Global Inequality and Socialist Equality

[AvanteRedGarde]

Global Inequality and Socialist Equality


by Prairie Fire
(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)


It has been suggested that the use of an egalitarian distribution principle as a regulative idea is somehow contrary to approaches that center around the mechanics of exploitation. In particular, it has been suggested that it is contrary to the labor theory of value or the theories of unequal exchange.



The approach does bracket the question of what the mechanics of exploitation actually are. Looking at global inequality through the lenses of egalitarianism does not require commitment to any single theory of how exploitation actually happens. Rather, it does require us to commit to the fact that exploitation is obviously happening at a global scale and rectifying this problem should result in a global distribution of wealth that is roughly, reasonably egalitarian. This does not commit us to the kind of ultra-egalitarianism that Mao Zedong famously criticized. Obviously, there are certain cases where some inequalities are necessary and, even, desirable. What it does commit us to is trying to greatly reduce the gaps between wealthy countries and poor countries. It commits us to the position that, over time, a socialist distribution seeks to spread wealth out evenly amongst the world’s population within certain obvious constraints.


Some might object that a socialist distribution is not an egalitarian distribution. Rather, a socialist distribution is one where wealth is spread out, not evenly, but to those who do the work and those nations who do the work: she who does not work, shall not eat. Whereas the labor theory of value may be necessary for explaining the mechanics of exploitation, the distribution principle associated with it is not adequate to rectify the problem of inequality between countries that has been generated by imperialism. Such a distribution principle does not address the problem of underdevelopment. Surely populations in the most underdeveloped parts of the Third World, that have been rendered unproductive by imperialism, should not continue to remain in dire poverty under a global socialism.



Whole countries of the “industrial reserve army” in the Third World may not currently be productive, but should not resources and development be directed to such populations under socialism? According to demographers, very soon, for the first time in history, the majority of the world’s populations will be living in cities. The new “global countryside” as the base areas of the global people’s wars may very well be the ghettos of Third World megacities. These ghettos are less sites for production then blights that show just how capitalism’s anarchy of production has failed to bring huge segments of the human population into production. Surely socialism must speak to these vast populations that will be the soldiers of the people’s wars over the next century.


The global economy is a causal nexus where value in various forms is transferred around the globe from one person to another. So, if one person is receiving more than an equal share, then somebody else is receiving less somewhere in the causal nexus. Likewise, if someone is receiving less, someone else is receiving more. Imperialism has created a world order where those who receive less and those who receive more correspond to populations in the Third World and First World respectively. Using egalitarianism as a regulative idea, one is exploited when one does not receive an equal share. One is an exploiter when one receives more than an equal share. A country is exploited when its population is largely made up the exploited who have less than an equal share. A country is an exploited one when its population is largely made up of exploiters who have more than an equal share. (1) Implicit in the Marxist critique of imperialism is the idea that countries of the world should exist side by side as equals. The opposite relationship to the imperialist one is a relationship based on egalitarianism and self-determination.


A quick look at global inequality


The income gap between the wealthy, imperialist countries and the poor countries of the global countryside points to the tremendous parasitism of the former on the latter. The income gap between the fifth of the world’s people in the former and the fifth in the latter was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960.


Now, all of the population of the First World are in the world’s richest 20% by income, which owns more than 85% of the world’s wealth. But if more than 50% of the world’s assets are own by the richest 2% of adults (most of whom live in the First World), the First World majority (less than 20% of the global population) owns 35% of the world’s wealth. 80% of the world’s population must make do with owning 15% of the world’s wealth. This First World monopoly of assets translates into a hugely disproportonate share of world consumption. In the 1998 study cited, 20 percent of the population in the developed nations were reported to consume 86 percent of the world’s goods. This astonishing degree of parasitism is underscored by a more recent 2002 World Bank study that reports that the richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. (2)


After decades of “development” and market liberalisation, structural adjustment programs and Washington Consensus neoliberalism, the average income for the Third World is still only around 15% that of the First World in purchasing power parity terms, and more like 5% in foreign exchange rate terms. (3)


Parasitism is reflected in consumption also. The fifth of the world’s people living in the highest income countries consumed:
86% of the world’s GDP – the bottom fifth just 1%.
82% of the world’s export markets – the bottom fifth just 1%.
68% of foreign direct investment – the bottom fifth just 1%.
74% of the world’s telephone lines – the bottom fifth 1.5%.
93.3% of internet users – the bottom fifth 0.2%.
84% of the world’s paper – the bottom fifth 1.1%.
87% of the world’s vehicles – the bottom fifth less than 1%.
58% of total energy – the bottom fifth 4%. (4)


The majority of the increase in world consumption during the 1990s accrued to those already in the top 10% of world income distribution. Between 1993 and 2001, some 50 to 60% of the increase in world consumption accrued to those living on more than PPP$10,000 1993 – around 10% of the world’s population. For this 10%, 4/5 lived in the high income countries and most of the rest in Latin America. The remaining 40-50% of the increase in world consumption accrued mainly to those living in 1993 on around PPP$3000-$6000, of whom the majority were in the burgeoning middle class of semi-comprador China. “Hardly any of the increase accrued to those on less than PPP$1000 a year ($2.73 day). Most of the latter lived in South Asia, Africa, and China.” (5)


The First World “working class” does not gain under an egalitarian distribution of the world’s wealth. If a socialist order existed between countries, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the First World populations as a whole would lose out in terms of income, assets, life opportunities, etc. The First World “worker” does not have a material interest in socialism.


