Third Worldism

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Comrades!

I see that most third-worldists are attacked. Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to defend anybody, but some of the things they say are based upon compelling evidence.

For instance, a first world worker earns more for doing less amount of labor, whereas a TW worker earns less for doing more amount of labor. A waiter's job in the west and sweatshops in the TW are evidence for this.

Second, aren't there varying degrees of exploitation? So would it be fair to say that the first world workers, though exploited, are better off in a relative sense? Also, a portion of the surplus value created in the TW could be used as wages of the first world worker in addition to a portion of surplus value created in the FW. Thus the FW worker would have a portion of his as well as the TW worker's surplus value as wages. Naturally, the TW worker will have reduced wages on this account.

Finally, history. If first world workers really feel exploited, surely there must have been some sort of revolution by now. But most revolutions have come from the third world. Doesn't this mean first world workers are okay with their condition? So if the exploitation of TW workers add to FW worker's wages, why would the latter stick his neck out and ruin things? Maybe, this is why FW worker is okay with capitalism because it benefits him indirectly. One man's loss is another man's gain sort of thing.

This is the argument in a nutshell, and I am simply presenting it to know more. Hopefully, no one would assume a belligerent attitude and start attacking me.

Mahatma

[#FF0000]

There aren't degrees of exploitation, imo. Exploitation is what it is. Workers get paid a fraction of the worth of their labor. They're exploited.

First world workers, however, are definitely better off, even though they are exploited.

But third worldists get this idea that every worker in America is filthy rich and white, and from there the entire philosophy degenerates into white upper-middle class teenage self-hatred.

Third worldism is basically saying that the guy who gets paid slightly better to load a finished product on the truck at the end of the line isn't as exploited as the guy who assembles on the line for less work. At least that's always how I looked at it

[PoliticalNightmare]

For instance, a first world worker earns more for doing less amount of labor, whereas a TW worker earns less for doing more amount of labor. A waiter's job in the west and sweatshops in the TW are evidence for this.

An FW worker earns more than a TW worker and does less work (on average). True, but the average FW worker still earns relatively little and does a lot of work (even if less than that of the TW worker). No FW worker should be forced to do any more labour just because people in the TW are forced to do ridiculous amounts. Also take into account that even if they were earning heaps, they'd still be being exploited as the way the system is due to privatisation, their employer takes a percentage of their product aways from them.

Second, aren't there varying degrees of exploitation? So would it be fair to say that the first world workers, though exploited, are better off in a relative sense?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they should be forgotten about entirely.

Also, a portion of the surplus value created in the TW could be used as wages of the first world worker in addition to a portion of surplus value created in the FW. Thus the FW worker would have a portion of his as well as the TW worker's surplus value as wages. Naturally, the TW worker will have reduced wages on this account.

...I presume you are saying this is wrong. Yes it is wrong, but through no fault of the FW worker, rather through fault of the ruling class. For instance it is hard to find shops where the clothes are made locally rather than in third world countries and even then the workers would still be getting exploited (the employer takes a percentage of their product due to privatisation).

Finally, history. If first world workers really feel exploited, surely there must have been some sort of revolution by now. But most revolutions have come from the third world. Doesn't this mean first world workers are okay with their condition? So if the exploitation of TW workers add to FW worker's wages, why would the latter stick his neck out and ruin things? Maybe, this is why FW worker is okay with capitalism because it benefits him indirectly. One man's loss is another man's gain sort of thing.

Because of the myths capitalism depicts in the media. That benefits go to lazy people. That the unemployed are unemployed because they are lazy. That socialism benefits the lazy at the expense of everyone (including the hard working poor). This just to name a few. People are scared of nationalised health services even though the NHS in the UK, for instance, works heaps better than the Privatised health service in the US which only the richest can afford. Socialists must also bide their time to wait for the correct timing for a revolution. As we saw with the soviet unions, a revolution must spread, otherwise a socialist country will face pressure from the worldwide capitalist market. Its people will suffer no matter how just the system.

I would say that the third world relies on the west to start a revolution because of how powerful it is and the dominance of its market. Europe faces some small potential due to the economic crisis it faces and the spending cuts governments are making.

