Can someone help me out by explaining to me what "Third-Worldism" is? [Archive]

GreenCommunism

28th June 2010, 11:02

look up monkey smashes heaven, it mainly focuses on things like the fact that there are obese westerners while there are starving africain. many communist hate them, and call them racist. some of their member were in favor of deporting whites from america and canada to africa to work there in order to rebuild those countries after centuries of imperialism, but a member told me it wasn't true that they take it as a policy it was only proposed.

don't listen to the people here. though tyrlop made a fucking hilarious video about them. i would suggest joining the communist debate group on youtube and asking them about it, most of the member there are of it. i personally volonteered to monkey smash heaven to translate some of their article in french, some i should have completed a long time ago :(.

they are comrades, but their tone can be quite extremist and border on anti-white racism ( yes ironically you would think only nazis would say such things). they are sometime dishonest when they compare revenues from different countries since 1$ of food in a poor country means more food than 1$ in a rich country, but they make good points. like for example there was a cruise ship taht was built who costed about as much money as eritrea GDP and it basicly was only for luxury, they very harshly criticize western decadence and don't consider workers of the west as proletariat but labout aristocrats.

that is, expect this thread to be full of troll calling them reactionary and racist.

Subcomandante Marcos.

28th June 2010, 11:10

Fuck third worldist prick faces.

their outlook skips the whole class analysis part.

Basically, it is not the capitalists fault people are starving,its white europeans and Americans, who are intentionaly exploiting the third world.

I mean what a bunch of wankers we are, we choose to eat food that was made in the third world, rather than starve.

We buy clothes, instead of being naked.

What bastards we are.

But it's ok, because once the third world has risen up, they will overthrow the rulling nation and its aristocracy, and make us live in the third world doing their shit for them, because weve been so bad, and are the cause of their problems... as petty exploiters?? FTW

They see us being supressed under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the third world being the proletariat, us being petty exploiters.

they are like peoples so guilty of being white, they hate the rest of us for it, its quite embarresing really.

GreenCommunism

28th June 2010, 11:22

Fuck third worldist prick faces.
i am quite happy to be the first one posting.

I mean what a bunch of wankers we are, we choose to eat food that was made in the third world, rather than starve.
problem is the third world lack food, and some of us westerners are obscenely obese like that woman who wanted to be 1000 lbs.

We buy clothes, instead of being naked.
are you implying that most of the third world is naked? you need to live up in the 21st century if so.

But it's ok, because once the third world has risen up, they will overthrow the rulling nation and its aristocracy, and make us live in the third world doing their shit for them, because weve been so bad, and are the cause of their problems... as petty exploiters?? FTW

yes i forgot this point, they think that the world communist revolution will be done by the third world fighting a war against the first world and winning this war. they do agitate in the first world but they have no illusion about it, they just want to be a good fifth column.

Subcomandante Marcos.

28th June 2010, 12:25

they pit first world proletariat against third world proletariat.

also my point was, do we buy clothes that are made in the third world, or go around naked so as not to buy clothes made in sweatshops.

we cannot help being in imperialist nations, just as marxist isrealis cannot help living in a zionist state, what should happen, we all be killed, because we happen to live under a different set of conditions, and have our labour exploited too?

GreenCommunism

28th June 2010, 13:33

they pit first world proletariat against third world proletariat.
they put emphasis on the plight of the third world proletariat because often the first world proletariat complains that he is barely getting by while he's actually drinking beer,has a tv, and all sorts of shit that a third worlder dream to have. if it isn't unfair for you to be on welfare in the first world and earn more than a sweatshop working person in the third world then i can't consider you a comrade. how can anyone be simply blind to this obvious fact and still call themself marxist and deny this is such a thing as a labour aristocracy, we all have a much better education due to the fact that it is public. people get KILLED in the third world for daring to unionize(killer coke campaign).

also my point was, do we buy clothes that are made in the third world, or go around naked so as not to buy clothes made in sweatshops.

we cannot help being in imperialist nations, just as marxist isrealis cannot help living in a zionist state, what should happen, we all be killed, because we happen to live under a different set of conditions, and have our labour exploited too?
they never said anything like that, some of their analysis are not really honest, but many people here say those who are cops or bourgeois are much harder to convince than the working class. well i don't see why they don't understand that those in the third world are much easier to convince over to our cause because they have much less to lose. as first world proletariat, we have alot to lose.

Sasha

28th June 2010, 13:38

okeej, firstly greencomunism and marcos chill the fuck down. try and make an coherent sentence for a change.

now that we have that out of the way, to the OP;

like marcos incoherently rambeld the problem is that 3th worldism replaces an class analysis and anti-capitalism for an racist analysis and a bizar anti-impiralism fetish.
the 1st world proletariat doesnt exist, we are all imperialists complicit in the explotation of the 3th world. Because we are exploiters and not exploited its not in our intrests to stop capitalism and imperialism and there for will never do so.
the most extreme 3th worldists hold almost pol pot/kmher rouge like views in the sence or reasoning like pol pots "all intelectuals are bourgois" (false) "anyone with glasses is an intelectual" (false) "so anyone with glasses should do forced labour till they die from it" (batshit crazy).
and the most bizare thing is that all 3th worldists seem to be privileged white ppl from the 1st world themselfs (and who are in complete denial that most of the 3th world proletariat strives only for a life a bit more like that of the 1st world and that like most of the 1st world proletariat they dont give an flying monkey (;)) about worldrevolution.

GreenCommunism

28th June 2010, 13:51

like marcos incoherently rambeld the problem is that 3th worldism replaces an class analysis and anti-capitalism for an racist analysis and a bizar anti-impiralism fetish.
the 1st world proletariat doesnt exist, we are all imperialists complicit in the explotation of the 3th world. Because we are exploiters and not exploited its not in our intrests to stop capitalism and imperialism and there for will never do so.
wasn't labour aristocracy as a concept formulated by lenin? and as for the racist thing, their main argument is that as a class of labour aristocrats they have a class interest in keeping america at war with the whole world to exploit them. unlike many people who just think people are stupid and that nationalism,religion and race blinds people judgements, they think that people know what is going on and accept it. and come up with bullshit argument like we are the strongest nation on earth so we impose our rule and we will impose those that benefits us.

the most bizare thing is that all 3th worldists seem to be privileged white ppl from the 1st world themselfs (and who are in complete denial that most of the 3th world proletariat strives only for a life a bit more like that of the 1st world and that like most of the 1st world proletariat they dont give an flying monkey () about worldrevolution.

i agree there is some self-hate about modernity. but i don't think each and every single member of the third world has a tv in his house, i don't know the statistics but how many of them have high school diplomas? clearly we are the imperialists favorite workers, seeing how good they treat us compared to the other less favorite worker who rebel against them.

Sasha

28th June 2010, 15:46

wasn't labour aristocracy as a concept formulated by lenin?

dont know, dont and never read lenin, i have better things to do with my time.

Sasha

28th June 2010, 15:48

i agree there is some self-hate about modernity. but i don't think each and every single member of the third world has a tv in his house, i don't know the statistics but how many of them have high school diplomas? clearly we are the imperialists favorite workers, seeing how good they treat us compared to the other less favorite worker who rebel against them.

oh dear, we have TVs and highschool diplomas... if thats your class analysis you are realy realy stupid.

3th wolrldism is orienatlist nobele savage crap not any better that the worst of the primitivists

Raúl Duke

28th June 2010, 15:59

i am quite happy to be the first one posting.

You're not...all the others were rightfully banned.

You're no comrade of mine, you're ridiculous.

I bet your typing up your anti-1st world workint class rant translations from...let me guess...the comfort of your 1st world home in Canada! Can't you see how absurdly hypocritical you people are?

GreenCommunism

28th June 2010, 23:37

You're not...all the others were rightfully banned.

You're no comrade of mine, you're ridiculous.

I bet your typing up your anti-1st world workint class rant translations from...let me guess...the comfort of your 1st world home in Canada! Can't you see how absurdly hypocritical you people are?
a white person should not be against racism, because it's hypocrit right?

oh dear, we have TVs and highschool diplomas... if thats your class analysis you are realy realy stupid.

3th wolrldism is orienatlist nobele savage crap not any better that the worst of the primitivists
it is noble savage crap. but i don't see how being substantially living a better life than the third world proletariat discounted as being a crappy class analysis. luxury and education is not negligible, you also talk as if i am one of them.

oh dear, the bourgeois have BMWs and doctorate diplomas... if thats your class analysis you are realy realy stupid.

see what i mean?

Wolf Larson

28th June 2010, 23:41

I see this used as a pejorative quite a bit on this forum, and even some people banned for it; I have no clue exactly in what context this means, for I always thought it meant solidarity with those in the developing world and a tendency to distance one's country from a major socialist power; so can someone explain to me what exactly this means?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s&feature=related

Wolf Larson

28th June 2010, 23:45

oh dear, we have TVs and highschool diplomas... if thats your class analysis you are realy realy stupid.

3th wolrldism is orienatlist nobele savage crap not any better that the worst of the primitivists

General Westmoreland? Is that you?

Mr West-More-Land....I wonder if they picked him for General as a joke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKbEaZ-Jnws&feature=related

LOL

Kropotkin was correct when he said the wealth of the few depends on the poverty of the masses. Third worldism is a, well, viewpoint from outside western privilege ; privilege which rests on the poverty of the worlds majority. I'm no Maoist but I can admit when they have valid points....but then again if Mao actually lived by what Marx said he would understand capitalism must first expand until it can no longer expand before a revolution will succeed. It wont be a matter of third world against first world it will be workers against masters.

I'd say we're dropping the ball here in the first world. Too many parliamentary revisionists and apologists for Obama on the western left. Socialism is impotent in Amerikkka. Perhaps we are all too comfortable?

Sasha

29th June 2010, 00:01

Quote:
oh dear, the bourgeois have BMWs and doctorate diplomas... if thats your class analysis you are realy realy stupid.
see what i mean?

no, having bmw's and doctorate diplomas doenst make you bourgeois either.... jeesh louise, having some money doesnt equal bourgeois and being poor doesnt equal being workingclass/proletariat.
thats an stupid simplification, your relation to the means of production defines your class.. and you call yourself an marxist?

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 00:05

I should have 1000 rep. Fucking scratch and sniff happy face stickers all over my posts.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 00:14

they put emphasis on the plight of the third world proletariat because often the first world proletariat complains that he is barely getting by while he's actually drinking beer,has a tv, and all sorts of shit that a third worlder dream to have.
Yes, because we all know that beer and television only exist in the "first world". Corona is Swedish and Univision is Scottish. :rolleyes:

if it isn't unfair for you to be on welfare in the first world and earn more than a sweatshop working person in the third world then i can't consider you a comrade. how can anyone be simply blind to this obvious fact and still call themself marxist and deny this is such a thing as a labour aristocracy, we all have a much better education due to the fact that it is public. people get KILLED in the third world for daring to unionize(killer coke campaign).
Alright, this is a string of multiple things that aren't really connected in any cogent manner. First, opposing oppression of workers in non-imperialist countries doesn't mean one condones the social system of imperialist countries (don't look now, but American welfare hasn't really existed since the 90's, but who cares when you can rage against workers for daring to live in imperialist countries?). In fact, it's often the precise opposite: communists seek to destroy imperialist states and their welfare systems (or lack thereof) as well as liberate the workers of the so-called "third world". No one said welfare was "fair".

The same thing goes for violence against unionists, denial of education and everything else you mentioned.

Also: "We all have a much better education". Who is "we", exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that Indian doctors possess and inferior education to inner-city working-class children in the US?

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 00:17

Yes, because we all know that beer and television only exist in the "first world". Corona is Swedish and Univision is Scottish. :rolleyes:

Alright, this is a string of multiple things that aren't really connected in any cogent manner. First, opposing oppression of workers in non-imperialist countries doesn't mean one condones the social system of imperialist countries (don't look now, but American welfare hasn't really existed since the 90's, but who cares when you can rage against workers for daring to live in imperialist countries?). In fact, it's often the precise opposite: communists seek to destroy imperialist states and their welfare systems (or lack thereof) as well as liberate the workers of the so-called "third world". No one said welfare was "fair".

The same thing goes for violence against unionists, denial of education and everything else you mentioned.

Also: "We all have a much better education". Who is "we", exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that Indian doctors possess and inferior education to inner-city working-class children in the US?
India isnt third world.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 00:22

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 00:36

That's funny, all the ills specific to the "third world" mentioned by Green Communism are certainly at work in India. Violence against unionists, denial of education, no TV's, etc. What makes India not part of the "third world", and what makes doctors from "third world" countries less educated than workers in imperialist countries?

