I'm going to smash my skull against a brick wall I can't take this anymore. This 'labor aristocracy' crap is one of the most pervasive and pernicious myths out there. The way it is used today bears almost no relation to the way it was used by, say, Lenin. It bears no relation at all to the manner in Engels used it either, who made it clear that he was referring to a section of highly skilled laborers that commanded exclusive control over the trade unions at a time, a tendency that disappeared in his lifetime itself.
>>591300The material conditions of capitalism haven't changed. The labor aristocracy hasn't been a thing in centuries.
>>591299The evolution of language doesn't affect the analysis of capitalism.
>>591302So what you are describing is not an aristocracy within labor, a labor aristocracy, but something else entirely - namely, the fact that some countries are richer than others. So what? This has long been the case, it is a function of capitalist competition.
>which is why lenin and theories of imperialism objectively advance marxism by seeing the way in which surplus-value can be shared to a PMC or a labour aristocracy (particularly in exploitation of the third world).This has absolutely nothing to do with Lenin's theory of imperialism. The point is that imperialism is a political activity, one conducted by states in pursuit of their objectives; but in explaining it, Lenin explicitly rejects any examination of the political subject and simply assumes that it is a mute instrument for finance capital.
>>591307Think of some inventions that have been made since the 1860s and you will figure it out
>but its still muh capitalismSo lenin was wrong to assert that even in his own time things had developed toward imperialism?
>>591308Engels in his most basic understanding saw the highest paid members of the proletariat as the aristocracy of labour, reprsented by unions, like today where trades are still paid more than wage work. Engels concludes that more pay = more skill, like marx says. Today we know this isnt true. So today domestically and internationally there are growing factions of labour employed which is overpriced, and so is a revised order of labour aristocrats. I asked someone here once. Why does a clerk behind a desk get 20k a year when an african farmer gets $100 a year?
Marxoids imagine the economy works "scientifically" and "rationally" when it doesnt. This is a basic contradiction which is not addressed. The west as a whole shares in the exploitation of foreign labour, which is part of imperialist theory.
>>591298Engels basically said England was gunning for a bourgeois class alongside a bourgeois proletariat
I'd say England has largely been successful in this
>The way it is used today bears almost no relation to the way it was used by, say, Lenin.Lenin stated this rotten, revolting layer of society was directly responsible for World War 1 (and by extension the rise of fascism in interwar period given it was this layer of Social-democrats that most enthusiastically demanded crackdowns on Communists - whether Rosa and Liebknecht or the Blutmay Massacre of )
> It bears no relation at all to the manner in Engels used it either, who made it clear that he was referring to a section of highly skilled laborers that commanded exclusive control over the trade unions at a time, a tendency that disappeared in his lifetime itself.If this is true we should have had many proletarian revolutions in Europe and North America.
The last one was Spain 1936-1938. And the reason it didn't succeed was because the movement was rotten with social-democrat traitors and retarded anarchists executing priests and nuns whilst trying to go year zero in the countryside
>>591316The definition of Engels has nothing to do with high salaries but with how skilled the laborers were, I even bothered uploading a section of his text.
>Marxoids imagine the economy works "scientifically" and "rationally" when it doesnt.Oh my bad, this thread really attracted all the retards that make up the majority of this shithole these days.
>>591343Well yeah. Again, engels' definition is that the aristocrats of labour are the highest paid proles which he links to their necessary place in the stage of production.
This applies on a global level too. Like how the african farmer gets nothing while the store clerk makes 20k. Higher pay today does not mean more skill by necessity.
>>591299I'm going to address this argument at face value. If your premise are correct then everyone has the "authority to dictate" how you use words because anyone who can can speak is part of the populace who decides how a word is used.
>>591322Yes, yes, your race war will go off any day now. If you just say #landback loud enough capitalists will just give up.
>>591349uh no marx refers multiple times to a middle-class that is literally between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
>where he sees the production of a universal proletariat, but this has not happened, and instead a robust leisure class has emerged in more developed countriesthe proletariat shrinking as capital develops and a nation increases its social mobility is also a part of marxist analysis wtf??