I would not say I entirely disagree with third worldism. However I dislike some of the attitudes certain third worlders have; 'disperse Americans around the world so they can give back to the third worlders in labour' will surely result in a dictatorship of the third world over the west. That would be the opposite of the outcome we are trying to achieve (equality for everyone). Freedom of individual liberty is equally important. People should not be forced to do things they don't want to.

However I have often thought about (and before hearing about third worldism) the impact we have on the east. I have had the first hand experience of travelling to places like India and seeing poverty with my own eyes. It makes me feel, in comparison, like such a greedy, money hoarding westener each time. But then I reflect and realise that it is not my own doing or the doing of the west as a whole is not responsible. In fact, they are the actions of a very small minority who continue to dictate the rest of us. Of course they rely on both labour and consumption from the lower classes, but then by that logic it is also the fault of the third workers for providing their labour (which supports the ruling class) as well as the first world workers for consuming/purchasing their product, because this is what capitalism feeds off of. No, ultimately it is the ruling class' fault. When a working class kid sees and advert for a mobile phone and goes off to the shop to buy one, he doesn't necessarily realise that it is the product of an 8 year old in Asia working for 20p an hour, slowly going blind as a direct result of the manufacturing of it. And I have continued to purchase clothes all of which I have little knowledge of where they were made.

As a side question, not to hijack the OP's thread, does anyone know of companies that produce locally, specifically the UK, or anywhere else in the western world. Thanks.

[RGacky3]

Finally, history. If first world workers really feel exploited, surely there must have been some sort of revolution by now. But most revolutions have come from the third world. Doesn't this mean first world workers are okay with their condition? So if the exploitation of TW workers add to FW worker's wages, why would the latter stick his neck out and ruin things? Maybe, this is why FW worker is okay with capitalism because it benefits him indirectly. One man's loss is another man's gain sort of thing.


The majority of the world is not the first world, and the majority of the third world has'nt had a revolution, then I guess the reason for that is because the majority of the third world is'nt exploited.

Thats like saying in the 1800s the majority of the slaves hav'nt revoluted thus they are OK with slavery, its rediculous and ignores tons of factors.


Second, aren't there varying degrees of exploitation? So would it be fair to say that the first world workers, though exploited, are better off in a relative sense? Also, a portion of the surplus value created in the TW could be used as wages of the first world worker in addition to a portion of surplus value created in the FW. Thus the FW worker would have a portion of his as well as the TW worker's surplus value as wages. Naturally, the TW worker will have reduced wages on this account.

Of coarse they are but there are many many factors for that, but to think that they are NOT exploited is rediculous (thats what third worldists think), why would the Capitalists loose money?

[Glenn Beck]

"Third worldism" is a broad umbrella of views that simply hold that the distinction between "first world" and "third world" nations is of key importance. When people on Revleft talk about "Third worldism" they are talking about Maoist-third-worldism (all one term, distinct from Maoist, third-worldism) which is a somewhat crackpotty perspective seemingly originated by a small defunct group called the Maoist Internationalist Movement.

Their ideology holds that due to financial wizardry workers in first world countries are predominantly not really workers because even though their situation looks uncannily like wage labor, they are actually getting paid more than their labor is worth due to a combination of capitalist largesse and the supposedly low value of their labor. This is bullshit.

That workers in imperialist countries are often less inclined towards radicalization in part due to factors that can be traced to the global position of their countries is pretty much beyond question if you have a brain and eyes. So if you aren't a "third worldist" in the sense that you don't recognize that workers in countries with the biggest disconnect between the level of industry and the conditions of life are the most likely to seriously revolt, I feel bad for you son.

Note the "disconnect" though; there's a fundamental fallacy in your post with regards to that. It isn't the poorest countries that generally revolt. Mostly it has been the ones somewhere in between, the "weak links" as Lenin called them. For people to do something as drastic as have a revolution they need to both be desperate enough and at the same time believe they have a reasonable shot at winning. People have been oppressed for literally all of written history, and in the overwhelming majority of cases they haven't done a damn thing to end it. You'll know you have some grasp of Marx when you understand why it was the bourgeoisie and not the peasants to overthrow feudalism.

So in any case, both the most fatass American krackkker and the poorest dirt farmer in the Congo could fail to embrace a revolutionary perspective for the exact same reason: they're both terrified of losing what they have. Too much oppression and misery has just as much of a chilling effect of radicalism as "too little"; it's generally cheaper and it works, and that's why capitalists do it so damn often.

