or coal hoisted from the shaft to the surface. The transition of the finished product as finished goods from one independent place of production to another located at a distance shows the same phenomenon, only on a larger scale. The transport of products from one productive establishment to another is furthermore followed by the passage of the finished products from the sphere of production to that of consumption. The product is not ready for consumption until it has completed these movements.[…]
<The absolute magnitude of the value which transportation adds to the commodities stands in inverse proportion to the productive power of the transport industry and in direct proportion to the distance traveled, other conditions remaining the same.[…]
<The capitalist mode of production reduces the costs of transportation of the individual commodity by the development of the means of transportation and communication, as well as by concentration — increasing scale — of transportation. It increases that part of the living and materialised social labour which is expended in the transport of commodities, firstly by converting the great majority of all products into commodities, secondly, by substituting distant for local markets.
<The circulation, i.e., the actual locomotion of commodities in space, resolves itself into the transport of commodities. The transport industry forms on the one hand an independent branch of production and thus a separate sphere of investment of productive capital. On the other hand its distinguishing feature is that it appears as a continuation of a process of production within the process of circulation and for the process of circulation.
<Karl Marx 1885, Capital Volume II, Chapter 6: The Costs of Circulation, III. Costs of Transportationhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm#3
<However, what the transportation industry sells is change of location. The useful effect is inseparably connected with the process of transportation, i.e., the productive process of the transport industry. Men and goods travel together with the means of transportation, and their traveling, this locomotion, constitutes the process of production effected by these means. The useful effect can be consumed only during this process of production. It does not exist as a utility different from this process, a use-thing which does not function as an article of commerce, does not circulate as a commodity, until after it has been produced. But the exchange-value of this useful effect is determined, like that of any other commodity, by the value of the elements of production (labour-power and means of production) consumed in it plus the surplus-value created by the surplus-labour of the labourers employed in transportation. This useful effect also entertains the very same relations to consumption that other commodities do. If it is consumed individually its value disappears during its consumption; if it is consumed productively so as to constitute by itself a stage in the production of the commodities being transported, its value is transferred as an additional value to the commodity itself. The formula for the transport industry would therefore be M — C<LMP … P — M', since it is the process of production itself that is paid for and consumed, not a product separate and distinct from it. Hence this formula has almost the same form as that of the production of precious metals, the only difference being that in this case M' represents the converted form of the useful effect created during the process of production, and not the bodily form of the gold or silver produced in this process and extruded from it.
<Karl Marx 1885, Capital Volume II, Part I: The Metamorphoses of Capital and their Circuits, Chapter 1: The Circuit of Money Capital, IV. The Circuit as a Wholehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch01.htm#4You are forgetting what Marx wrote:
<Labour may be necessary without being productive. All general, communal conditions of production – so long as their production cannot yet be accomplished by capital as such and under its conditions – are therefore paid for out of a part of the country’s revenue – out of the government’s treasury – and the workers do not appear as productive workers, even though they increase the productive force of capital.
<Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, Grundrisse: Notebook V – The Chapter on Capitalhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch10.htmUnproductive labor, devoted to meeting human needs and which is necessary for the reproduction of labor, would expand with the development of communism, for instance the employment of teachers and doctors. But nowhere is the necessity or intrinsic usefulness of the labor confused with productive labor.
Let us see that many of the so-called unproductive workers in the capitalist system continued to exist in the socialist economy:
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programmehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2881303>The only difference between first and third world workers is that first world workers have more class counsciousness and refuse to be exploited by the capitalist class to the same degree as thirdiesThis seems unfair. There are many instances of the working class in the third world organizing revolutions or at the very least electing social-democratic reformists or national-liberation figures only for their movements to be sabotaged by coups, invasions, embargoes, sanctions, loan sharking, asset-freezing, etc. You should read Killing Hope by William Blum. Please respond thoughtfully if you respond at all.
If being born a first world worker means I'm ontologically evil and need killing, then what's the solution?
