Program of the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement

[AvanteRedGarde]

We want to smash this world and build a new one. Today, the median global wage stands around $2.50 an hour. Over 1 billion people face chronic hunger and a child dies every five seconds of starvation. This same situation is killing the planet at an unprecedented rate. Meanwhile, a global minority lives in comfort, unconcerned with their effect on the world. We aim to change this.


We understand that there is a causal relationship between wealth on one hand and poverty on the other. On a global level, the First World is rich because it exploits the impoverished majority, the Third World. This global divide, called imperialism, is the principal feature of the world today.


We side with the Third World masses and support their struggles for liberation. Exploiters are not going to hand over freedom to those they exploit. Only through struggle can the oppressed free themselves. We support the right of resistance- and revolution- for oppressed peoples against their oppressors. We support unity of the Third World masses against imperialism.

We reject First Worldism: politics which panders to or assumes that First Worlders are a social base for revolution. The “masses” of the First World are a global minority: a petty-exploiter class which regularly supports the imperialist system from which it benefits. Global revolution demands a just and egalitarian distribution of the world’s resources and wealth. Thus, over the course of global revolution, First Worlders will receive less, not more.

We are John Browns, staunch First World allies of the Third World. We are few and far between and behind enemy lines; there is little direct effect we can have. We consider our circumstances and focus on areas where we can effectively contribute to the revolutionary struggle.

We openly represent revolutionary anti-imperialism and work to build public opinion for Third World liberation struggles. We interject revolutionary, anti-imperialist politics into political arenas such as speaking events and protests; contribute to publishing and distributing revolutionary literature such as the RAIM Global Digest; and conduct group education through study collectives, practical tasks and informal discussion. We seek out and educate those who can be won over to consistent anti-imperialist politics.

We encourage direct participation and involvement, promote personal development and push people to become more valuable to the larger, global revolutionary movement. In part, RAIM is a ‘university of revolution.’ Through direct involvement with RAIM, we encourage people to become more proficient both politically and technically. A large part of RAIM’s purpose is to make individuals more of an asset to the Third World majority.

We encourage Third World-oriented, revolutionary political work. Though RAIM fills a roll by providing a public presence for and entry-level work into revolutionary politics, it is not the end-all-be-all of revolutionary political work. We encourage and support revolutionary, Third World-oriented politics being applied as part of different types of projects and efforts.


Adopted November 23rd, 2009

[Bankotsu]

I support you.:thumbup1:

I oppose all forms of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism.


Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialism
http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/

Super Imperialism The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
http://michael-hudson.com/books/super_imperialism_II.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20647.htm

[greymatter]

We want to smash this world and build a new one. Today, the median global wage stands around $2.50 an hour. Over 1 billion people face chronic hunger and a child dies every five seconds of starvation. This same situation is killing the planet at an unprecedented rate. Meanwhile, a global minority lives in comfort, unconcerned with their effect on the world. We aim to change this.Yes, and when you smash the world that will make everyone more affluent. What kind of bizarre fantasy is that? Wars and destruction actually making things better for people...
The only thing that is going to make the world more equal in it's distribution of wealth is trade and time, not some fantastical macho dream. Can't you see how far we've come in the last fifty years?


We understand that there is a causal relationship between wealth on one hand and poverty on the other. On a global level, the First World is rich because it exploits the impoverished majority, the Third World. This global divide, called imperialism, is the principal feature of the world today.There was poverty and starvation long before there was wealth.



We side with the Third World masses and support their struggles for liberation. Exploiters are not going to hand over freedom to those they exploit. Only through struggle can the oppressed free themselves. We support the right of resistance- and revolution- for oppressed peoples against their oppressors. We support unity of the Third World masses against imperialism.I can get behind this. If they come for you oil, put a cap in their asses.


We reject First Worldism: politics which panders to or assumes that First Worlders are a social base for revolution. The “masses” of the First World are a global minority: a petty-exploiter class which regularly supports the imperialist system from which it benefits. Global revolution demands a just and egalitarian distribution of the world’s resources and wealth. Thus, over the course of global revolution, First Worlders will receive less, not more.Hahaha, like some third worlder will even understand your ideology, much less buy into it. Right now, they're plugged into MTV and they want that lifestyle too.


We are John Browns, staunch First World allies of the Third World. We are few and far between and behind enemy lines; there is little direct effect we can have. We consider our circumstances and focus on areas where we can effectively contribute to the revolutionary struggle. How much you donated to world vision lately?


We openly represent revolutionary anti-imperialism and work to build public opinion for Third World liberation struggles. We interject revolutionary, anti-imperialist politics into political arenas such as speaking events and protests; contribute to publishing and distributing revolutionary literature such as the RAIM Global Digest; and conduct group education through study collectives, practical tasks and informal discussion. We seek out and educate those who can be won over to consistent anti-imperialist politics.Currently, or is this activity which you have planned for the future?


We encourage direct participation and involvement, promote personal development and push people to become more valuable to the larger, global revolutionary movement. In part, RAIM is a ‘university of revolution.’ Through direct involvement with RAIM, we encourage people to become more proficient both politically and technically. A large part of RAIM’s purpose is to make individuals more of an asset to the Third World majority.Sounds pretty neat. You could donate speedboats to the Somali pirates, or drill wells in Ethiopia or something...


We encourage Third World-oriented, revolutionary political work. Though RAIM fills a roll by providing a public presence for and entry-level work into revolutionary politics, it is not the end-all-be-all of revolutionary political work. We encourage and support revolutionary, Third World-oriented politics being applied as part of different types of projects and efforts.Talk is cheap. Wells are expensive. I can't grow millet with revolutionary politics.

