Maoism-Third Worldism

[The Vegan Marxist]

Let me first clarify what this movement brings forth. As Mao had once said, if do not gain a correct class analysis, then we won't get much of our analysis' right. Under M-TW, the first world working class are oppressed through the work they bring forth, but when it comes to exploitation, there's not a single first worlder who's being exploited through their work, & rather are exploiting the third world people from the materials they use. One could say that those who come from Mexico illegally are being exploited from their work here in America, but they're not first worlders & come from a third world, themselves. So this is just another way in which the first world is exploiting the third world.

Because the vast majority of the world is a third world, global revolution is seen as a third world proletarians revolution against the feudal first world capitalist exploiters. When it comes to those who are in the first world, the working class that is, what would be asked of them is to help promote these views & bring about more "class & nation traitors", & to eventually leave to train & proletarianize themselves in order to gain more numbers before global revolution is put in place. Reason being why revolution is not particularly possible to take place within first worlds is because of the fact that every first worlder, no matter who you are, benefit from the first world someway, somehow. And those who benefit off of capitalist pleasures makes it even harder for them to rebel against of such, to put themselves into a life of having nothing, in order to fight for a future of everything.

There is much more to this that I could get into, but this is the main understanding in which need to realize when it comes to Maoist-Third Worldist thought. So what I'm asking is if revleft, & those within it, are willing to support such a movement, in what is considered as the fourth stage of Marxist-thought?

[Robocommie]

Who the hell is the second world though?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Who the hell is the second world though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

[Pavlov's House Party]

What bullshit. What about the Paris Commune, the German, Hungarian, Spanish and various other revolutions of the early 20th century, that happened in "First World" countries that still had literal colonies to exploit? The working class of the first world can and will move out of complacency and into action when class struggle becomes evident and the capitalist class keeps robbing them as in Greece right now.

Ultimately, the success of workers of the first, second and third worlds will require the help and support from their fellow workers, it doesn't matter how poor or comfortable they are. What ever happened to "workers of the world unite!"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What bullshit. What about the Paris Commune, the German, Hungarian, Spanish and various other revolutions of the early 20th century, that happened in "First World" countries that still had literal colonies to exploit? The working class of the first world can and will move out of complacency and into action when class struggle becomes evident and the capitalist class keeps robbing them as in Greece right now.

Ultimately, the success of workers of the first, second and third worlds will require the help and support from their fellow workers, it doesn't matter how poor or comfortable they are. What ever happened to "workers of the world unite!"?

Yes, workers of the world unite, & I pointed out how workers of the first world would help those of the third world fight against the exploiters of said third world people. You're making it out as if I'm saying everyone in the first world are the enemy, which is b.s. & is a misconception.

And you're pointing out single revolutions which liberated a single nation, not the entire globe of nations. The first world, within it, will never bring about this type of freedom. Global revolution will only be possible when the majority of the globe, which is of the third world & hopefully helped by those workers within the first world who became class & nation traitors, comes together & revolts for said freedom.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Here's an example of First World exploiting the Third World:


Ethiopia is on the verge of a crisis. 6.2 million Ethiopians face starvation unless something is done. Already 80,000 children under 5 years of age are suffering from acute malnutrition, according to reports. This latest famine threat happens a quarter century since 1 million died in the 1984 famine that caught the media’s attention worldwide. The 1984 famine was a partial result of imperialist policies that forced the growing of cash crops instead of food crops. Even during the famine, Ethiopia continued to export both cash crops and its own food crops to the First World. Its own farmers cannot make a living because processed First World food imports flood the home market.

“Since… January, the country continues to face several humanitarian challenges in food and livelihood security, health, nutrition, and in water and sanitation,” State Minister for Agriculture Mitiku Kassa stated.

Ethiopia needs 121 million before year’s end to head off the famine. Ethiopia is not alone. Famine, starvation, and widespread malnutrition are very real threats for peoples of the Third World. According to the World Health Organization, starvation is the greatest single threat to the public health. Starvation is the biggest factor contributing to child mortality, being present in half of all cases. Starvation currently affects more than a billion people, 1 out of every 6 people. Starving people reside almost exclusively in the Third World. This is the case even though the world produces enough food to feed its entire 6 billion population. In fact, enough food is produced to feed twice as many people.

Yet famine and widespread starvation no longer exist for First World peoples. In fact, First World peoples have too much food. According to a 2004 USDA-funded study, Amerikan families throw away 14% of their food. This accounts for 43 billion dollars worth of discarded food by Amerikan households alone. Fast food chains can waste as much as 40% of their food. Supermarkets waste about 1%. And, a shocking 40% to 50% of all food ready for harvest in the US never gets eaten. (3) Commodity markets drive growers in the US to plow under their crops. Amerikans are wasting at least 75 billion dollars in food a year. Amerikans waste several times more food than is needed to stop the crisis in Ethiopia. In addition, the US spends about 1 billion dollars just disposing of its food waste.

There is no reason for anyone on the planet to starve. Enough food is produced so that everyone can eat. The problem is distribution and power. Capitalism-imperialism is a system that distributes too much food to the wealthy countries and too little food to the exploited countries. This is the part of the irrationality, or “anarchy” as Marx put it, at the heart of capitalism. Distribution does not match up with needs. Instead, profits are place ahead of people. The First World eats the Third World.

Sources:

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091022/wl_africa_afp/ethiopiadroughtaid

2. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041122/foodwaste.html

3. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/amerikans-first-worlders-waste-food-third-worlders-starve/

4. http://gadaa.com/oduu/?p=609

[The Douche]

So you think that you are paid more for your labor than you actually produce?


Also, most third-worldists will argue that non-white, and especially non-white women in the first world are exploited.

[Palingenisis]

So you think that you are paid more for your labor than you actually produce?


Also, most third-worldists will argue that non-white, and especially non-white women in the first world are exploited.

No they argue that they are nationally oppressed which is not the same thing.

[The Douche]

No they argue that they are nationally oppressed which is not the same thing.

I'm pretty sure MIM's line was the black/latin/native people were economically exploited (in some cases). As well as nationally oppressed.

[Palingenisis]

I'm pretty sure MIM's line was the black/latin/native people were economically exploited (in some cases). As well as nationally oppressed.

Dont white people in the USA do a lot of the same crap jobs but than somehow they arent exploited because of their skin colour?

[The Vegan Marxist]

So you think that you are paid more for your labor than you actually produce?


Also, most third-worldists will argue that non-white, and especially non-white women in the first world are exploited.