The revisionist script is a predictable one. Whether the revisionists choose to justify or explain these global disparities in wealth according to “productivity” differences or the protestant work ethic, manifest destiny, white racial superiority or predestination makes not one whit of difference. Like other imperialists, fake Marxists will do all sorts of ideological contortions to justify the current wealth of First World “workers. ” Not only do they maintain that the current exploiter-level wealth in the First World is rightly theirs, but that First World “workers” deserve even more of the pie. Karl Marx would be spinning in his grave, Lenin too, if they were around to hear these scumbags justifying parasitism in their names.


Notes.
1. In value terms, it is true that the poorest people in the world are often those who are unable to find work and, hence, are not technically exploited. But since exploitation has taken on profound geo-political dimensions after World War II, if a group of people lives in an exploited nation (a nation which turns over the bulk of its surplus value to the First World) and is paid below the international value of labor, then it is exploited and its lumpen status ensures competition for wages drives down their value in their country, contributing to superprofits.
2. United Nations Human Development Report 1998, ‘Consumption for Human Development’ (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York 1998) online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1998/
3. Robert Hunter Wade, ‘Globalisation, Growth, Poverty, Inequality, Resentment, and Imperialism,’ in John Ravenhill, (ed.), Global Political Economy (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 378.
4. United Nations Human Development Report 1999, ‘Globalization with a Human Face’, (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York 1998) online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1999/
5. Wade, 2008, p. 380.

[Cumannach]

The First World “working class” does not gain under an egalitarian distribution of the world’s wealth. If a socialist order existed between countries, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the First World populations as a whole would lose out in terms of income, assets, life opportunities, etc. The First World “worker” does not have a material interest in socialism.

The first world worker does have a material interest in socialism. If say, the English proletariat seize the means of production from the English Bourgeoisie they no longer have to give up surplus value to Capital, they own the full product of their labour.

Moreover, they can organize socialist production, which will advance free from the fetters of bourgeois production relations and vastly expand the material production of society, both in quantity and in the quality of most benefiting society. The experience of the Soviet Union in it's first 40 years (ie. while still genuinely socialist) demonstrated that a socialist society could meet and surpass the living standards of the First World proletariats.

Further, as long as private Capital exists anywhere in the world it will be on the attack against Socialized property. The English Dictatorship of the Proletariat would have an interest in the defeat of Capital everywhere.



The revisionist script is a predictable one. Whether the revisionists choose to justify or explain these global disparities in wealth according to “productivity” differences or the protestant work ethic, manifest destiny, white racial superiority or predestination makes not one whit of difference. Like other imperialists, fake Marxists will do all sorts of ideological contortions to justify the current wealth of First World “workers. ” Not only do they maintain that the current exploiter-level wealth in the First World is rightly theirs, but that First World “workers” deserve even more of the pie. Karl Marx would be spinning in his grave, Lenin too, if they were around to hear these scumbags justifying parasitism in their names.


Who on here has justified it? It's not just. But it's also not with the consent or design of First World workers, nor is it in their interest to allow it continue.

[AvanteRedGarde]

But if the UK is imperialist, then much of their wealth is generated in foreign exploitation, and in no terms belongs to the English working class. A more just and egalitarian distribution of imperialist profits is merely social-imperialism.

The claim that the Soviet Union had a comparable living standard to the West is at face value not very substantiated. I'm willing to bet a number of scholars on the subject would disagree. Moreover, I don't think comparison between capitalism and socialism should be made, since socialism implies people sharing a smaller social product as opposed people individually consuming pieces of a larger one. The idea that socialist societies should strive to compete with imperialism in terms of production is also false. More goods and technology won't make up for structural inequalities which exist in a given society. Focusing to much on the 'Theory of Productive Forces' likely contributed to the reemergence of capitalism in the USSR and the PRC.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think you have a very twisted understanding of what socialism is. Socialism is the stage where the socialist revolution has become victorious worldwide and there is no need for states anymore. When the workers come to power in a certain country, what they establish is not a socialist state but a workers' state, i.e. a state where power is in the hands of the working class and the law of value is manipulated in order for production to serve the workers and not increase the capitalists' profits.

Socialism means that the working class has in its hands control of the world's resources; it means moving forward from the reduced standard of living under a workers' state, caused by the pressures of imperialism and the counterrevolution, to a society where capitalist wealth could be extended to all humanity.

I think you have an underlying Malthussian assumption that there are only so many resources in the world, and that when redivided, first world workers will receive less. But that's simply not true. Humans are not only consumers but producers as well, and when the third world is freed from the shackles of imperialism, the productive forces of humanity can advance far behind what we can now imagine and offer a high standard of living for all.

[AvanteRedGarde]

But what exactly does 'higher standard of living' mean? For an American it might mean a new car and another plasma TV, as well as a vacation to some resort. For an Israeli it might mean a larger house for a smaller cost. Both of these things are currently easily acquired through the exploitation and oppression of other people. To someone living in any number of slums, it might mean access to laundry facilities, shoes and socks and easy access of potable water.

Obviously a socialist system would strive to meet the expected living requirements of the latter. I honestly don't see how its feasible or even desirable to create the materialistic, individualistic, consumption-driven, exploitation-based and self indulgent paradise which many Americans envisions as the normative ideal.

At the bottom line, Socialism will increase the standard of living for the vast majority of people in the world, but not in a individual consumer centered way which is the hallmark of societies fattened by the wealth of exploited nations.

