A thought I had while drinking a Coca-Cola

[Cynical Observer]

This particular coke had an advertisement for some movie on it and i thought "consumerism ugh" and rolled my eyes, but then i thought about it in a different way.

Our main enemy is not the exploitation of the proletariat, but the distraction of the middle class and even the working class itself. Revolution will not come from a group of people whose sole purpose in life is to accumulate money in order to buy things. People in 1st world countries often judge themselves based on trends and fashions, consumerism has reduced the scope of their vision to "is Mac better than PC?" that is their grand debate! without a gigantic economic crash the majority of people in 1st world countries will remain complacent, any agitation we may cause will be alleviated by a simple stimulus package or a lowering of taxes. At our current rate it will take decades of slight reforms before we even begin to see a change in industrial nations, this is because of the apathetic masses. They are apathetic because their lives revolve around collecting, consumerism has robbed them of a purpose, and narrowed their vision. We must first attack the consumer's mentality if we wish to agitate the working class, otherwise our movement will not be suppressed by the state, but by the people themselves! It's because of this that I think our focus should be on agitation in 3rd world nations where the masses truly are destitute and primed for revolution.

[Sprocket Hole]

Righto, we live in a consumer society where there is only work time and free time. We spend our free time buying back what we produced in our work time, as well as cheap knock off's of real experiences. Real life is else where.

You should read The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord if you'd like to further that analysis.

But, if we focused on liberating the 3rd world (like say, a Maoist?), are we just supposed to forget about the working class here being robbed of their existence?

[Cynical Observer]

Thanks i'll check the book out (there's so many on my list:drool:)

and no, i think we should still work on the the workers being exploited in the 1st world but i think that they can't be liberated until the zeitgeist of the industrial world changes, in that we need to educate people and make them more aware, not just the working class but the middle class and possibly the bourgeoisie itself. Possibly through subversion or maybe overt propaganda but we need to change the mindset of society from that of the apathetic consumer to the empathetic revolutionary, which means we need to broaden our outlook not just to worker's unions but also to reaching the middle class and instilling pity for the exploited in the upper classes. I think direct revolution will come most quickly from the third world because all they need is a catalyst and a philosophy to unite them, the 1st world will take much more work because they need to undergo a fundamental idealogical shift

[MikeSC]

But, if we focused on liberating the 3rd world (like say, a Maoist?), are we just supposed to forget about the working class here being robbed of their existence?The first world can only sustain this consumerism by having the things that people consume come from third world children, slaves and the most-exploited of the proletariat abroad. Third world liberation would break the first world status quo- which is what we need, rather than a comfortable middle class that doesn't have to think about the origins of the things it consumes.

So we have a first world dazzled by consumerism, which is sustained through the harshest exploitation of the third world. As the third world industrialises, might we get the same level of unrest as when the first world was industrialising? Except then first world capitalists shifted their operations to the third world in order to continue their harshest and most profitable exploitation, that option wouldn't be there for them as the third world develops.

[Sprocket Hole]

MikeSC, good point, I didn't think about that. I guess my main point is that such 3rd world liberation ideologies seem a bit alienating towards revolutionaries living in the 1st world.

Also, the general mass of the proletariat, dazzled by consumerism, say here in the US, wouldnt be revolutionized by the economy due to a 3rd world revolution. At least I don't see that as being likely. I would could definetly see the US finding a reason to invade said 3rd world countries to "re-establish" order. You know what I'm trying to say?

[Cynical Observer]

hence my emphasis on the importance of an idealogical shift in the West. We need the people to adamantly oppose any imperialistic advances by their own nations, whatever the reason. I guess i can sum my opinion on it as needing propaganda in the 1st world and direct action in the 3rd.

[mikelepore]

Thanks i'll check the book out (there's so many on my list:drool:)

"The Society of the Spectacle" by Debord is a quickie. It's a list of 221 short and numbered paragraphs.