Given that most Americans, or First Worlders, are net beneficiaries of the capitalist system, in which it's been estimated that the majority of First Worlders have computers, have decent homes, have cell phones (or phones for that matter), & even can get enough food for their families (let alone build up families & afford to keep them), then yes, I would say that, when compared to the Third World & those who reside in it, First Worlders are not particularly exploited through their labor. They may not get the right amount of wages that is equal to their labor, but they acquire riches & products that are, in itself, not only benefits from the Capitalist system but are also, in the long run, valuable gains in which came from their labor.

And no, those of color are not seen as being exploited by their color, but rather are oppressed due to their skin color. There's a difference between oppressment & exploitation.

[The Douche]

Dont white people in the USA do a lot of the same crap jobs but than somehow they arent exploited because of their skin colour?

I am not a third-worldist. (obviously?) I am not going to argue for third-worldism.


Given that most Americans, or First Worlders, are net beneficiaries of the capitalist system, in which it's been estimated that the majority of First Worlders have computers, have decent homes, have cell phones (or phones for that matter), & even can get enough food for their families (let alone build up families & afford to keep them), then yes, I would say that, when compared to the Third World & those who reside in it, First Worlders are not particularly exploited through their labor.

Do you understand how exploitation (economic) is defined in a marxist context? It really is not related to material goods. What you're talking about here, is Lenin's "labor aristocracy", which suggests, essentially, that certain workers have been/can be "bought off" by material posessions/access to credit (practically nobody owns a decent home in the US, they mortgage them from a bank), wages, conditions etc.


They may not get the right amount of wages that is equal to their labor, but they acquire riches & products that are, in itself, not only benefits from the Capitalist system but are also, in the long run, valuable gains in which came from their labor.

If your wage does not equal your labor, then you have not been fairly compensated for your labor, which means that somewhere, somebody is profiting from your labor, that is what we call exploitation.


Have first world workers gained a better position in life? Yes, as a product of their own struggles, and yes, because of imperialism/colonialism. But that doesn't mean they are not exploited for their labor.


Third worldism relies on either a) the notion that first world workers make are compensated at a level higher than the wealth they create or b) a non-marxist evaluation of exploitation.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Here's an article that explains what I was talking about above:


The average Joe Amerikan, who is 25 or older, has an income of $32,000 per year. (1) By contrast, most people in the world barely survive on less than $1,000 a year. For example, there are more people in India who make under a dollar a day than there are people residing in the United States. (2) With his high income, the average Amerikan has access to luxuries and a lifestyle that is far out of reach for most people in the world. With this income, a decent house, a car, a computer, stereos, a modern kitchen, swimming pools, education, vacation travel, entertainment, investments, are all within reach of Joe. Joe earns far in excess the value of his labor. With this income, Joe has more access to capital than many capitalists in the Third World. Joe earns far in excess the amount that would be entailed by an egalitarian distribution worldwide. In other words, socialism would entail a big pay cut for Joe. He would lose most of his income according to a global, socialist distribution of income. He would lose his Amerikan lifestyle under socialism. In other words, Joe has about as much interest in socialism as the imperialist bourgeoisie. And he knows it, which is why again and again Joe lines up with his own bourgeoisie against the Third World.

According to the myth, Joe is a blue-collar worker. This image of Joe has been handed down in such characters as Ralph Kramden in the Honeymooners, Dan and Roseanne in Roseanne, or Homer in the Simpsons. The reality is different. The average Amerikan holds a white-collar office job. (3) These jobs are not the backbreaking, body-wrecking, life-ending jobs that many in the Third World endure. By comparison, Joe’s job is incredibly high paying, comfortable, with short hours and long breaks. The culture associated with this kind of job has less in common with the work culture of the proletariat of the Third World, and more in common with the work culture of the bourgeoisie. Also, Joe does not identify himself with the global proletariat, those Marx described as “having nothing to lose but their chains.” It is more common that Joe identifies himself with the traditional bourgeoisie.

According to the myth, the average Amerikan lives in an urban jungle, ghetto or some corner of the backwoods. The reality is that Joe lives in his home in a suburban setting. (4) The suburbs as they now exist largely evolved after World War 2. The affluence of the United States rose sharply as it emerged from the Great Depression and World War 2 as the main, imperialist superpower. The suburban life is part of a utopian vision associated with the pax Americana of the post-war years. To live in the suburbs is often part of what is meant by “living the Amerikan dream.”
Let’s get real. The idea that the average Amerikan is the social base for revolution is ridiculous. There is no way in hell that Joe is going to sacrifice his Amerikan privilege to throw his lot in with those who are truly exploited and oppressed in the Third World. This is true for not only Amerika, it is true of the First World as a whole. At the core of Marx’s conception of the proletariat, of the revolutionary subject, is the idea that the life of the proletarian is a miserable, cruel one. The proletariat is exploited, has nothing but their labor to sell, has nothing but their chains. This, by no reasonable stretch, describes the vast majority of First World peoples. What kind of “Marxism” is it that agitates on behalf of the richest populations in the world? It is social imperialism, social fascism, First Worldist revisionism.

1. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm
2. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/amerikkkans-rich-indians-poor-so-called-icm-deaf-and-dumb/
3. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

[KC]

Given that most Americans, or First Worlders, are net beneficiaries of the capitalist system, in which it's been estimated that the majority of First Worlders have computers, have decent homes, have cell phones (or phones for that matter), & even can get enough food for their families (let alone build up families & afford to keep them), then yes, I would say that, when compared to the Third World & those who reside in it, First Worlders are not particularly exploited through their labor. They may not get the right amount of wages that is equal to their labor, but they acquire riches & products that are, in itself, not only benefits from the Capitalist system but are also, in the long run, valuable gains in which came from their labor.

High level of development in the United States (and/or the low level of development in Ethiopia) does not prove the hypothesis that American workers are living at the expense of others, which was the argument of most dependency theorists that attempted to explain the phenomenon (EDIT: The latter part is the argument, not the former. Most dependency theorists attempted to explain this through surplus flows).

Your example, on the other hand, isn't really an attempt at explanation at all. "They have nice stuff" isn't an argument.

Here is your argument in a nutshell, as you have put it forward:
1. American workers have "nice stuff" and get paid well. They have been relieved for the most part from the most pressing humanitarian issues such as malnutrition.
2. Ethiopian workers don't have this stuff and live in an incredibly low level of development in bad conditions.
3. Therefore, the American workers are living at the expense of Ethiopian workers.

1 and 2 might be true, but 3 does not follow.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I am not a third-worldist. (obviously?) I am not going to argue for third-worldism.