And on edit, I'm just dying to know why you would blame workers in imperialist countries for the fact that socialism is marginal, that reformism has more currency than revolutionary politics, that people like Barack Obama. I'd be interested to see your justifications for that classic ultra-left assertion. Oh, and workers in the US aren't that comfortable. Interestingly enough, I hear the same rhetoric from right-wing capitalists: workers in America have nothing to worry about! Their lives are great! Welfare makes people too lazy!

I never said Amerikkans all have it easy. I'm a carpenter myself and have endured a decade of gross exploitation. I'm a wage slave but am willing to admit, as Scott Nearing said, many of us have been bought off by the capitalists printed textiles and endless supply of useless gadgets....why do you think capitalists have declared an end to history? Because there is absolutely no viable socialist opposition in the west in part because we're all too comfortable. I can admit this. Can you? Why are we living in (mediocre) abundance and at who's expense? I say mediocre abundance because obviously capitaism keeps us running on the hamster wheel. We're slaves to our warped sense of materialism. Thats why there is no viable socialist movement in America.

The revolution will not take place until capitalism has exhausted it's ability to expand and the majority of workers end up living in second to third world conditions. Marx thought it was our job to speed up the evoloution of capitalism and be ready to overthrow the capitalist class at it's weakest point...but the first world is wealthy at the third worlds expense so I can relate to their anger. Just as Kropotkin says in his chapter on expropriation- the wealth of the capitalist depends on the poverty of the masses. The third world is indeed the masses.

Also, India is a capitalist nation now and the socioeconomic divide in India hardly translates to third world status.

Adi Shankara

29th June 2010, 00:48

Chimurenga.

29th June 2010, 00:52

I've debated with MTW's and even someone who posts on MSH. Basically, what their ideology boils down to is: rejecting the "first world" proletariat based on owning and buying consumer goods, white guilt, and overall political apathy. They believe that "First world" revolution can only be made when "Third World" revolutionary movements rise up and defeat imperialist forces that try to strangle said movements in the cradle. After that, the idea is that these "Third World" nations will invade the US and "Smash the first world". Realistically speaking, this notion is idealistic, anti-Marxist, and ultimately, anti-worker. It should serve no surprise that this ideology never surfaced out of a third world country but only out of the US.

As if that wasn't all ridiculous enough, the MTW's denounce the revolutionary movements in Nepal and the Philippines.

The only actions I've seen from the organizations built around this idea are counter-protests against the Tea Party, May Day action, and distributing of pamphlets. That's about it.

In short, no one takes them seriously and they exist primarily on the internet. They are the Ancaps of the Left.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 00:57

We saw more revolutionary potential during the industrial revolution when western workers were exploited more so than now.

So long as capitalism can provide general abundance for a "middle class" it's not going anywhere. This "middle class" does indeed live rather comfortably. You and I both know it.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 00:58

I thought the only thing that made Bourgeoisie "bourgeoisie" in the first place was the fact that they controlled means of production and labor. nothing more nothing less...
The petty bourgeoisie are the backbone of capitalism and they're not all Tea Party flag waving conservatives. Fuck Obama by the way.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 00:59

I never said Amerikkans all have it easy. I'm a carpenter myself and have endured a decade of gross exploitation. I'm a wage slave but am willing to admit, as Scott Nearing said, many of us have been bought off by the capitalists printed textiles and endless gadgets....why do you think capitalists have declared an end to history? Because there is absolutely no viable socialist opposition in teh west in part because we're all too comfortable. I can admit this. Can you?
Most capitalists dispensed of that theory a long time ago, including its author.

And no, the workers are not bought off in America, they're just demoralized and under assault. It's OUR responsibility to reverse that. Any shortcomings in the socialist movement is our fault, not the workers'. Saying the opposite is for ultra-lefts.

Also, concessions in imperialist countries were won by working-class struggle. Workers didn't get the surplus income to buy gadgets because the capitalists were nice and wanted to blind them, they won that through strikes, unionization and political work. Thinking that workers got better living standards (which have been declining steadily for around 30 years or so) because their bosses felt like giving it to them is anti-historical and anti-Marxist.

The revolution will not take place until capitalism has exhausted it's ability to expand and the majority of workers end up living in second to third world conditions. Marx thought it was our job to spped up the evoloution of capitalism and be ready to overthrow the capitalist class at it's weakest point...but the first world is wealthy at the third worlds expense so I can relate to their anger. Just as Kropotkin says in his chapter on expropriation- the wealth of the capitalist depends on the poverty of the masses. The third world is indeed the masses.
Well, first of all, workers in imperialist countries are living in "second to third world conditions". Second, first world workers are not wealthy at "the third world's expense"...they're not wealthy in the first place and they don't earn money through the exploitation of third world workers. Hell, many workers in the first world are from the third world...where do you classify them? Are Latino immigrants to the US the new petty bourgeoisie then?

Clumsily applying Kropotkin on a continental scale doesn't work when 10% of the US controls 70% of American wealth. Make no mistake: all workers and farmers are the masses; whether they are lucky enough to be treated a bit better than dirt does nothing to change this.

Also, India is a capitalist nation now and the socioeconomic divide in India hardly translates to third world status.
India sees some of the most back-breaking poverty on the face of the planet, topped off with a shocking dose of state repression. So being capitalist is now enough to get you out of the third world? What's left in the third world, then...Bhutan? Swaziland? The last uncontacted tribes of the Amazon?

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 01:00

no, having bmw's and doctorate diplomas doenst make you bourgeois either.... jeesh louise, having some money doesnt equal bourgeois and being poor doesnt equal being workingclass/proletariat.
thats an stupid simplification, your relation to the means of production defines your class.. and you call yourself an marxist?
of course it is a stupid simplification, what i mean is so obvious but you bypass it in a dishonest manner. by the way a life long capitalist who sells all his assets then live off his life without working what class is he part of?

Yes, because we all know that beer and television only exist in the "first world". Corona is Swedish and Univision is Scottish.
the point is how much beer we can drink and how much people have televisions in their home. why all this bullshit.

Also: "We all have a much better education". Who is "we", exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that Indian doctors possess and inferior education to inner-city working-class children in the US?
this is a case by case manner, i am not sure but i feel that indian doctors are usually member of a certain elite to be able to afford those studies. i am talking as a general rule, do the poor members of the indian society have high school? that's what i'm asking.

And on edit, I'm just dying to know why you would blame workers in imperialist countries for the fact that socialism is marginal, that reformism has more currency than revolutionary politics, that people like Barack Obama. I'd be interested to see your justifications for that classic ultra-left assertion. Oh, and workers in the US aren't that comfortable. Interestingly enough, I hear the same rhetoric from right-wing capitalists: workers in America have nothing to worry about! Their lives are great! Welfare makes people too lazy!
of course the workers in the first world are not living perfectly, problem is try to be on welfare and live on third world standard in the first world and you will save perhaps more than 50% of what you receive. in fact it is kinda hard to find a shack to live in comparable conditions. now i know that many if not most people in africa have electricity and running water, but some dont, many dont have hot water, can anyone of us imagine living without hot water?

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 01:01

"Workers didn't get the surplus income to buy gadgets because the capitalists were nice and wanted to blind them"

LOL Tell that to Henry Ford.

praxis1966

29th June 2010, 01:05

The revolution will not take place until capitalism has exhausted it's ability to expand and the majority of workers end up living in second to third world conditions. Marx thought it was our job to speed up the evoloution of capitalism and be ready to overthrow the capitalist class at it's weakest point...

Don't take this the wrong way, and feel free to correct me if I'm off base, but this sounds alot like Stalinist Two Stage Theory to me.

Also, India is a capitalist nation now and the socioeconomic divide in India hardly translates to third world status.

Does this look like imagery from the first or second world to you? It doesn't to me.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=608&pictureid=5987

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 01:06

Thinking that workers got better living standards (which have been declining steadily for around 30 years or so) because their bosses felt like giving it to them is anti-historical and anti-Marxist.
yes we got it because we have the ability to pressure them , and thus they gave it to us so we would shut the fuck up. and in order to keep the same rate of profit, exploitation in the third world became worse.

Well, first of all, workers in imperialist countries are living in "second to third world conditions". Second, first world workers are not wealthy at "the third world's expense"...they're not wealthy in the first place and they don't earn money through the exploitation of third world workers. Hell, many workers in the first world are from the third world...where do you classify them? Are Latino immigrants to the US the new petty bourgeoisie then?
have you ever seen someone starving because he lacks money to buy food in the first world? course there are food stamps and there are charity that gives out food, there are people who are homeless. but to say the worker in imperialist country live like the average third worlder is a complete joke.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 01:15

Don't take this the wrong way, and feel free to correct me if I'm off base, but this sounds alot like Stalinist Two Stage Theory to me.

Does this look like imagery from the first or second world to you? It doesn't to me.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=608&pictureid=5987
Stalin was a worst revisionist of Marx than Lenin. Thats straight out Marxism there. Young Marx. And if you posted the rest of the statement you would see I don't agree with 'third world 'Maoists. What I am saying is I can be honest enough t concede some points to them.

And the socioeconomic divide in india is due to the capitalist class within the nation accumulating/concentrating wealth. India isn't in the same position as a neo-colony (host nation to the imperialist parasite). It's a second world nation- not third world.

I live in second world neighborhood does that make America second world?

manic expression

29th June 2010, 01:31

of course it is a stupid simplification, what i mean is so obvious but you bypass it in a dishonest manner. by the way a life long capitalist who sells all his assets then live off his life without working what class is he part of?
The welfare class, of course.

No, but he's bourgeois. Dead capital won through bourgeois exploitation is what supports him and his lifestyle.

the point is how much beer we can drink and how much people have televisions in their home. why all this bullshit.
It's not about that at all. If it was, then alcoholics and soap opera fanatics would be the greatest enemies of the revolution.

Incidentally, you'll find that some of the most impoverished communities in the US (we're talking straight third world conditions) are very much into satellite TV. Why? It's the best form of entertainment, as it requires no extra work on the part of the already-exhausted viewer. The Mississippi Delta is one example of this.

And further still, overuse of alcohol has long been a blight on the most impoverished communities in the US (again, third world conditions). Our NDN sisters and brothers know this all too well.

this is a case by case manner, i am not sure but i feel that indian doctors are usually member of a certain elite to be able to afford those studies. i am talking as a general rule, do the poor members of the indian society have high school? that's what i'm asking.
Right. They're generally members of the elite or middle class of Indian society, so the distinction between first world and third world is obviously insufficient. We must deal with class here, not country. Workers everywhere are denied a sufficient education to varying degrees, but for the same reasons. Why the dichotomy if it's the same system screwing the same group of people?

of course the workers in the first world are not living perfectly, problem is try to be on welfare and live on third world standard in the first world and you will save perhaps more than 50% of what you receive. in fact it is kinda hard to find a shack to live in comparable conditions. now i know that many if not most people in africa have electricity and running water, but some dont, many dont have hot water, can anyone of us imagine living without hot water?
This is a matter of economics. It's physically impossible to live with a third world food budget outside of the third world because the price of food (and everything else) shoots up as soon as you get into a wealthier country. Basically, if you make $10 a day and your daily consumption costs $8, it's not all that much better than if you made $3 a day and your consumption costs $1. That's how gentrification works: all of a sudden your "high" wage doesn't buy you jacksh*t, and all of a sudden you're moving upstate to survive...and then 10 years later it all happens again.

Even when welfare was welfare, it was paltry. I honestly don't know how someone in NYC could get by on $15,000 a year, but that's what a welfare-level income means. Simply put, don't be fooled by the difference in income, it's more about what a dollar buys you, not how many dollars you have.

Water quality is probably a better example than hot water. The poorest countries have lower life expectancies because the water they drink would make Americans sick in about 15 minutes. I've been in villages where 40-year olds look like they're 80 just because bad water ages people quickly and is generally horrible. But at the same time, none of that changes how first world workers are oppressed and fundamentally no different than third world workers. It's a matter of degrees. The third world farmers who have terrible water have the same interests as the first world workers who can barely keep their water supply from getting shut off. You'd be surprised at how interlocked those populations are...LA is the second-biggest concentration of El Salvadoren~os in the world, for example.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 01:34

The "loosely applying Kropotkin" statement....so, what you mean to say is there is no material advantage to being born a US middle class citizen above that of a third world peasant?

When resources are finite, as they are, it's quite simple- the masses of the world are indeed impoverished because of the west. I could have been born into a hut with a hole in the ground as a toilet but I was born in the "hive" of imperialism...America, so I have indeed reaped the benefits of imperialism. Does this make me an enemy of the working class? Of course not because I'm not a supporter of capitalism as MOST AMERIKKKANS ARE.