[Cult of Reason]

Third world liberation would break the first world status quo

By making products much more expensive? Only temporarily. If the cheap workforce disappeared, either through "liberation" or through economic growth of the third world, goods would become cheap again after a few years due to the roll out of automated plants. The only reason that sweatshops exist in India is that, for now at least, it is cheaper to pay those workers than it is to have robots do the work. In the car industry, the opposite is the case, hence "hand built by robots". If the third world "disappeared" then there would finally be an incentive to automate clothes production as well.

As far as I can see, the main effect would be an increase in the price of chocolate, coffee and tea, since those are mainly from the Third World. This is not a huge part of the First World economy.

[Led Zeppelin]

Hasn't the recent economic crisis proven beyond any doubt that "revolution in the third world" isn't the only event that can cause major economic crises in imperialist (and exploited) nations? In fact, it has not only proven that, but also that this theoretical global third-world uprising - which has never happened and probably never will because socialist revolutions don't follow such a linear process of development - is a more unlikely event than, you know, the capitalist system's inherent contradictions causing economic crises globally, like Marx predicted and theorized.

I think the whole third-worldist view of the world is based on defeatism, which is in turn based on the failure of any major socialist revolution to succeed in the past several decades. It's also a very black and white view of the world; why is any more developed nation excluded from ever being able to become socialist unless third world countries rise up first? So then, if a developed country develops a strong base for socialism and actually is on the point of having a revolutionary transformation, you would oppose that because no third world country has risen up yet?

I support socialism in both exploited and imperialist nations, without predicting which type of nation(s) will "fall first", and definitely without claiming which nation(s) have to "fall first" before others can follow.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I see what you are saying Cynical Observer and I can understand your viewpoint however I think it is silly to assume these places are 'primed for revolution'. I am not saying I would rather a first world country to have a revolution I would support one no matter where it was. What I think is that levels of class consciousness are not intrinsically linked to levels of oppression or to the economic status of a country. I think there are many more factors which mean that third world countries are not necessarily more likely to be capable of a revolution.

[Cynical Observer]

"primed for revolution" may have been an exaggeration on my part:blushing: but i still think that freedom from oppression is the primary motivation for revolution, not many 1st world citizens really think they're being oppressed. I don't much care where the revolution comes from either but i do think that if it comes from the first world it will be after consumerism is dead.


although, I'd love to hear what other factors you believe will have more influence than the oppression of the working class, as this was just a passing thought of mine the criticism will help me work out the kinks behind the theory.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

"primed for revolution" may have been an exaggeration on my part:blushing: but i still think that freedom from oppression is the primary motivation for revolution, not many 1st world citizens really think they're being oppressed. I don't much care where the revolution comes from either but i do think that if it comes from the first world it will be after consumerism is dead.


although, I'd love to hear what other factors you believe will have more influence than the oppression of the working class, as this was just a passing thought of mine the criticism will help me work out the kinks behind the theory.

Well this is just my opinion which may not be entirely correct but I feel that the state and the media play a big role in the class consciousness of a population and the levels of revolutionary thought. For example if you have an extremefully repressive governemnt (all are of course, but some more than others) where free speech and freedom of press are not allowed then over time it can be expected that revolutionary thought would decrease.

I look to South Africa during Apartheid for another example. Their education system was brutal. They would teach 'non-whites' that they were inferior to the white population and that their purpose in life was to serve the white people.

Also, staying on the topic of education, if a countries education system is bad, I am generalising, but I assume in general education will be worse in the third world. If so then I believe it would be easier for the state to ensure the working population is subservient to them.

These are just some examples which I feel affect the third world more than they do the first. However I am not saying you are wrong as I feel that your arguments against a first world revolution are equal to mine against the third world revolution being more likely. So I think there are equal arguments for both.

[Cynical Observer]

hmm i've looked at it from that angle before but i always thought that outrage would triumph over ignorance in the end, but that does just boil down to a matter of opinion.