Do you understand how exploitation (economic) is defined in a marxist context? It really is not related to material goods. What you're talking about here, is Lenin's "labor aristocracy", which suggests, essentially, that certain workers have been/can be "bought off" by material posessions/access to credit (practically nobody owns a decent home in the US, they mortgage them from a bank), wages, conditions etc.



If your wage does not equal your labor, then you have not been fairly compensated for your labor, which means that somewhere, somebody is profiting from your labor, that is what we call exploitation.


Have first world workers gained a better position in life? Yes, as a product of their own struggles, and yes, because of imperialism/colonialism. But that doesn't mean they are not exploited for their labor.


Third worldism relies on either a) the notion that first world workers make are compensated at a level higher than the wealth they create or b) a non-marxist evaluation of exploitation.

You may have a point there, but when it comes to the levels of exploitation, the third world takes the win. In fact, first worlders, whether they like it or not, help exploit the third world people, in which ranges from the bourgeois, bourgeoisie, & the working class of the first world. So, yes, the working class may be exploited to that extent under Marxist analysis, but when it comes down to of the numbers & of the amount, the first worlders are of the vast minority of being exploited, which is why M-TW asks for the first world working class to become "class & nation traitors" by siding with the third world proletarians in global revolution against the capitalist exploiters, who, are none other than those of the First World.

[The Douche]

You may have a point there, but when it comes to the levels of exploitation, the third world takes the win. In fact, first worlders, whether they like it or not, help exploit the third world people, in which ranges from the bourgeois, bourgeoisie, & the working class of the first world. So, yes, the working class may be exploited to that extent under Marxist analysis, but when it comes down to of the numbers & of the amount, the first worlders are of the vast minority of being exploited, which is why M-TW asks for the first world working class to become "class & nation traitors" by siding with the third world proletarians in global revolution against the capitalist exploiters, who, are none other than those of the First World.

The call of M-TW is unnecessary, because communism calls for us to act in the interests of our class. All communists are "nation-traitors", but for me to be a class traitor doesn't make sense, I am a worker, just as the other people in my apartment complex are, just as the majority of the US are.


All third worldism really is, is an excuse for burnt out revolutionaries to justify their losses and to quit trying to make revolution in the first world. Third worldism in the US got its start at fucking Harvard, do you see the absurdity of a harvard student telling me I'm not working class?

[The Vegan Marxist]

High level of development in the United States (and/or the low level of development in Ethiopia) does not prove the hypothesis that American workers are living at the expense of others, which was the argument of most dependency theorists that attempted to explain the phenomenon (EDIT: The latter part is the argument, not the former. Most dependency theorists attempted to explain this through surplus flows).

Your example, on the other hand, isn't really an attempt at explanation at all. "They have nice stuff" isn't an argument.

Here is your argument in a nutshell, as you have put it forward:
1. American workers have "nice stuff" and get paid well. They have been relieved for the most part from the most pressing humanitarian issues such as malnutrition.
2. Ethiopian workers don't have this stuff and live in an incredibly low level of development in bad conditions.
3. Therefore, the American workers are living at the expense of Ethiopian workers.

1 and 2 might be true, but 3 does not follow.

The products in which are granted to us as benefits from the Capitalist First World system were developed through the harm & exploitation of Third World countries & those who live in it. Then, if you look at the environment & its effect that it has to third world countries, these are put into effect due to First World harm & exploitation to the environment, which is helped developed under the majority of every-day lives by every-day citizens of said First Worlds.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The call of M-TW is unnecessary, because communism calls for us to act in the interests of our class. All communists are "nation-traitors", but for me to be a class traitor doesn't make sense, I am a worker, just as the other people in my apartment complex are, just as the majority of the US are.


All third worldism really is, is an excuse for burnt out revolutionaries to justify their losses and to quit trying to make revolution in the first world. Third worldism in the US got its start at fucking Harvard, do you see the absurdity of a harvard student telling me I'm not working class?

So you want to help bring more to the working class who live in the first world? Well, even if this was to happen, you're still acting as net-beneficiaries to the materialist world that takes place in first word countries, in which are helped developed through the exploitation & harm to those of the third world. Sure, after the revolution you might be able to end all such benefits & such, but at what cost does it bring to those of the third world for this to finally be able to happen?

[KC]

The products in which are granted to us as benefits from the Capitalist First World system were developed through the harm & exploitation of Third World countries & those who live in it.

Well, there are a wealth of problems associated with such a simplistic analysis, you know. I could write an entire laundry list of questions relating to the presumptions hidden behind this single sentence.

What is the First World? What is the Third World? What about the countries that don't fit into either category? Where do they stand in this analysis? What justification do you have for the presumption that the "First World" countries are somehow masters of their own fate while the "Third World" countries are not? What of the presumption that somehow the First World countries are the only ones to benefit in this exchange, entirely at the expense of the Third World countries?

I could go on and on. The vague statement you made above hides so many presumptions that are incredibly suspect. While I disagree with most dependency theorists, I at least commend them and respect them for attempting to expound their beliefs in a sound theoretical manner.



Then, if you look at the environment & its effect that it has to third world countries, these are put into effect due to First World harm & exploitation to the environment, which is helped developed under the majority of every-day lives by every-day citizens of said First Worlds.

You realize that the vast majority of environmental damage is coming from developing countries, right?

[The Douche]

So you want to help bring more to the working class who live in the first world? Well, even if this was to happen, you're still acting as net-beneficiaries to the materialist world that takes place in first word countries, in which are helped developed through the exploitation & harm to those of the third world. Sure, after the revolution you might be able to end all such benefits & such, but at what cost does it bring to those of the third world for this to finally be able to happen?

You have proven this point:


All third worldism really is, is an excuse for burnt out revolutionaries to justify their losses and to quit trying to make revolution in the first world.

The irony is that you've probably only been involved in radical politics for a year or two.

I'm not trying to insult you, but I've seen you go from anarchist, to marxist, to maoist, now to third worldist in just a few months. I wouldn't be suprised if you make a jump to radical islam soon, or hopefully, chill out with trying to find the "most revolutionary" tendency, commit to learning and getting active, and be a productive communist.




If you think communism is about "bringing more to the working class", then I'm not convinced you know what communism is.

[Chimurenga.]