Everything we have, infrastructure, technology EVERYTHING was made possible by theft, robbery, slavery and oppression of the third world. It's a fact you'd be silly to deny. Now I'm not saying the revolution should be third world agisnt first world...that would be just as silly....what I am saying is capitalism has indeed given higher standards of living to a middle clas population. So long as this population is generally happy (or thinks they're happy....in reality mostly confused and brainwashed) the system will go on.

But just because capitalism has given higher standards of living does not excuse the system itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 01:37

manic expression

29th June 2010, 01:38

yes we got it because we have the ability to pressure them , and thus they gave it to us so we would shut the fuck up. and in order to keep the same rate of profit, exploitation in the third world became worse.
Third world workers have the ability to pressure as well. It just takes different forms under different circumstances (strikes vs insurrection, for example). The struggle and the goal remains the same, however, because the interests are no different.

have you ever seen someone starving because he lacks money to buy food in the first world?
Not that the opposite would prove your point, but yes, that happens in the US. Check this out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/health/main4998190.shtml

By the way, starvation rarely kills directly, malnutrition usually leads to sickness which will kill far, far faster than pure hunger.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 01:42

"It's not about that at all. If it was, then alcoholics and soap opera fanatics would be the greatest enemies of the revolution."

Ya, that about sums it up but you can add shopaholics/self obsessed consumers to the list. An entire nation of sleeping zombies. America.
So why are you here? You obviously have a deep-seated hatred for everyone in America, based on a severe ultra-left misunderstanding of society. So workers are to blame because socialism isn't on everyone's lips. Then I guess you would blame third world workers just as much, since communism isn't exactly all that popular in rural sub-Saharan Africa or Afghanistan, either.

I'd just like to know why you hate workers.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 01:47

So why are you here? You obviously have a deep-seated hatred for everyone in America, based on a severe ultra-left misunderstanding of society. So workers are to blame because socialism isn't on everyone's lips. Then I guess you would blame third world workers just as much, since communism isn't exactly all that popular in rural sub-Saharan Africa or Afghanistan, either.

I'd just like to know why you hate workers.

LOL. I hate workers about as much as Lenin did when he took power from the solviets and handed it to the new ruling class (communist party). The only people who will emancipate themselves are ourselves....the workers. What I do hate are vanguard Stalinist's and Fabian elitists who think they can "lead the lowly masses to glory".

What are you doing here? Trying to hijack actual working class movments to be consolidated under a new ruling class? Why do you hate the working class so much you would seek to subjugate them under a lead blanket of red faced greedy bureaucrats?
And yes it is possible to be working class, as I am, and also be angry with the working class for their, what I can only call, Stockholm Syndrome. Stop acting as if you hold some divine reverence for the millions of Americans who whole heartedly support capitalism. Working class or not. Your jesus complex is fucking absurd. Yes, more of us need to be angry with the petty bourgeoisie. I'm not sure if you noticed but there is also a large population of (mostly white) working class who adamatly defend capitalism in America. They are not my comrades....they're reactionaries. You should learn the difference.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 01:52

The "loosely applying Kropotkin" statement....so, what you mean to say is there is no material advantage to being born a US middle class citizen above that of a third world peasant?
Unfortunately for you, your argument does not logically follow from that somewhat reasonable statement. Being more materially well off than someone else does not make one an enemy of change. If it did, then the workers would be the sworn enemies of the peasantry. Your third world peasant, let's not forget, is poorer than third world workers. Are you to condemn the latter?

When resources are finite, as they are, it's quite simple- the masses of the world are indeed impoverished because of the west.
"The west". How scientific of you. If you studied history to the slightest degree, you would quite comfortably discover that "the west" has engaged in deprivation and exploitation of the so-called third world under the auspices of the capitalist class, not the workers of those countries.

Most comically, "the west" includes the masses of the world. Latino immigrants to the US are certainly part-in-parcel to "the west", as they fuel many industries. But are they guilty of exploiting the third world when they consider so-called third world countries their homes? Have fun with that.

Your position is like the observer who blames the atrocities of a Roman trireme on all its crew...in spite of the fact that the majority of the crew are slaves literally chained to their posts.

In the end, it is your denial of class that marks you out as an anti-worker ideologue.

praxis1966

29th June 2010, 01:55

Stalin was a worst revisionist of Marx than Lenin. Thats straight out Marxism there. Young Marx. And if you posted the rest of the statement you would see I don't agree with 'third world 'Maoists. What I am saying is I can be honest enough t concede some points to them.

You can beat around the bush all you like, but the part of your post I didn't quote indicates that you'd be in favor of complicity with bourgeois politics as a precondition to socialist revolution, aka Stalinism.

Anyway, I can concede some points to the Maoists as well, specifically in relationship to support of struggles for national liberation. My support for those struggles comes from a completely different place, however, since the libertarian socialist in me firmly believes that it's not my business to tell someone on the other side of the planet how to conduct their revolution. To paraphrase Paulo Freire, nobody liberates anybody else, and nobody liberates themselves all alone; people liberate themselves in fellowship with each other.

And the socioeconomic divide in india is due to the capitalist class within the nation accumulating/concentrating wealth. India isn't in the same position as a neo-colony (host nation to the imperialist parasite). It's a second world nation- not third world.

The socio-economic divide in every country is caused by concentration of wealth in the hands of capitalist elites, whether you're talking about 1st or 45th world countries. Therefore, for me, this isn't really a very usefull definition.

On the other hand, I'd argue that since the terms first, second and third world are relative terms (kind of like small, medium and large) one can only be defined in relationship to another. Specifically, how do the elites and impoverished of one country stack up in terms of relative wealth to another? How large, relatively speaking, is the gulf between rich and poor? If we both agree that the US is a first world country, I don't see how anyone wouldn't consider India a third world country by comparison. It's true that India has recently experienced leaps and bounds of economic growth, but I wouldn't give it the promotion to second world just yet.

Besides, there are third world countries and then there are third world countries. I think both of us can agree that El Salvador is a third world country. However, El Salvador's nowhere near as poor as Haiti or Bangladesh. That being said, I think you might want to broaden your range of what countries fit into which category.

I live in second world neighborhood does that make America second world?

No, for the reasons I already explained.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 01:56

LOL. I hate workers about as much as Lenin did when he took power from the solviets and handed it to the new ruling class (communist party). The only people who will emancipate themselves are ourselves....the workers. What I do hate are vanguard Stalinist's and Fabian elitists who think they can "lead the lowly masses to glory".

What are you doing here? Trying to hijack actual working class movments to be consolidated under a new ruling class? Why do you hate the working class so much you would seek to subjugate them under a lead blanket of red faced greedy bureaucrats?
You forget that Lenin was elected to his position in the solviet state by the Congress of the Solviets. That was after the solviets gave their full support to the actions of the Bolshelviks in the October Relvolution. And further, the whole point of the Solviet state was the put in place a new ruling class.

But since you didn't answer the question I posed to you, it's clear that you have no integrity. Or any idea of what you're talking about.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:06

Unfortunately for you, your argument does not logically follow from that somewhat reasonable statement. Being more materially well off than someone else does not make one an enemy of change.

Why then has capitalism triumphed over communism? Because capitalism is still providing material abundance for a certain population.

Why do you think US presidents would go to the soviet union with microwaves and pictures of fancy cars bragging about the material abundance of capitalism?

There is in fact a working class population in America that lives in better living conditions than a 19'th century worker. This has been the secret of sustaining capitalism. These days mostly due to the easy/availability of credit or debt and grossly exploited third world.

Fucking deal with reality man. We're dropping the ball in the west. We keep on consuming and feeding the profit/credit/debt cycle.

Capitalism will NOT be overthrown until a mass movement of MISERABLE and class conscious` workers overthrows it.

I'm sorry to tell you but this doesn't exist in America ( it did, potentially, during the industrial revolution) It's our job to spread class awareness while doing what we can to push the capitalist system towards crisis and I'm sorry to tell you but we don't do that by shopping.

PS. Don't let that negative rep fool you either. That was done by the moderators on this site who are advocating technocracy. If you should be lambasting anyone for being clueless it should be them.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:11

You forget that Lenin was elected to his position in the solviet state by the Congress of the Solviets. That was after the solviets gave their full support to the actions of the Bolshelviks in the October Relvolution. And further, the whole point of the Solviet state was the put in place a new ruling class.

But since you didn't answer the question I posed to you, it's clear that you have no integrity. Or any idea of what you're talking about.

What do you think this was?

"And yes it is possible to be working class, as I am, and also be angry with the working class for their, what I can only call, Stockholm Syndrome. Stop acting as if you hold some divine reverence for the millions of Americans who whole heartedly support capitalism. Working class or not. Your jesus complex is fucking absurd. Yes, more of us need to be angry with the petty bourgeoisie. I'm not sure if you noticed but there is also a large population of (mostly white) working class who adamatly defend capitalism in America. They are not my comrades....they're reactionaries. You should learn the difference."

manic expression

29th June 2010, 02:16

Why then has capitalism triumphed over communism? Because capitalism is still providing material abundance for a certain population.
Capitalism hasn't triumphed over communism, the struggle hasn't ended.

You sound more and more like a right-winger every time you post. American workers have an abundance of material wealth! Capitalism is triumphant! You're a capitalist in Wolf's clothing.

Why do you think US presidents would go to the soviet union with microwaves and pictures of fancy cars bragging about the material abundance of capitalism?
Because they're liars.

There is in fact a working class population in America that lives in better living conditions than a 19'th century worker. This has been the secret of sustaining capitalism. These days mostly due to the easy/availability of credit or debt and grossly exploited third world.
O man, 2010 isn't 1830. Someone alert the central committee!

Fucking deal with reality man. We're dropping the ball in the west. We keep on consuming and feeding the profit/credit/debt cycle.
Speak for yourself.

Capitalism will NOT be overthrown until a mass movement of MISERABLE and class conscious` workers overthrows it.
We agree on that, but workers in the US are miserable, too. It's a question of educating them, organizing them and leading them. If you'd rather wallow in ultra-left despair, fine, but don't try to drag revolutionaries down with you.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 02:19

"And yes it is possible to be working class, as I am, and also be angry with the working class for their, what I can only call, Stockholm Syndrome. Stop acting as if you hold some divine reverence for the millions of Americans who whole heartedly support capitalism. Working class or not. Your jesus complex is fucking absurd. Yes, more of us need to be angry with the petty bourgeoisie. I'm not sure if you noticed but there is also a large population of (mostly white) working class who adamatly defend capitalism in America. They are not my comrades....they're reactionaries. You should learn the difference."
Thanks for answering my original question on why you hate workers. It's good to know you're finally admitting your anti-worker grudge.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:22

Capitalism hasn't triumphed over communism, the struggle hasn't ended.

You sound more and more like a right-winger every time you post. American workers have an abundance of material wealth! Capitalism is triumphant! You're a capitalist in Wolf's clothing.

Because they're liars.

O man, 2010 isn't 1830. Someone alert the central committee!

Speak for yourself.

We agree on that, but workers in the US are miserable, too. It's a question of educating them, organizing them and leading them. *I DONT NEED YOUR LEADERSHIP* If you'd rather wallow in ultra-left despair, fine, but don't try to drag revolutionaries down with you.
LOL a right wing capitalist in wolves clothing? No I've simply read Marx before Lenin and Stalin warped his words. I'm an anarchist/communist who has actually read and understands Marxism. Capitalism was triumphant over Marxism because the Russian revolution was too soon. You'd understand this if you understood Marx's view on capitalism. A nation or area cannot become communist until the previous mode of production (capitalism) has exhausted it's ability to provide abundance for a substantial population.

A seed does not go from a seed to flower but first sprouts and then grows into a plant. Marx himself wanted capitalism to end as soon as possible but saw the necessity of an exhausted system before it was ready to be discarded.

And if I was in despair it would be because I'm actually toiling every other day living in west oakland amongst the 'lowly' proletariat you claim to want to lead. Atop of that if I were in despair I'd have to thank you for making me laugh so much just now :)

manic expression

29th June 2010, 02:25

LOL a right wing capitalist in wolves clothing? No I've simply read Marx before Lenin and Stalin warped his words. I'm an anarchist/communist who has actually read and understands Marxism.
:lol: Yes, because Marxism is anarchism! :lol: That explains your anti-worker nonsense.

And if I was in despair it would be because I'm actually toiling every other day living in west oakland amongst the 'lowly' proletariat you claim to want to lead. Atop of that if I were in despair I'd have to thank you for making me laugh so much just now
It must be rough living amongst a group of people you hate so much.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:27

Thanks for answering my original question on why you hate workers. It's good to know you're finally admitting your anti-worker grudge.
Why do you love reactionaries?

manic expression

29th June 2010, 02:28

Why do you love reactionaries?
Because they're so easy to run circles around. Case in point, our discussion. :lol:

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:29

:lol: Yes, because Marxism is anarchism! :lol: That explains your anti-worker nonsense.