>>591350poor countries dont magically stop being bourgeois nations just like small businesses arent any less capitalist than monopolies
>>591351>uh no marx refers multiple times to a middle-class that is literally between the proletariat and the bourgeoisieIn his class analysis, capital is converting all persons into those who possess Value (wages) or surplus-value (profits) as the means of their self-reproduction, which gets lumped in as the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Examples of the bourgeoisie are industrial capitalists, landlords and bankers, where the landlords and bankers, while proles include any person who sells their labour-power as a commodity, where even the lumpen are the lumpen-proletariat, so are adjoined to this binary in potential (where lenin would later generalise the proletariat as the lower classes, to include peasantry in the class struggle).
Marx foresaw the increasing proletarianisation of the bourgeoisie as profits declined and monopoly ramped up.
Instead, we now have what some call a lumpen-bourgeoisie, who feast on surplus without being productive. Many celebrities come to mind.
The middle class identity is necessarily derivative of these states of affairs.
>>591357When did i say theres no western proletariat?
>>591355Yes i completely agree. This is why engels says that the labour aristocracy is the bourgeoisification of a set of workers in how they relate to power, and why its strategic for the bourgeoisie to procure a voting base and class allies. But material conditions increasingly demand proletarianisation, which levels off labour to its true Value.
>>591359Yes but marx sees this middle class as being erased over time, when its clear that the middle class has empowered itself since then
the concept of the labour artistocracy is used today by those who do not understand that the value of labour power is not uniform. living standards in the imperial core are a result of the development of the productive forces and of class struggle, and not some un-Marxian nonsense like unequal exchange
the same goes for the notion that the proletariat in the periphery are super-exploited, when in fact the opposite is true
>>591313>the labour aristocracy is petit-bourgeois<it's another '"Marxist" using Weberian language' episode>>591364You can't write off unequal exchange as non-existent (even if that was not your intent) without doing actual labor time accounting of trade between developed and less-developed countries. You need to measure the balance of payment in labor-time, accounting for the labor imparted by superior machines used the developed country. Without such information available, you cannot say that unequal exchange doesn't exist.
Cockshott's lecture on this topic was not rigorous enough in its research.
>>591298>>591299>>591300It tends to be used today to describe a section of the proletariat that supports imperialism because it directly benefits from it.
Except this was used to describe why the AFL-CIO were massive chauvinists who kicked the commies out and supported the Vietnam War. Here in the Year of Our Lord 2024, the AFL-CIO has been decimated and the only people who could even remotely be genuinely described as "labor aristocrats" is a small section of people who work directly for the military-industrial complex. There is no correlation with imperialist adventures and improvement and improvement in one's own conditions, at least in America, and actually quite the opposite. The US intervention in Ukraine is associated with rising gas prices and inflation and, as a point of fact, the average American worker would be slightly wealthier if imperialism was ended.
None of this stops Maoist types, though, because they're all trying to create what is essentially MAGA Communism for (largely reactionary) non-white identity movements and trying to launder """progressive""" racialist politics through shit like the labor aristocracy, where all white people are basically labor aristocrats.
>>591371What does the landlord exploit to enrich himself in the first place? The worker gets paid, then the landlord takes what he can. Rents are so high because wages are so high.
If you dont have global perspective about these things then you are ignorant.
>>591373>What does the landlord exploit to enrich himself in the first place? The worker gets paid, then the landlord takes what he can. Rents are so high because wages are so high.My man, have you ever heard of roommates?
People don't pay these huge rents because they're now flush with cash, they pay them by cramming more and more people into apartments and splitting the rent.
>>591374Yes i agree that private housing always reverts back to the form of the slum. Thats why landlords are inherently reactionary.
But rent is calculated to still be "payable" by a salaried tenant, otherwise the landlord would get nothing. Competition levels it out to the most reasonably exploitative.
>>591379The reason im talking about rent is to highlight how our wealth is contradictory.
For example, if we didnt pay rents and tried to spend all our money at once the economy would inflate and we would lose stock
Rents exist in some way to regulate consumer spending, so is instituted in the form of taxes for example to just take away our money
Landlords do the same, but as a class position
But with the middle class and beyond, these are the "consuming classes" (like in marx's time), and so the west is massively wealthy, but in a "trickle down" sort of way. But we still benefit from the surplus generated from the third world. We are labour aristicocrats in this sense, a "bourgeois" proletariat. Where billionaires could be distinguished as super-bourgeois (like corresponding theories of "superimperialism" and "superprofits").