Do Turd Worldists want me to just kill myself because I happened to be born in Europe? Or should I sell everything I own and move to a corrugated metal shack in the 3rd world?
Or maybe they want me to just be a NEET? Am I no longer a "worker" then?
Honestly you cannot win with these clowns, they are politically illiterate, living in a total fantasy world. Do not waste time on 3rd wordlists.
Marx said it clearly enough when he said workers of the WORLD unite. Anyone trying to debate this, make it an argument is just trying to sow division for its own sake and should be booted from left wing spaces.
>>2882632You're being trolled by a few bored, angry suburbanite yankees
larping as "ThirdWorldists" since a politics more serious than economistic social-reformism deeply unsettles them.
>21-1
are the TWists all AI chatbots that haven't figured out how to use a poll?
>>2882632It’s a call for you to do islamist style adventurism, suicide by cop
>>2882637that certainly has been the hypothesis for several months since they
- spam the same text
- get banned quickly but keep coming back with new IP addresses, seemingly having infinite money for VPNs
- only seem to respond to text, never images, polls, or anything else
- barely even respond to the text, mostly strawman, or misinterpret it, changing the subject, etc.
- pathologically have bad faith interpretations of everything so that it doesn't matter how you respond it's always proof of what they thought.
- will shit on people who even agree with them if they don't have the right tone
>>2883272oh, one more thing, if you reply to them in a thread without bumping it back to the top, they find it right away, even though this site does not really have a robust notifications system or accounts, indicating that they instantly know when you have replied using software that extends the ordinary capabilities of the imageboard.
>>2883272>>2883275Another explanation is they're terminally online with open tabs for the various megathreads and cyclicals.
The bad faith interpretations makes sense when you realize they tribalist identitarians so if you're critiquing their favorite multipolarista of the month, you're attacking
them. And they need to "defend" themselves by accusing you of being a zionist NAFO pedophile fed.
>>2883274Honestly whenever these tards run their mouth just post this image and give no further replies.
>>2880886It's 2 and anyone who says otherwise is a giga LARPer
>>2883274tbh i feel like the people who would say top either stopped using the board or changed their mind. i used to sort of see the idea of first world workers being incentivized against ending imperialism but now i just think all proles are just here for the ride and inter-capitalist realpolitik has largely supplanted class struggle
>>2880893The bottom 50% in America have less than half the wealth of the bottom 50% of China.
>>2883749I agree with your point but to be fair the bottom %50 of China is 700 million people (since China's total pop is 1.4 billion) while the bottom %50 in the USA is 170 million people (since USA's total pop is 340 million). So a more sensible metric would be per capita income of the bottom 50% rather than total wealth of the bottom 50%.
This
>>2883728 post exemplifies why I wrote
>>2881098>>2883753It's been 340 million for like 30 years wtf
>>2880886First worlders in general are not evil, only people from settler states are really evil. But regardless imperialism is not the only reason why first world countries are not M-L states. The establishment of what we would call communist states mostly relied on the contradictions that were generated from a collapsing feudalism and an emerging capitalism along with an anger against colonialist exploitation in non-western countries. All across the world as is current, capitalism has won and there is no more contradictions that can be exploited and turned towards political revolutionary purposes. The countries that had the chance for M-L political control already have it, had it, or missed the bus due to intervening factors (like imperialism). But unfortunatley the imageboard format hates nuance so to get your point across it's easier to spew fire at the people you hate (Which I engage in a fair share of myself). The train for communism is thankfully starting to arrive I think with the arrival of AI, but it still will probably be a long way out.
>>2883728>tbh i feel like the people who would say top either stopped using the board or changed their mind.They probably went back to Reddit or went to Lemmygrad or Hexbear when they found out that you won't get banned because you don't believe in national essences or whatever.
>>2883274So all the 3rd Worldist bs that gets posted here is just one guy?
>>2883759no it hasn't… US population in 1996 was 270 million
>>2883718We should do these more often lol
>>2883790Yes, it's all Iron FEDlix.