It must be rough living amongst a group of people you hate so much.
Actually yes Marx eventually envisioned society becoming anarchist. I say I'm an anarchist who has actually read Marx only because one cannot actually be an anarchist unless you have an understanding of what you are not.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 02:32

Actually yes Marx eventually envisioned society becoming anarchist. I say I'm an anarchist who has actually read Marx only because one cannot actually be an anarchist unless you have an understanding of what you are not.
:lol::lol::lol: The whole point of controversy between Marx and the anarchists was that the anarchists rejected a state to transition into communism, whereas Marx held that the workers would have to establish a working-class dictatorship (read: state) before a classless society could be possible.

Obviously you understand neither what you are nor what you are not.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:34

Because they're so easy to run circles around. Case in point, our discussion. :lol:
No not really. You choose to see some naive propagandized fetishistic vision of the American working class....you obviously have no clue as to the mind frame of (mostly white) working class in America. It's not a mind frame to exault.

Stalkhome Syndrome is a sad thing to witness....have you ever been fired froma job for passing out socialist literature because your co workers complained? I have. You seem to be completley unaware of the rather large reactionary population in America.

Must be bliss.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 02:36

No not really. You choose to see some naive propagandized fetishistic vision of the American working class....you obviously have no clue as to the mind frame of (mostly white) working class in America. It's not a mind frame to exault.

Stalkhome Syndrome is a sad thing to witness....have you ever been fired froma job for passing out socialist literature because your co workers complained? I have. You seem to be completley unaware of the rather large reactionary population in America.

Must be bliss.
Your politics boils down to "workers aren't revolutionaries (and they're white), so I hate them". Textbook ultra-left childishness. Let me know when you know what Marxism means, child. :lol:

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:37

:lol::lol::lol: The whole point of controversy between Marx and the anarchists was that the anarchists rejected a state to transition into communism, whereas Marx held that the workers would have to establish a working-class dictatorship (read: state) before a classless society could be possible.

Obviously you understand neither what you are nor what you are not.

You dolt. A classless society is anarchism- exactly what Marx thought the end goal should be. Obviously anarchists didn't want the state period. Stop trying to patronize me. It's not going to work.

A 16 year old understands that sophomoric description of the differences between anarchism and Marxism. What I was doing was explaining Marxism to you. You seem to not understand Marx's actual viewpoint. You have Lenins down....that's for sure.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:39

So by your naive world view there is no such thing as a working class reactionary. Wow.

You need to join reality.

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 02:41

do we, yes or no, get the crumbs off the table of the exploitation of the third world?

Your politics boils down to "workers aren't revolutionaries (and they're white), so I hate them". Textbook ultra-left childishness. Let me know when you know what Marxism means, child.
he doesn't hate them, he's just mad at how people purposely blind themself off imperialism. i bet you can ask alot of people and they will tell you they know that the west exploit the third world unfairly and they think it's okay. they basicly don't care. a shit load of people are opposed to the 'fair' label because they want to save 13 cents per dollar for coffee. the fair label makes sure workers are well paid and work in acceptable conditions, it's a liberal minimum decency kind of crap .

Right. They're generally members of the elite or middle class of Indian society, so the distinction between first world and third world is obviously insufficient. We must deal with class here, not country. Workers everywhere are denied a sufficient education to varying degrees, but for the same reasons. Why the dichotomy if it's the same system screwing the same group of people?
yes but working class people can afford to be doctors, at least in quebec i know it can be kinda hard in the usa and often girls turn into strippers during the time they are students. i can't imagine a poor third worlders being a doctor without some lucky meritocratic contest going on.

This is a matter of economics. It's physically impossible to live with a third world food budget outside of the third world because the price of food (and everything else) shoots up as soon as you get into a wealthier country. Basically, if you make $10 a day and your daily consumption costs $8, it's not all that much better than if you made $3 a day and your consumption costs $1. That's how gentrification works: all of a sudden your "high" wage doesn't buy you jacksh*t, and all of a sudden you're moving upstate to survive...and then 10 years later it all happens again.

Even when welfare was welfare, it was paltry. I honestly don't know how someone in NYC could get by on $15,000 a year, but that's what a welfare-level income means. Simply put, don't be fooled by the difference in income, it's more about what a dollar buys you, not how many dollars you have.
yes i know that things are at a lower price in the third world since people have less money also, this is what i don't like about MSH they never state it. it is somewhat hard to live off 15,000$ a year but it is quite possible and one thing to take into account is the support from other member of your family. and you would live in a much better place than someone in the third world anyway.

Water quality is probably a better example than hot water. The poorest countries have lower life expectancies because the water they drink would make Americans sick in about 15 minutes. I've been in villages where 40-year olds look like they're 80 just because bad water ages people quickly and is generally horrible. But at the same time, none of that changes how first world workers are oppressed and fundamentally no different than third world workers. It's a matter of degrees. The third world farmers who have terrible water have the same interests as the first world workers who can barely keep their water supply from getting shut off. You'd be surprised at how interlocked those populations are...LA is the second-biggest concentration of El Salvadoren~os in the world, for example.
interesting, but wouldn't the water quality have to do with the inability to build good water purification plants? also i hear that often when such projects are built, the local population tries to steal parts of plants since they are poor or so. all of this contribute to a cycle of poverty.

Chimurenga.

29th June 2010, 02:52

he's just mad at how people purposely blind themself off imperialism. i bet you can ask alot of people and they will tell you they know that the west exploit the third world unfairly and they think it's okay. they basicly don't care.

This is a complete crock of bullshit and a gross, distorted generalization. Have you actually went up and asked people about US imperialism? Most people don't have a clue about US's involvements in other countries. They never hear about it and they never learn about it. It's complete crap to sit there and make statements like "They basically don't care".

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 02:58

Raúl Duke

29th June 2010, 03:15

a white person should not be against racism, because it's hypocrit right?

That has no relevance or connection to what I've said. Than again I shouldn't be surprise to expect this kind of incoherency from you.

But as I said, 3rd worldists are banned and if you are one you will be banned (at least this was the case when the CC is around, I hope it's still the case because 3rd world ism is a reactionary ideology).

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 03:22

That has no relevance or connection to what I've said. Than again I shouldn't be surprise to expect this kind of incoherency from you.

But as I said, 3rd worldists are banned and if you are one you will be banned (at least this was the case when the CC is around, I hope it's still the case because 3rd world ism is a reactionary ideology).

I wouldn't go as far as to label it reactionary. I don't agree with them in the slightest as far as their viewpoint on revolution but just as I don't reject much of Marx's views (while adhering to anarchism )I can concede some points to them and not be a third world Maoist.

The monkey smashes heaven people are a bit far out, obviously, but the sad fact is there is a grain of truth to some of the things they say. :) I reject their overall ideology but can see the 'causal relationship' between the haves and have nots.

I can hardly believe I'm being put in the position of 'defending' them. I respected their views on Iran.

Did you think the "green revolution" was anything but a CIA coup attempt?

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 03:29

:lol: Yes, because Marxism is anarchism! :lol: That explains your anti-worker nonsense.

It must be rough living amongst a group of people you hate so much.
Are most of the Tea Party people working class? Yes or no.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

29th June 2010, 03:30

From the standpoint of the third world the West does exploit and benefit from their suffering. Even the poor end up being able to purchase cheaper goods because of foreign labor.

The reality is the vast majority of us, myself included, are willingly choosing to live lifestyles that we could simplify in order to help the third world. And the fact that the capitalists are the primary culprits really doesn't free us from responsibility. It's kind of like saying "I have loaves of bread, and that guy over there made me give him 50 of my 60 loaves. I only need 5, but I'd prefer having 10. We should work together so we can have 20."

Now I don't think that still gets us off the hook for failing to distribute resources to the less fortunate, but it does parallel how capitalists are the problem rather than the Western world. I mean the market price is dictated by the value of the time. If you're being used to produce items at a ridiculous rate, they can still be relatively cheap quality. The demand for fair trade products shifts the burden to the consumer. The consumer isn't getting any profit. They're paying $100 for $5 items. The businesses just pay the third world more and increase prices in the "liberal" business model. So people confuse things and blame the consumer for the influence on the market.

The consumer is a big factor, but if people pay more in order to give money to someone who doesn't produce the amount of value. Someone who makes a $5 shoe who is paid $1 is underpaid by the employer. Then the value becomes $100 due to an artificially create $95 branding value. Then they get criticized and pay workers $8 for the shoe and sell it for $150, perhaps. The consumer is donating $7 to charity under a market system. Third worldism confuses ideologies by framing a Marxist criticism (labor exploitation) with a capitalist evaluation system (market value).

I am not against increasing third world pay. I just thought I should make that clear. I just think the debate is always phrased in a manner that blames the average person. While it's true that the average person could reform their daily choices and benefit the third world, it's not the average person who typically gains the surplus. And even when they do, it's probably counteracted by the same wage exploitation that occurs to them when they go to a typical Western job.

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 03:48

This is a complete crock of bullshit and a gross, distorted generalization. Have you actually went up and asked people about US imperialism? Most people don't have a clue about US's involvements in other countries. They never hear about it and they never learn about it. It's complete crap to sit there and make statements like "They basically don't care".

not all of them, but did you ask them about it? because i actually asked every damn person i could about third world exploitation , a minority seemed concerned but didn't want to act, most of them didn't care because it's another country, and another minority said it was the natural order of the world. this doesn't represent the exact truth but i feel it is the general attitude of people

That has no relevance or connection to what I've said. Than again I shouldn't be surprise to expect this kind of incoherency from you.

But as I said, 3rd worldists are banned and if you are one you will be banned (at least this was the case when the CC is around, I hope it's still the case because 3rd world ism is a reactionary ideology).
it fucking does, why should defending the third world be hypocrit if one is from the 1st world?

i am not a maoist third worldist but i volonteered to translate some of their article because i consider them to be comrades.

Blackscare

29th June 2010, 04:33

Also, India is a capitalist nation now and the socioeconomic divide in India hardly translates to third world status.

Being capitalist does not make a country third world or not. Look at the Dominican Republic or Haiti. You can be capitalist and still be predominantly poor, and of course in many cases it makes you more vulnerable to imperialism because the local elites will work together with western interests to exploit the public. India is a bit more independent, but it still is certainly third world taken as a whole.

Blackscare

29th June 2010, 04:36

why should defending the third world be hypocrit if one is from the 1st world?

It isn't, but taking an overly anti-western-proletarian view is unproductive and silly. The workers and farmers of the Third World don't need us feteshizing about their perceived greater class purity, they need mass mobilization from their comrades in the First World. There is a clear difference between showing solidarity with the Third World and needlessly disparaging the Workers of the First World.

It borders on the noble savage mentality that someone else mentioned, and even reminds me of vulgar workerism in a way.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 04:58

Being capitalist does not make a country third world or not. Look at the Dominican Republic or Haiti. You can be capitalist and still be predominantly poor, and of course in many cases it makes you more vulnerable to imperialism because the local elites will work together with western interests to exploit the public. India is a bit more independent, but it still is certainly third world taken as a whole.

Dominican republic and Haiti are not nuclear powers and have also had numerous CIA lead coups (Haiti) to keep the people subjugated. India is creating it's socioeconomic environment on it's own. Big difference. The dominican republic also holds a larger domestic capitalist class than Haiti.

Most third world nations have US installed 'leadership' that facilitate parasitic neo colonial rule for the US.

Are you saying this is the case in India?

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 05:01

It isn't, but taking an overly anti-western-proletarian view is unproductive and silly. The workers and farmers of the Third World don't need us feteshizing about their perceived greater class purity, they need mass mobilization from their comrades in the First World. There is a clear difference between showing solidarity with the Third World and needlessly disparaging the Workers of the First World.

It borders on the noble savage mentality that someone else mentioned, and even reminds me of vulgar workerism in a way.

Yes taking a overly anti-western-proletarian view is indeed unproductive and silly but so is holding some naive view of the American working class.

Both 'conservative' and 'liberal' supporters of capitalism dominate the American working class. Join reality.

Blackscare

29th June 2010, 05:06

I was merely trying to point out that being CAPITALIST or not, does not mean a thing in terms of whether a country is "Third world" or not.

The point I was trying to make is exactly that Haiti and DR are both capitalist, as is India, while being in vastly different situations politically. Being capitalist is a reflection of the basic structure of the economy, while being Third world is basically a reflection of total poverty. You need to look at the nuances of things rather than paint a country as not being third world simply because it is 'capitalist' (the argument here being that somehow only the successful countries of the capitalist world can be called capitalist? Capitalism exists on both the giving and receiving ends of imperialism). You're essentially arguing over aesthetics. India may be more independent, but it is still poor and still third world.