>>591375>>591377Where did I say that?
These identity movements aren't even communist. Modern Western Maoism is largely a movement of doing mental gymnastics about why non-communist and even anti-communist reactionary identity movements are actually communist if they're so long as they're not white.
Maoids are essentially reverse Maupinoids.
>>591381im makin fun of the other idiot
>>591380>But we still benefit from the surplus generated from the third world. We are labour aristicocrats in this sense, a "bourgeois" proletariat.this part is beyond stupid. a complete lack of understanding of how global capital works
>>591385Yes, which is why it’s infantile at best to decry countries as “anti-communist” just because they don’t fellate your particular brand of western cultural imperialism. Communism is not a checklist but the Real Movement by which the present state of things is evolved
>>591384It means exactly what it says
>>591382Once again, how can a store clerk make 20k a year if our labour perfectly corresponds to wages? And its not about "morality", its about our actual place in the chain of production. I have worked behind a counter before and i could easily have been replaced by a machine. Its beyond unskilled labour. Its just a scanner.
The point is that commodity production is majorly off-shored to more '"competitive" countries that we can exploit. How can anyone with common sense deny this?
>>591387Why are you subsuming all strata of 'third world' societies into an abstract singular 'mass' or 'people', thereby ignoring the vast internal social divisions within these states?
It's very funny seeing people ramble about 'labor of the Global South'. Do they think cheap products are sold only in the West and that people in 'third world' countries don't buy goods made in other 'third world' countries? Or is it all a difference of quantity than quality? Lol.
>>591389Depends on location. Cities are more open to international markets. And banks still need to sell mortgages to suburbia, so like i say, landlords, estate agencies and banks fuck people over, but still need to make money
Although i will say the "investment" market is a big contradiction today, where people hold property for speculation rather than direct appropriation.
Just another reason why landlords are the greatest enemy of the working class
>>591397You know landlords were separate from the bourgeois back then? Holy fuck.
The landlords dominated countries such as Germany as a separate class in their own right for a long time and even forced the bourgeoisie to 'grovel servilely' before it (Lenin's own descriptions).
>>591403Plenty of capitalist slumlords existed in marx's time. The nobility simply got subsumed into this appropriating position. And marx still affirms that landlords rented land to capitalists which then required a superexploitation of the proletariat to make up the difference.
>>591404>its pol to talk about why city rents are so highWeirdo
>>591408Landlords in the early stages of bourgeois society were a seperate class, which monopolized the land and consequently, owing to this monopoly, were able to derive a portion of the surplus-value indirectly in the form of ground-rent,
until the industrial bourgeoisie took power in England in the 1840s-50s. Are you being dense on purpose?
With the development of capitalist production, a definitive distinction between the bourgeoisie proper and landlords has more or less been lost, which is why they are for all purposes counted as one bourgeois ruling bloc.
>>591350>The west lives in luxuryObviously observably not true.
Retard.
>>591416Yes, i already said that, but contradictions still exist within the bourgeoisie itself. And in terms of the class war, the issue of rent and the "housing crisis" are more primary than wages in people's minds, even from the necessary fact that raising wages would just raise rents anyway.
>>591417Did i say that? Im just analysing contradictions.
>>591419thats not what contradiction even refers to you fucking leftoid
>the issue of rent and the "housing crisis" are more primarycommunism is not about rent control
>even from the necessary fact that raising wages would just raise rents anywaylmao youre just gonna keep rolling with that bullshit huh
>>591389
>materially contend>analysing contradictionslol giving yourself too much credit for just throwing buzzwords around
>>591420what determines rents then? Are you some lolbert retard who thinks landlords determine exploitation at an "objective" rate of competition?
And contradiction in dialectics means drawing out the mutual tensions of a supposed unity. The proletariat is contradictory to the bourgeoisie in the aspects of production, determined by the allocation of ownership and possession of Value and Surplus-Value. In the bourgeoisie itself there is also contradiction, like there is in the proletariat, and all aspects of life.
>>591419Oh man are you a maoist? On Contradiction is awfully stupid, he unironically thinks 'contradiction' = literally any two opposite things. No wonder all your posts are so fucking dumb.