And yes, there is a finite amount of resources in the world. Not necessarily labor, but certainly things like oil, cobalt, bauxite, etc. I would hate to see these resources squandered because the example of ill regard for the limited of natural resource and the environmental, originally carried forth by capitalism, was continued under socialism. It's not 1844. Though the world wants a better standard of living, the 'smokestack utopia' envisioned by many early Marxists certainly carries with it problems that are only now becoming clear.

[Cumannach]

But if the UK is imperialist, then much of their wealth is generated in foreign exploitation, and in no terms belongs to the English working class. A more just and egalitarian distribution of imperialist profits is merely social-imperialism.

Well surely then it's in the interests of the British workers to become social imperialists, no?

In any case, there's plenty of capital in Britain.


The claim that the Soviet Union had a comparable living standard to the West is at face value not very substantiated. I'm willing to bet a number of scholars on the subject would disagree. Many hundreds no doubt. But the fact remains, that taking into account, the backward state of Russia, the small Industrial base to start from, the neccesity of collectivizing agriculture first, the defeat of the Nazis, and the destruction caused by the Second World War and the fact that all of this was done in a couple of decades, it's quite clear that socialist production is indeed capable of surpassing the current living standards of the First World working class.


Moreover, I don't think comparison between capitalism and socialism should be made, since socialism implies people sharing a smaller social product as opposed people individually consuming pieces of a larger one. ?


The idea that socialist societies should strive to compete with imperialism in terms of production is also false.Socialist countries don't strive to compete, they naturally out-compete capitalist countries- that's the whole basis of Marxism, that the productive forces have outgrown the bourgeois production relations and are thus in conflict with them and must abolish them to develop further.


More goods and technology won't make up for structural inequalities which exist in a given society.More goods and technology raise the living standards.


Focusing to much on the 'Theory of Productive Forces' likely contributed to the reemergence of capitalism in the USSR and the PRC.No doubt, but that doesn't bear on the argument.

[Led Zeppelin]

And yes, there is a finite amount of resources in the world. Not necessarily labor, but certainly things like oil, cobalt, bauxite, etc. I would hate to see these resources squandered because the example of ill regard for the limited of natural resource and the environmental, originally carried forth by capitalism, was continued under socialism. It's not 1844. Though the world wants a better standard of living, the 'smokestack utopia' envisioned by many early Marxists certainly carries with it problems that are only now becoming clear.

So your aim is not to increase the total means of production globally, but to inhibit its growth and make sure it stays within the bounds (i.e., your bounds) of reason?

There are finite amounts of resources, of course. There are also sources which are much more durable than others. Relatively speaking, the sun is also a finite source of warmth and light, that does not mean that we should inhibit our development because we know that someday it won't be there. There are sources of energy and resources and means of recycling them which can be developed further and therefore ensure a basis for the removal of scarcity.

The technological basis of a communist society certainly won't be the same as the one we have now, which seems to be what you base your outlook on.

Having said that, I wish you luck with convincing people to give up things which you consider to be luxuries and go back to a mode of life of a couple generations ago. Historically movements which have regression in material life as their aim have been very successful...

[AvanteRedGarde]

Actually, my movement only advocates for 'material regression' for the world's richest 15-20%. "Scarcity" is just as a subjective of a term.

As far as technology, I think social relations are more important. Rather than giving every individual more, as would be the First World lay version of socialism, I'd rather see the use and consumption of technology socialized. Cummanche can uphold the Soviet Experience all he wants, but a wise pink elephant notes that as soon as Stalin died, the SU was notably revisionist and then capitalist- something that doesn't bode well for the Productive Forces camp. Deng the same thing. He wanted to produce more as opposed to continue class struggle. Now look at China.

The Theory of Productive Forces lead right revisionism, which leads to inequality, which leads to back to capitalism. Thats the discernable history at least.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Global Inequality and Socialist Equality


by Prairie Fire
(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)


It has been suggested that the use of an egalitarian distribution principle as a regulative idea is somehow contrary to approaches that center around the mechanics of exploitation. In particular, it has been suggested that it is contrary to the labor theory of value or the theories of unequal exchange.



The approach does bracket the question of what the mechanics of exploitation actually are. Looking at global inequality through the lenses of egalitarianism does not require commitment to any single theory of how exploitation actually happens. Rather, it does require us to commit to the fact that exploitation is obviously happening at a global scale and rectifying this problem should result in a global distribution of wealth that is roughly, reasonably egalitarian. This does not commit us to the kind of ultra-egalitarianism that Mao Zedong famously criticized. Obviously, there are certain cases where some inequalities are necessary and, even, desirable. What it does commit us to is trying to greatly reduce the gaps between wealthy countries and poor countries. It commits us to the position that, over time, a socialist distribution seeks to spread wealth out evenly amongst the world’s population within certain obvious constraints.


Some might object that a socialist distribution is not an egalitarian distribution. Rather, a socialist distribution is one where wealth is spread out, not evenly, but to those who do the work and those nations who do the work: she who does not work, shall not eat. Whereas the labor theory of value may be necessary for explaining the mechanics of exploitation, the distribution principle associated with it is not adequate to rectify the problem of inequality between countries that has been generated by imperialism. Such a distribution principle does not address the problem of underdevelopment. Surely populations in the most underdeveloped parts of the Third World, that have been rendered unproductive by imperialism, should not continue to remain in dire poverty under a global socialism.