[Bankotsu]

Yes, and when you smash the world that will make everyone more affluent. What kind of bizarre fantasy is that? Wars and destruction actually making things better for people...
The only thing that is going to make the world more equal in it's distribution of wealth is trade and time, not some fantastical macho dream. Can't you see how far we've come in the last fifty years?

There was poverty and starvation long before there was wealth.


I can get behind this. If they come for you oil, put a cap in their asses.

Hahaha, like some third worlder will even understand your ideology, much less buy into it. Right now, they're plugged into MTV and they want that lifestyle too.

How much you donated to world vision lately?

Currently, or is this activity which you have planned for the future?

Sounds pretty neat. You could donate speedboats to the Somali pirates, or drill wells in Ethiopia or something...

Talk is cheap. Wells are expensive. I can't grow millet with revolutionary politics.

And I am the one being restricted and labeled a reactionary.

The crap that sometimes goes on here, I tell you...

[RGacky3]

We reject First Worldism: politics which panders to or assumes that First Worlders are a social base for revolution. The “masses” of the First World are a global minority: a petty-exploiter class which regularly supports the imperialist system from which it benefits. Global revolution demands a just and egalitarian distribution of the world’s resources and wealth. Thus, over the course of global revolution, First Worlders will receive less, not more.


Rediculous, the first world working class does not support imperialism, anymore than the third world supports their exploitative government. If your going to blame the first world workers for what their o****ry does, then you damn well better blame the third world people for what their countries do.

Just because first world workers are exploited less does'nt make them not exploited.


We are John Browns, staunch First World allies of the Third World. We are few and far between and behind enemy lines; there is little direct effect we can have. We consider our circumstances and focus on areas where we can effectively contribute to the revolutionary struggle.

No your not John Browns, John Brown did'nt demonize anyone that was'nt a slave. BTW, according to yourself, your an exploiter since you live in the first world, which means you are actually fighting against your material benefit, which means your revolutionaries out of pure morality, who would have known that maoists are the most idealistic of the leftists.


The only thing that is going to make the world more equal in it's distribution of wealth is trade and time, not some fantastical macho dream. Can't you see how far we've come in the last fifty years?


Trade and time has'nt changed that at all, its made the rich richer and the poor poorer.


There was poverty and starvation long before there was wealth.

I dont' know, both are very very old, but class relations are what cause poverty and to a degree massiave wealth (in class soceity).


Hahaha, like some third worlder will even understand your ideology, much less buy into it. Right now, they're plugged into MTV and they want that lifestyle too.


And you would know too, because your .......???

Your an idiot, and a bigot, do you think that somehow third worlders are less smart than everyone else? Don't understand basic politics? Don't understand the reason they are in the situation they are in? Most do know, much more than you and many smug westerners.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

first world workers are certainly not responsible for the actions of their ruling classes, but it is an undeniable fact that they "regularly support the imperialist system" through the ballot

all the "leftists" who came here last year to support the American Democratic Party's campaign were supporting imperialism and mass murder

just to be clear

[AvanteRedGarde]

I'm going to start by telling you that you are an idiot who doesn't know what your talking about (typical of Revleft). You should be thankful I'm taking the time to respond to your dogmatic ignorance.


Rediculous, the first world working class does not support imperialism, anymore than the third world supports their exploitative government. If your going to blame the first world workers for what their o****ry does, then you damn well better blame the third world people for what their countries do.

That's so stupid. How does a third worlder benefit from being exploited. A First Worlder benefits in that their clothes/food/electronics/raw materials are produced by people who are lucky to make $1.50/hour. How do First Worlders show there opposition to imperialism anyhow? By watching TV? Buying shit?


Just because first world workers are exploited less does'nt make them not exploited.


The international value of labor is around $3-4/hour. By definition, anyone who earns more than this is a net exploiter.

Do the math. Divide the global GDP by the number of people in the world, representing an equalitarian redistribution of wealth, and you will find that virtually all First Worlders would become less wealthy. So, it's not a matter of First Worlders simply being exploited less. They are not exploited at all, and in fact materially benefit from imperialism.


No your not John Browns, John Brown did'nt demonize anyone that was'nt a slave.

No, John Brown just killed slave owners, their families and hired goons. Fucking idiot.


BTW, according to yourself, your an exploiter since you live in the first world, which means you are actually fighting against your material benefit, which means your revolutionaries out of pure morality,

Are you fucking stupid. What do you think a 'John Brown' means.


Trade and time has'nt changed that at all, its made the rich richer and the poor poorer. I dont' know, both are very very old, but class relations are what cause poverty and to a degree massiave wealth (in class soceity).

Exactly, in India alone, roughly In India alone, seven hundred million people live on less than two dollars dollars a day. This is roughly equivalent to the entire English-speaking world. Around half of the world, about 3.5 billion people, live on less that $2.50 a day. Around 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. The U.S. minimum wage is something like $6.50/hour. By definition, someone who worked for 2 hours a day, legally, in the US, would be among the richest 20% of the world. This person could also qualify for welfare, which increases their income.

Additionally, every year over 2 million people die of water born disease and every five seconds a child dies of starvation or malnutrition. All of these deaths are preventable: on a daily basis Amerikans alone have an average intake of 3,700 calories, throw away almost a third of their edible food and use 5.8 billion gallons of potable water just for toilets.

What the fuck am I talking about if not a class society. And guess what, Amerikans and First Worlders aren't part of the proletarian class.