Do you realize most bourgeois, all of the haute bourgeois, already own their places? They don't have to answer to any fucking landlord. Where's the """contradiction""" there? It gets even funnier that you acknowledge there's tension between the petit-bourgeois and landlords and still advocate for fucking cheaper rent, when you just stated why it's an interclassist reform, thus not having anything to do with the worker movement.
Thankfully, Engels was too much of a communist to advocate tenant unionism. In fact he refutes its principles here by pointing out that the struggle between tenant and landlord is merely a simple commodity sale, hence beyond the bounds of class struggle.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/housing-question/ch01.htm >>591366>did you miss the use of so-called and the scare quotesI did lol
>>591368>You can't write off unequal exchange as non-existent (even if that was not your intent) without doing actual labor time accounting of trade between developed and less-developed countriesdo you think Porky doesn't do arbitrage? on the world market, commodities are traded at close to their value. there's no "unequal" exchange going on when say India sells its steel at the same price that the US does. there is no "unequal" exchange going on when Indonesia exports shoes made by hand of the same or similar type as made with automated machinery in the West
some theorylets (such as Hakim) try to make the argument that when say Africa exports cheap raw materials and imports expensive finished goods, that this is somehow "unequal" and "exploitative". as if African workers are entitled to more stuff for being less productive than European workers. but the reality is the opposite: European workers, being more productive, are
more exploited than workers in the periphery. the
mass of exploitation is greater
European labour power is also more valuable. whether this value rises in proportion to its productivity is an open question as far as I've seen so far. that question is of crucial importance to whether the
rate of exploitation is higher in the periphery than in the core. the numbers I've seen so far are inconclusive. a high OCC puts more pressure on exploiting workers than a low OCC does
the dispersion in the value of labour power worldwide also explains why Porky prefers to import labour power into the core, having long since run out of cheap labour power domestically (the peasantry). Porky then turns around and cynically uses this refreshed reserve army of labour to further crush organized labour in the core, supporting reactionary parties while continuing to import cheap labour power all the same, as we see in for example Poland. in the long term this leads to a levelling of the value of labour power
>labor time accounting of tradedo you mean
social labour time or concrete labour time? Cockshott has done this work, as has Vivek Chibber, and both agree with my point
I read one article linked in Hakim's video on this subject, that tries to make the point that because a greater mass (in terms of tons) of raw material is exported from the periphery than it in turn imports from the core, that this is somehow exploitative. as if a country exporting one ton of rubber is somehow entitled to one ton of gold in exchange
>>591422No im not a maoist
And the contradiction between landlords and capitalists is in how they receive their share in surplus-value. Landlords extract rent while capitalists purchase labour-power.
>>591423>I read one article linked in Hakim's video on this subject, that tries to make the point that because a greater mass (in terms of tons) of raw material is exported from the periphery than it in turn imports from the core, that this is somehow exploitative. as if a country exporting one ton of rubber is somehow entitled to one ton of gold in exchangeThis moronic notion of 'unequal change' stems from a Ricardian application of the law of value to trade, confusing unequal quantities of labor-time embedded in products with unequal value exchange.
They forget the goal of communism is to centralize the world economy into free association wherein all products become a single social mass, not 'developing the Third World'.
>>591427Marx's text "capital" is dripping with dialectics, in speaking about quantity vs quality, abstract and concrete, form and content, and "contradiction" in general. Did you forget that marx was a young hegelian and his intellectual colleague engels wrote a book called "the dialectics of nature", where even in anti-duhring he makes distinction between the aspects of "production" and "exchange" as underlying social relations, which also reaches analogy in "superstructure" and "base" by transposition?
And yes i read the rest of your post, but so what? You have inverted your cynicism into idiocy. You dont have to be a dialectical thinker, but dont pretend marx wasnt one.
>>591440> imperialism = labour aristocracyYou can't have imperialism without a labour aristocracy.
The entire reason a handful of nations (ie NATO) oppress the entire rest of the world is because those populations are anticommunist and support imperialism
They're anti-communist because of the development of a labour aristocracy that allies with their own bourgeois against the rest of the world
Evidenced by the fact the last attempt at Proletarian Revolution was 1936 Spain
>>591300If you had read the Introduction to the Economic Manuscripts, you would understand that relations of production (i.e. class relations) are not eternal. You've failed at life by playing with tulpas.