Whole countries of the “industrial reserve army” in the Third World may not currently be productive, but should not resources and development be directed to such populations under socialism? According to demographers, very soon, for the first time in history, the majority of the world’s populations will be living in cities. The new “global countryside” as the base areas of the global people’s wars may very well be the ghettos of Third World megacities. These ghettos are less sites for production then blights that show just how capitalism’s anarchy of production has failed to bring huge segments of the human population into production. Surely socialism must speak to these vast populations that will be the soldiers of the people’s wars over the next century.


The global economy is a causal nexus where value in various forms is transferred around the globe from one person to another. So, if one person is receiving more than an equal share, then somebody else is receiving less somewhere in the causal nexus. Likewise, if someone is receiving less, someone else is receiving more. Imperialism has created a world order where those who receive less and those who receive more correspond to populations in the Third World and First World respectively. Using egalitarianism as a regulative idea, one is exploited when one does not receive an equal share. One is an exploiter when one receives more than an equal share. A country is exploited when its population is largely made up the exploited who have less than an equal share. A country is an exploited one when its population is largely made up of exploiters who have more than an equal share. (1) Implicit in the Marxist critique of imperialism is the idea that countries of the world should exist side by side as equals. The opposite relationship to the imperialist one is a relationship based on egalitarianism and self-determination.


A quick look at global inequality


The income gap between the wealthy, imperialist countries and the poor countries of the global countryside points to the tremendous parasitism of the former on the latter. The income gap between the fifth of the world’s people in the former and the fifth in the latter was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960.


Now, all of the population of the First World are in the world’s richest 20% by income, which owns more than 85% of the world’s wealth. But if more than 50% of the world’s assets are own by the richest 2% of adults (most of whom live in the First World), the First World majority (less than 20% of the global population) owns 35% of the world’s wealth. 80% of the world’s population must make do with owning 15% of the world’s wealth. This First World monopoly of assets translates into a hugely disproportonate share of world consumption. In the 1998 study cited, 20 percent of the population in the developed nations were reported to consume 86 percent of the world’s goods. This astonishing degree of parasitism is underscored by a more recent 2002 World Bank study that reports that the richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. (2)


After decades of “development” and market liberalisation, structural adjustment programs and Washington Consensus neoliberalism, the average income for the Third World is still only around 15% that of the First World in purchasing power parity terms, and more like 5% in foreign exchange rate terms. (3)


Parasitism is reflected in consumption also. The fifth of the world’s people living in the highest income countries consumed:
86% of the world’s GDP – the bottom fifth just 1%.
82% of the world’s export markets – the bottom fifth just 1%.
68% of foreign direct investment – the bottom fifth just 1%.
74% of the world’s telephone lines – the bottom fifth 1.5%.
93.3% of internet users – the bottom fifth 0.2%.
84% of the world’s paper – the bottom fifth 1.1%.
87% of the world’s vehicles – the bottom fifth less than 1%.
58% of total energy – the bottom fifth 4%. (4)


The majority of the increase in world consumption during the 1990s accrued to those already in the top 10% of world income distribution. Between 1993 and 2001, some 50 to 60% of the increase in world consumption accrued to those living on more than PPP$10,000 1993 – around 10% of the world’s population. For this 10%, 4/5 lived in the high income countries and most of the rest in Latin America. The remaining 40-50% of the increase in world consumption accrued mainly to those living in 1993 on around PPP$3000-$6000, of whom the majority were in the burgeoning middle class of semi-comprador China. “Hardly any of the increase accrued to those on less than PPP$1000 a year ($2.73 day). Most of the latter lived in South Asia, Africa, and China.” (5)


The First World “working class” does not gain under an egalitarian distribution of the world’s wealth. If a socialist order existed between countries, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the First World populations as a whole would lose out in terms of income, assets, life opportunities, etc. The First World “worker” does not have a material interest in socialism.


The revisionist script is a predictable one. Whether the revisionists choose to justify or explain these global disparities in wealth according to “productivity” differences or the protestant work ethic, manifest destiny, white racial superiority or predestination makes not one whit of difference. Like other imperialists, fake Marxists will do all sorts of ideological contortions to justify the current wealth of First World “workers. ” Not only do they maintain that the current exploiter-level wealth in the First World is rightly theirs, but that First World “workers” deserve even more of the pie. Karl Marx would be spinning in his grave, Lenin too, if they were around to hear these scumbags justifying parasitism in their names.


Notes.
1. In value terms, it is true that the poorest people in the world are often those who are unable to find work and, hence, are not technically exploited. But since exploitation has taken on profound geo-political dimensions after World War II, if a group of people lives in an exploited nation (a nation which turns over the bulk of its surplus value to the First World) and is paid below the international value of labor, then it is exploited and its lumpen status ensures competition for wages drives down their value in their country, contributing to superprofits.
2. United Nations Human Development Report 1998, ‘Consumption for Human Development’ (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York 1998) online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1998/
3. Robert Hunter Wade, ‘Globalisation, Growth, Poverty, Inequality, Resentment, and Imperialism,’ in John Ravenhill, (ed.), Global Political Economy (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 378.
4. United Nations Human Development Report 1999, ‘Globalization with a Human Face’, (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York 1998) online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1999/
5. Wade, 2008, p. 380.

I think that a lot of these figures become a lot less shocking when we consider that there are still a couple billion peasants in the world.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Capitalist-imperialism has propped up feudalism, not shattered it. Another reason why revolution is necessary.