Engels noticed this that the English working class was becoming "bourgeoisified." Too bad noone from Revleft bothers to read anything that doesn't fit their idealist, dogmatic world-view.


Your an idiot, and a bigot, do you think that somehow third worlders are less smart than everyone else? Don't understand basic politics? Don't understand the reason they are in the situation they are in? Most do know, much more than you and many smug westerners.

I'm sure they do. But they last thing they need is a bunch of hazy, Western so-called 'leftists' denouncing their struggle at every convienent turn and then turning around and spewing the stale lie that First Worlders are their friends and class allies. It's simply not the case. Athousand or so teenagers and loser 20-somethings from the First World who calls themselves revolutionaries does not equal a progressive class. The First World are exploiters and must be overthrown as part of the anti-imperialist struggle.

[Pogue]

I'm going to start by telling you that you are an idiot who doesn't know what your talking about (typical of Revleft). You should be thankful I'm taking the time to respond to your dogmatic ignorance.



That's so stupid. How does a third worlder benefit from being exploited. A First Worlder benefits in that their clothes/food/electronics/raw materials are produced by people who are lucky to make $1.50/hour. How do First Worlders show there opposition to imperialism anyhow? By watching TV? Buying shit?



The international value of labor is around $3-4/hour. By definition, anyone who earns more than this is a net exploiter.

Do the math. Divide the global GDP by the number of people in the world, representing an equalitarian redistribution of wealth, and you will find that virtually all First Worlders would become less wealthy. So, it's not a matter of First Worlders simply being exploited less. They are not exploited at all, and in fact materially benefit from imperialism.



No, John Brown just killed slave owners, their families and hired goons. Fucking idiot.



Are you fucking stupid. What do you think a 'John Brown' means.



Exactly, in India alone, roughly In India alone, seven hundred million people live on less than two dollars dollars a day. This is roughly equivalent to the entire English-speaking world. Around half of the world, about 3.5 billion people, live on less that $2.50 a day. Around 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. The U.S. minimum wage is something like $6.50/hour. By definition, someone who worked for 2 hours a day, legally, in the US, would be among the richest 20% of the world. This person could also qualify for welfare, which increases their income.

Additionally, every year over 2 million people die of water born disease and every five seconds a child dies of starvation or malnutrition. All of these deaths are preventable: on a daily basis Amerikans alone have an average intake of 3,700 calories, throw away almost a third of their edible food and use 5.8 billion gallons of potable water just for toilets.

What the fuck am I talking about if not a class society. And guess what, Amerikans and First Worlders aren't part of the proletarian class.

Engels noticed this that the English working class was becoming "bourgeoisified." Too bad noone from Revleft bothers to read anything that doesn't fit their idealist, dogmatic world-view.



I'm sure they do. But they last thing they need is a bunch of hazy, Western so-called 'leftists' denouncing their struggle at every convienent turn and then turning around and spewing the stale lie that First Worlders are their friends and class allies. It's simply not the case. Athousand or so teenagers and loser 20-somethings from the First World who calls themselves revolutionaries does not equal a progressive class. The First World are exploiters and must be overthrown as part of the anti-imperialist struggle.

I think you have valid points to be made and certainly you bring home interesting ideas which need to be debated, which is more the reason why I'm so upset that you refuse to communicate in anything other than the most confrontational language. Why do you do this?

[RGacky3]

That's so stupid. How does a third worlder benefit from being exploited. A First Worlder benefits in that their clothes/food/electronics/raw materials are produced by people who are lucky to make $1.50/hour. How do First Worlders show there opposition to imperialism anyhow? By watching TV? Buying shit?


I third worlder does not benefit from being exploited, and nither does a first worlder, a first worlder might benefit somewhat from imperialism, but they also loose out as well, out sourcing, droping wages, and so on, but they are also expoited.

Why should First Worlders show their opposition to imperialism? Many first world workers are exploited themselves and have themselves and their family to take after first, secondly, first world governments and ruling classes are IMMENSLY more powerful and institutionalized than the third worlds making them much harder to oppose.

Also most of the first world is purposely kept ignorant about imperialism.


The international value of labor is around $3-4/hour. By definition, anyone who earns more than this is a net exploiter.


Your missing tons and tons of other factors, living standard differences, tax differences, actual national wealth, actual wealth produced in a certain country, also the fact that currency does not represent ACTUAL value, but only market value (which is controlled pretty much by the top 1% of the world). Your thinking like a capitalist but applying to to socialism.

exploitation is when a Capitalists earns money from the value of someone elses labor, which means, first world workers are exploited. Do first world workers earn money from third world labor? No, they are paid for their own labor, so no, they are not exploiters.


No, John Brown just killed slave owners, their families and hired goons. Fucking idiot.


Yeah, but did he kill Northern Wage workers? Southern wage workers? Did he go around killing anyone that was'nt a slave? Because they might have bought clothes that were priced down because of slave labor? idiot.


Are you fucking stupid. What do you think a 'John Brown' means.

That quote was compleatly seperate from the Jonn Brown part, and it had to do with Maoists claimed freedom from morality, and pure materialism, and against idealism or moral standards and only focusing on material interests, when in actuallity they are the MOST idealist, by although being admitedly part of a class that BENEFITS (supposedly) from international Capitalism, want to over throwout simply out of the goodness of their hearts and love of third world poor people.

I applaud that type of moral standing, but I think its funny that you guys go around preaching fundamentalist materialism.