>>591301>The material conditions of capitalismAre not dispositive. Social conditions determine form. If you don't agree, take it up with Engels and then kill yourself.
>The evolution of language doesn't affect the analysis of capitalism.But the evolution of capitalism does.
>>591421Apparently you are conflating contradiction and antagonism, which are not the same thing.
Also, the labor-capital relation is not a "contradiction" but merely one of opposites.
>>591422>In fact he refutes its principles here by pointing out that the struggle between tenant and landlord is merely a simple commodity sale, hence beyond the bounds of class struggleWhat, exactly, are the bounds of that material analysis, based on what, when, and where?
>>591450The labor aristocracy or to be precise the concept of the labor aristocracy is the upper-strata of workers within a capitalist society that are privileged (via kickbacks by the capitalist class) enough to forgo the necessity of class struggle. They are class traitors to an extent. They usually are in positions of power within trade-unions/labor-parties and are reformists but never to the effect of challenging or changing the status quo of the ruling class. As a capitalist country develops and grows so does the burgeoning labor aristocracy. When that country reaches its highest stage of capitalism, imperialism, then the nurturing of the labor aristocracy goes into full swing. This does not mean that the labor aristocracy becomes the dominant force within the proletariat, it will always be a small strata but those that constitute that strata are in positions that hamper the working class in general. This does not preclude socialists from organizing portions of the working masses of that country from becoming a revolutionary force but is just another obstacle for them to overcome.
As Lenin states in "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism"
<Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.
<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.To put into modern context, This can be applied to "leftwing" politicians (ie progressive democracts/socdems/berniebros), pundits (political talking heads on news feeds), journalists, government bureaucrats, labor party leaders and their ilk, even e-celebs (and i mean all "left" e-ecelebs). They are all in effect disconnected with the working class even though they hold positions of influence and power that can in turn influence and affect the working class while receiving benefits by the capitalists and therefore never truly biting the hand that feeds them.
>>591452What would you say is the principle difference between antagonism and contradiction
To me, contradiction is the prefigurement of any relation in its failure to reach wholeness (like how kant's Reason must be limited so as to even have knowledge of itself. Here, the limit is the contradiction which gives meaning to its self-relation).
In the same way, the relations of production are prefigured by their contradiction between master and slave, generally, which give meaning to both positions in their integrity to the concept of production.
Take the caste system for example, it says that every person has their purpose - yet, contradictions assert themselves within this natural order, which is why it has to be forced on people, even as an "organic" system. Capitalism is obviously the same.
In this sense it could be said that the primal contradiction spawns antagonism as its active mode. Once contradiction comes into consciousness we are forced to act, where even our non-action is still an action.
>Also, the labor-capital relation is not a "contradiction" but merely one of opposites.What underlies dialectics is the "unity of opposites" (coincidencia oppositorum) which to me is already the contradictory prefigurement of any social arrangement, that we are bound to eachother, as selves, yet we have our relation to ourselves through eachother (like how in psychoanalysis we do things to impress others rather than for any self-sufficient solipsism. We dont get naked in public for example. Lacan famously says that we even have sex for the other, but to have ourselves recognised in the other's pleasure - porn is a true example. How the woman must always enjoy the sex, it is never just for the man. And even in the most perverse sense, a rapist will have the fantasy that the woman secretly "wanted it", or a pedo will say the kid was "asking for it". Here we always act with this reference to the other. This is hegel's "mutual recognition" magnified to its objective condition).
Contradiction in this most primal sense is how we need a mirror to see ourselves, and our reflection becomes what we appeal to. We know ourselves through the other, just like the proletariat and bourgeoisie create themselves through each other.
>"the labor aristocracy is a pervasive and pernicious myth"<tweet sent from my African child slave labor iPhone as I sip Latin child slave labor coffee with my other art critic friends who work for some vaguely anticommunist CIA NGO >>591364>living standards in the imperial core are a result of the development of the productive forces and of class struggle, and not some un-Marxian nonsense like unequal exchangeDenying your history of nazi imperialist genocide and enslavement of workers, very unexpected from the labor aristocracy class of /pol/ nazis. No proletarian would waste their time trying to distract from reality…only someone in the same class as the reptilian redditors at /r/Neoliberal would feel the need to say these things
>>591423>as if African workers are entitled to more stuff for being less productive than European workersCalling people trying to resist their colonization and enslavement "entitled" for wanting control over the land under their feet, totally not the words of an out of touch parasitic aristocracy!
