Does the "First world" owe the "Third world" a debt?

[Obzervi]

Considering that the reason the First world is rich is because of hundreds of years of exploitation of the Third world, does it stand to reason that it owes the Third world a certain percentage of its wealth? Even the lower classes in the First world have benefited from this exploitation, as evidenced by the fact that the "poor" in First world countries are living lives which would be considered relatively luxurious in Third world countries. Do you feel that wealth should be equalized between the First world and Third world?

[KC]

What is the "First World" and the "Third World"?

[Obzervi]

What is the "First World" and the "Third World"?
Well the reason I put it in quotations is because its not clearly defined, but in the mainstream "First world" refers to western European countries and North America while "Third" world refers to the majority of the world which is impoverished.

[Red Saxon]

Do you feel that wealth should be equalized between the First world and Third world?Wealth implies money, which I am completely against.

If you're talking about standard of living, let the 'third world' build themselves up instead of relying on Capitalism to share the wealth.

[Scary Monster]

Wealth implies money, which I am completely against.

If you're talking about standard of living, let the 'third world' build themselves up instead of relying on Capitalism to share the wealth.

LOL The third world just cant "stop relying on capitalism" you buffoon. The third world has been fighting capitalist imperialism for the past 60 years! The only reason capitalism exists in their countries is because its been forced on em. The US installs an authoritarian dictatorship in a third world country in order to have unhindered access to its resources and ultra cheap labor. If the people rise against em, they are mowed down with machine guns, tortured and bombed. This has been the routine for the past centuries.

Anyhoo, to the OP- thats exactly what communism is all about--letting the entire world benefit from industrialization equally. This is no mere idealism either. We have advanced to a point where we can literally feed our entire planet's population several times over, yet all this wealth is hoarded up in the largest concentration of capital- the first world. To put it crudely and simple, this is because the first world has all the money, and so are the only ones able to buy stuff. This is just how capitalism works. Capital becomes more and more centralized over time. Communism gets rid of these, and gives based on people's needs. *We posses the capacity to provide necessities for all. Communism achieves this.

[Red Saxon]

LOL The third world just cant "stop relying on capitalism" you buffoon. I'm not going to listen to anyone who resorts to name calling to push their opinions on others, I'd work on that.


The third world has been fighting capitalist imperialism for the past 60 years! The only reason capitalism exists in their countries is because its been forced on em. The US installs an authoritarian dictatorship in a third world country in order to have unhindered access to its resources and ultra cheap labor. If the people rise against em, they are mowed down with machine guns, tortured and bombed. This has been the routine for the past centuries. Yet third world governments constantly request economic help from the richer nations, what does that tell you?

[Zapatas Guns]

Wealth implies money, which I am completely against.

If you're talking about standard of living, let the 'third world' build themselves up instead of relying on Capitalism to share the wealth.

How can they build themselves up when they have nothing? If they ever try they are squashed by dictators and the imperialists that help them. We do not need capitalism, it has failed anyway.

[Scary Monster]

I'm not going to listen to anyone who resorts to name calling to push their opinions on others, I'd work on that.

Im not "pushing my opinions on others", im filling you in on a lil history. Youre a leftist, yet you sound exactly like a capitalist when you blame the third world's problems completely on themselves- "the third world should work toward helping themselves if they want to prosper". This is what theyve been trying to do for the past centuries. But you blame the victim.


third world governments constantly request economic help from the richer nations, what does that tell you?

No wonder youre a "libertarian socialist". This is because they have no other choice, man. Look at Haiti, the phillipines, etc. They have no other choice than to request aid because theyve been colonized for hundreds of years, with the fruits of all their labor being shipped overseas for consumption by the 1st world, which has sucked their nations dry. The first world wont let the third world "build themselves up".

[28350]

Do the bourgeoisie owe the proletariat a debt?
(This is a serious question)
Socialism isn't Robin Hood prancing around and pissing off rich people. Socialism would not claim the capital of the former ruling class, it would render it impotent. A dictatorship of the proletariat would suppress the bourgeoisie, yes, but not as a means of revenge or repaying a debt. Those who were part of the ruling class would join the working class, or starve, but as a means of eliminating class.

What I'm getting at here is: what's your point?

Under capitalism, the most some sort of "reparation" to the "Third World" would amount to is charity (and would probably only reach the ruling elites of those respective countries).
Under socialism, money wouldn't be a factor as much as the means of production. Industry is a lot easier to establish without the fetter of scarcity (I'm basing this on absolutely nothing at all, to be honest).

So, what does it matter? I would argue that the first world bourgeoisie has exploited the third word proletariat, but the same doesn't hold true of the first world proletariat.

Also, can we bump up the third world to the second world, since the old second world doesn't really exist anymore?

[Hiero]

Yet third world governments constantly request economic help from the richer nations, what does that tell you?


Enforced dependence. Check out any work from any third world revolutionary authors.