Exactly, in India alone, roughly In India alone, seven hundred million people live on less than two dollars dollars a day. This is roughly equivalent to the entire English-speaking world. Around half of the world, about 3.5 billion people, live on less that $2.50 a day. Around 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. The U.S. minimum wage is something like $6.50/hour. By definition, someone who worked for 2 hours a day, legally, in the US, would be among the richest 20% of the world. This person could also qualify for welfare, which increases their income.

Additionally, every year over 2 million people die of water born disease and every five seconds a child dies of starvation or malnutrition. All of these deaths are preventable: on a daily basis Amerikans alone have an average intake of 3,700 calories, throw away almost a third of their edible food and use 5.8 billion gallons of potable water just for toilets.

What the fuck am I talking about if not a class society. And guess what, Amerikans and First Worlders aren't part of the proletarian class.

Engels noticed this that the English working class was becoming "bourgeoisified." Too bad noone from Revleft bothers to read anything that doesn't fit their idealist, dogmatic world-view.

Its ironic you end that with the words "dogmatic world-view", you do realize it sounds funny comming from a maoist.

The fact is, first of all, non of these things have anything to do with class, class is THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, also imperialism in the western world started wayy way way before workers started getting things better (it was'nt given to them, it was fought for), your also forgeting that the fact that international exploiters from their countries, and thus they reap some of the benefits is not their fault.

If someone robs a bunch of shoe stores, and then sells shoes for cheaper in a certain area, thus driving down prices, in a certain area, can you really blame the people that buy them?

Also assuming that first world workers are better off under capitalism is preposterous, you can't JUST measure it in dollar amounts, considering the market.


But they last thing they need is a bunch of hazy, Western so-called 'leftists' denouncing their struggle at every convienent turn and then turning around and spewing the stale lie that First Worlders are their friends and class allies. It's simply not the case. Athousand or so teenagers and loser 20-somethings from the First World who calls themselves revolutionaries does not equal a progressive class. The First World are exploiters and must be overthrown as part of the anti-imperialist struggle.

as far as I can tell the couple ... 10s? of looser teenagers and 20 somethings tend to be the maoists in the western world, who are essencially just angsty and pissed off, and want to be rebelious to be rebelious. But that aside.

Western leftists do not denounce the struggles in the third world, they support them, I don't know where your getting this from.

The First world workers must be overthrown? To be overthrown you have to rule over something, what are the first world workers ruling over dumbass? The vast vast majority don't own anything.

Just because you probably grew up cushy, does'nt mean everyone in the first world has it cushy.

BTW, I have a question? Are you an exploiter? Is Capitalism working for you personally?


which is more the reason why I'm so upset that you refuse to communicate in anything other than the most confrontational language. Why do you do this?

Because he's angsty.

[greymatter]

Exactly, in India alone, roughly In India alone, seven hundred million people live on less than two dollars dollars a day. This is roughly equivalent to the entire English-speaking world. Around half of the world, about 3.5 billion people, live on less that $2.50 a day. Around 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. The U.S. minimum wage is something like $6.50/hour. By definition, someone who worked for 2 hours a day, legally, in the US, would be among the richest 20% of the world. This person could also qualify for welfare, which increases their income.Alot of Americans are better off than Indians, but is this a result of Americans somehow stealing wealth from the Indians through trade? NO. Americans are wealthy because historically, they traded their resources to the industrializing european countries for their wealth. The exact same thing has happened in our lifetimes with regards to China. As the Indian economy - which was quite agrarian until recently - becomes more reliant on manufacturing and technology (which the indians produce alot of, unlike the chinese) their wages and standard of living will improve dramatically, just as they did in Europe, North America, China, and now Brazil.


Additionally, every year over 2 million people die of water born disease and every five seconds a child dies of starvation or malnutrition. All of these deaths are preventable: on a daily basis Amerikans alone have an average intake of 3,700 calories, throw away almost a third of their edible food and use 5.8 billion gallons of potable water just for toilets.
Here's where I take real issue. Marx pretty clearly pointed out that our technology - the Means of Production - has improved over the course of history. The fact that poor people die from disease and malnutrition is not the fault of the Americans, it is the way things have been for thousands of years. I say thousands and not millions, because disease was not as much of a problem before the advent of agrictulture. That's not to say that Americans can't or shouldn't do anything about it, but your best bet is to donate some of your money to a charity - or even start a speedboats for Somalians charity yourself.

Hell, I would donate 100 dollars right now if you could guarantee that 80 goes to Somali speedboats.

[Havet]

On a global level, the First World is rich because it exploits the impoverished majority, the Third World. This global divide, called imperialism, is the principal feature of the world today.


I'm sorry, but that is not correct.

I disagree that there need to be "workhorse" countries like China, in order for there to be rich countries like USA or Switzerland.

Of course this is nonsense. the USA was lapping up motor cars and televisions while China was still murdering and starving millions of its own people.

The idea that there is somehow a static amount of production possible is, with all respect, nonsense.

How did we ever free up workers from hand looming?

The reason the Service industry is big is not because of some market distortion of reality, its because that's whats really important and profitable to people.

While food and mining might seem so important to state-socialists, its really not. People don't want to live for the sake of food and mining. The reason why modern economies have a huge percentage of service and a tiny percentage of primary industry, is because its simply not that profitable.

We have pretty much less farmers now than we ever had, yet we have far more food production than ever before. How is this possible? The same way that the machine loom cut the amount of workers needed and boosted the amount of production.

Of course we benefit from other countries that still have a huge portion of industrial business, why wouldn't we? They have much cheaper land and taxes.

What a Chinese person can't (yet) do is take your order at a US restaurant, or design a computer game, or make a film.