>>2881303Truke of the highest caliber
Still using cold war terms is so cringe
>>2883908we're gonna VOTE VOTE VOTE
it's our moment
you know together we're voting
gonna be gonna be voting
WOAH OH OH
>>2883919people use it interchangeably to refer to the level of development of a country, and to its "NATO vs. BRICS" (cold war 2) alignment.
>>2884052
do the toilets in NATO countries magically clean themselves?
Treatlerism makes the first-world proletariat cattle. They will never meaningfully ally with the third-world because they benefit from surplus value extraction from the periphery states.
>>2895392>muh israel>a literal casus belli printer for US to wage war in the Middle Eastok /pol/
>>2895343>he voted in an online poll>he treats the results on an online poll seriously Anyone who thinks countries are hiveminds has had their brain replaced with a Twitter feed
>>2895432>/pol/ is when you want all forms of capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, supremacism, defeated, including zionism and American imperialism>fuck the poll resultswere you the one person who thought that the bourgeoisie and proletariat should team up with each other as long as they live in the same "world"?
sorry buddy, workers of ALL countries unite. there is one planet, not three worlds, and there is limited time. That means revolutionary defeatism in the imperial core is a necessity, and that means agitating the workers of the imperial core that they are on a sinking ship and that the "treats" to the extent that they even exist are a distraction from that.
>>2895443see
>>2895437, post AND pic BUDDY
seriously explain how the imperial core proletariat "benefits" in anything but the extremely short term from having their own life torn apart, privatized, deregulated, etc. to fund the genocidal war machine that makes the rest of the world hate them as accomplices of the bourgeoisie through the sanctions, embargoes, coups, and invasions? This is a system that dehumanizes and murders the poorest workers of the world, and then takes less poor workers of the imperial core and makes them complicit in that by "pinning the tail on the donkey" so to speak. How does a person benefit from being made into a complicit accomplice in crimes committed in their name, while they are getting rugpulled to fund those crimes. There is only the short term negative "benefit" of "you weren't the one literally killed and robbed by the war machine, they were just killed in your name and now millions hunger for revenge against you and lump you in with your pedophile warlord ruling class"
what "benefit" is that. everyone should realize from now that this "benefit" is having a target painted on your back by your ruling class, being made complicit through passivity. This must be resisted actively. These bourgeoisie are a minority in every country but they use the majority in every country as a shield in both wartime and peace, and part of that is roping everyone into their crimes, creating systems of interclass hypernationalism that generate complicity and passiveness so that complicity and passiveness can become every bit as guilt-producing as active participation. The guy who works at wal mart and pays taxes to his genocidal government becomes "Just as responsible" for the war crimes as the bloodthirsty guy who believes everything the news says and signs up to kill third worlders directly. How does a person "benefit" from being brainwashed to hate their own class, kill fellow workers, and become a collaborator while having the rug pulled out from under them? Why should I see it as a "benefit" that they defund the schools and hospitals "over here" to bomb the schools and hospitals "over there" ? first they came for the third worlders…
>>2895443
>the electronics, apparel, food, raw materials, and more—are almost all extracted from the Global South’s proletariat
First, that's not how the Marxist concept of exploitation works. Commodities are not "extracted", surplus value is. What you're essentially trying to argue here is that it's exploitation to import things.
>It’s why nearly all Westoid leftism devolves into socdem nonsense.
That's also true in the third world.
>>2895463
>bribed
<looks inside
>has the entire life rugpulled from under them to fund more genocide in their name. while food and actual necessities get more expensive, make millions grow up hating them in exchange for nothing
>>2895463
>prolecattle
Tired of calling people 'goy' huh polcuck
>>2895463
>Before your truncated quote mine, I clearly said:
<The surplus value that flows to the Western bourgeoise
And how does surplus value going to the Western bourgeoisie help the Western proletariat?
>Not as prevalent as it is in the West
Yes it is, this isn't the 1960s. There hasn't been a revolution in the third world in about 40 years. Labour aristocratic tendencies have already begun to manifest in some third world communist parties, the majority of them simply engage in electoralism, armed revolutionary movements have been in steady decline. There is simply no evidence of significantly greater revolutionary potential in the third world today.