Blackscare

29th June 2010, 05:08

Yes taking a overly anti-western-proletarian view is indeed unproductive and silly but so is holding some naive view of the American working class.

Both 'conservative' and 'liberal' supporters of capitalism dominate the American working class. Join reality.

Obviously wolf, you've got to be joking if you're trying to imply I think that somehow the American working class is currently or inherently revolutionary.

That's where a magic little word called agitation comes in, no revolution ever came out of thin air, the working class has to be brought over to leftist thought. It's hard to carry out agitation amongst the working class if you belong to a group that professes to have contemptuous views of them.

Say it with me now, ag-it-a-tion.

Glenn Beck

29th June 2010, 05:42

We've got plenty of agitation, too much agitation. Agitation and no class consciousness gets you the Tea Party. What we need is effective propaganda. No matter how pissed they get, people have to work with the tools they have available, and the tools they have available right now are nationalism, racism, liberal individualism, etc.

This is a complete crock of bullshit and a gross, distorted generalization. Have you actually went up and asked people about US imperialism? Most people don't have a clue about US's involvements in other countries. They never hear about it and they never learn about it. It's complete crap to sit there and make statements like "They basically don't care".

"Have you ever actually went up and asked white people in the North about segregation? Most people don't have a clue about Jim Crow or lynchings in other parts of the country. They never hear about it and they never learn about it. It's complete crap to sit there and make statements like "They basically don't care"."

Blackscare

29th June 2010, 06:02

We've got plenty of agitation, too much agitation. Agitation and no class consciousness gets you the Tea Party.Fair enough, I misspoke. What I meant was in fact propaganda, sowing the seeds of leftist thought, etc. I used misleading language there.

"Have you ever actually went up and asked white people in the North about segregation? Most people don't have a clue about Jim Crow or lynchings in other parts of the country. They never hear about it and they never learn about it. It's complete crap to sit there and make statements like "They basically don't care"."From the quotes within quotes I'm not sure who exactly you're quoting or if any of this is you, but I have to say that it's pretty common knowledge that there were lynchings, unfair laws, etc. It is in fact true that this country is stricken with apathy, apathy that is encouraged in the media and consumer culture. Too much emphasis on narrow-minded egotism and individual self fulfillment at the expense of any feelings of unity with the community. This however isn't damning evidence of the inherently weak consciousness within our proletariat, it's damning evidence of the Left's inability to fight the all pervasive media blanket this country is shrouded in.

Somehow I get the feeling I misread you though.

[Edit]

Oh yea, totally missed your point. Gotcha now :D Chalk up what I said to an argument against the guy you were rhetorically saying that to.

29th June 2010, 06:07

Maoism-Third Worldism: because owning consumer goods makes you a dirty imperialist.

Glenn Beck

29th June 2010, 06:09

Fair enough, I misspoke. What I meant was in fact propaganda, sowing the seeds of leftist thought, etc. I used misleading language there.

From the quotes within quotes I'm not sure who exactly you're quoting or if any of this is you, but I have to say that it's pretty common knowledge that there were lynchings, unfair laws, etc. It is in fact true that this country is stricken with apathy, apathy that is encouraged in the media and consumer culture. Too much emphasis on narrow-minded egotism and individual self fulfillment at the expense of any feelings of unity with the community. This however isn't damning evidence of the inherently weak consciousness within our proletariat, it's damning evidence of the Left's inability to fight the all pervasive media blanket this country is shrouded in.

Somehow I get the feeling I misread you though.

That part wasn't directed at you, I was mocking the idea that somehow ignorance absolves one from the charge of apathy. If anything ignorance is evidence of apathy.

I agree with you that the widespread apathy is damning evidence that the U.S. left is a failure, but I don't think it's exclusively a failure of education or even necessarily organization. If the seed doesn't sprout it's either the farmer or the field. In this case, I think it's both, and I think that's why a lot of people find at least some aspects of the third-worldist perspective appealing.

turquino

29th June 2010, 06:29

Obviously wolf, you've got to be joking if you're trying to imply I think that somehow the American working class is currently or inherently revolutionary.

That's where a magic little word called agitation comes in, no revolution ever came out of thin air, the working class has to be brought over to leftist thought. It's hard to carry out agitation amongst the working class if you belong to a group that professes to have contemptuous views of them.

Say it with me now, ag-it-a-tion.
Agitation isn't going to go very far if the communist parties in Western Europe and North America are more radical than the workers they agitate to. This is the exact opposite of a century ago when the workers were more radical than their party representatives. If it was still the case that party bureaucrats were responsible for beguiling the masses, one would think they would've abandoned them and found parties better at articulating their demands by now. And indeed they have, only it's the unabashed imperialist parties!

manic expression

29th June 2010, 10:32

do we, yes or no, get the crumbs off the table of the exploitation of the third world?
You can't exploit someone unless you own the means of production, unless you force workers to sell their labor to you. First world workers don't do that. They buy products that are cheaper because of third world exploitation, but people in the third world buy even cheaper products because of the same thing. It's a global system and always has been.

he doesn't hate them, he's just mad at how people purposely blind themself off imperialism. i bet you can ask alot of people and they will tell you they know that the west exploit the third world unfairly and they think it's okay. they basicly don't care. a shit load of people are opposed to the 'fair' label because they want to save 13 cents per dollar for coffee. the fair label makes sure workers are well paid and work in acceptable conditions, it's a liberal minimum decency kind of crap .He does hate them, and don't be silly, most people don't want to see the world be the painful place it is. Sure, Republicans might say that, but since when did you take your political cues from them?

The fair label doesn't mean anything. The fact that workers don't fall for such capitalist propaganda is a credit to them.

yes but working class people can afford to be doctors, at least in quebec i know it can be kinda hard in the usa and often girls turn into strippers during the time they are students. i can't imagine a poor third worlders being a doctor without some lucky meritocratic contest going on.What are you talking about? Most workers in the first world can't go to medical school unless they get a scholarship or take out an insane amount of loans, which is basically "some lucky meritocratic contest".

And workers in India can manage to become doctors too, against the odds, of course (just like workers in the first world). Have you ever been to the third world?

yes i know that things are at a lower price in the third world since people have less money also, this is what i don't like about MSH they never state it. it is somewhat hard to live off 15,000$ a year but it is quite possible and one thing to take into account is the support from other member of your family. and you would live in a much better place than someone in the third world anyway.It's not just because they have less money, things are cheaper for a number of reasons. In Asia, electronics are cheaper because it's where a lot of the stuff is produced and because knock-offs are so common.

With $15,000 a year, you can barely live in the first world. Who are you to tell a homeless mother of two who is actually working a job (I've met a few) that she's "living in a much better place than someone in the third world"? Especially when the so-called third world has its elite and middle class and working class and peasantry and underclass? Your dichotomy makes no sense.

interesting, but wouldn't the water quality have to do with the inability to build good water purification plants? also i hear that often when such projects are built, the local population tries to steal parts of plants since they are poor or so. all of this contribute to a cycle of poverty.It has to do with water supply. NYC doesn't purify its water and yet its very potable because it's taken from a certain reservoir. If you don't have the means to transport the water to your cities, and if your villages can only get water from rivers that aren't clean (and oftentimes have latrines next to them, which makes it worse), health quality will be very bad. But that, again, doesn't mean workers with humane water are bad. Water fountains in Rome are free and potable...that doesn't make the working poor of Rome anything but poor workers. They need us to organize them and educate them to revolutionary politics. Are you part of this or no?

So by your naive world view there is no such thing as a working class reactionary. Wow.
Of course there are. If I take your word for it, you're one. :lol: You being reactionary, though, doesn't mean revolutionaries should give up. It means we should fulfill our historical duty and help build a revolutionary party against the opposition of reactionaries.

But I see you're not going to tell me what Marxism is, because you can't. Go play with your toys and leave the politics for the grown-ups, little one. :laugh:

Are most of the Tea Party people working class? Yes or no.They include workers, but their reactionary arguments are just like yours...they don't know the difference between Marxism and anarchism either! :lol: Too easy.

29th June 2010, 10:36

do we, yes or no, get the crumbs off the table of the exploitation of the third world?
We don't live off the Third World, the capitalists merely pay Third World workers less and keep profits to themselves. It's insane to think otherwise.

maskerade

29th June 2010, 10:42

I would say that the vast amount of people who endlessly consume material goods produced in the third world are blissfully unaware of the cost to the third world workers. I hate to say it, but the solidarity is almost non-existent.

As socialists and communists, we should always advocate less material consumption, because of the costs to the producers (third world workers) and the environment.

But to group together first world workers with the first world capitalists which caused all of this in the first place is ridiculous. It is our job to teach and educate people about the atrocities behind mindless consumption.

29th June 2010, 10:54

I would say that the vast amount of people who endlessly consume material goods produced in the third world are blissfully unaware of the cost to the third world workers. I hate to say it, but the solidarity is almost non-existent.
I don't think any shopaholics are socialists... that's probably why they show no solidarity.

maskerade

29th June 2010, 10:57

I don't think any shopaholics are socialists... that's probably why they show no solidarity.

Hmm, but you don't have to be a socialist to show solidarity? Long before I became a socialist I made attempts to stop my material consumption, and in Sweden there are signs of this as well, but it's very small...

I hate the fact that the capitalists have succeeded so well in demonizing the left :(

29th June 2010, 11:01

Hmm, but you don't have to be a socialist to show solidarity?
You don't have to, but it's a very rare occurrence.

Tavarisch_Mike

29th June 2010, 12:09

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 12:42

He does hate them, and don't be silly, most people don't want to see the world be the painful place it is. Sure, Republicans might say that, but since when did you take your political cues from them?

The fair label doesn't mean anything. The fact that workers don't fall for such capitalist propaganda is a credit to them.
when you say that we claim first world workers from poor regions are having a nice life, i respond that you think third world workers are having good life and we shouldn't complain about their condition.

What are you talking about? Most workers in the first world can't go to medical school unless they get a scholarship or take out an insane amount of loans, which is basically "some lucky meritocratic contest".

And workers in India can manage to become doctors too, against the odds, of course (just like workers in the first world). Have you ever been to the third world?
yes a loan that they can manage to pay back, in canada we have loans with cheap interest rates for students. i have not been in the third world. and i agree that thinking that the third world is poorer than it actually might be the reason i think they live in such misery compared to us. it seems very hard to compare our living standards with theirs since money is a bad way to analyze it.

It's not just because they have less money, things are cheaper for a number of reasons. In Asia, electronics are cheaper because it's where a lot of the stuff is produced and because knock-offs are so common.

With $15,000 a year, you can barely live in the first world. Who are you to tell a homeless mother of two who is actually working a job (I've met a few) that she's "living in a much better place than someone in the third world"? Especially when the so-called third world has its elite and middle class and working class and peasantry and underclass? Your dichotomy makes no sense.
i don't understand what you mean by barely living. i don't imagine anyone eating rice like a north korean with 15 000$ a year. as for the mother of 2 i wouldn't tell her that she's ungrateful and that kind of crap nor would i bother people who make 15 000$ a year. i just think taht single mothers of 2 in the third world would have a much harder time. also i hate how you come up with the middle and elite class in the third world like it matter, i am talking about the poorer third world workers. i don't care about their elites.

Of course there are. If I take your word for it, you're one. You being reactionary, though, doesn't mean revolutionaries should give up. It means we should fulfill our historical duty and help build a revolutionary party against the opposition of reactionaries.

But I see you're not going to tell me what Marxism is, because you can't. Go play with your toys and leave the politics for the grown-ups, little one.
stop being obnoxious,someone reactionary wouldn't give a fuck about the third world.

The fair label doesn't mean anything. The fact that workers don't fall for such capitalist propaganda is a credit to them.
the fair label would mean something if the government would enforce this, but instead kosher label is enforced, the 'bio' label is half enforced. i am not sure about the 'halal' one but it seems only religious food label are well enforced. it is half-assed reformism but it's the minimum acceptable that the industry shouldn't use children as workers or have them submit to corporeal punishment for failure to meet quota.

dearest chuck

29th June 2010, 16:09

if class is determined by relationship to production, the vast majority of western workers have an indirect relationship to production at best. but this doesnt condemn them to the surplus population,since they can find gainful employment in the service sector with little difficulty.

Wolf Larson

29th June 2010, 19:28

Fair enough, I misspoke. What I meant was in fact propaganda, sowing the seeds of leftist thought, etc. I used misleading language there.

From the quotes within quotes I'm not sure who exactly you're quoting or if any of this is you, but I have to say that it's pretty common knowledge that there were lynchings, unfair laws, etc. It is in fact true that this country is stricken with apathy, apathy that is encouraged in the media and consumer culture. Too much emphasis on narrow-minded egotism and individual self fulfillment at the expense of any feelings of unity with the community. This however isn't damning evidence of the inherently weak consciousness within our proletariat, it's damning evidence of the Left's inability to fight the all pervasive media blanket this country is shrouded in.