And these are all far more valuable, and more importantly harder to do than primary industry jobs

[gorillafuck]

What do Third-Worldists actually do, aside from make blogs that use ridiculous spellings and lecture the first world working class and poor on how they are exploiters?

[greymatter]

What do Third-Worldists actually do, aside from make blogs that use ridiculous spellings and lecture the first world working class and poor on how they are exploiters?
I'm not sure either, but I do have a suggestion: get yourself a volunteer position with an NGO and get on a plane to Lagos. Nigeria is probably the country that has been the most badly ripped off in the history of the world. See how people are responding to the theft of their resources and then see if you can help them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What do Third-Worldists actually do, aside from make blogs that use ridiculous spellings and lecture the first world working class and poor on how they are exploiters?

what the hell is this supposed to mean?
honestly

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The reason why modern economies have a huge percentage of service and a tiny percentage of primary industry, is because its simply not that profitable.

And why is it not profitable for "modern economies" to have larger primary and secondary sectors, you should ask.
Because its more profitable for capitalists to invest in those sectors of the economy in poor countries.
Your "logical extremism" doesn't seem to be doing you very much good, evidently.

[greymatter]

And why is it not profitable for "modern economies" to have larger primary and secondary sectors, you should ask.
Because its more profitable for capitalists to invest in those sectors of the economy in poor countries.What's wrong with that?

[Bankotsu]

What do Third-Worldists actually do, aside from make blogs that use ridiculous spellings and lecture the first world working class and poor on how they are exploiters?

But there are many people who are ignorant of capitalist exploitation in third world.

Propaganda work must be carried out to educate these people.


How the IMF Props Up the Bankrupt Dollar System
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What's wrong with that?

The same thing that was wrong with old timey capitalism: The concentration of wealth.
Imperialism is also usually carried out alongside extreme violence against workers.

[RGacky3]

But there are many people who are ignorant of capitalist exploitation in third world.

Propaganda work must be carried out to educate these people

So "propaganda" means telling first world poor people they are "exploiters" using rediculous spellings and writing blogs? BTW, what are you trying to accomplish, if you really believe the first world workers are all "exploiters" then just shut the hell up and go to the third world and hang with where the real workers are, what are you preaching to the first world "exploiters" for?


what the hell is this supposed to mean?
honestly

Its supposed to mean exactly what its saying, what exactly do you do? You guys are part of the first world ...

[ComradeMan]

We want to smash this world and build a new one. Today, the median global wage stands around $2.50 an hour. Over 1 billion people face chronic hunger and a child dies every five seconds of starvation. This same situation is killing the planet at an unprecedented rate. Meanwhile, a global minority lives in comfort, unconcerned with their effect on the world. We aim to change this.

- SOCIAL ECOLOGY


We understand that there is a causal relationship between wealth on one hand and poverty on the other. On a global level, the First World is rich because it exploits the impoverished majority, the Third World. This global divide, called imperialism, is the principal feature of the world today.

- NO GLOBAL

We side with the Third World masses and support their struggles for liberation. Exploiters are not going to hand over freedom to those they exploit. Only through struggle can the oppressed free themselves. We support the right of resistance- and revolution- for oppressed peoples against their oppressors. We support unity of the Third World masses against imperialism.

- REJECTION OF GLOBAL MARKETS, ANARCHO-COMMUNIST SMALL SCALE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT WITH LOCAL PEOPLE DECIDING ON LOCAL ISSUES WITH LOCAL BENEFITS

We reject First Worldism: politics which panders to or assumes that First Worlders are a social base for revolution. The “masses” of the First World are a global minority: a petty-exploiter class which regularly supports the imperialist system from which it benefits. Global revolution demands a just and egalitarian distribution of the world’s resources and wealth. Thus, over the course of global revolution, First Worlders will receive less, not more.

- THAT'S RIGHT BUT DON'T FORGET YOU CAN FIND THE THIRD WORLD IN YOUR OWN BACK YARD TOO, JUST DIFFERENT LEVELS.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What do Third-Worldists actually do, aside from make blogs that use ridiculous spellings and lecture the first world working class and poor on how they are exploiters?
I would love to see a first-world third-worldist street stall. "Oh, hai, minimum-wage proletarians! I'm from communism and I'm here to tell you all about how you're actually evil imperialist exploiters! What's that you say? You can't get decent healthcare? Well, that's what you deserve for being a petty-bourgeois labour aristocrat exploiter! Would you like to buy a copy of our paper?"

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I would love to see a first-world third-worldist street stall. "Oh, hai, minimum-wage proletarians! I'm from communism and I'm here to tell you all about how you're actually evil imperialist exploiters! What's that you say? You can't get decent healthcare? Well, that's what you deserve for being a petty-bourgeois labour aristocrat exploiter! Would you like to buy a copy of our paper?"

That's something I've always wondered about MIM and its descendants. I mean, what's the point of existing or being active in the First World if it's so irredeemable?

HURRRR DURRR

[Bankotsu]

So "propaganda" means telling first world poor people they are "exploiters" using rediculous spellings and writing blogs?

Seems like you just don't like people criticising your country.

No matter what, the propaganda work cannot stop and must continue.

As long as imperialism exists, we must oppose it.

On the Occasion of the First Anniversary of Maoism Third Worldism


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28AI_KAamMA

Monkey Smashes Heaven

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/



The propaganda work must intensify and increase online.

It cannot stop.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I would love to see a first-world third-worldist street stall. "Oh, hai, minimum-wage proletarians! I'm from communism and I'm here to tell you all about how you're actually evil imperialist exploiters! What's that you say? You can't get decent healthcare? Well, that's what you deserve for being a petty-bourgeois labour aristocrat exploiter! Would you like to buy a copy of our paper?"