[Conquer or Die]

There aren't degrees of exploitation, imo. Exploitation is what it is. Workers get paid a fraction of the worth of their labor. They're exploited.

First world workers, however, are definitely better off, even though they are exploited.

The argument is that first world workers on average, make more than the actual value of their production in meeting actual needs.
First world:
X (labor) < B (ability to purchase items to satisfy needs)

Third world:
X > B

The Third World (like Ethiopia) engages in for profit farming forced by the government, for example. As a result, people starve and only a handful in Ethiopia get rich. This is virtual slavery and results in misery for those people. Americans are indirectly benefitted from this system. This includes everybody in America. Their analysis of fascism actually is stronger than any other analysis I've ever read. The nazis promised welfare and riches to their people and they attained it by murdering and enslaving to get such benefits. It was the middle class who supported the Nazis above all others. The middle class which included the "average" Joe that figures into their propaganda.


But third worldists get this idea that every worker in America is filthy rich and white, and from there the entire philosophy degenerates into white upper-middle class teenage self-hatred.

Every first world worker, including the homeless, are better off than a lot of people in the third world. People in America cannot starve. Millions die of starvation every year in the third world. It is an objective reality.


Third worldism is basically saying that the guy who gets paid slightly better to load a finished product on the truck at the end of the line isn't as exploited as the guy who assembles on the line for less work. At least that's always how I looked at it

Then you're looking at it the wrong way. The suggestion of Maoism-Third Worldism's analysis is that the worker is getting paid too much (as is the first world government, and the filthy rich) by acquiring massive surplus from the third world which suffers drastic consequences on a yearly basis.

The crackpottery involved has to do with them supporting reactionary movements who are simply third world based but their suggestions hold up to scrutiny assuming one identifies with the Labor Theory of Value and Exploitation. They see the world as a battle between the first world Malthusians and the third world Marxists.

All that said they are really fucking crazy and definitely self loathing. In my opinion they bring one of the best meals to the Marxist Pot Luck but it smells bad and won't last a long time. They should be used as such; and the bad things should be covered or replaced with better things. The good things should stay, and the fact that you don't understand their basic premise is a bit troubling.

[Conquer or Die]

Of coarse they are but there are many many factors for that, but to think that they are NOT exploited is rediculous (thats what third worldists think), why would the Capitalists loose money?

Third Worldists claim an objective standard (nutrition, water, shelter) and claim that this standard is usurped by even the poorest in first world countries. This is not necessarily conscious, but propaganda and state/economic reforms are channeled around this concept either by intentional justification or by sophistry (like the false subjective theory of value, God's favor, or "we've earned it").

The Third Worldist is necessarily tied to the LTOV and Exploitation theory. You, and several others, seem to think that these are impediments to understanding or wrong. Who then is a Marxist? Who has the better argument?

[Conquer or Die]

Their ideology holds that due to financial wizardry workers in first world countries are predominantly not really workers because even though their situation looks uncannily like wage labor, they are actually getting paid more than their labor is worth due to a combination of capitalist largesse and the supposedly low value of their labor. This is bullshit.

You don't explain why this is so. A person working at Starbucks isn't engaged in need fulfilling work. An actor in Hollywood isn't engaged in need fulfilling work. People in Ethiopia could be involved in need fulfilling work but aren't. Food and Oil Supplies are socialized and controlled by major powers with a variety of political philosophies that all indirectly contribute to exploitation theory. This includes Neo-Liberal colonies, Free Market Welfare states, and Nationalist states.


Note the "disconnect" though; there's a fundamental fallacy in your post with regards to that. It isn't the poorest countries that generally revolt. Mostly it has been the ones somewhere in between, the "weak links" as Lenin called them. For people to do something as drastic as have a revolution they need to both be desperate enough and at the same time believe they have a reasonable shot at winning. People have been oppressed for literally all of written history, and in the overwhelming majority of cases they haven't done a damn thing to end it. You'll know you have some grasp of Marx when you understand why it was the bourgeoisie and not the peasants to overthrow feudalism.