The article actually addressed the point you were making though:


Whole countries of the “industrial reserve army” in the Third World may not currently be productive, but should not resources and development be directed to such populations under socialism? According to demographers, very soon, for the first time in history, the majority of the world’s populations will be living in cities. The new “global countryside” as the base areas of the global people’s wars may very well be the ghettos of Third World megacities. These ghettos are less sites for production then blights that show just how capitalism’s anarchy of production has failed to bring huge segments of the human population into production. Surely socialism must speak to these vast populations that will be the soldiers of the people’s wars over the next century.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Capitalist-imperialism has propped up feudalism, not shattered it. Another reason why revolution is necessary.

The article actually addressed the point you were making though:

No it didn't. Comparing the wealth of wage slaves to peasants that have low productivity and using this as proof that the third world is exploited by the first world just doesn't work out. Of course the top 20% is going to have more than the bottom 20%, because the bottom 20% is gonna be made up of peasants engaged in subsistence farming.

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually, my movement only advocates for 'material regression' for the world's richest 15-20%. "Scarcity" is just as a subjective of a term.

You are looking at the world's richest 15-20% on a global standard, disregarding that they encompass entire nations. Basically what you are saying is that you advocate material regression for the richest countries in the world. Not just for the bourgeois of those countries, mind you, but for pretty much the entire populations of those countries.

If Marx used the same method of analysis as you, he would call for the material regression of the French or British nations (as a whole) because in comparison to Africa they were among the richest 10th percentile.

Your method is not in line with the Marxist method.


As far as technology, I think social relations are more important. Rather than giving every individual more, as would be the First World lay version of socialism, I'd rather see the use and consumption of technology socialized.

Yes, but what you fail to understand (and what Marx and Lenin did understand) is that the socialization of technology and the economy as a whole would result in its rapid and extensive expansion:

"This expropriation will create the possibility of an enormous development of the productive forces. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique now already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society."


The Theory of Productive Forces lead right revisionism, which leads to inequality, which leads to back to capitalism. Thats the discernable history at least.

The lack of sugar produced in the USSR caused the lack of glucose-intake by Soviet people which lead right to revisionism, which leads to inequality, which leads back to capitalism. That's the discernable [sic] history at least.

Or is it?

[AvanteRedGarde]

You are looking at the world's richest 15-20% on a global standard, disregarding that they encompass entire nations. Basically what you are saying is that you advocate material regression for the richest countries in the world. Not just for the bourgeois of those countries, mind you, but for pretty much the entire populations of those countries.

You catch on quick. Though I'm willing to bet that the socialized use of technology, infrastructure, and the socialization of daily activities wouldn't feel as bad for those amongst the lowest tiers of First World society. If cities are restructured so as to adopted to such measures, their would be less need for the private consumption and use of things like cars. Obviously, someone who has a beat up car from the 80s or 90s isn't going to miss the widespread use of private transportation as much as someone who's used to driving newer cars.


If Marx used the same method of analysis as you, he would call for the material regression of the French or British nations (as a whole) because in comparison to Africa they were among the richest 10th percentile.

Marx largely wasn't dealing with imperialism. It is only contemporary psuedo Marxists who deny the key distinctions between the capitalism and capitalist-imperialism, assuming them to be one in the same.


Your method is not in line with the Marxist method.

Marx advocated appropriation from exploiters.

If applying Marx to modern condition is not the Marxist Method, then I'm guilty as charged. I was under the assumption that Marxism was a materialist analysis of society for the end of changing it through bottom up revolution, not a largely static doctrine. My bad.


Yes, but what you fail to understand (and what Marx and Lenin did understand) is that the socialization of technology and the economy as a whole would result in its rapid and extensive expansion:

And it largely has, in countries where there have been revolutions. However, I don't think more cars, tvs, newer cell phones and even more fashionable, yet affordable clothing for the richest 20% would be a priority under socialism. In what way exactly are you talking about raising the standard of living for First Worlders? Do you want them to have 4000 calories a day diets?? A new haircut every few weeks? A life of basking in the sun or laying on their asses (more than they already do)?

I think stopping preventable deaths from malnutrition, malria and water born disease is probably a higher priority.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm going to move the threads made espousing third-worldism to the OI forum. I consider them to be opposing ideologies which have nothing in common with Marxism.

Besides, the "theory" is an attack on workers in the "first world" and therefore serves reaction.

You can continue the discussion there if you wish.

Also, in the future please make such threads in the OI forum.

[RHIZOMES]

All because the third world has shittier conditions for the working class doesn't mean that the working class in the first world aren't exploited. In fact I would guess these kind of positions stem from people who have never had a job on minimum wage and don't know any actual working class people at all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All because the third world has shittier conditions for the working class doesn't mean that the working class in the first world aren't exploited. In fact I would guess these kind of positions stem from people who have never had a job on minimum wage and don't know any actual working class people at all.

Yes! This concept that first world workers benefit from imperialism is false as plastic dog shit.

As a working in the US who owns no property, the idea that I benefit from Bush and Obama oppressing people in the middle east or Latin America is laughable.

1. While the US was pushing for IMF neo-liberal policies in the 3rd world in order to salvage its economy after the 1970s, average wages went down for US workers.

2. Imperialism is a big cost and that burden is placed on workers in the first world - both in taxes, money taken out of social programs to pay for a bloated military machine, and in the deaths of US workers who get drafted or join the military and fight in US imperialist wars!