Here's an article that explains what I was talking about above:


The average Joe Amerikan, who is 25 or older, has an income of $32,000 per year. (1) By contrast, most people in the world barely survive on less than $1,000 a year. For example, there are more people in India who make under a dollar a day than there are people residing in the United States. (2) With his high income, the average Amerikan has access to luxuries and a lifestyle that is far out of reach for most people in the world. With this income, a decent house, a car, a computer, stereos, a modern kitchen, swimming pools, education, vacation travel, entertainment, investments, are all within reach of Joe. Joe earns far in excess the value of his labor. With this income, Joe has more access to capital than many capitalists in the Third World. Joe earns far in excess the amount that would be entailed by an egalitarian distribution worldwide. In other words, socialism would entail a big pay cut for Joe. He would lose most of his income according to a global, socialist distribution of income. He would lose his Amerikan lifestyle under socialism. In other words, Joe has about as much interest in socialism as the imperialist bourgeoisie. And he knows it, which is why again and again Joe lines up with his own bourgeoisie against the Third World.

According to the myth, Joe is a blue-collar worker. This image of Joe has been handed down in such characters as Ralph Kramden in the Honeymooners, Dan and Roseanne in Roseanne, or Homer in the Simpsons. The reality is different. The average Amerikan holds a white-collar office job. (3) These jobs are not the backbreaking, body-wrecking, life-ending jobs that many in the Third World endure. By comparison, Joe’s job is incredibly high paying, comfortable, with short hours and long breaks. The culture associated with this kind of job has less in common with the work culture of the proletariat of the Third World, and more in common with the work culture of the bourgeoisie. Also, Joe does not identify himself with the global proletariat, those Marx described as “having nothing to lose but their chains.” It is more common that Joe identifies himself with the traditional bourgeoisie.

According to the myth, the average Amerikan lives in an urban jungle, ghetto or some corner of the backwoods. The reality is that Joe lives in his home in a suburban setting. (4) The suburbs as they now exist largely evolved after World War 2. The affluence of the United States rose sharply as it emerged from the Great Depression and World War 2 as the main, imperialist superpower. The suburban life is part of a utopian vision associated with the pax Americana of the post-war years. To live in the suburbs is often part of what is meant by “living the Amerikan dream.”
Let’s get real. The idea that the average Amerikan is the social base for revolution is ridiculous. There is no way in hell that Joe is going to sacrifice his Amerikan privilege to throw his lot in with those who are truly exploited and oppressed in the Third World. This is true for not only Amerika, it is true of the First World as a whole. At the core of Marx’s conception of the proletariat, of the revolutionary subject, is the idea that the life of the proletarian is a miserable, cruel one. The proletariat is exploited, has nothing but their labor to sell, has nothing but their chains. This, by no reasonable stretch, describes the vast majority of First World peoples. What kind of “Marxism” is it that agitates on behalf of the richest populations in the world? It is social imperialism, social fascism, First Worldist revisionism.

1. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/03200.../new03_001.htm (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm)
2. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress...deaf-and-dumb/ (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/amerikkkans-rich-indians-poor-so-called-icm-deaf-and-dumb/)
3. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

Am I the only person that finds this extremely pretentious?

[The Douche]

Am I the only person that finds this extremely pretentious?

Of course it is. But its from a sect so tiny, so insignificant, and so inactive that it doesn't warrant critique.

[KC]

Am I the only person that finds this extremely pretentious?Pretty much. $32,000 a year really isn't as much as he attempts to make it out to be. You can't really compare the income of someone in the US with the income of someone in India so simply. Hell, you can't even really do that in the US. In NYC $32,000 is nothing; in Texas it's plenty. Income means nothing if you don't know what the cost of living is.

That's the problem with Maoism-Third-Worldism; it's based on a ton of very shallow, simplistic statements that are disproven by a casual examination of the facts.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You have proven this point:



The irony is that you've probably only been involved in radical politics for a year or two.

I'm not trying to insult you, but I've seen you go from anarchist, to marxist, to maoist, now to third worldist in just a few months. I wouldn't be suprised if you make a jump to radical islam soon, or hopefully, chill out with trying to find the "most revolutionary" tendency, commit to learning and getting active, and be a productive communist.




If you think communism is about "bringing more to the working class", then I'm not convinced you know what communism is.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that those of the third world have a larger degree in being able to come together & give up what they have in life in order to fight for a future that everyone can benefit from, because those of third world, in which is the majority of the world, have really nothing to lose because it was taken away from them due to the exploitation & harm done against them by those in the first world. Those in the first world who do care, which are of the minority of said world, would help them in global revolution in dismantling the first world, in which relieves majority exploitation & harm done to the majority of the world.

[The Douche]

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that those of the third world have a larger degree in being able to come together & give up what they have in life in order to fight for a future that everyone can benefit from, because those of third world, in which is the majority of the world, have really nothing to lose because it was taken away from them due to the exploitation & harm done against them by those in the first world. Those in the first world who do care, which are of the minority of said world, would help them in global revolution in dismantling the first world, in which relieves majority exploitation & harm done to the majority of the world.

What you describe there is not the same as third worldism. What you describe is global revolution, but you did make an error in your terminology. We don't need to "dismantle the first world" we need to dismantle capitalism.

Third-worldism means first world workers are not exploited and can't make revolution, they have to be invaded by the revolutionary third world. Its a post-marxist ideology of despair.

[The Vegan Marxist]

That is revisionism (which means abandoning the basic principles of Marxism). The first world workers do not exploit the third world people. Of course, as Lenin said, there are undeniably sections of the first world workers who belong to the labor aristocracy (trade union bureaucrats and "labor" party bosses) and identify with the interests of the bourgeoisie, but to consider everyone in the first world as labor aristocrats is just not Marxist.

How do first world workers not exploit or do harm to those in the third world? The sole benefits we indulge ourselves with were helped developed by the very exploitation done against those of the third world.

[Robocommie]

How do first world workers not exploit or do harm to those in the third world? The sole benefits we indulge ourselves with were helped developed by the very exploitation done against those of the third world.

It's a question of direct involvement. The workers aren't generally the ones sending the Marines to Iraq in order to secure a pipeline for Halliburton, even though they do partially benefit from the resulting cheaper oil.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's a question of direct involvement. The workers aren't generally the ones sending the Marines to Iraq in order to secure a pipeline for Halliburton, even though they do partially benefit from the resulting cheaper oil.

In which those who benefit from such remain in such indulgence, which then only allows for it to continue. They may not directly exploit & harm those of the third world, but they help play a part in such actions, whether they agree with it or not.

[KC]

How do first world workers not exploit or do harm to those in the third world? The sole benefits we indulge ourselves with were helped developed by the very exploitation done against those of the third world.