Except the Leninist revolution failed. The revolutions in Germany failed. The movements in European powers all failed. They were replaced by fascism or nationalism or free market forces.

Also, you are forgetting the role of propaganda and culture identity. Martin Luther started the protestant reformation and laid the groundwork for a bloody thirty years war (one of the nastiest in human history, actually) and a peasant revolution by Thomas Muntzer. Luther denounced the Jews and Muntzer and called for a modicum of peace between the German Protestants and the Christian Church. Martin Luther is the hero of Western Civilization and Muntzer isn't mentioned

See southern Slave revolutions, see slave uprisings in Rome.

See the transformation of socialist revolutions in Ireland, Iraq, Iran, Palestine/Israel to ethnic conflicts.

Man/Woman removed from attaining his/her natural desires necessarily produces conflict. Necessarily so. The only way this is contained is if enough force and pressure are applied to stop it through a combination of lies, force, and supernatural justification. History is first a tragedy, and then a farce. We have Hamas and Irgun in Israel and Palestine that was once a land dominated by the discussion between Socialist Fatah and Socialist Zionism. It works to the benefit of the ruling class to produce such divisions.


So in any case, both the most fatass American krackkker and the poorest dirt farmer in the Congo could fail to embrace a revolutionary perspective for the exact same reason: they're both terrified of losing what they have. Too much oppression and misery has just as much of a chilling effect of radicalism as "too little"; it's generally cheaper and it works, and that's why capitalists do it so damn often.

People in Congo are enchained, they are slaves. They have a consumer product that the world wants to attract partners for sex. It is hell. I'm hoping that there is an uprising there that isn't part of the myriad corporate shadow warriors, religious crazies of every stripe, or ineffectual government.

I hope it happens, I hope they break the chains. I hope the lying leaders and White Corporate soldiers are tortured and mutilated on live TV. Hopefully history has a third chance at ending the misery, and punishing those who do so with a biblical vengeance.

Maoism Third Worldism minus the crackpot is convincing. For the people of hte Congo it seems like justice to me.

[Hiero]

Third worldism is basically saying that the guy who gets paid slightly better to load a finished product on the truck at the end of the line isn't as exploited as the guy who assembles on the line for less work. At least that's always how I looked at it


No one who fails under a "third worldist" view is saying that, your saying that.

They are not just getting paid slightly better, they are getting paid alot better. I don't know what this problem is with accepting that first world workers are a in alot better position then third world workers overall.

[The Red Next Door]

Comrades!

I see that most third-worldists are attacked. Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to defend anybody, but some of the things they say are based upon compelling evidence.

For instance, a first world worker earns more for doing less amount of labor, whereas a TW worker earns less for doing more amount of labor. A waiter's job in the west and sweatshops in the TW are evidence for this.

Second, aren't there varying degrees of exploitation? So would it be fair to say that the first world workers, though exploited, are better off in a relative sense? Also, a portion of the surplus value created in the TW could be used as wages of the first world worker in addition to a portion of surplus value created in the FW. Thus the FW worker would have a portion of his as well as the TW worker's surplus value as wages. Naturally, the TW worker will have reduced wages on this account.

Finally, history. If first world workers really feel exploited, surely there must have been some sort of revolution by now. But most revolutions have come from the third world. Doesn't this mean first world workers are okay with their condition? So if the exploitation of TW workers add to FW worker's wages, why would the latter stick his neck out and ruin things? Maybe, this is why FW worker is okay with capitalism because it benefits him indirectly. One man's loss is another man's gain sort of thing.

This is the argument in a nutshell, and I am simply presenting it to know more. Hopefully, no one would assume a belligerent attitude and start attacking me.

Mahatma

No you haven't use the word autism in your post, so you fine.

[RGacky3]

Third Worldists claim an objective standard (nutrition, water, shelter) and claim that this standard is usurped by even the poorest in first world countries. This is not necessarily conscious, but propaganda and state/economic reforms are channeled around this concept either by intentional justification or by sophistry (like the false subjective theory of value, God's favor, or "we've earned it").


Slaves in Rome had a much better condition than slaves in other parts of the empire, were they not slaves?

There are many reasons that the first world poor have better conditions than many third world, including worker struggles, lack of outside imperialistic pressure and so on. But to claim that national capitalists in first world countries would take a profit hit and not exploit the first world workers to the best of their ability is preposterous, and simply does'nt live up to facts.