3. If imperialism and exploitation of the 3rd world was good for 1st world workers - US workers should be in the best position ever! I mean the US fucked Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, and so on, so Wal Mart workers should be flossing their teeth with silk and blowing their nose with 100 dollar bills.:rolleyes:

[AvanteRedGarde]

All because the third world has shittier conditions for the working class doesn't mean that the working class in the first world aren't exploited. In fact I would guess these kind of positions stem from people who have never had a job on minimum wage and don't know any actual working class people at all.

You are committing a reductio and speculating about my background. Again, can you actually argue in favor of your points in a manner other then, "but they're workers, they must be exploited?" Again, I've show hypothetically how a worker could be an exploiter (by receiving in compensation more than the value of their labor, the difference coming from exploitation elsewhere) and given plenty of evidence to that implies that in fact many (well, a small minority) workers are exploiters. I'll post some more stuff too, to help build the case and at least open up the discussion further. :thumbup:

[RHIZOMES]

You are committing a reductio and speculating about my background. Again, can you actually argue in favor of your points in a manner other then, "but they're workers, they must be exploited?" Again, I've show hypothetically how a worker could be an exploiter (by receiving in compensation more than the value of their labor, the difference coming from exploitation elsewhere) and given plenty of evidence to that implies that in fact many (well, a small minority) workers are exploiters. I'll post some more stuff too, to help build the case and at least open up the discussion further. :thumbup:

Well I think knowing what your background and experience is would shed quite an important light on why you have such ridiculous, divorced-from-reality view on first-world workers, so I don't consider it a logical fallacy. :rolleyes: Have you any sort of union experience? I have a bit of union experience myself and I have witnessed quite a few times companies locking out their workers for trying to get something other than poverty wages. :rolleyes: And this includes companies exploiting the shit out of the third world and extracting massive amounts of surplus value from there and I don't exactly see these companies paying their NZ workers any better. I guess NZ must not be part of the "first world" then. :lol:

And your example which you admit is probably a "small minority" shows just how beyond the basic division of bourgeoisie/proletariat, class relations and structure can be quite complex. Nothing new here and it doesn't really back up your case.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Well I think knowing what your background and experience is would shed quite an important light on why you have such ridiculous, divorced-from-reality view on first-world workers, so I don't consider it a logical fallacy. :rolleyes: Have you any sort of union experience? I have a bit of union experience myself and I have witnessed quite a few times companies locking out their workers for trying to get something other than poverty wages. ....

My whole point is that you do not know my background. You have no idea what I do for a living, how much money I make, if I even have a job, my gender or sexual orientation, my nationality, etc. I could do anything. You have no way of knowing. Your 'logical' guess could be right or wrong to varying degrees.

I'll give you a hint, insofar as First World workers absorb surplus value in the form of wages above the value of the labor, I am indeed an exploiter, albeit one who sides with the exploited.


And your example which you admit is probably a "small minority" shows just how beyond the basic division of bourgeoisie/proletariat, class relations and structure can be quite complex. Nothing new here and it doesn't really back up your case.

I said that the petty class of exploiters that are most First World workers are a minority of all workers. It certainly doesn't detract from my case.

So... Do you actually have arguments beyond speculating about my personal information and bragging about union movementism?

[AvanteRedGarde]

1. While the US was pushing for IMF neo-liberal policies in the 3rd world in order to salvage its economy after the 1970s, average wages went down for US workers.

citation?


2. Imperialism is a big cost and that burden is placed on workers in the first world - both in taxes, money taken out of social programs to pay for a bloated military machine, and in the deaths of US workers who get drafted or join the military and fight in US imperialist wars!

This is backwards logic. According to you, imperialism is a "big cost and burden" on U.S. workers (and presumably the U.S. as a whole). If this is true, then wouldn't imperialism just make imperialism poorer? Why imperialism at all if it comes a such as cost. (That's not to say that imperialism doesn't become burdened down by people's resistance- it's cost a variable but often high.)

Who is drafted into the military? Noone officially. The poverty draft is a myth, the bottom 20% of Americans are underrepresented in the military. Look it up.

And lastly, if its so damn costly- then why do so many americans support it in one way or another?


3. If imperialism and exploitation of the 3rd world was good for 1st world workers - US workers should be in the best position ever! I mean the US fucked Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, and so on, so Wal Mart workers should be flossing their teeth with silk and blowing their nose with 100 dollar bills.:rolleyes:

All Americans are part of the top 20% in terms of income. The idea of flossing ones teeth with silk and blowing your nose with a hundred dollar bill is silly. Not even the bourgeoisie is so silly. However, I have to ask how much money wallmart workers waste on things like cable or satellite tv, various media, clothing and shoes, 'beauty' and weightloss products, useless commodoties such as decorations and various unnecessary (or at least excessive in relation to most workers) home furnishing, speciality and junk foods, beverages, eating out, lotto tickets and gambling, cigarettes etc.

Given that people usually don't get colds more than twice a year, blowing your nose with 1 hundred dollar bills instead might actually round out.:lol:

[RHIZOMES]

My whole point is that you do not know my background. You have no idea what I do for a living, how much money I make, if I even have a job, my gender or sexual orientation, my nationality, etc. I could do anything. You have no way of knowing. Your 'logical' guess could be right or wrong to varying degrees.

I'll give you a hint, insofar as First World workers absorb surplus value in the form of wages above the value of the labor, I am indeed an exploiter, albeit one who sides with the exploited.

Oh gee what a surprise that was. :rolleyes:


I said that the petty class of exploiters that are most First World workers are a minority of all workers. It certainly doesn't detract from my case.