Purchasing a product made in the "Third World" (which you have yet to define) has nothing to do with "exploiting" them. If that were the case then workers have always been exploiting other workers because they all buy commodities.

Maybe you should go back to my previous post and answer the questions posed to you.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Purchasing a product made in the "Third World" (which you have yet to define) has nothing to do with "exploiting" them. If that were the case then workers have always been exploiting other workers because they all buy commodities.

Maybe you should go back to my previous post and answer the questions posed to you.

Actually, the purchase of products that were helped developed through the exploitation of those in the third world is just as much as exploiting them yourself. You're continuing the process by purchasing the products.

[KC]

Actually, the purchase of products that were helped developed through the exploitation of those in the third world is just as much as exploiting them yourself. You're continuing the process by purchasing the products.

You really need to stop and think about what you're saying. Everyone is involved in the perpetuation of the capitalist world system in general. Even you. Even the "Third World" workers.

[Robocommie]

Actually, the purchase of products that were helped developed through the exploitation of those in the third world is just as much as exploiting them yourself. You're continuing the process by purchasing the products.

As you know I agree with some of your points, but I want to point out that this approach would suggest that simply dropping out, living in a commune and adopting freeganism would be the only real option for first worlders.

[The Douche]

How do first world workers not exploit or do harm to those in the third world? The sole benefits we indulge ourselves with were helped developed by the very exploitation done against those of the third world.

So you will end exploitation by what? Ending your efforts to organize for communist revolution? How does that make sense, that is, afterall, what third worldism suggests.

You will "support third world revolutionary movements"? What does that mean, if anything, but organizing for communism in your community?

[The Vegan Marxist]

As you know I agree with some of your points, but I want to point out that this approach would suggest that simply dropping out, living in a commune and adopting freeganism would be the only real option for first worlders.

No, what I'm saying is that, as a first worlder myself, I can't help the fact that I'm a net-beneficiary to the products in which help exploit those in the third world. But I can help bring about a better conscious on such thoughts, in which could help lower such use of products &, when the time is right, to finally leave & help those of the third world with global revolution. We're trying to destroy capitalism here, not simply to give some workers better benefits. This is a long-term ideal, not a short-term beneficiary cause.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So you will end exploitation by what? Ending your efforts to organize for communist revolution? How does that make sense, that is, afterall, what third worldism suggests.

You will "support third world revolutionary movements"? What does that mean, if anything, but organizing for communism in your community?

I never said to stop trying to organize for such. In fact, I would want you to organize people who understand how far Capitalism reaches & how much the First World helps in such. That way, when global revolution happens, there'll be those in the first world willing to fight with those of the third world. Global revolution will be led by those of the third world, not within the first world.

[The Douche]

No, what I'm saying is that, as a first worlder myself, I can't help the fact that I'm a net-beneficiary to the products in which help exploit those in the third world. But I can help bring about a better conscious on such thoughts, in which could help lower such use of products &, when the time is right, to finally leave & help those of the third world with global revolution. We're trying to destroy capitalism here, not simply to give some workers better benefits. This is a long-term ideal, not a short-term beneficiary cause.

Yeah...Indians will never be able to make revolution without your help...:blink:


If you want to help revolutionaries in the third world, then fight for communism where you are.

[The Douche]

I never said to stop trying to organize for such. In fact, I would want you to organize people who understand how far Capitalism reaches & how much the First World helps in such. That way, when global revolution happens, there'll be those in the first world willing to fight with those of the third world. Global revolution will be led by those of the third world, not within the first world.

No.

Global revolution will be led by the working class...welcome to marxism 101.

[KC]

Okay, I'm sick of this. What the fuck is the "First World" and what the fuck is the "Third World" to you?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Okay, I'm sick of this. What the fuck is the "First World" and what the fuck is the "Third World" to you?

Why the fuck do I have to answer that question when it's quite fucking simple to make clear dis-comparisons on ones lifestyle in the areas they live?

[KC]

Why the fuck do I have to answer that question when it's quite fucking simple to make clear dis-comparisons on ones lifestyle in the areas they live?

You have to answer that question because it is the krux of your entire world view, and if that doesn't hold up to scrutiny then your entire world view is flawed at its core.

[Robocommie]

It usually is best to define your terms at the beginning of a debate just to make sure everyone is on the same page.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No.

Global revolution will be led by the working class...welcome to marxism 101.

Yes, I know this. But who of the working class in first world countries are willing to fight for global revolution? Not many right now, which is why it's important to help organize those willing in the first world, & when global revolution is implemented, then you can help those of the majority working class, which are part of the Third World, by waging such. Never have I discredited the workers in forming global revolution. I'm saying it'll be led by those of the third world, while those in the first world who are willing to fight for such will help them.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You have to answer that question because it is the krux of your entire world view, and if that doesn't hold up to scrutiny then your entire world view is flawed at its core.

First World: Those who, of the majority, live a life of benefits in which play as a benefactor in actions such as exploitation of impoverished lands, imperialism, & environmental harm.

Third World: Those exploited & harmed to such an extent that the vast majority live a life of no benefits at all (except possibly the love by their families). Those who work most of the day, & still live a life of no beneficial attributes put in place to them.

[The Douche]

Yes, I know this. But who of the working class in first world countries are willing to fight for global revolution? Not many right now, which is why it's important to help organize those willing in the first world, & when global revolution is implemented, then you can help those of the majority working class, which are part of the Third World, by waging such. Never have I discredited the workers in forming global revolution. I'm saying it'll be led by those of the third world, while those in the first world who are willing to fight for such will help them.

Not many in the first world are ready to fight for communism, because we (as revolutionaries) have not yet succeeded. The majority of the third world is also not ready to fight for communism.

You need to back up your belief that the third world will lead revolution. (you do believe that, you only paid lip service to the notion of "worker's revolution) It seems to be that you think that only because workers in the first world have more toys.

[KC]

First World: Those who, of the majority, live a life of benefits in which play as a benefactor in actions such as exploitation of impoverished lands, imperialism, & environmental harm.

Third World: Those exploited & harmed to such an extent that the vast majority live a life of no benefits at all (except possibly the love by their families). Those who work most of the day, & still live a life of no beneficial attributes put in place to them.The problem is that this is an entirely subjective definition. What does "live a life of benefits" mean? What does "play as a benefactor" mean? What is a "beneficial attribute"?

These definitions are essentially meaningless because of their incredibly subjective quality.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not many in the first world are ready to fight for communism, because we (as revolutionaries) have not yet succeeded. The majority of the third world is also not ready to fight for communism.