>>591392>Why are you subsuming all strata of 'third world' societies into an abstract singular 'mass' or 'people', thereby ignoring the vast internal social divisions within these states?"The labor aristocracy isn't real because the countries my friends steal from also steal from themselves" nice goalpost shifting
> the equation thus becomes 'poor = oppressed = revolutionary' (how simple indeed), The labor aristocracy is forced to deny the most basic tenet of Marxism so they need to obscure reality with their gamerhair philosophy
>>591350>The west lives in luxury while africa lives in shitthe labor aristocracy isn't real, which is why these degenerate nazi 4chan posters are all talking about going to Africa to pick plastic:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/08/plastic-waste-spiralling-out-of-control-across-africa-analysis-shows >>591298you're a labor aristocracy DENIER
tellmethere'snolaboraristocracy
TELLMETHERE'SNOLABORARISTOCRACY
>>591457I'LL KILL YOU, I'LL KILL YOU
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
I'LL KILL YOU, I'LL KILL YOU
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
TANK THINKS CHINA IS IMPERIALIST
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
GET THE FUCK OFF MY STREAM
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
HE'S A LYIN' PIECE OF SHIT
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
TANK THINKS CHINA'S IMPERIALIST
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
HE'S A LYING PIECE OF SHIT
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
GET THE FUCK OFF MY STREAM
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
HE'S A FUCKIN LIB DOING BREADTUBE
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
AHHHHHHHH:IDKJF:SLKDJF:LSIKDJFL:DSFK
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
df;ASJFA:LFJL:AKDJF:LDFKJDL:Fk
FAGGOT! FAGGOT! FAGGOT!
YOU'RE A FUCKING FAGGOT!
PUSSY! I'LL FUCKIN KILL YOU.
I'LL GO TO FUCKIN NEW YORK AND KILL YO ASS.
YOU NON ARAB PIECE OF SHIT
YOU A FUCKIN ZIONIST
DO IT DO IT DO IT
OH I WILL
YOU A WHITE PERSON
YOU AINT A FUCKIN ARAB
IF YOU DON'T SPEAK ARABIC YOU AIN'T AN ARAB
YOU JUST SAID CHINA IS IMPERIALIST IN AFRICA
n-no i didn't, i said…
YES YOU FUCKIN DID MOTHERFUCKER
CAPITALISTS CAN'T MAKE ANY PROFIT EXPORTIN (???)
THAT'S WHY THEY BLOUGHT AFRICANS IN THE FIRST PLACE
okay…
MARX TALKS ABOUT IT IN DAS KAPITAL
doesmarxsaythatthelaboraristocracy
YES YOU STUPID BASTARD IT'S THE LAST CHAPTER YOU STUPID BASTARD
last chapter of what, which volume
DAS KAPITAL VOLUME ONE
ok let's look at the last chapter
READ IT! READ IT MOTHERFUCKER!
YOU DON'T SPEAK ARABIC! YOU DON'T SPEAK ANY ARABIC!
YOU A WHITE DUDE! YOU A WHITE DUDE!
AND YOU'RE A LABOR ARISTOCRACY DENIER!
TELL US
TELL US THERE'S NO LABOR ARISTOCRACY!
TELL US THERE'S NO LABOR ARISTOCRACY!
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! TELL US YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN IT!
TELL US YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE LABOR ARISTOCRACY!
TELL ME TELL ME THERE'S NO FUCKIN LABOR ARISTOCRACY!
TELL ME THERE'S NO LABOR ARISTOCRACY!
>>591460>understanding settler colonialism exists is the same as moralism and shaming people for some form of "original sin"ok retard
read settlers, i promise the book won't bite you
>>591459I have a VERY STUPID question that I've been afraid to ask. And I'm sorry if this sounds like concern trolling or whatever. Believe me, it's not. I'm just really this stupid…
I can understand the narrative that America was settled and colonized by non-indigenous and stolen from indigenous.
But I can't understand this narrative with Israel/Palestine.
Don't get me wrong, death to the zionist entity, free Palestine, Israel is absolutely doing genocide, etc. etc. etc.