Ah I misunderstood what you meant by "minority". :rolleyes:


So... Do you actually have arguments beyond speculating about my personal information and bragging about union movementism?

:lol: You're one to talk regarding "ignoring arguments". My "bragging about union movementism(?)" is mentioning how I've actually witnessed real-life first-world worker exploitation and your bastardized version of Maoism is nothing but condescending theoretical hodgepodge, divorced from reality but not so divorced from latte-sipping liberal yuppie bobos conception of the global rich/poor divide. Nice try on trying to spin that as "bragging" though.

[trivas7]

This sounds like a defense of Third-worldism. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

[RGacky3]

I'll give you a hint, insofar as First World workers absorb surplus value in the form of wages above the value of the labor, I am indeed an exploiter, albeit one who sides with the exploited.

If your winning under imperialistic capitalist, why do you support revolution? Arn't you a Marxist Materialist, detached from moral ethical mumbo jumbo? Why not do whats best for you, if your a first world worker, and you believe that your getting the upper hand, more than what you actually earn (an absurd notion), then you should'nt be a revolutionary at all, especially if your a materialist.


However, I have to ask how much money wallmart workers waste on things like cable or satellite tv, various media, clothing and shoes, 'beauty' and weightloss products, useless commodoties such as decorations and various unnecessary (or at least excessive in relation to most workers) home furnishing, speciality and junk foods, beverages, eating out, lotto tickets and gambling, cigarettes etc.


So? What does that have to do with who is exploited and who is'nt? If workers in say, Mexico, struggle for rights, struggel for living wages, fight the capitalist, and fanally can afford satellite TV, some more vlothes and shoes, a gym membership, because they fought for wages, are they suddenly exploiters to?

[RHIZOMES]

So? What does that have to do with who is exploited and who is'nt? If workers in say, Mexico, struggle for rights, struggel for living wages, fight the capitalist, and fanally can afford satellite TV, some more vlothes and shoes, a gym membership, because they fought for wages, are they suddenly exploiters to?

I wish Revleft could allow us to thank restricted members sometimes...

The thing is, his definition of what a luxury is is laughable as well. Junk food is a luxury? A lot of working class people can't afford anything other than junkfood, which is why you often see more slim "attractive" people in upper class neighbourhoods than in lower class neighbourhoods. Eating out is a luxury? Often getting takeaways is cheaper than going to the supermarket! And how is "lotto tickets" a luxury, it costs like a few bucks. Lotto tickets is in fact an opiate of the masses, they hold hope that one day they'll win lotto and not have to worry about mortgages, bills or the rent anymore. What a delusional douchebag. Has he ever actually talked to a worker? I totally bet he comes from a middle-class background and he has some white-collar office job. The MIM had similiar chauvinistic views of the first world working class and they were founded in Harvard.

[benhur]

I wish Revleft could allow us to thank restricted members sometimes...

The thing is, his definition of what a luxury is is laughable as well.

Thing is, poverty is relative. In the western context, not being able to afford expensive stuff is poverty, and western workers are 'poor' in this sense; whereas, third-world poverty is not being able to afford a decent meal. Hopefully, you can see the difference between the two. I am just trying to see both sides of the argument, so please jump down my throat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First off, I think part of the problem with your formulation is that you are looking at income as opposed to people's relation to production. US workers are still exploited because that's how capitalists make their money.

Your formulation, incidentially, gives you the same perspecive on the US working class as the US right-wing.


citation?
Well... life experience. The destruction of unions in the US from the mid-70s on.

Here's something from the Monthly Review:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff120606.html

Here's something I goggled just now:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html



This is backwards logic. According to you, imperialism is a "big cost and burden" on U.S. workers (and presumably the U.S. as a whole). If this is true, then wouldn't imperialism just make imperialism poorer? Why imperialism at all if it comes a such as cost. (That's not to say that imperialism doesn't become burdened down by people's resistance- it's cost a variable but often high.)You're right, it doesn't make sense - maybe we should get rid of capitalism.

The Tax burden, cost, and military deaths are put on the back of workers, but BUSINESS benifits because they have a huge-ass military to rely on and enforce trade agreements and overthrow governments not friendly to business.

In california there is a huge budget deficit and we also have the largest Prison system - probably anywhere. They are cutting community college and university enrollment, but they haven't done one thing to make the prisons less expensive (like stop locking people up for bullshit) - it hasn't even been discussed as an option! Does that make sense? Not from a working class perspective, but it does make sense for the capitalists because they need to be able to repress people.


Who is drafted into the military? Noone officially. The poverty draft is a myth, the bottom 20% of Americans are underrepresented in the military. Look it up. Excuse me? The first soldier to die in Iraq was an IMMIGRANT! The US offered undocumented immigrants citienship if they enlisted. College tuition is beyond the reach for a lot of working class people but the military will pay it for you (a lie).

If 80% of people in the US military were well-off, college tuition and the change to leave your rummy McDonald's job wouldn't be the first things the military offered in all the ads they show. If you were correct, we'd see commercials for the military on Business Week rather than on "the Simpsons" and the commercials would go: "Do you want Adventure? A Chance to test yourself and do more with your life? Do you want tax write-offs in exchange for a few years of service in the military? Well the NAVY has that and more..."


And lastly, if its so damn costly- then why do so many americans support it in one way or another?Oh I could talk about this forever. The short answer is the the left in the US is mostly in ruins or has been bought by liberals and the Democratic Party.