You need to back up your belief that the third world will lead revolution. (you do believe that, you only paid lip service to the notion of "worker's revolution) It seems to be that you think that only because workers in the first world have more toys.

No, rather that most first worlders, & this includes those of the working class, are benefiters to the system. In which will play out as a factor in where they lay their support to. A bourgeoisie benefit system or for a system in which, may not reach the hight of a first world, but a world which benefits all to some extent.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The problem is that this is an entirely subjective definition. What does "live a life of benefits" mean? What does "play as a benefactor" mean? What is a "beneficial attribute"?

These definitions are essentially meaningless because of their incredibly subjective quality.

"Live a life of benefits": things that play into one's life that helps them move along in life, whether it helps out on others well being or not.

"Play as a benefactor": Helps continue such actions to happen, & may very well help justify them as well.

[KC]

"Live a life of benefits": things that play into one's life that helps them move along in life, whether it helps out on others well being or not.

"Play as a benefactor": Helps continue such actions to happen, & may very well help justify them as well.

These are still just as vague and therefore meaningless definitions. You can't base a theoretical framework on subjective determinations.

[Saorsa]

High level of development in the United States (and/or the low level of development in Ethiopia) does not prove the hypothesis that American workers are living at the expense of others, which was the argument of most dependency theorists that attempted to explain the phenomenon (EDIT: The latter part is the argument, not the former. Most dependency theorists attempted to explain this through surplus flows).

Your example, on the other hand, isn't really an attempt at explanation at all. "They have nice stuff" isn't an argument.

Here is your argument in a nutshell, as you have put it forward:
1. American workers have "nice stuff" and get paid well. They have been relieved for the most part from the most pressing humanitarian issues such as malnutrition.
2. Ethiopian workers don't have this stuff and live in an incredibly low level of development in bad conditions.
3. Therefore, the American workers are living at the expense of Ethiopian workers.

1 and 2 might be true, but 3 does not follow.

^ This.

TVM, Third Worldism is a deviation from Maoism that is not based on Maoism's core - concrete analysis of concrete conditions. While at a glance the world may seem to be the way you describe, with privileged sections in the West and underprivileged sections in the rest of the World, and while it may seem to explain things very nicely if you say the privileged sections maintain their privilege at the expense of the rest of the world, it simply isn't true.

The ruling classes in the imperialist countries have kept the rest of the world underdeveloped and backward. But at the same time as they do this, they also exploit workers at home. Nobody can tell me a white cleaner in Washington DC is not being exploited, it simply isn't true.

Other people have made most of the arguments I would have put forward myself, but I'll make one further point. Read some of the stuff Mao wrote about the struggles in the imperialist countries - he didn't view the proletariat there as exploiters.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ This.

TVM, Third Worldism is a deviation from Maoism that is not based on Maoism's core - concrete analysis of concrete conditions. While at a glance the world may seem to be the way you describe, with privileged sections in the West and underprivileged sections in the rest of the World, and while it may seem to explain things very nicely if you say the privileged sections maintain their privilege at the expense of the rest of the world, it simply isn't true.

The ruling classes in the imperialist countries have kept the rest of the world underdeveloped and backward. But at the same time as they do this, they also exploit workers at home. Nobody can tell me a white cleaner in Washington DC is not being exploited, it simply isn't true.

Other people have made most of the arguments I would have put forward myself, but I'll make one further point. Read some of the stuff Mao wrote about the struggles in the imperialist countries - he didn't view the proletariat there as exploiters.

All in all, I've already agreed with the arguments that there is a level of exploitation in the first world, but Third Worldism & Maoism-Third Worldism is different from each other, where M-TW plays into, not whether a first worlder is exploited or not, but rather the level of exploitation & the lack of there being proletarians in the first world.

[Saorsa]

Being part of the proletariat isn't based on the 'level' of your exploitation. It's based on your relationship to the production process, i.e. do you sell your labour-power to someone else in exchange for a wage?

Workers, who sell their ability to work to a capitalist, are exploited. They are not exploiters, whether they live in Ethiopia or London.

[KC]

The ruling classes in the imperialist countries have kept the rest of the world underdeveloped and backward.

I of course disagree with this. If we wanted to be dogmatic I could say that this goes against the classical Marxist theory of Imperialism put forward by Lenin/Bukharin/Hilferding, but that wouldn't really be productive. It's worth mentioning though because a lot of people attempt to reconcile dependency theory with the classical theory of Imperialism, which doesn't work because the two are in direct contradiction with one another.

But I digress. Dependency theory has largely been discredited in its failure to be applied to the development of capitalism in the "periphery" since the end of WW2.

But you're a Maoist and I'm not, so I wouldn't expect anything else from you. I doubt us discussing it would get us anywhere.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Being part of the proletariat isn't based on the 'level' of your exploitation. It's based on your relationship to the production process, i.e. do you sell your labour-power to someone else in exchange for a wage?

Workers, who sell their ability to work to a capitalist, are exploited. They are not exploiters, whether they live in Ethiopia or London.

They help the process of exploitation though, whether they agree with it or not.

[The Douche]

All in all, I've already agreed with the arguments that there is a level of exploitation in the first world, but Third Worldism & Maoism-Third Worldism is different from each other, where M-TW plays into, not whether a first worlder is exploited or not, but rather the level of exploitation & the lack of there being proletarians in the first world.

False. The majority if the first world are proletarians, and therefor, are exploited.

Again, M-TW, and your arguement, relies on the notion that people in the first world have lots of toys and therefor they will never revolt. Which provides you justification to abandon the communist movement, and either sit back and "support third world movements", or to endorse anything which is anti-american. (hence why some people from MIM became quite cozy with islamism before they split up)

[Saorsa]

But I digress. Dependency theory has largely been discredited in its failure to be applied to the development of capitalism in the "periphery" since the end of WW2.

A discussion for another thread, perhaps? I would argue that this is true - capitalism has been developing around the world, with humanity increasingly shifting into the cities and away from the countryside - but at the same time as that, the way capitalism has developed in the neo-colonies and the level of development it has been able to reach has been held back and deformed by imperialism.


They help the process of exploitation though, whether they agree with it or not.

You mean the process of their own exploitation? Or somebody elses? I don't think they 'help' the process at all.

[The Vegan Marxist]

False. The majority if the first world are proletarians, and therefor, are exploited.