>>2895488>Because it allows the Western bourgeoise to supply cheaper goods, higher nominal wages, welfare state funding, and retirement fundsThose things are a result of higher levels of productivity, in turn stemming from more developed productive forces. China has proven that imperialism isn't necessary to achieve that level of industrial and infrastructure development. They've also been severely clawed back and continue to be eroded, since even the briefest look at the history of those concessions will show that they weren't freely given but fought for with decades of struggle and bloodshed. Meanwhile it's been empirically proven that without capitalism, the entire world could enjoy first world living standards on the level of Denmark with a fraction of current economic output.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292924000493>There has ‘t been a revolution in the United States in all of its history.Wild way to move the goalposts. That applies to plenty of third world countries too.
>>2895488
>Because it allows the Western bourgeoise to supply cheaper goods, higher nominal wages, welfare state funding, and retirement funds (owning equities and bonds in the very same institutions extracting surplus value).
I though this was a materialist board
>>2895492Labor aristocracy = not materialist
Moralfagging about muh Epstein class = materialist
>>2895504assuming sarcasm, you are the first person in this entire thread to utter the words "epstein class"
>>2895510It’s the general sentiment I get from garbage posts like these:
>>2895437 >>2895512
>workers of all countries unite, there is one planet, not three worlds and there is limited time. That means revolutionary defeatism in the imperial core is a necessityhow did you get "epstein class" out of that post? honestly.
>>2895519
Doesn't this kind of trolling get tiresome?
Third worlders are never happy and very ungrateful, if we make so many treats with looms and machines and stuff and we export to them it's bad because "it's destroying our industry" "stop transferring our capital to you" blah blah blah. So then we bleeding heart westerners ship all the industry over there and have them do that work but it's also bad somehow? They just don't like hard work
>>2895489>China has proven that imperialism isn't necessary to achieve that level of industrial and infrastructure development.First of all, China is absolutely imperialist. China has basically been lockstep with American imperialism since the Sino–Soviet split. China’s rise is America’s making; just because the US is now shitting its pants over yet ANOTHER "enemy" it has created is irrelevant.
Second, China’s industrial development (disproportionately concentrated along China’s eastern coast) has largely been based on the unequal exchange of surplus value extracted from China’s poor western and inner provinces.
>>2895503>then without unequal exchange, the real wages for Western workers would drop massively because the goods Westoids rely on would cost much moreHave you actually read the theory behind equal exchange? It explicitly says that Western workers don't benefit from it in any way. That unequal exchange is also itself a byproduct of higher productivity and more developed productive forces in the West.
<The point is that the transfer to the North takes place because of the imperialist countries’ superior technology and labour productivity. That enables them to sell their goods in world markets at costs below the international average. The Southern capitalists try to compensate for their lower technical level and productivity by driving the wages of their workers down. So the higher rate of exploitation in the South, whether by super-exploitation or not, is a reaction to the failure to compete against the North.<shows that the economics of imperialism works through the transfer of value by the exploitation of the workers of the South by the capitalists of the South and then through the transfer of some of that surplus value appropriated to the capitalists of the North in international markets and internal global value chains. The workers of the North do not benefit in any way from this imperialist transfer.<To suggest, as some do, that the welfare state, pensions and national health services in the North were only possible because of the imperialist exploitation of the South is economic nonsense. After all, the great period of imperialist exploitation was in the neo-liberal period of globalization since the 1980s, when the welfare and wage gains of workers in the North were taken back. Globalisation of the late 20th century was a response to falling rates of profit in the North (as it was in the late 19th century). It is also a political insult against the class struggles made by Northern workers to achieve those gains in the first place. Both the workers of the South and the North are exploited by capital. It is capital that is the enemy of both.https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/hm2-the-economics-of-modern-imperialism/It's also nonsense to suppose that decent living standards in the third world would cause costs to spike in the West. That would only remain true if both remained capitalist, but if they were to both become socialist then all the profits accumulated by the third world bourgeoisie would instead accrue to the third world workers, allowing a huge increase in their income and living standards without prices going up.