Somehow I get the feeling I misread you though.

[Edit]

Oh yea, totally missed your point. Gotcha now :D Chalk up what I said to an argument against the guy you were rhetorically saying that to.
My first posts on this site (before teh technocracy arguments with the mods) were in the propaganda section saying the same thing poster glen beck and now you are saying. I agree.

Trying to frame my position as me 'hating' the american working class is silly though. i am the american working class. the experiences i've had over the years have me a tad burned out, sure, but....all in all my point stands, not what you twisted it into but my actual point- the american working class is totally incapable of bringing about socialism at this point.

if capitalism crashed even further we'd be in a situation where fascism could take hold, not socialism. this is in fact the state of affairs in america, as far as i see it. in the streets, at the workplace etc.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 19:55

when you say that we claim first world workers from poor regions are having a nice life, i respond that you think third world workers are having good life and we shouldn't complain about their condition.
I think nothing of the sort, in fact I have illustrated why living in the third world is inhumane and oppressive. The only problem is that it's inhumane and oppressive for workers in the first world, too. In fact, both groups overlap quite a bit.

But if first world workers don't have a nice life, then what's your argument?

yes a loan that they can manage to pay back, in canada we have loans with cheap interest rates for students. i have not been in the third world. and i agree that thinking that the third world is poorer than it actually might be the reason i think they live in such misery compared to us. it seems very hard to compare our living standards with theirs since money is a bad way to analyze it.
Alright, not to be condescending, but you should go to the third world before talking about stuff like this. It's a lot more complex of a picture than you're making it out to be. And watch what you drink and eat.

And yes, you're right, the sum of money one has doesn't mean everything. You have to look at living conditions.

But most importantly, living conditions are secondary. You're a worker with working-class interests if you make $20,000 a year or $60,000 a year. When push comes to shove and the boss comes knocking, class is everything.

i don't understand what you mean by barely living. i don't imagine anyone eating rice like a north korean with 15 000$ a year. as for the mother of 2 i wouldn't tell her that she's ungrateful and that kind of crap nor would i bother people who make 15 000$ a year. i just think taht single mothers of 2 in the third world would have a much harder time. also i hate how you come up with the middle and elite class in the third world like it matter, i am talking about the poorer third world workers. i don't care about their elites.
I posted a link before that shows how plenty of American children face hunger on a routine basis. Hunger in the US is NOT rare. People freeze to death because they lack shelter.

A homeless mother who's trying to work a job in NYC goes through much the same difficulties as a homeless mother who's trying to work a job in Dakar. Streets are streets, hunger is hunger. There are differences, sure, but let's not be ridiculous, the two experiences are very similar.

Also, you're forgetting that there is no homogeneous "poorer third world workers". Workers live very differently than peasants, and some third world workers are able to climb the ladder. Like I said, it's much more complex than you're saying.

stop being obnoxious,someone reactionary wouldn't give a fuck about the third world.
I wasn't addressing that to you.

the fair label would mean something if the government would enforce this, but instead kosher label is enforced, the 'bio' label is half enforced. i am not sure about the 'halal' one but it seems only religious food label are well enforced. it is half-assed reformism but it's the minimum acceptable that the industry shouldn't use children as workers or have them submit to corporeal punishment for failure to meet quota.
I fully agree, it's the minimum to outlaw child labor. But here's my question: now that the first world has abolished child labor, why are you blaming them for not being exploited to the same degree as the so-called third world? We should be defending that and pushing for it everywhere, not pointing to it as proof of first world apathy/laziness/etc.

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 20:31

I think nothing of the sort, in fact I have illustrated why living in the third world is inhumane and oppressive. The only problem is that it's inhumane and oppressive for workers in the first world, too. In fact, both groups overlap quite a bit.

But if first world workers don't have a nice life, then what's your argument?
that one's life is worse than the other? in some way i think the third world is in fact less oppressed than ours, they for example, are in general more happy and have less mental illness and this is not simply due to the fact that people under report it. though war torn regions are much more vulnerable to mental illness than ours too. there is much more widespread depression caused by extensive work here i don't understand why such a phenomenon is not present in the third world.

But most importantly, living conditions are secondary. You're a worker with working-class interests if you make $20,000 a year or $60,000 a year. When push comes to shove and the boss comes knocking, class is everything.
yes maybe on a strictly class analysis, but that doesn't mean we aren't the capitalist's favorite workers which support wars for their ends so we deserve a little bit more of the crumbs falling down the table of imperialist wars and mtw hostility to the first world working class living standard isn't justified at all.

I posted a link before that shows how plenty of American children face hunger on a routine basis. Hunger in the US is NOT rare. People freeze to death because they lack shelter.

A homeless mother who's trying to work a job in NYC goes through much the same difficulties as a homeless mother who's trying to work a job in Dakar. Streets are streets, hunger is hunger. There are differences, sure, but let's not be ridiculous, the two experiences are very similar.

Also, you're forgetting that there is no homogeneous "poorer third world workers". Workers live very differently than peasants, and some third world workers are able to climb the ladder. Like I said, it's much more complex than you're saying.
yes malnutrition is sad but i never see jewish concentration camp style photos in the first world unless the guy is on meth. while i do see these types of things in the third world. it may only be sensational but i think my point is valid. to repeat myself malnutrition is horrible, but starving to death seems worse. i don't understand what you mean when you say malnutrition kills you faster than starving to death, it seems like malnutrition comes before starving to death anyway.

as for the third world not being homogenous between peasants and worker i could very well say that doctors and workers are not homogenous either.

I fully agree, it's the minimum to outlaw child labor. But here's my question: now that the first world has abolished child labor, why are you blaming them for not being exploited to the same degree as the so-called third world? We should be defending that and pushing for it everywhere, not pointing to it as proof of first world apathy/laziness/etc.
i'm not blaming anyone for not being as exploited as others. i am saying not being as exploited of others translate into certain political ideology and thought which have the impact of keeping this sort of system alive. the 'better them than me' sort of thinking.

what is exactly the definition of proletariat? because this is often what mtw argue about, that proletariat barely survive enough to reproduce their labour and thus the first world have a hard time qualifying as proletariat. is being a proletariat only selling your labour and having no ownership of means of production?

manic expression

29th June 2010, 21:07

that one's life is worse than the other? in some way i think the third world is in fact less oppressed than ours, they for example, are in general more happy and have less mental illness and this is not simply due to the fact that people under report it. though war torn regions are much more vulnerable to mental illness than ours too. there is much more widespread depression caused by extensive work here i don't understand why such a phenomenon is not present in the third world.
Yes, the conditions are different, but they play out along the same lines. That means it's the same class(es) with the same interests. Trying to fundamentally divide them is mistaken at best, counterrevolutionary at worst.

yes maybe on a strictly class analysis, but that doesn't mean we aren't the capitalist's favorite workers which support wars for their ends so we deserve a little bit more of the crumbs falling down the table of imperialist wars and mtw hostility to the first world working class living standard isn't justified at all.
We aren't the capitalists' favorite workers, they've been screwing over American workers for decades. In fact, they've been moving jobs from the US to other countries which has sunken entire layers of the American proletariat into poverty and despair. So no, American workers are screwed over just like everyone else, they've just been fortunate enough to have won concessions through struggle.

yes malnutrition is sad but i never see jewish concentration camp style photos in the first world unless the guy is on meth. while i do see these types of things in the third world. it may only be sensational but i think my point is valid. to repeat myself malnutrition is horrible, but starving to death seems worse. i don't understand what you mean when you say malnutrition kills you faster than starving to death, it seems like malnutrition comes before starving to death anyway.
Those images are taken of a small minority of the third world. Most workers don't live like that. Your logic, let's not forget, is that difference in living standards equals difference in interests/political beliefs. In this case, that logic would then classify third world workers as above those extreme cases of starvation. If we're going to distinguish between first and third worlds, why not between third and fourth?

Dying from starvation doesn't always mean dying purely from lack of food. Once the body is weakened through the early stages of starvation, disease is usually the greatest threat. If you look at causes of death during the Irish Famine of the 19th Century, disease took far more lives than straight starvation because of this.

as for the third world not being homogenous between peasants and worker i could very well say that doctors and workers are not homogenous either.
Exactly, so let's take a class analysis, not an analysis based on a dichotomy between the first world and third world.

i'm not blaming anyone for not being as exploited as others. i am saying not being as exploited of others translate into certain political ideology and thought which have the impact of keeping this sort of system alive. the 'better them than me' sort of thinking.
While I don't deny that some workers may fall into this as a result of an ideological alignment with the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, I don't think most workers ascribe to that way of thinking. Many American workers have family living in the third world, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to feel that way. Plus, politics is usually local, American workers need to be educated on why capitalism hurts them and their sisters and brothers outside the US.

Don't look at the lack of revolutionary sentiment among US workers as a problem, look at it as an opportunity.

what is exactly the definition of proletariat? because this is often what mtw argue about, that proletariat barely survive enough to reproduce their labour and thus the first world have a hard time qualifying as proletariat. is being a proletariat only selling your labour and having no ownership of means of production?
A proletarian sells his/her labor to survive, yes. First world workers meet this definition without any problem.

GreenCommunism

29th June 2010, 21:34

Yes, the conditions are different, but they play out along the same lines. That means it's the same class(es) with the same interests. Trying to fundamentally divide them is mistaken at best, counterrevolutionary at worst.

if they live in very different conditions it isn't wrong at all. that said, i admit i do not know exactly how different conditions are.

We aren't the capitalists' favorite workers, they've been screwing over American workers for decades. In fact, they've been moving jobs from the US to other countries which has sunken entire layers of the American proletariat into poverty and despair. So no, American workers are screwed over just like everyone else, they've just been fortunate enough to have won concessions through struggle.
yes but jobs that are here are shipped oversea and not the opposite, it's somewhat telling.

Those images are taken of a small minority of the third world. Most workers don't live like that. Your logic, let's not forget, is that difference in living standards equals difference in interests/political beliefs. In this case, that logic would then classify third world workers as above those extreme cases of starvation. If we're going to distinguish between first and third worlds, why not between third and fourth?

Dying from starvation doesn't always mean dying purely from lack of food. Once the body is weakened through the early stages of starvation, disease is usually the greatest threat. If you look at causes of death during the Irish Famine of the 19th Century, disease took far more lives than straight starvation because of this.
the point i had was that malnutrition was just as bad if not worse in the third world.

A proletarian sells his/her labor to survive, yes. First world workers meet this definition without any problem.
but if a proletariat works for luxury and not to survive, as in welfare is abundant, is he still a proletariat?

Hiero

29th June 2010, 21:57

Yes, the conditions are different, but they play out along the same lines. That means it's the same class(es) with the same interests. Trying to fundamentally divide them is mistaken at best, counterrevolutionary at worst.

They are fundmentally divided. Understanding and acknolwedging that division is a class analysis. What you are promoting is almost a prescriptive cultural ideaology, a culture understanding of class, not a scientific one. What you are promoting is a falsely reductive reading of Marx. It is a worker's nationalism, it views all people who happen to work as horizont,al when their are real vertical rankings of workers.

This is 2010, an era of imperialism, service sector capitalism in the first world and overall a transcendental capitalism. Class relations have dramatically changed since Marx said there is a proleteriat and bourgeioise. The conditions for selling one's labour in the first world have changed. If the material and physical conditions of capitalism have changed then the class relations have changed and thus people's living conditions and their overall class "in-itself".

I don't know what people's problem is that they can not accept the reality before them. If you think there is going to be a 1917 style revolution in America or an developed Western nation any time soon you are out of your mind. The bland rehashed party Marxism of the 1930's type can't compherend the changing nature of capitalism unless a Marx to come along and tell them and a Lenin to lead them.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 22:10

if they live in very different conditions it isn't wrong at all. that said, i admit i do not know exactly how different conditions are.
You're being too general, there are great amounts of difference in conditions between workers in the same country. That doesn't mean they're part of another class if they make $X.00 a year instead of $Y.00...it just means the workers of a certain industry have won concessions and we need to build on that success. The same goes for workers of different countries, in which case generalization is even more problematic.

Simply put, living in different conditions does not fundamentally divide workers. We need to start from there, from common cause and common struggle. Then we can look at specifics.

yes but jobs that are here are shipped oversea and not the opposite, it's somewhat telling.
It is telling, because both sets of workers are getting screwed hard. US workers get laid off and watch their lives fall apart. Workers "overseas" are forced into very low-paying jobs with long hours and no representation.