Again, M-TW, and your arguement, relies on the notion that people in the first world have lots of toys and therefor they will never revolt. Which provides you justification to abandon the communist movement, and either sit back and "support third world movements", or to endorse anything which is anti-american. (hence why some people from MIM became quite cozy with islamism before they split up)

Just so you know, I'm not a M-TW'ist. I'm just someone who's trying to help understand it myself & use the arguments of such into action & see where it leads me. I'm someone who gets their arguments, & in a lot of ways are right about a lot of things. But in things like you point out, you make a point, which then helps me understand what is wrong from M-TW, & weigh it out to what is right from it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

A discussion for another thread, perhaps? I would argue that this is true - capitalism has been developing around the world, with humanity increasingly shifting into the cities and away from the countryside - but at the same time as that, the way capitalism has developed in the neo-colonies and the level of development it has been able to reach has been held back and deformed by imperialism.



You mean the process of their own exploitation? Or somebody elses? I don't think they 'help' the process at all.

As in, we benefit by the items developed for us within the Capitalist system. Even when the development of such causes exploitation against those within the third world. When we remain purchasing said items, we are continuing the process in which is developed through the exploitation of those in the third world. Yes, we in the first world can't really do anything about it, which makes it even more harmful for those in the third world.

[The Douche]

Just so you know, I'm not a M-TW'ist. I'm just someone who's trying to help understand it myself & use the arguments of such into action & see where it leads me. I'm someone who gets their arguments, & in a lot of ways are right about a lot of things. But in things like you point out, you make a point, which then helps me understand what is wrong from M-TW, & weigh it out to what is right from it.

You're defending it quite heartily. And instead of actually defending to position or justifying it, you keep repeating the same things, even though every poster in the thread has completely pulled apart every aspect of third worldism.


I mean, its a neat idea, and its quite comforting, cause it entitles you to stop the hard and depressing work of a revolutionary. Instead of practicing a little self-criticism (lol, do I get mao points for that?) and figuring out what we're doing wrong, and what we need to start doing we can say. "First world workers aren't exploited, they're exploiters, thats why they won't listen to me, so we'll just wait for the first world to be encircled and invaded by the third world".

[The Douche]

As in, we benefit by the items developed for us within the Capitalist system. Even when the development of such causes exploitation against those within the third world. When we remain purchasing said items, we are continuing the process in which is developed through the exploitation of those in the third world. Yes, we in the first world can't really do anything about it, which makes it even more harmful for those in the third world.

We can have communist revolution. But not according to third worldists, of course.

[KC]

but at the same time as that, the way capitalism has developed in the neo-colonies and the level of development it has been able to reach has been held back and deformed by imperialism.This doesn't really make sense; imperialism, if we are attempting to formulate a new definition (which we are), can't be a component of itself. This "holding back" might be a constituent part of a new theory of imperialism, but it certainly doesn't make any sense to say that it's "caused by imperialism".

Moreover, development has happened incredibly unevenly, so we can't really generalize and say that this applies universally or even generally.

Finally, development or underdevelopment are caused by a whole variety of domestic factors that change from country to country.

The problem with almost all theories that have come out since the end of WW2 have been that they have abstracted to a point where they are able to construct a general theory, but the theory will emphasize some of these aspects at the expense of the others, sometimes not even taking them all into account. The problem has been in constructing a coherent and complete theory of imperialism that explains the development of capitalism since the end of WW2 which takes all of these aspects into account comprehensively.

This might be appropriate in another thread, but it's just as appropriate here, considering that this is exactly what this thread is about, if we abstract from the particulars.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You're defending it quite heartily. And instead of actually defending to position or justifying it, you keep repeating the same things, even though every poster in the thread has completely pulled apart every aspect of third worldism.


I mean, its a neat idea, and its quite comforting, cause it entitles you to stop the hard and depressing work of a revolutionary. Instead of practicing a little self-criticism (lol, do I get mao points for that?) and figuring out what we're doing wrong, and what we need to start doing we can say. "First world workers aren't exploited, they're exploiters, thats why they won't listen to me, so we'll just wait for the first world to be encircled and invaded by the third world".

Actually, I believe my arguments were being taken out completely, & left room for me to continue the arguments. Not only will it help me understand it more, but also help those who are debating the contrary in knowing what they're debating against & what is needed to say to justify their arguments.

[The Vegan Marxist]

We can have communist revolution. But not according to third worldists, of course.

I'm speaking in short terms on what first world workers can do to help stop the continuance of third world exploitation. Long term wise, yes, you're right.

[The Douche]

I'm speaking in short terms on what first world workers can do to help stop the continuance of third world exploitation. Long term wise, yes, you're right.

I think you've been around this stuff long enough to know that there is no such thing as a "short-term" solution to capitalism and imperialism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think you've been around this stuff long enough to know that there is no such thing as a "short-term" solution to capitalism and imperialism.

Of course, which is why I said we, as first worlders, can't really do anything about the fact that we are helping such exploitation to continue. The only options we have right now are to organize.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think you've been around this stuff long enough to know that there is no such thing as a "short-term" solution to capitalism and imperialism.

btw, to your earlier claim of me being a revolutionary activist for only a couple years, I use to be an anarchist for the majority of my political life, which has been just over 7 years now. This forum just helped me get a hold of such a life & become more scientific within such a movement.

[The Douche]

Of course, which is why I said we, as first worlders, can't really do anything about the fact that we are helping such exploitation to continue. The only options we have right now are to organize.

Then you are not a third worldist.


But, we are not "helping the exploitation continue", isn't a third world worker furthering exploitation when they purchase something as well? Don't you see how illogical that train of thought is?

[The Douche]

btw, to your earlier claim of me being a revolutionary activist for only a couple years, I use to be an anarchist for the majority of my political life, which has been just over 7 years now. This forum just helped me get a hold of such a life & become more scientific within such a movement.

I'm not gonna call you a liar, but the way which you present your arguements, and the way you have jumped through ideologies leads me to believe otherwise.

If you had been an active revolutionary for 7 years then you would have encountered these kind of debates and discussions before, and you wouldn't have switched ideology so many times in a few months.

I had met and engaged with people from pretty much every organization and every tendency after about a year or two into my becoming active. I don't think thats rare either.

I don't doubt, however, that you have been interested in, and considered yourself a revolutionary for 7 years though.



But that discussion is totally irrelevant.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Then you are not a third worldist.


But, we are not "helping the exploitation continue", isn't a third world worker furthering exploitation when they purchase something as well? Don't you see how illogical that train of thought is?

Not a third worldist lol. Plus, from what I've learned, there's a difference between Third Worldism & M-TW.