What's even funnier is First Worldist street action:

"Rise up ye proletarian workers. Claim your destiny, today!" [Insert yawns from the First World "working class" and the sounds of crickets in the background]

[AvanteRedGarde]

That's something I've always wondered about MIM and its descendants. I mean, what's the point of existing or being active in the First World if it's so irredeemable?

HURRRR DURRR

Someone has to represent anti-imperialism in contradistinction to First Worldism.

BTW, how's the "reconceiving and regrouping" coming along? Find your goldie locks formula* yet?

(*First Worldists often think a radical potential in First Worlders can be realized if they do things 'just right.' It's a stupid fantasy.)

[RGacky3]

Seems like you just don't like people criticising your country.

No matter what, the propaganda work cannot stop and must continue.

As long as imperialism exists, we must oppose it.


You did'nt address my question at all. Which is ....


what are you trying to accomplish

BTW "criticizing" a country is as rediculous as "loving" a country, whats the country, the people? The government? the ruling class? the culture?

I criticize my government (which used to be the United States) a lot, why? Because that was where I lived, and the ruling class of my country, but I also supported local worker struggles of the country.

But I re-ask, what are you trying to accomplish, sitting in the first world, telling the poor and the workers in the first world they are exploiters?


Someone has to represent anti-imperialism in contradistinction to First Worldism.

BTW, how's the "reconceiving and regrouping" coming along? Find your goldie locks formula* yet?

Why? Also does'nt that mean YOUR exploiters as well? Which actually means you believe that it is NOT in your material interests to support revolution?


What's even funnier is First Worldist street action:

"Rise up ye proletarian workers. Claim your destiny, today!"

OK fine, but I still don't understand what you guys are doing at all.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So, you were asked what the point of being active in the first world is, and you said:

Someone has to represent anti-imperialism in contradistinction to First Worldism.
BUT

First Worldists often think a radical potential in First Worlders can be realized if they do things 'just right.' It's a stupid fantasy.
So, if it's a stupid fantasy to think any first worlders will ever do anything worthwhile, and you - you, personally, and all the people you know - have no radical potential, what's the point of doing anything? What difference does it make whether or not anti-imperialism is represented to these useless people who have no potential?

Seems like you just don't like people criticising your country.

No matter what, the propaganda work cannot stop and must continue.
...
The propaganda work must intensify and increase online.

It cannot stop.
It cannot stop, as long as none of you are ever required to do anything IRL. This is hilarious.

[Devrim]

I would love to see a first-world third-worldist street stall. "Oh, hai, minimum-wage proletarians! I'm from communism and I'm here to tell you all about how you're actually evil imperialist exploiters! What's that you say? You can't get decent healthcare? Well, that's what you deserve for being a petty-bourgeois labour aristocrat exploiter! Would you like to buy a copy of our paper?"

...And all this shortly before heading off to Epping forest to launch a 'people's war'.

Devrim

[AvanteRedGarde]

So, if it's a stupid fantasy to think any first worlders will ever do anything worthwhile, and you - you, personally, and all the people you know - have no radical potential, what's the point of doing anything? What difference does it make whether or not anti-imperialism is represented to these useless people who have no potential?



This is typical of the First Worldist self-proclaimed leftist freakshow: "If there's not an exploited class in Amerika, why bother? Why not just not do anything?"

Whether it's spreading the lie that First Worlders are exploited or telling honest comrades they should just give up, First World liberals always end up on the side of imperialism sooner or later.

Read the program again.

[ls]

...And all this shortly before heading off to Epping forest to launch a 'people's war'.

Devrim

They would probably choose the lake district to be fair.

[RGacky3]

This is typical of the First Worldist self-proclaimed leftist freakshow: "If there's not an exploited class in Amerika, why bother? Why not just not do anything?"

Whether it's spreading the lie that First Worlders are exploited or telling honest comrades they should just give up, First World liberals always end up on the side of imperialism sooner or later.

Read the program again.

You did'nt answer the question, or any questions at that.

[AvanteRedGarde]

You did'nt answer the question, or any questions at that.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1608083&postcount=1

[RGacky3]

A real response, not posting some article.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

This is typical of the First Worldist self-proclaimed leftist freakshow: "If there's not an exploited class in Amerika, why bother? Why not just not do anything?"

Whether it's spreading the lie that First Worlders are exploited or telling honest comrades they should just give up, First World liberals always end up on the side of imperialism sooner or later.

Read the program again.
Do you think that "first-world" proletarians have revolutionary potential? If not, what is the point of your activity? I'm still waiting.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Find any evidence that first world workers aren't exploited yet?

[greymatter]

I think we're long overdue for some more failed "communist" states in the developing world to remind us of what happens when we forget that countries need to trade with each other in order to develop.

[AvanteRedGarde]

This message board really is for infantile, anti-intellectual brats. I can't speak for RAIM or any part of the MTWist movement. How individualist, petty bourgeoisie are you to simply trust what I say as representing all that is entailed in these two movements.

If you would have followed the link and read the article, you would have noticed this:


"Our strategy

"While Gupta is wasting time trying to radicalize Amerikans, the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement (RAIM) is engaged in real strategies for real revolutionary change. Whereas “anti-imperialism” is just a buzzword for Gupta and First Worldists, RAIM understands that imperialism is the crux of world dynamics and proceeds from there. A hallmark of RAIM’s strategy is accounting for limitations imposed on us by the fact that Amerikans support imperialism and using our privilege to develop real aid in the revolutionary struggle.