BUT
How are the Palestinians "indigenous"? The Levant lies at the crossroads of 3 continents. Asia, Europe, and Africa. It has been taken through conquest and settled so many times that it's impossible to figure that anybody is "indigenous" to the region. The Palestinians are
relatively indigenous compared to the mostly European/North American zionist settlers, but really I'd argue nobody has been truly "indigenous" in the sense of "first humans to settle the region" since the paleolithic.
What constitutes indigenity in a place like that?
>>591464how can you understand america but not israel?
>europeans go to another continent>they start killing and displacing the people who live there>they keep expanding their land grabs because god gave them the right to>ethnical cleansing ensuestry to guess which one i’m describing between america and israel
spoiler:
it’s both >>591465I agree with this and stated as such. My question is irrelevant to the current political situation. I'm not saying the Palestinians are burdened to prove they're indigenous to anyone, because it's kind of besides the point when they are being genocided. My question is a little more abstract and philosophical. I guess I'm asking is why is the settler-colonial framework being applied at all when nobody is truly indigenous? Isn't the real problem simply that Palestinians are being genocided?
>>591466If you carefully read my post I'm not trying to justify what the Israelis are doing.
>Don't get me wrong, death to the zionist entity, free Palestine, Israel is absolutely doing genocide, etc. etc. etc. Regarding the United States, the indigenous people were the very first people on the continent, whereas with the levant, the place has been settled and resettled by people with different cultural and national identities over and over again. I know this "it's complicated" narrative is used by liberal zionists to obfuscate the genocide of palestinians under a vid related style of bullshit, but I'm simply asking why are Palestinians regarded as "indigenous" when Muslims first came to the region from the Arab Peninsula in the middle ages. The levant hasn't had an indigenous people since the Canaanites, and even then, they probably weren't really the first there either. I shouldn't have asked. It's honestly irrelevant. I regret asking. I guess the framework of indigenous identity just confuses me in any place that hasn't really ever been owned by one group of people.
>>591455> >"the labor aristocracy is a pervasive and pernicious myth"<Letter sent on paper made from the Latin American logging operation as I sip my coffee cultivated on other LatAm plantations and tuck in my cotton shirt made from cotton picked on American slave plantations By your logic the proletariat has
always been a labor aristocracy moralist retard
Capitalism has always used slavery for a lot of raw material extraction
>>591467Vibes-based reasoning is a poison that's basically infected the entire anglophonic left and then some
We are really fucked
>>591475>we should consider how capitalist forces created and use whiteness to further imperialist, settler colonialist interests and break class solidarity apartbecomes
<YOU WANT TO KILL ALL THE MAYOSI don't get it.
>>5914761. The internet makes people stupid because we all use it as a surrogate for the kinds of lives we could lead if not for the rampant social alienation under capitalism + the way social media and electronic media is built under it fries your brain and hits your emotional response button
2. irony-poisoned weirdos end up alienating everyone else with mayocide posting
3. race is a sensitive issue and people find it hard to engage without feeling like they're getting finger-wagged at from either side of this argument
>>591477 (me)
>2. irony-poisoned weirdos end up alienating everyone else with mayocide postingshould be elaborated as
>>2. irony-poisoned weirdos end up alienating everyone else with mayocide posting because it's hard to convey tone over the internet and it's not always clear to people that most of it is sarcastic edgeposting or people just venting over how fucked everything is due to ongoing damage wrought by settler colonialism >>591455>tweet sent from my African child slave labor iPhone as I sip Latin child slave labor coffee with my other art critic friends who work for some vaguely anticommunist CIA NGO big mad. child slaves make terrible workers. no amount of moralist screeching will suddenly make child slave labour more productive or more valuable. this means they are in fact not particularly exploited, neither in absolute nor in relative terms
>Denying your history of nazi imperialist genocide and enslavement of workers, very unexpected from the labor aristocracy class of /pol/ nazis. No proletarian would waste their time trying to distract from reality…only someone in the same class as the reptilian redditors at /r/Neoliberal would feel the need to say these thingsI'm sorry if you feel bad about basic Marxian concepts being applied to the present situation
slavery is historically regressive, and tends to lower both the value and productivity of the labour power enslaved. this is why the South lost the US Civil War
>Calling people trying to resist their colonization and enslavement "entitled" for wanting control over the land under their feet, totally not the words of an out of touch parasitic aristocracy!see here how the moralfag, blinded by their rage, suggests that the more productive workers in the imperial core should accept shirking from less productive workers in the periphery. such a situation would mean that workers in the periphery, in addition to being less productive, would in fact be net beneficiaries of social labour flowing form the core. they would, since they contribute less value to the system than they in turn receive, in effect become exploiters themselves
the moralfag is prevented from seeing ways of rectifying the situation, such as raising the productivity of the periphery to the level of the core, which would have spillover effects on the value of labour power in the periphery. better still would be world revolution of course, whereby a massive planned program of levelling productivity could be carried out. from the perspective of us today, this would be akin to exporting (transporting) yet more capital (MoPs) to the periphery than Porky does today
what your average unequalexchangetard seems to think is that raw materials in the ground have some intrinsic value, which they don't. it doesn't matter how much raw material is le extracted since that material has no value in itself
>>591481Economic determinism is a neoliberal infection that asks us to adopt the logic of
Homo oeconomicus. Engels already told you you were retarded.