So, first of all, there is no official opposition in the US. The Republicans and Democrats both supported the war and so since most people don't think of politics outside the 2 capitalist parties, they feel that Obama's "slow pullout" (a lie) is better than Bush's "war lasting generations". The US ruling class has been fanning the flames of Arab hatred and fear of Islam ever since the fall of the Shah. This fearmongering and racism intensified when the government wanted to go to war with Afghanistan and so people in the US unfortunately do not often identify with Iraqis or Palistinians or Afghanistanis.


I have to ask how much money wallmart workers waste on things like cable or satellite tv, various media, clothing and shoes, 'beauty' and weightloss products, useless commodoties such as decorations and various unnecessary (or at least excessive in relation to most workers) home furnishing, speciality and junk foods, beverages, eating out, lotto tickets and gambling, cigarettes etc.Induvidually what we spend is not as much as the capitalist spend selling it to us!!

[Dejavu]

Thing is, poverty is relative. In the western context, not being able to afford expensive stuff is poverty, and western workers are 'poor' in this sense; whereas, third-world poverty is not being able to afford a decent meal. Hopefully, you can see the difference between the two. I am just trying to see both sides of the argument, so please jump down my throat.

Interesting insight. Of course, poverty is a hardship anywhere but it is a matter of scale and does have a relative element from place to place.

[Dejavu]

The Tax burden, cost, and military deaths are put on the back of workers, but BUSINESS benifits because they have a huge-ass military to rely on and enforce trade agreements and overthrow governments not friendly to business.

+1, nice analysis.


I have to ask how much money wallmart workers waste on things like cable or satellite tv, various media, clothing and shoes, 'beauty' and weightloss products, useless commodoties such as decorations and various unnecessary (or at least excessive in relation to most workers) home furnishing, speciality and junk foods, beverages, eating out, lotto tickets and gambling, cigarettes etc.

There is a certain marketing ploy to get people to consume these items. Not all of them though, things like smoking and gambling are generally discouraged due to particular laws in first-world countries.

It does indicate, however , that even low-income workers have somewhat of a surplus to spend on luxury ( non-necessity) items but when compared to a high income earner the surplus disparity of wealth is more pronounced. I think this is where people see the inequality ( more applicable in most first world countries). In the West , people typically don't starve as there are resources available for the vast majority of impoverished ( by western standards) to get necessities like food & clothing.

Unlike third-world countries , poverty is typically measured in the West by disparities of surplus rather than necessity. Poverty in third-world countries is clearly defined by the haves and have nots in terms of just food , shelter , and other necessities.

[Lynx]

If I lived in the third world, I would have a different perspective. I would have different priorities based on the society I lived in and was familiar with. I would not be amenable to waiting patiently for the wealthy countries to get their act together while we continue to suffer. I would want to build alliances with workers in first world nations, if possible.

[Dejavu]

If I lived in the third world, I would have a different perspective. I would have different priorities based on the society I lived in and was familiar with. I would not be amenable to waiting patiently for the wealthy countries to get their act together while we continue to suffer. I would want to build alliances with workers in first world nations, if possible.

I like this. Finding solidarity worldwide is a productive endeavor IMO.

[AvanteRedGarde]

To what degree is it possible and what kinda of solidarity exactly?

[AvanteRedGarde]

I wish Revleft could allow us to thank restricted members sometimes...

The thing is, his definition of what a luxury is is laughable as well. Junk food is a luxury? A lot of working class people can't afford anything other than junkfood, which is why you often see more slim "attractive" people in upper class neighbourhoods than in lower class neighbourhoods. Eating out is a luxury? Often getting takeaways is cheaper than going to the supermarket! And how is "lotto tickets" a luxury, it costs like a few bucks. Lotto tickets is in fact an opiate of the masses, they hold hope that one day they'll win lotto and not have to worry about mortgages, bills or the rent anymore. What a delusional douchebag. Has he ever actually talked to a worker? I totally bet he comes from a middle-class background and he has some white-collar office job. The MIM had similiar chauvinistic views of the first world working class and they were founded in Harvard.

You speculation and ad hominid attacks twisted into an 'argument' is laughable. Engles was a capitalist, Marx wasn't a worker. Mao cam from a middle peasant family. Lenin was a lawyer. John Reed was a jet-set journalist. Guzman was a professor. Che came from a 'middle class' background.

There has never been a single revolutionary organization in which your 'argument' would have held currency.

And the ironic (or dumb) part is that even if I did have a white collar job, according to most people here, I'd still be a part of the so-called First World proletariat.

[RHIZOMES]

You speculation and ad hominid attacks twisted into an 'argument' is laughable. Engles was a capitalist, Marx wasn't a worker. Mao cam from a middle peasant family. Lenin was a lawyer. John Reed was a jet-set journalist. Guzman was a professor. Che came from a 'middle class' background.

There has never been a single revolutionary organization in which your 'argument' would have held currency.

And the ironic (or dumb) part is that even if I did have a white collar job, according to most people here, I'd still be a part of the so-called First World proletariat.

Yes but all those people overcame their initial disconnection from the working class, you have not.

[RGacky3]

There has never been a single revolutionary organization in which your 'argument' would have held currency.

CNT-FAI, IWW, ENZL, APPO, and so on and so forth, these are the ones off the top of my head, considering I pay most attention to Mexico, Western Europe and the States since thats where I am from, and where my roots are, but I'm sure there are many many more organizations throughout the world, all of which are revolutionary.