Besides, the majority of third worldists are not in the position of being able to purchase anything, in which we can see as criminal activities are highly present within such areas.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm not gonna call you a liar, but the way which you present your arguements, and the way you have jumped through ideologies leads me to believe otherwise.

If you had been an active revolutionary for 7 years then you would have encountered these kind of debates and discussions before, and you wouldn't have switched ideology so many times in a few months.

I had met and engaged with people from pretty much every organization and every tendency after about a year or two into my becoming active. I don't think thats rare either.

I don't doubt, however, that you have been interested in, and considered yourself a revolutionary for 7 years though.



But that discussion is totally irrelevant.

wouldn't say particularly revolutionary under Marxism, because I was an anarchist who, although against capitalism, saw anarchism as a different ideology from Marxism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm also not a Maoist. I'm a Marxist, but I support the Maoist movements taking place in Nepal, India, & the Philippines. I don't know much about Maoism to consider myself as a Maoist. I'm still in the need to learn a lot when it comes to Maoism.

[The Grey Blur]

The idea that 'first-world' workers are not exploited, live priveliged existences etc, can only come from a complete and utter isolation from the working class, and especially the organised and most class-conscious elements of it. The OP's ideas, as with most of the crazier ideologies spouted on revleft, can only come from a complete disconnection from the real world and real struggles.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The idea that 'first-world' workers are not exploited, live priveliged existences etc, can only come from a complete and utter isolation from the working class, and especially the organised and most class-conscious elements of it. The OP's ideas, as with most of the crazier ideologies spouted on revleft, can only come from a complete disconnection from the real world and real struggles.

How about reading through the entire thread. You'll see that I'm not a M-TWist. Rest for you to find out.

[The Douche]

Not a third worldist lol. Plus, from what I've learned, there's a difference between Third Worldism & M-TW.

Besides, the majority of third worldists are not in the position of being able to purchase anything, in which we can see as criminal activities are highly present within such areas.

No, there is not a difference between "third worldism" and "maoist-third worldism".


Actually the majority of third worldists can purchase lots, cause they are middle class graduate students. The Nepalese Maoists are not "third worldists", they are Maoists.


wouldn't say particularly revolutionary under Marxism, because I was an anarchist who, although against capitalism, saw anarchism as a different ideology from Marxism.

They are different ideologies, but I'm saying, if you had been an active anarchist for 7 years, then you would have encountered plenty of marxists, from virtually every tendency and organization, had experience working with then and talking to them, and would be familiar with their ideas. But that didn't happen for you til you got to this website, so like I said, it looks like you haven't been active for very long. Its not like its a big deal.

[Palingenisis]

They are different ideologies, but I'm saying, if you had been an active anarchist for 7 years, then you would have encountered plenty of marxists, from virtually every tendency and organization, had experience working with then and talking to them, and would be familiar with their ideas. But that didn't happen for you til you got to this website, so like I said, it looks like you haven't been active for very long. Its not like its a big deal.

There is a grey area between them. Some anarchists are extremely to council-communism and people like Jean Barrot and Jacques Camatte are pretty influential over a lot of anarchists.

[The Douche]

There is a grey area between them. Some anarchists are extremely to council-communism and people like Jean Barrot and Jacques Camatte are pretty influential over a lot of anarchists.

Virtually every anarchist I know utilizes marxist economic analysis. (not all of them admit it, but they do in fact use it) But they are seperate ideologies, especially when it comes to organizations, there are virtually no groups the include both anarchists and marxists on an even scale. Of course more anti-statist marxist groups will have some anarchists involved, and some anarchist groups will have left-communists and autonomists involved, the ideologies are still different (with overlap).


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

[KC]

From the little I know, this discrediting has been done by free market theorists. I don't know if you're advocating free market economics or if you have some alternative criticism of dependency theory.:rolleyes:

I think it's quite obvious that I'm not "advocating free market economics". Yes, there have been a lot of non-Marxist economists that have criticized dependency theory, but there have been Marxist economists as well. Moreover, just because an economist is not a Marxist does not automatically mean either that they are a "free market economist" or that their criticism doesn't hold any water.

Things aren't so black and white, and while I can recognize that non-Marxist economists might have at least something to add to a critique of dependency theory, I also think that dependency theory has some traits that we can learn from; unfortunately, taken as a whole it is fundamentally flawed.

I have outlined some of the most obvious criticisms in my posts in this thread, but there certainly are others, especially when you get into specific theories and specific writers.

There are Marxist critiques, but I suggest you check out many of the non-Marxist critiques as well, because a lot of them contain at least some validity. I also suggest that you don't rely on Wikipedia for your analysis, which contains probably the least important critiques, at least from a political economy perspective (which is what we are concerned with).

[bailey_187]

KC, you say about the need for a new theory of Imperialism. Could you recommend me some reading on Imperialism?

[KC]

KC, you say about the need for a new theory of Imperialism. Could you recommend me some reading on Imperialism?

What do you want specifically? Imperialism is a very broad subject. If you want to read about the classical Marxist theory of imperialism I'd suggest the following:

Marx, Karl - Capital, Vols. I-III
Luxemburg, Rosa - The Accumulation of Capital
Luxemburg, Rosa - The Accumulation of Capital: An Anti-Critique
Hobson, J.A. - Imperialism: A Study
Hilferding, Rudolf - Finance Capital
Bukharin, Nikolai - Imperialism and World Economy
Bukharin, Nikolai - Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital
Lenin, V.I. - The Development of Capitalism in Russia
Lenin, V.I. - Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

These are for the most part the essential primary sources regarding the classical theory. I've also listed them in more or less chronological order, so you could probably read them in that order if you want a complete understanding.

As for what has come later, that all really depends. There have been a lot of writers on dependency theory and imperialism theory since the 40's, so there's a lot to choose from. Moreover, most critiques come down to critiques of specific systems and not dependency theory in general, which is why I haven't recommended any specific works on that in this thread. Some famous Marxist dependency theorists, if you're interested in learning more about it, are Sweezy/Baran, Amin, Frank/Wallerstein and Emmanuel; although there are many others, these are probably the most well known.

[#FF0000]

there's not a single first worlder who's being exploited through their work

Do you know what "exploitation" is, in the Marxist sense?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Do you know what "exploitation" is, in the Marxist sense?

Did you just decide to quote this one section of the entire thread, or have you actually read through the entire thing? If you did read the entire thread, then you wouldn't be asking me that question any longer.

hint: I don't actually believe exploitation is non-existent within the First World. Not if one goes by Marxist analysis that is.