<According to the Materialist Conception of History, the factor which is in the last instance decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this neither Marx nor myself ever claimed. If now someone has distorted the meaning in such a way that the economic factor is the only decisive one, this man has changed the above proposition into an abstract, absurd phrase which says nothing. The economic situation is the base, but the different parts of the structure-the political forms of the class struggle and its results, the constitutions established by the victorious class after the battle is won, forms of law and even the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political theories, juridical, philosophical, religious opinions, and their further development into dogmatic systems-all this exercises also its influence on the development of the historical struggles and in cases determines their form. It is under the mutual influence of all these factors that, rejecting the infinitesimal number of accidental occurrences (that is, things and happenings whose intimate sense is so far removed and of so little probability that we can consider them non-existent, and can ignore them), that the economical movement is ultimately carried out. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of any simple equation. >>591483Different cost of reproduction of labour + spoils of past class struggle.
100€ in europe you starve to death, but the same 100€ make you middle class in some underdeveloped countries.
>>591483>doing the same jobwhich jobs are you talking about exactly? an Indian steel worker and a US steel worker do "the same job", but the latter is far more productive, and so there is more wiggle room for them to demand higher wages. but those workers, nota bene, are not necessarily in proportion to their productivity. the cost of living in the core is also higher, and the cost of living forms part of the value of the labour power
if US steel plants have a higher OCC than Indian steel plants, then in addition to s being larger for US workers, s/v may likely be larger as well, if s/(c+v) is to be maintained. hence why it is possible for workers in the core to be
more exploited, not less
>>591485>How? because of their age or working condition?because they are not very productive, the amount of value and therefore surplus value they can produce is low. the amount of value they embody is also low, the value of labour power increasing as it ages, as it receives food, education, experience etc..
the fact that children aren't particularly exploited of course doesn't mean that child slavery is
good. the need for investing in its own labour power is part of the reason why British porkies allowed public education reforms, such education paying off in the long run. class struggle on the part of the workers also played a part of course. Porky was able to abstain from profits generated by children because it would pay off in the long run, the child labour being better spend on the children themselves (homework etc). this is by no means a static state of affairs however - Porky is busy dismantling public education in the core. the reason for this may partly be due to automation making it possible to make do with fewer highly-trained workers
>>591475>breaks the board's collective mindfrom the beginning its been a vocal minority spamming the thread
>>591476you must have a very stupid liberal definition of imperialism to only apply it to white people or think its special when white people do it
>>591486lol ok third worlders treating the us as a super duper awesome country to live in just to support their lib victim narrative is hilarious
>>591482>>591487None of them can even coherently define it without lapsing into metaphysical notions about nationality and migration. Even the 'very clear' description posted by Mickey Duck uses vague phrases like 'seeking a homeland' and doesn't even touch concretely upon class relations.
I could use these ill-defined historical parameters to say that Cornwall is being settler-colonized by the English and hence needs 'freedom' (i.e. its own independent bourgeois state):
<Can't believe they're just going to deny the Cxrnishx (PoC) struggle for national-democratic rejuvenation when unequal exchange is happening between Truro and London as we speak. What next, denying Jerriais independence? Fucking English chauvinists, literally Goebbelsian. Unique IPs: 41