The worker whose job got shipped off gets screwed, and the worker who is lucky to get a terrible new job is screwed. Both get screwed, both have a vested interest in the destruction of capitalism.

the point i had was that malnutrition was just as bad if not worse in the third world.
It is, but you can't be general. Some workers in the US face worse malnutrition than certain workers in the so-called third world. Most workers in the third world aren't subject to the horrifying hunger you're talking about. It's complex, but the dynamics are equal across the board. That's what revolutionaries pinpoint and focus on.

but if a proletariat works for luxury and not to survive, as in welfare is abundant, is he still a proletariat?
Luxury is entirely subjective and relative. But yes, you are still a worker if your wage allows you to buy stuff that isn't necessary for survival.

Welfare is not abundant.

manic expression

29th June 2010, 22:23

They are fundmentally divided. Understanding and acknolwedging that division is a class analysis. What you are promoting is almost a prescriptive cultural ideaology, a culture understanding of class, not a scientific one. What you are promoting is a falsely reductive reading of Marx. It is a worker's nationalism, it views all people who happen to work as horizont,al when their are real vertical rankings of workers.
Well, if your understanding of class is scientific, then promptly present a scientifically consistent definition of class, based on concrete social relations, that categorizes society as you say.

This is 2010, an era of imperialism, service sector capitalism in the first world and overall a transcendental capitalism. Class relations have dramatically changed since Marx said there is a proleteriat and bourgeioise. The conditions for selling one's labour in the first world have changed. If the material and physical conditions of capitalism have changed then the class relations have changed and thus people's living conditions and their overall class "in-itself".But class relations have not dramatically changed since Lenin, who first advanced our understanding of the "era of imperialism". Unfortunately for you, he never even vaguely argued your position. Shame.

I don't know what people's problem is that they can not accept the reality before them. If you think there is going to be a 1917 style revolution in America or an developed Western nation any time soon you are out of your mind. The bland rehashed party Marxism of the 1930's type can't compherend the changing nature of capitalism unless a Marx to come along and tell them and a Lenin to lead them.:rolleyes: Yes, adhering to Marx's understanding of class, which Lenin tirelessly defended, is "bland" and "rehashed". The ghost of Bernstein is with us, comrades.

30th June 2010, 00:33

disregard this

Glenn Beck

30th June 2010, 01:32

Hold on! I just want to make the point that yes, we do have much much more comfortable living conditions here in the first world no question about that, but this is not the result of some individuals (manny manny individuals) have choosen to consumpt as much as they can, no this is the achivement of the labour movement, the result of 160 years of struggle. This is just another way of dividing workers.

And it's working. The division of workers by nation is something absolutely fundamental to capitalism. What disturbs me is that people in this thread are treating it like as if it were just some ideological trick that can be overcome through the proper shift in mindset. That is just bullshit. If you don't think nation, ethnicity, citizenship, etc. are structural features of the class system then you should go talk to a Guatemalan person living in the U.S. without papers and see what they think.

A person's place in the system shapes the way they perceive their interests and what choices they have to pursue them. That's elementary. Workers have a vested interest in ending capitalism, yeah, but workers have a vested interest in being able to sell their labor for as good a wage as they can get, that's elementary too. Revolutions don't tend to happen until the first seems at least as feasible as the second. Otherwise people focus on the latter goal because you've always gotta eat. And they'll do it in whatever way seems to work. Just like water, people find their level through the path of least resistance.

Honestly it just impoverishes everyone to equate analyzing the way nation works with class with the ideas and rhetoric of some obscure band of Maoist sectarian crackpots that everyone likes to laugh at, and just write it all off as "third worldism". The idea that it just doesn't matter and we're all a great big brotherhood and we can make it if we just believe makes some people feel nice but it doesn't do more than that. We need to understand how the position of the U.S.A. (or whatever country) fucks with the position of workers inside, not so we can write them all off as a bunch of fat spoiled pricks but so that we can have at least some clue as to where this is all going and where we should place our bets.

On a side note, I perceive a massive double standard when people talk about these issues. There's not much outcry when people argue that the revolutionary potential of people living in a slum or on subsistence agriculture in some marginal country is very low because their position in the system makes them unlikely to organize effectively, or become class consciousness, or whatever the case may be. People just take it as an observation and analysis based on particular structural factors, not a horrible, reactionary insult against their honor. But when you say the same thing about workers in the U.S.A. everyone shits a brick and calls you all sorts of names. What's up with that?

dearest chuck

30th June 2010, 02:38

it's true, it's kind of disingenuous to speak of intternational solidarity of the working class without so muchas an internationally determined price of labor power

GreenCommunism

30th June 2010, 03:13

You're being too general, there are great amounts of difference in conditions between workers in the same country. That doesn't mean they're part of another class if they make $X.00 a year instead of $Y.00...it just means the workers of a certain industry have won concessions and we need to build on that success. The same goes for workers of different countries, in which case generalization is even more problematic.

Simply put, living in different conditions does not fundamentally divide workers. We need to start from there, from common cause and common struggle. Then we can look at specifics.

i have another question, aren't doctors and small business owners who don't live off their business petit bourgeois?

It is telling, because both sets of workers are getting screwed hard. US workers get laid off and watch their lives fall apart. Workers "overseas" are forced into very low-paying jobs with long hours and no representation.

The worker whose job got shipped off gets screwed, and the worker who is lucky to get a terrible new job is screwed. Both get screwed, both have a vested interest in the destruction of capitalism.
well i agree, you kinda changed my mind a bit, i guess that it is in the real first interest to fight capitalism for both the first world and third world workers. but i feel that that the first world worker still feel that they actually do gain something out of imperialist wars. for example, alot of people publicly complained that gas prices weren't going down since the iraq war was not having a success. this shows how people argued that the war was not about oil, but when they start losing it another set of people is *****ing that oil prices aren't going down. perhaps the interests of the first world worker is mixed

It is, but you can't be general. Some workers in the US face worse malnutrition than certain workers in the so-called third world. Most workers in the third world aren't subject to the horrifying hunger you're talking about. It's complex, but the dynamics are equal across the board. That's what revolutionaries pinpoint and focus on.
but when there are bad harvest in the third world, people starve and we need to send them food because they can't afford it, but when there is a bad harvest in the first world. prices go up and everything goes just as normal. i know that alot of the third world actually produces food only for our pleasure ,but still a mix of bad crops here and in the third world doesn't mean we ever die of starvation, only severe economic crisis like the great depression causes real starvation and widespread death in the first world.

Luxury is entirely subjective and relative. But yes, you are still a worker if your wage allows you to buy stuff that isn't necessary for survival.

Welfare is not abundant.
welfare keeps you alive, not in a very dignified way, but i feel that people constantly complaining about people on welfare are one of the reason people don't stay on it too long. they are the roots of all of society's problem even if the % of the public budget they take is kinda small, and when someone who used to be on welfare starts working he complains and annoy those who are on welfare like he was harassed before. it is a scapegoat mecanism.

yet again i don't know in what exact conditions do third world workers live, but can you imagine living like they do overnight? wouldn't it take time to adjust?

Yes, adhering to Marx's understanding of class, which Lenin tirelessly defended, is "bland" and "rehashed". The ghost of Bernstein is with us, comrades.
i think he is refering to the fact that the world changed from a more or less manual or industy labour focused industry to a service industry. isn't the third world doing most of this so called primary or secondary job sector ? while the first world focus on giving people services and alot of it is probably entertainment though i guess a plumber is in the third job sector

On a side note, I perceive a massive double standard when people talk about these issues. There's not much outcry when people argue that the revolutionary potential of people living in a slum or on subsistence agriculture in some marginal country is very low because their position in the system makes them unlikely to organize effectively, or become class consciousness, or whatever the case may be. People just take it as an observation and analysis based on particular structural factors, not a horrible, reactionary insult against their honor. But when you say the same thing about workers in the U.S.A. everyone shits a brick and calls you all sorts of names. What's up with that?
it's interesting because you are right, being too poor and miserable prevents them from organising, while at the same time not being poor or miserable enough prevents the perception that a revolutionary change in the system is worth it.

also i guess the flaw of MTW is that it thinks those who are most miserable are the most likely to organise, while marx in his analysis of the representative democracy revolution stated that it was because the aristocrats had to give certain power to the bourgeois class for better development that there was eventually a revolution when the material condition stated that the bourgeoisie required power that the aristocrats could not give without severely endangering their position. that is to keep society as productive as it could be.

also MTW is pretty nice toward people in the black community in america and the first worlders on welfare unlike what we stated here, they do analyze that they have a better life than their third world counterpart but they say they are 2nd world, they mostly attack the so called middle class as too easily believing bourgeois propaganda simply because they are bought off and don't feel like changing things in a revolutionary manner would benefit them.

manic expression

30th June 2010, 11:16

And it's working. The division of workers by nation is something absolutely fundamental to capitalism. What disturbs me is that people in this thread are treating it like as if it were just some ideological trick that can be overcome through the proper shift in mindset. That is just bullshit. If you don't think nation, ethnicity, citizenship, etc. are structural features of the class system then you should go talk to a Guatemalan person living in the U.S. without papers and see what they think.
I'm on record for defending the place of nationality on this forum. Saying that the workers of imperialist nations are capable of being revolutionary, and have an immediate interest in being revolutionary due to the assaults on their rights for the past 30-odd years is not the same as saying nationality doesn't matter or that we're all the same with the same conditions.

Instead, we need to start from the recognition of workers in imperialist countries as proletarians who can, should and will push for revolution with the right leadership. That is our responsibility.

The task devolving on Communists is to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with artificial and childishly "Left" slogans.

Lenin, 1921

On a side note, I perceive a massive double standard when people talk about these issues. There's not much outcry when people argue that the revolutionary potential of people living in a slum or on subsistence agriculture in some marginal country is very low because their position in the system makes them unlikely to organize effectively, or become class consciousness, or whatever the case may be. People just take it as an observation and analysis based on particular structural factors, not a horrible, reactionary insult against their honor. But when you say the same thing about workers in the U.S.A. everyone shits a brick and calls you all sorts of names. What's up with that?
Actually, I would find it just as unreasonable for people to say that peasants or slum-dwellers are reactionary, useless, implicit in imperialism, etc.

But it begs the question: what particular structural factors make American workers reactionary, or at least less capable of revolution than other workers?

By this standard, though, we would think that Syria and Egypt and Moldova would have stronger genuine communist parties than Greece and Portugal, but that is not the case and every revolutionary knows it. How is this to be explained? Workers in these countries who aren't starving, watch TV, enjoy many benefits above their sisters and brothers in other countries...consistently support communism in large numbers. This cannot be explained by the logic proposed, and that is why I take such exception to it.

manic expression

30th June 2010, 11:56

i have another question, aren't doctors and small business owners who don't live off their business petit bourgeois?
It depends on the doctor and small business owner. But yes, generally they're petty bourgeois because they don't live purely from selling their labor but they lack the capital to act as bourgeois.

well i agree, you kinda changed my mind a bit, i guess that it is in the real first interest to fight capitalism for both the first world and third world workers. but i feel that that the first world worker still feel that they actually do gain something out of imperialist wars. for example, alot of people publicly complained that gas prices weren't going down since the iraq war was not having a success. this shows how people argued that the war was not about oil, but when they start losing it another set of people is *****ing that oil prices aren't going down. perhaps the interests of the first world worker is mixedYou do have a point here, in that after first world workers have won concessions, some layers of the proletariat take to class collaborationist and/or chauvinist ideas. The run up to the Iraq Invasion is a good example, everyone was so blinded by horror of 9/11 and the furor of imperialist nationalism that no one stopped to look at who was going to win (oil companies) and who was going to lose (Iraqis, American soldiers, people who don't own oil companies). I'll admit that when I was younger and living in that time, I started blaming Americans in general, instead of the people who were lying to my sisters and brothers. Now, I've learned that not only is it incorrect to blame workers who have been lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated...but it doesn't really help. They need our help to see what's going on.

Let's not forget that within a few years of chauvinism-fest 2003, the workers had fully turned on the US government. When the crash of 2008 hit, I heard all sorts of people questioning capitalism for the first time (not even workers, I mean middle class white-collars). And now, as Obama fails to deliver time and again, workers are pissed. They're fed up with the ruling class, even if they don't know exactly what the ruling class is yet. The time is right for a revolutionary party to reach out and educate our sisters and brothers on the way forward. That's where we come in.

Thousands of American workers just voted for a communist in Long Beach, California. There are millions more who we haven't even reached yet. We can do it.

but when there are bad harvest in the third world, people starve and we need to send them food because they can't afford it, but when there is a bad harvest in the first world. prices go up and everything goes just as normal. i know that alot of the third world actually produces food only for our pleasure ,but still a mix of bad crops here and in the third world doesn't mean we ever die of starvation, only severe economic crisis like the great depression causes real starvation and widespread death in the first world.Industrialization of agriculture is the issue. First world harvests are pretty consistent and have good yield because they use modern machinery. Third world harvests depend on manual labor or rudimentary machinery, so the harvests are unreliable, fragile and difficult. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the pressure to use cash crops contributes to the problem, but I'm not sure.