"We don’t water down genuine anti-imperialist politics to pander to First Worlders. Above all, RAIM speaks the truth and says it loud and clear: First Worlders maintain their decadent lifestyles via imperialism; are class enemies of the real masses in the Third World; the complicit ‘Volk’ in a murderous global empire; and must be overthrown along with imperialism. We openly represents anti-imperialist politics and broadcast our analysis to a global audience, using our own privilege to do so, even if most Amerikans don’t like or ‘get’ it.

"First World mass movements come and go, along with most of its participants. Rather than trying to build an “anti-imperialist” mass movement in the First World, RAIM is a politically sophisticated and technically versatile one, with the aim of best serving the Third World masses and their struggle. We want dedicated, determined comrades who are all in for the long haul. RAIM broadcasts a consistent message of anti-imperialist solidarity globally and is a focal point of revolutionary agitation, education and political development within the belly of the beast, Amerika. Through RAIM, we seek out and educate those few First Worlders who can be best won over the consistent anti-imperialist politics. Through RAIM, we develop both politically and technically, becoming more of an asset to the revolutionary struggle."

"RAIM is important as a national network which openly represents anti-imperialist politics, but it should be seen for what it is: an appendage to the vast Third World struggle; our collective effort to contribute to this larger revolutionary movement. RAIM’s message is huge, too big for RAIM alone. We encourage constant political and technical development, specialization and the application of Third World-oriented, revolutionary politics to different types and forms of work. We support those who support the movement of the exploited Third World against the imperialist First."
So, if you don't want me to call you an idiot, then don't act like a teenager that can't read for more than ten minutes without giving-in to the urge to spout trite, one line replies.


Socialism or Barbarianism wrote:
"Find any evidence that first world workers aren't exploited yet?"Considering how you're hinging this idea of "exploitation" on Marx and the Labor Theory of Value, which was elucidated some 150 years under the conditions of the day; is not a widely accepted economic analytical framework; nor well understood (outside of slogans that is) by nominal Marxists today, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

Afterall when has there been any sort of mass movement in the US against Capital, since the 30's, that wasn't mainly comprised of internally oppressed nationals or non-exploited youth?

Eighty years of false consciousness and running?

Economic "crisis" which galvanizes the right to gain 'working' class support while the so-called 'revolutionary left' languishes away on revleft.com?

Oh, I'm so convinced.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I think we're long overdue for some more failed "communist" states in the developing world to remind us of what happens when we forget that countries need to trade with each other in order to develop.

It would be great if people like you would simply read for a year or two and not insert such remarks. The US is the one encouraging trade embragos and forcing countries into restricted trade. As george bush noted, northern Korea is the most sanctioned country in the world (and according to him, would remain that way).

And what about failed states. I certainly wouldn't call ending starvation, illiteracy, many preventable disease, and patriarchal traditions such as footbinding to be failed. It's certainly more than the US has done for its neo-colonies in the Third World.

So it's not really about trade. Saying, "we need increasing global trade" could just as easily give way to saying we also need increasing interplanetary trade. After can can the earth ever develop when restricted to only our own resources. This reveals a certain twisted logic by capitalism.

There has been global trade for hundreds of years. It ruined most countries. Maybe if Africa wasn't apart of the global trade 400 years ago, slavery, it would be in much better shape now.

Communist have never said people shouldn't trade with one eachother. Rather, they've been focused on the relations by which commerce occurs. Communists and liberation forces simply don't want Third World people to be susceptible to exploitation by foreign powers, as there is not reciprocity there. The First World benefits and lives decadently and the Third World finds development to be one-sided and slow coming.

Quit listening to your teachers and mainstream Amerikkka.

[greymatter]

It would be great if people like you would simply read for a year or two and not insert such remarks. The US is the one encouraging trade embragos and forcing countries into restricted trade. As george bush noted, northern Korea is the most sanctioned country in the world (and according to him, would remain that way). You say read and I say which books? You're brain dead you've got heirachy right through your head.

I never came out in favour of "Amerikkan" trade policy. As it stands, restricted trade is probably better than juche from a development standpoint though. Sanctions and embargoes amount to (I think) a kind of economic warfare, which (I think) should be illegal - just as Bush's invasion of Iraq was.


And what about failed states. I certainly wouldn't call ending starvation, illiteracy, many preventable disease, and patriarchal traditions such as footbinding to be failed. It's certainly more than the US has done for its neo-colonies in the Third World. Ending footbinding was a good move on the part of the Chinese government. I don't think that trying to halt the globalization of the economy is going to do anything but make third-world populations more susceptible to starvation, illiteracy, and preventable diseases such as malaria. The globalization of the economy, actually makes it possible to do this (http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?section=10398&item=152).


So it's not really about trade. Saying, "we need increasing global trade" could just as easily give way to saying we also need increasing interplanetary trade. After can can the earth ever develop when restricted to only our own resources. This reveals a certain twisted logic by capitalism.You're right. International trade could easily lead to interplanetary trade, and space exploration could easily lead to the long-term survival of humankind. What's twisted about that?


There has been global trade for hundreds of years. It ruined most countries. Maybe if Africa wasn't apart of the global trade 400 years ago, slavery, it would be in much better shape now.Trade ruined most countries? What planet are you living on? Without trade you would not be alive. The reason Africa is less developed than Europe is the relative absence of trade routes on the continent.