The Third Worldist is necessarily tied to the LTOV and Exploitation theory. You, and several others, seem to think that these are impediments to understanding or wrong. Who then is a Marxist? Who has the better argument?

First of all, I'm not a Marxist, second of all, I think the LTOV and Exploitation theory are absoltely valid and are great tools, however you have to apply it correctly, not just blankly without taking other things into consideration.


Americans are indirectly benefitted from this system. This includes everybody in America. Their analysis of fascism actually is stronger than any other analysis I've ever read. The nazis promised welfare and riches to their people and they attained it by murdering and enslaving to get such benefits. It was the middle class who supported the Nazis above all others. The middle class which included the "average" Joe that figures into their propaganda.


Technically one could argue that genocide in certain countries benefits workers becuase it makes a labor shortage, you could argue that bolivian coca farmers benefit from cocain bans, you could argue that homeless folk benefit from housing loss (it gives them places to squat).

Heres the thing you have to take EVERYTHING into consideration, are first world workers getting more then the value of their work? According to the market no they arn't of coarse not, because first world companies are making a profit, Now whos benefiting from third world imperialism, its not the first world workers, do you know how huge profits are for the capitalist class? The standard in the first world has nothing to do with imperialism, there are tons of other factors. BTW, American workers or british workers, do a lot worse than non imperialistic countries, such as switzerland or Norway, the trick is not to be the victom of imperialism, living in a country that practices imperialism does'nt benefit the workers a bit, When england was an empire the british poor were just as poor, same with france, same with China, the list goes on.

Your theory is akin to the trickle down theory, it does'nt work that way, it does'nt trickle down, any more than it would normally.

[Conquer or Die]

Slaves in Rome had a much better condition than slaves in other parts of the empire, were they not slaves?

Malcolm X has a couple of things to say about the hierarchy of slaves. I'll leave it at that.


There are many reasons that the first world poor have better conditions than many third world, including worker struggles, lack of outside imperialistic pressure and so on. But to claim that national capitalists in first world countries would take a profit hit and not exploit the first world workers to the best of their ability is preposterous, and simply does'nt live up to facts.

Make no mistake, the middle class has won battles against the Rich. The middle class is the power structure of the first world. That's the point.


First of all, I'm not a Marxist, second of all, I think the LTOV and Exploitation theory are absoltely valid and are great tools, however you have to apply it correctly, not just blankly without taking other things into consideration.

Understand this: LTOV is either correct or you lie to yourself. It is not a tool. Human beings meeting their needs versus having their needs expropriated is science. If you think a human being solipsistically can determine value of basic human utilities then you are necessarily imperialist. If you think one getting paid more than their share in a world economy is justified or constitutes exploitation then you're simply wrong.




Technically one could argue that genocide in certain countries benefits workers becuase it makes a labor shortage, you could argue that bolivian coca farmers benefit from cocain bans, you could argue that homeless folk benefit from housing loss (it gives them places to squat).

Yeah, these are all true. These are all endemic of Global Exploitation.


Heres the thing you have to take EVERYTHING into consideration, are first world workers getting more then the value of their work? According to the market no they arn't of coarse not, because first world companies are making a profit, Now whos benefiting from third world imperialism, its not the first world workers, do you know how huge profits are for the capitalist class? The standard in the first world has nothing to do with imperialism, there are tons of other factors. BTW, American workers or british workers, do a lot worse than non imperialistic countries, such as switzerland or Norway, the trick is not to be the victom of imperialism, living in a country that practices imperialism does'nt benefit the workers a bit, When england was an empire the british poor were just as poor, same with france, same with China, the list goes on.

No, none of this is right whatsoever. Conditions in England, France, Japan, China, and the USA skyrocketed after hardcore capitalist industrialization and expansionism.

If you can't understand why Andrew Jackson is considered a top "Democrat" after he gave the vote to more white men and expanded Indian Removal operations then you are simply ignorant of history. The two are necessarily linked.

You have no basis in fact or logic. Read more.


Your theory is akin to the trickle down theory, it does'nt work that way, it does'nt trickle down, any more than it would normally.