The third world doesn't just produce food "for our pleasure". Never consider the ability to eat a variety of foods a luxury, for it is a right. Everyone should be able to do so.

Again, the stats I brought up on hunger in the US are from today. While there is an economic crisis going on, it didn't create those pains, it exacerbated ones that already existed. Our sisters and brothers aren't experiencing hunger for the first time, this is something that's been felt in working-class communities for decades.

welfare keeps you alive, not in a very dignified way, but i feel that people constantly complaining about people on welfare are one of the reason people don't stay on it too long. they are the roots of all of society's problem even if the % of the public budget they take is kinda small, and when someone who used to be on welfare starts working he complains and annoy those who are on welfare like he was harassed before. it is a scapegoat mecanism.Well first, welfare hasn't really been welfare since the mid-90's. Clinton ended it. That's why people don't stay on it too long, because you get 4 years total and then you're on your own IIRC. Second, I agree that it is a scapegoat thing, made all the more ridiculous by the fact that the common myths on welfare were never true, and are certainly not true today. Even during the healthcare debate, I heard people saying "Oh well the poorest have medicaid, so no worries on them"...there was no recognition of the fact that medicaid is slow, cumbersome, minimal and basically pathetic.

But again, that just means American workers need education and leadership. The solidarity is there: in Seattle in 1999, the unions went against the official dimensions of the march and marched upon the WTO meetings, which turned a protest against globalization into a full-on mobilization against the ruling class. Just a few days ago, unions on the west coast stopped an Israeli ship from unloading in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Imagine how strong solidarity will be once we persuade them to join the side of socialist revolution.

yet again i don't know in what exact conditions do third world workers live, but can you imagine living like they do overnight? wouldn't it take time to adjust?You mean for someone like me, right? Just the drinking water alone would make it almost impossible for me to function in such conditions. So yes, I've seen what life is like in third world villages (as in you shower when it rains, as in kids don't have shoes, as in your roof might be a plastic tarp, etc) and I really can't imagine living like that. I'd likely survive (if I was able to get used to the sanitation) but I wouldn't expect too much more than that. But then again it would take me a very long time to adjust to living in US ghettos.

i think he is refering to the fact that the world changed from a more or less manual or industy labour focused industry to a service industry. isn't the third world doing most of this so called primary or secondary job sector ? while the first world focus on giving people services and alot of it is probably entertainment though i guess a plumber is in the third job sectorThat's not an invalid observation, but are not service sector jobs proletarian? It's not like people at Wal-Mart are anything but oppressed, deprived workers. The service industry is, at a very fundamental level, much the same as the auto industry or the textile industry.

Hiero

30th June 2010, 14:18

Well, if your understanding of class is scientific, then promptly present a scientifically consistent definition of class, based on concrete social relations, that categorizes society as you say.

What I am saying is that this has not been done yet affectively, or what has been done has not been acknowledge. Samir Amin and Arghiri Emmanuel are big heavy weights in this arena in the 1970s. Which no matter how much I quote no one ever follows these authors up.

But class relations have not dramatically changed since Lenin, who first advanced our understanding of the "era of imperialism". Unfortunately for you, he never even vaguely argued your position. Shame.

What would you call the capital flight and post-industrialisation of first world cities and the increasing rise in service economy, indcluding the decline in trade unionism?

Yes, adhering to Marx's understanding of class, which Lenin tirelessly defended, is "bland" and "rehashed". The ghost of Bernstein is with us, comrades.

Marx's undestanding of class is not prescriptive, it is a science that has to be constantly applied. Karl Marx's and Lenin's understanding of class is different to their theoritical means for understanding class in general.

manic expression

30th June 2010, 14:44

What I am saying is that this has not been done yet affectively, or what has been done has not been acknowledge.
I think the two are connected. If there was a cogent redefinition of class along the third worldist line, I would consider it, but I haven't seen one. I don't think that's a coincidence.

What would you call the capital flight and post-industrialisation of first world cities and the increasing rise in service economy, indcluding the decline in trade unionism?
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

Marx's undestanding of class is not prescriptive, it is a science that has to be constantly applied. Karl Marx's and Lenin's understanding of class is different to their theoritical means for understanding class in general.
Right, and scientifically, Marx's conception of class applies today. Remember, we're not talking the specifics of proletarian life, we're not talking about income, we're talking about fundamental class: social relations, class interests. This has not changed since the dawn of imperialism, and when formulating his analysis of this final form of capitalism, Lenin stuck to Marx's view of class for a very good reason.

Glenn Beck

30th June 2010, 18:28

I'm on record for defending the place of nationality on this forum. Saying that the workers of imperialist nations are capable of being revolutionary, and have an immediate interest in being revolutionary due to the assaults on their rights for the past 30-odd years is not the same as saying nationality doesn't matter or that we're all the same with the same conditions.

Instead, we need to start from the recognition of workers in imperialist countries as proletarians who can, should and will push for revolution with the right leadership. That is our responsibility.

The task devolving on Communists is to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with artificial and childishly "Left" slogans.

Lenin, 1921

On this I agree, except that it's just a matter of 'right leadership'. I think it's more than just the right leaders with the right perspective, I think there are a whole lot of different phases between where we are and where we want to be. Just IMO, the 'right leadership' tends to come out of years of struggle, when a movement is reaching its peak.

Actually, I would find it just as unreasonable for people to say that peasants or slum-dwellers are reactionary, useless, implicit in imperialism, etc.

Well to say they're complicit in imperialism is just absurd because they aren't, many working class U.S. citizens are. Useless is a pretty harsh way to describe anyone, but it may be 'useless' to try to organize totally intransigent elements who are openly hostile towards any sort of progressive cause unless something happens to weaken those tendencies and bring them closer to a position of solidarity.

It's generally a good policy when you have a problem with someone to focus on what they're doing and not what they are, and I think that applies to this case as much as it does to personal relationships. I don't think it's that easy to sweep my objection to a double standard under the rug, because I've seen it asserted on this board that peasants are reactionary or useless in working class struggles etc. For that to get a pass but for the same sentiments expressed against workers in core imperialist nations to meet not only universal outrage but also administrative action is clearly unjust, because there is just as much of a basis for both statements: both groups have clear reactionary tendencies that have played out under various circumstances throughout history.

But it begs the question: what particular structural factors make American workers reactionary, or at least less capable of revolution than other workers?

A multitude, not least the structures of imperialism, nationalism, and white privilege that give many of them an "out", no matter how unsatisfactory, outside of class struggle. As a Leninist, you no doubt hold that without political action and organization the most that will be achieved spontaneously by workers is what Lenin called "trade union consciousness". Well I submit that the consciousness spontaneously developed by workers in positions of relative privilege, i.e. those who have been beneficiaries of systems of imperialism as well as those who have won prior reformist struggles often tend towards reactionary expressions of nationalist solidarity with the bourgeoisie, because in contrast with the 'ideal' proletariat, they have somewhat more to lose than their chains. A common reaction in those situations is not to organize for a better future but to lash out against deteriorating conditions with an eye towards restoring a somewhat idealized past. I think current events with regards to the reactions of workers in the U.S. and Europe to the economic crisis bear this out.

I don't believe this is ever a permanent state of affairs nor a total obstacle to political action but it has to be dealt with. I also think that just like the working class is stratified internationally it's stratified within nations and an understanding of why certain workers tend towards the reactionary can help us understand why certain workers don't, and what we should be doing to work with them.

By this standard, though, we would think that Syria and Egypt and Moldova would have stronger genuine communist parties than Greece and Portugal, but that is not the case and every revolutionary knows it. How is this to be explained? Workers in these countries who aren't starving, watch TV, enjoy many benefits above their sisters and brothers in other countries...consistently support communism in large numbers. This cannot be explained by the logic proposed, and that is why I take such exception to it.

I don't believe that poverty just makes people revolutionary, actually I think it's a mixed bag of factors. As you'll note both of those countries you named are on the margins of imperialism. I think that plays an important role. One of the things I think is key is the existence of alternative channels for discontent that workers are more prone to follow. Like I said earlier, I think people in general will choose the easiest and most believable (to their particular perspective) path towards their goals. Things get even muddier when you throw in what Mao would've called "primary and secondary contradictions", like the situations faced by workers in much of the Middle East.

manic expression

30th June 2010, 19:09

On this I agree, except that it's just a matter of 'right leadership'. I think it's more than just the right leaders with the right perspective, I think there are a whole lot of different phases between where we are and where we want to be. Just IMO, the 'right leadership' tends to come out of years of struggle, when a movement is reaching its peak.
Agreed.

Well to say they're complicit in imperialism is just absurd because they aren't, many working class U.S. citizens are. Useless is a pretty harsh way to describe anyone, but it may be 'useless' to try to organize totally intransigent elements who are openly hostile towards any sort of progressive cause unless something happens to weaken those tendencies and bring them closer to a position of solidarity.

It's generally a good policy when you have a problem with someone to focus on what they're doing and not what they are, and I think that applies to this case as much as it does to personal relationships. I don't think it's that easy to sweep my objection to a double standard under the rug, because I've seen it asserted on this board that peasants are reactionary or useless in working class struggles etc. For that to get a pass but for the same sentiments expressed against workers in core imperialist nations to meet not only universal outrage but also administrative action is clearly unjust, because there is just as much of a basis for both statements: both groups have clear reactionary tendencies that have played out under various circumstances throughout history.
I think the only reasonable way to express that view would be to say that peasants can be reactionary, but that we also know of many other examples that show peasants of being very capable of being progressive and revolutionary. It's not all that different from this discussion, as I admit that American workers can be reactionary, but that they can and should and will be revolutionary if communists keep doing what they're doing under the present circumstances (or better circumstances, at that).

Basically, I think both statements are incorrect, if nothing else because they deny the complexities and exceptions that are always present.

A multitude, not least the structures of imperialism, nationalism, and white privilege that give many of them an "out", no matter how unsatisfactory, outside of class struggle. As a Leninist, you no doubt hold that without political action and organization the most that will be achieved spontaneously by workers is what Lenin called "trade union consciousness". Well I submit that the consciousness spontaneously developed by workers in positions of relative privilege, i.e. those who have been beneficiaries of systems of imperialism as well as those who have won prior reformist struggles often tend towards reactionary expressions of nationalist solidarity with the bourgeoisie, because in contrast with the 'ideal' proletariat, they have somewhat more to lose than their chains. A common reaction in those situations is not to organize for a better future but to lash out against deteriorating conditions with an eye towards restoring a somewhat idealized past. I think current events with regards to the reactions of workers in the U.S. and Europe to the economic crisis bear this out.
Lenin actually later went back on his ideas of "trade union consciousness" after the 1905 Revolution IIRC. I'm not sure on that, but I know 1905 forced him to reconsider his earlier theories on the subject.

Current events bear out a very different picture, though. Even if some US workers want to restore an idealized vision of the past, this is still a potentially early development of a revolutionary consciousness. The French Revolution started with most participants wanting to restore the good old days of the Ancien Regime. Anti-imperialist sentiment, whether it clings to sentimentalism or not, is a positive thing. Further, since the economic crisis began, interest for socialism and impatience with capitalism have increased dramatically. It's now up to us to give a clear voice to these feelings, and we're having some success already.

I don't believe this is ever a permanent state of affairs nor a total obstacle to political action but it has to be dealt with. I also think that just like the working class is stratified internationally it's stratified within nations and an understanding of why certain workers tend towards the reactionary can help us understand why certain workers don't, and what we should be doing to work with them.
Agreed.

I don't believe that poverty just makes people revolutionary, actually I think it's a mixed bag of factors. As you'll note both of those countries you named are on the margins of imperialism. I think that plays an important role. One of the things I think is key is the existence of alternative channels for discontent that workers are more prone to follow. Like I said earlier, I think people in general will choose the easiest and most believable (to their particular perspective) path towards their goals. Things get even muddier when you throw in what Mao would've called "primary and secondary contradictions", like the situations faced by workers in much of the Middle East.
The easiest and most believable paths have now been tried, and they have all failed. Obama was likely the last among them. So would you not agree that something of a mixed bag is now collecting itself in the US, or will in the future? The US, once you ignore the wealthiest 10%, looks more and more like a third world country. Chronically impoverished communities, constant police brutality, crumbling infrastructure, skyrocketing unemployment and underemployment, an arrogant and aloof elitist state that shows no willingness to reform itself...and of course incredible centralization of wealth among a small section of the population.

If that's not fertile ground for revolutionary consciousness, I'm not sure what is.