Communist have never said people shouldn't trade with one eachother. Rather, they've been focused on the relations by which commerce occurs. Communists and liberation forces simply don't want Third World people to be susceptible to exploitation by foreign powers, as there is not reciprocity there. The First World benefits and lives decadently and the Third World finds development to be one-sided and slow coming.Slow coming? Two hundred years of industrialization and they've already got cell phones. I believe that the kind of change and innovation that will be generated by Africans in the next few centuries will overshadow that of Europe or North America.


Quit listening to your teachers and mainstream Amerikkka.Easy for you to say, knowing absolutely NOTHING about me. I have a message for you too: open your eyes and observe the ecology of the economy. Currency is a form of energy and you can't live on a 0-calorie diet.

[turquino]

I think we're long overdue for some more failed "communist" states in the developing world to remind us of what happens when we forget that countries need to trade with each other in order to develop.

Contrary to the claims of economists whose job it is to justify capitalism, international trade _does not_ necessarily lead to the greatest gains. I posted an example of this in another thread related to trade and ‘globalization’: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1574115&postcount=6 (please excuse the broken formatting). It’s unfortunate that many socialists accept these theories and end up tailing the corporate apologists because they haven’t worked out a coherent response of their own. Even those who recognize exploitation in the unequal exchange of labour in trade, often implicitly agree that trade leads to greater material gains overall. This is the falsehood I want to challenge.

[RGacky3]

Afterall when has there been any sort of mass movement in the US against Capital, since the 30's, that wasn't mainly comprised of internally oppressed nationals or non-exploited youth?

You can say the exact same thing about many many third world countries.

About your article, you did'nt answer the question, the article did'nt answer it.

ARE YOU NOT GOING AGAINST YOUR OWN MATERIAL INTERESTS (if you believe you are not exploited), also WHAT ARE YOU DOING??? In other words all your doing is "educating" i.e. berating, first world workers to try and win some over? (mainly teenagers that are angry at their parents), and what would winning some over do? What are you guys goals? When you have enough people to go and join revolutions? Seriously.


Considering how you're hinging this idea of "exploitation" on Marx and the Labor Theory of Value, which was elucidated some 150 years under the conditions of the day; is not a widely accepted economic analytical framework; nor well understood (outside of slogans that is) by nominal Marxists today, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

Afterall when has there been any sort of mass movement in the US against Capital, since the 30's, that wasn't mainly comprised of internally oppressed nationals or non-exploited youth?

Eighty years of false consciousness and running?

Economic "crisis" which galvanizes the right to gain 'working' class support while the so-called 'revolutionary left' languishes away on revleft.com?

Oh, I'm so convinced.

You did'nt find any evidence at all did you, just because the guys with millions of dollars and a media can convince some of the working class that their problems are the liberal agenda, or some bullshit, does not prove a thing, its really just a failure on the lefts part to address the real issues to the people.

Also just the fact that the workers are not authomatically revutionary does'nt proove that they are not exploited, if that were the case, a lot of the third world is'nt exploited either. They are all responsible for the people THEY put in power.

You Maoists are such idealist clowns.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Its supposed to mean exactly what its saying, what exactly do you do? You guys are part of the first world ...

what does that mean?!

how are we part of the first world?

are you saying that there's no difference between the "first" and "third world" or are you saying that they form a single "world", or "first world", as you call it?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

what we do, btw, that sets us apart from the first world is be dependent on foreign capital and relegated to the role of exporting raw materials and in recent decades industrialized goods of low agregate value

[RGacky3]

what does that mean?!

how are we part of the first world?


Not you, but the American/European Maoists, LIVE in the first world.


what we do, btw, that sets us apart from the first world is be dependent on foreign capital and relegated to the role of exporting raw materials and in recent decades industrialized goods of low agregate value

I understand that, I was talking about Maoists in the first world.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I figured it was directed at me since it was in a reply to my post
now you've gone and made me look like an idiot, thanks

[RGacky3]

don't worry about it, I did'nt make my point clear.

[greymatter]

Contrary to the claims of economists whose job it is to justify capitalism, international trade _does not_ necessarily lead to the greatest gains. I posted an example of this in another thread related to trade and ‘globalization’: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1574115&postcount=6 (please excuse the broken formatting). It’s unfortunate that many socialists accept these theories and end up tailing the corporate apologists because they haven’t worked out a coherent response of their own. Even those who recognize exploitation in the unequal exchange of labour in trade, often implicitly agree that trade leads to greater material gains overall. This is the falsehood I want to challenge.I encourage everyone to read the link in turquino's post. In it, he outlines a scenario whereby trade between two countries causes England to specialize in wine production and Portugal to specialize in wool production causing some kind of a wastage of labour.

I think I get the idea: one country becomes so efficient in the production of certain goods that other countries are forced to produce commodities which are more labour-intensive, resulting in a net increase in the amount of labour required for all countries to meet their needs. In that way, technologically advanced countries appear to keep the third world down by out-producing them. Coupled with the CIA's history, this analysis could put a moral punch through globalized trade.

Except for one factor: change. Constant change is part of every sufficiently complex system on this planet. International trade is no exception. Countries are in constant competition to increase the efficiency of their labour forces and use all kinds of implements (public schools) to ensure that their citizens become and remain productive (stock-market crashes - kiss your retirement goodbye, baby boomer!). While slavery may be a part of this system - and it is - the end result is a gradual increase in the productivity of people. Africa is now undergoing - believe it or not - a transition to an information instead of plantation based economy. With the exception of certain agricultural products (hydroponics is a technology worth watching) the techniques required to increase the productivity of labour can be spread to every corner of the globe. It just takes time. The dissemination of cellular phones and 100$ laptops into the developing world is occurring rapidly, and the result will be a wild and wicked wave of change.