What? Conditions improve as exploitation increases because they benefit a certain group of people. The group of people is, and has been for a while, the Middle and Upper Middle Class. It's now at a point where it is benefitting almost everybody who isn't part of the third world with disastrous consequences.

[Skooma Addict]

For instance, a first world worker earns more for doing less amount of labor, whereas a TW worker earns less for doing more amount of labor.

So?

[Conquer or Die]

So?

The Third World Worker produces more than he is given value for. The first World Worker produces little to nothing (with varying degrees on either side) and receives much more than his value.

The Third World Worker is being exploited, objectively speaking.

[Qayin]

The Third World Worker produces more than he is given value for. The first World Worker produces little to nothing (with varying degrees on either side) and receives much more than his value.

You do understand capitalism right? Your marxism is in question if you seriously believe 1st world workers make more then there value.

[RGacky3]

Malcolm X has a couple of things to say about the hierarchy of slaves. I'll leave it at that.


He was using it as a metaphor not actual class analysis, and so what, a slave is a slave and has the same say over his condition as any other slave.


Make no mistake, the middle class has won battles against the Rich. The middle class is the power structure of the first world. That's the point.

YOu did'nt address any of my points that you quoted. Also the middle class have won battles and so has the working class, so has the third world working class, whats your point? Calling them the power structure though is ignoring reality.

But why not actually take on my points.


Understand this: LTOV is either correct or you lie to yourself. It is not a tool. Human beings meeting their needs versus having their needs expropriated is science. If you think a human being solipsistically can determine value of basic human utilities then you are necessarily imperialist. If you think one getting paid more than their share in a world economy is justified or constitutes exploitation then you're simply wrong.


Its a tool to understand Capitalism, but you can't, but its not all emcompasing, you have to use it in conjuction with other understandings in economics as well.

I never said it was justified, but whats worng is not that some are being paid more its that most are being paid less, those getting paid more are still exploited, UNLESS you can proove that the national capitalists are taking a hit, your not showing anything at all.

if 1 guy gets punched in the face and kneed in the nuts, and one guy gets just kicked in the guts and slapped, did the second guy not get assualted just because it was less so?


Yeah, these are all true. These are all endemic of Global Exploitation.

Which means that its erroneous that first world workers might get some indirect benefits (which have yet to be proven) from imperialism.


No, none of this is right whatsoever. Conditions in England, France, Japan, China, and the USA skyrocketed after hardcore capitalist industrialization and expansionism.

Imperialism? Do you have proof of that? RIght now conditions are better in france now than when they had an empire (because of social-democratic reforms and worker syndicalism). As far as Japan, they lost their empire, and they are doing ok. China is building and empire, but there is almost no connection to Chinas poor, the same with the US. Scandanavian countries have the top living standards, and have never been impeiralistic countries.

Show me a connection, there is'nt one.


If you can't understand why Andrew Jackson is considered a top "Democrat" after he gave the vote to more white men and expanded Indian Removal operations then you are simply ignorant of history. The two are necessarily linked.

You have no basis in fact or logic. Read more.


And what? What do I care what democrats consider "top democrats," also he voted to give more to white landowners, also you did'nt proove anything at all, you need to show 2 things.

1. Imperialism in a nation has a direct and significant positive effect on the working class of that nation

2. THe working class of that nation produce wealth for the capitalists than what the yare paid, which means, the capitalists in that nation don't make a profit (good luck with that).


What? Conditions improve as exploitation increases because they benefit a certain group of people. The group of people is, and has been for a while, the Middle and Upper Middle Class. It's now at a point where it is benefitting almost everybody who isn't part of the third world with disastrous consequences.

First of all, the middle class in the United States is pretty small. But prove it to me, also proove that the arn't being exploited. Just because workers in the first world get more of a share of their labor does'nt mean they get it all or more, thats insane, if it were true, no first world profits.

[Hiero]

He was using it as a metaphor not actual class analysis, and so what, a slave is a slave and has the same say over his condition as any other slave.


It is a good metaphor and close to reality. In Malcolm X's metaphor about the structure of slaves, thehouse slave was in better condition materially made him adobt an ideology closer to that of his master.