Would you tell a poor person to "build" themselves up. These things are structural, and structural problems are the reason why are supposedly revolutionaries.

This is like some neo-liberal "get off your poor ass get a job" Glenn Beck crap.

Any sort of appropriation of the means of production would be an act of claiming back what was built on third world labour. That means reappriopriating the means of production of the first world and it's technology.

[AK]

What is this labor aristocracy apologist bullshit? Any excess Bourgeois wealth - along with the means of production - will be expropriated. The key is in world revolution (although probably not simultaneous). Economies depend on imports and exports to survive - and that's a fact. Until we make certain regions relatively self-sufficient this will always be the case.

[maskerade]

Yes, the first world is indebted to the third world. Not only are a lot of the debts that third world countries hold today a result of independence from colonialism, but countries like Haiti still have to repay debts from their past slavery - the entire population were slaves, and when they kicked out the French, the French saw this as stealing their property, and so they enforced a debt on the Haitian people to repay themselves, in a sense. I remember reading that Haiti is still paying this debt...

And colonialism still goes on, in the forms of the IMF and the World Bank and their fucking structural adjustment programs. And of course, in a global capitalist system, defaulting on these debts means complete isolation and conditions would probably worsen.

[Red Saxon]

Enforced dependence. Check out any work from any third world revolutionary authors.

Would you tell a poor person to "build" themselves up. These things are structural, and structural problems are the reason why are supposedly revolutionaries.

This is like some neo-liberal "get off your poor ass get a job" Glenn Beck crap.

Any sort of appropriation of the means of production would be an act of claiming back what was built on third world labour. That means reappriopriating the means of production of the first world and it's technology.This is starting to make sense to me I guess. The only viable solution then would be to allow countries to produce on their own by giving them the materials and machinery necessary to go through with development.

Socio-economic theories hurt my head. :laugh:


How can they build themselves up when they have nothing? If they ever try they are squashed by dictators and the imperialists that help them. We do not need capitalism, it has failed anyway.Revolution?

[scarletghoul]

Yes, the first world is indebted to the third world. Not only are a lot of the debts that third world countries hold today a result of independence from colonialism, but countries like Haiti still have to repay debts from their past slavery - the entire population were slaves, and when they kicked out the French, the French saw this as stealing their property, and so they enforced a debt on the Haitian people to repay themselves, in a sense. I remember reading that Haiti is still paying this debt...
Well Haiti finished paying the debt demanded by France in 1947. However, to do this they were forced to let the US, France, etc, completely rape the country in every sphere. Resources were plunderd, economy manipulated to stop any development, finances taken over (the national bank was even made a branch of City Bank of New York), and there was a US military occupation in the early 20th century aswell as a string of US puppet dictators. All of this enforced a dependance on Haiti and even though they payed the debt to France they were put in huge debt against the US and others (but mostly the US..) which they still havnt fully payed. The exploitation continues, with the oust of Aristide (kidnapped by US marines because he wasn't a complete puppet), and the ongoing US occupation which was launched on the pretext of earthquake aid. :(


This is starting to make sense to me I guess. The only viable solution then would be to allow countries to produce on their own by giving them the materials and machinery necessary to go through with development.

Socio-economic theories hurt my head.

Let me help you then: The 'only viable solution' is to fight capitalist imperialism so that peoples and communities around the world can determine their own destinies.

This is why so many of us on RevLeft are so anti-imperialist. We see that the struggle of a people for self-determination is at the front line of the fight against capitalism.. Defeating imperialism is a top priority for anyone who wants humanity to be free.

[Red Saxon]

Let me help you then: The 'only viable solution' is to fight capitalist imperialism so that peoples and communities around the world can determine their own destinies.I know this, it seems I just failed to add that in. ;)

[Uppercut]

Some third world countries attempt to build an autarky immediately after revolution. However, living standards will rise at a much slower pace and material conditions won't improve as quickly as the natives had hoped. As has been already stated above, this is enforced dependence and the former settlers will still have quite a bit of a say in production relations in the third-world countries. This is the downside to national liberation, but I still strongly support the idea, nontheless.

Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth is a great read for anyone that wants more information on the conditions facing the third world.

[Robocommie]

Some third world countries attempt to build an autarky immediately after revolution. However, living standards will rise at a much slower pace and material conditions won't improve as quickly as the natives had hoped. As has been already stated above, this is enforced dependence and the former settlers will still have quite a bit of a say in production relations in the third-world countries. This is the downside to national liberation, but I still strongly support the idea, nontheless.

Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth is a great read for anyone that wants more information on the conditions facing the first world.

Yeah, the big challenge of national liberation movements is that once they have achieved sovereignty and have nationalized the neo-colonialist elements within the country, they oftentimes face sanctions and embargos that make it extremely difficult to progress naturally. Cuba is probably the classic example of this.

Of course, it doesn't take full on national liberation - Mohammed Mossadegh is a perfect example of what can happen as a reprisal for smaller scale nationalizations.