>>2895615>unequal exchange of surplus value extracted from China’s poor western and inner provincesWhat would equal exchange look like in this case?
>>2895615>First of all, China is absolutely imperialistNo it's not
>Second, China’s industrial development (disproportionately concentrated along China’s eastern coast) has largely been based on the unequal exchange of surplus value extracted from China’s poor western and inner provinces.No they haven't, those are just the most populated areas of China, where development took place first. It is actively being spread through the more rural areas as well
>>2895650Nazi Germany was bad because it was anti-Soviet, not because it was "imperialist".
>>2895757>anti-Sovietsome goes for the PRC
>>2895764>anti-SovietSame goes for the Soviets themselves. They denigrated their own history, destroyed their own party, and collapsed their own country.
>>2895757yeah man, leibesraum was totally cool when it was just france and poland
>>2895535treatlers vs. twisters is fake kayfabe and both "sides" are the same handful of trolls
>>2895619>Have you even read THEORY?!?>cites random person’s blogThe West will NEVER turn socialist so long as Western prolecattle continue to benefit from the bourgeoisie’s unequal exchange of surplus value from the Global South. Anti-imperialism must be the forefront issue. Until the Western proletariat no longer indirectly benefits from the unequal exchange with the Global South, they will forever lack any material incentive to revolt. This is why Western leftism ALWAYS devolves into socdem posturing and why nearly all successful workers’ revolutions have occurred outside of the Western world. You can continue to hand wave these indisputable facts, but that’s just because you’re a Westoid social democrat at heart.
>It's also nonsense to suppose that decent living standards in the third world would cause costs to spike in the West. That would only remain true if both remained capitalistIf the Global South became socialist then the Global North would finally bear the contradictions of capitalism that the West has passed on to the rest of the world. This is why the Global North viciously wreaks havoc in Third World countries that experience even a hint of revolutionary sentiment, whereas Western leftism is usually co-opted.
>>2896000>cites random person’s blogHe's not a random person, he's a Marxist economist and one of the leading theorists of unequal exchange.
>Western prolecattle continue to benefit from the bourgeoisie’s unequal exchange of surplus value from the Global South.You still haven't demonstrated this.
>why nearly all successful workers’ revolutions have occurred outside of the Western worldStrictly speaking the only successful worker's revolution in history was in Russia, an imperialist country. The rest were led by peasants, and its a moot point since both worker and communist peasant movements in the third world are already devolving in the exact same way Western ones did.
>If the Global South became socialist then the Global North would finally bear the contradictions of capitalismThat's sidestepping my point. If the world became socialist then workers everywhere could enjoy higher standards of living and more security than they currently do. Therefore they all have an interest in defeating capitalism and imperialism.
>graphsThose don't support your position btw. They show that the Global South contributes far more hours to total world production compared to the North. It doesn't say anything about actual output however, which needs to be considered since productivity in the North is vastly higher. This in fact is the actual basis of unequal exchange.
>>2896000>you benefit from having your education defunded, your health care defunded, so the military budget can triple, so the government can bomb third world workers, and give money to lobbyists, those third world workers can grow up hating you, this benefits you, you are cattle and will never revolt btwwe are gonna kill you, porky
>>2896013>Russia, an imperialist country. make sure you cite Lenin actually calling Russia imperialist or he will play dumb
>>2896000>This is why Western leftism ALWAYS devolves into socdem posturing and why nearly all successful workers’ revolutions have occurred outside of the Western world.Successful revolutions also haven't occurred in the global south in the last forty years. Leftist movements in the global south also devolve into "socdem posturing", fascism, and colour revolutions.
>This is why the Global North viciously wreaks havoc in Third World countries that experience even a hint of revolutionary sentiment, whereas Western leftism is usually co-opted.Not true in the last fourty years. Most revolutions in the global south are co-opted by social media just like in the global north.
Unique IPs: 55