Imperialism? Do you have proof of that? RIght now conditions are better in france now than when they had an empire (because of social-democratic reforms and worker syndicalism). As far as Japan, they lost their empire, and they are doing ok. China is building and empire, but there is almost no connection to Chinas poor, the same with the US. Scandanavian countries have the top living standards, and have never been impeiralistic countries.


You don't understand what imperialism is.

[RGacky3]

It is a good metaphor and close to reality. In Malcolm X's metaphor about the structure of slaves, thehouse slave was in better condition materially made him adobt an ideology closer to that of his master.

Was it close to reality though? Also did it make them not slaves?


You don't understand what imperialism is.

How so?

[Hiero]

Was it close to reality though? Also did it make them not slaves?


Well I assume Malcolm X did a bit of study about slave society in the USA. And I said "house slave" as did Malcolm X, which the use of the term slave would mean that that means... slave.


How so?
You confused colonial empires with imperialism, colonial empires were more mercential, while imperialism is based on finance capital.

They way I see Revleft's understanding of the working class in the first world (which includes two people's concept of middle classes and the labor aristocracy) and the working class in the third world and their relation so ideaology and revolutionary politics, is like looking at two pots of water, one bioling under heat and the other siting at room tempature and expecting the same outcome in both intsances because they are both filled with water.

[RGacky3]

Well I assume Malcolm X did a bit of study about slave society in the USA. And I said "house slave" as did Malcolm X, which the use of the term slave would mean that that means... slave.


That was my point, they are still a slave.


You confused colonial empires with imperialism, colonial empires were more mercential, while imperialism is based on finance capital.

They way I see Revleft's understanding of the working class in the first world (which includes two people's concept of middle classes and the labor aristocracy) and the working class in the third world and their relation so ideaology and revolutionary politics, is like looking at two pots of water, one bioling under heat and the other siting at room tempature and expecting the same outcome in both intsances because they are both filled with water.

So how are say, Norway or switzerland, imperializing the world through financial capital. I never said that they are in the exact same situation, what I"m saying is that they are both exploited and the working class inthe first world don't benefit more from imperialism than they would if it did'nt exist.

[Conquer or Die]

You do understand capitalism right? Your marxism is in question if you seriously believe 1st world workers make more then there value.

I'll let other people decide whether the above is an argument or nonsense.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I think that the third world is more oppressed and I think revolutionaries living in first world countries just don't want to admit we are better off than third world workers. No one who doesn't work in sweat shop like conditions has a right to say he is the same boat as those who do.


We are all oppressed yes, but I who has a min wage of $8 an hours can not compare my situation to someone who works for $1-5 a day working 12+ hours a day.

Don't get me wrong third worldism is silly on some points but is also true on others. Oppression is wrong in all forms but we are proving the third world is more revolutionary by not accepting the fact we are less oppressed than them. Actually that would make us reactionary to say there is no way a sweat shop worker is more oppressed because oppression is oppression. go work in a sweat shop then tell me it is just as bad as working for you min hourly wage.

[RGacky3]

I don't think anyone claims that first world workers have it better off than the third world workers.

[The Hong Se Sun]

True but my point is that while we are all oppressed people of the first world can't fathom the conditions some live in in the third word.

[RGacky3]

for the most part yeah, but don't blame the first world workers for that.

[bailey_187]

Labour productivity tends to be much higher in the First World, thats partly why wages can afford to be higher.

"managers should take care not to be seduced into investing in emerging economies because their competitive advantage from low wages often exagerated, says a report due out today by the Conference Board, the US business group.
When wages in China, India, Mexico, central and eastern Europe are adjusted for employees' low productivity, the cost advantage of locating there shrinks, sometimes dramatically...Mexico, for example, has average manufacturing wages almost 10 times lower than the US. However, an average Mexican worker produces 10 times less than a US manufacturing employee and wages have been rising, so unit labour costs are almost identical."-- C.Giles, 'Warning over Costs benefits of Emerging Economies', Financial Times, 3rd October 2006

[Bud Struggle]

Labour productivity tends to be much higher in the First World, thats partly why wages can afford to be higher.



You get what you pay for.

First world workers are better educated and have specific financial goals to work for--that's what commercialism is all about.

[bailey_187]

You confused colonial empires with imperialism, colonial empires were more mercential, while imperialism is based on finance capital.


No, German (and Japanese) Imperialism in the early 20th century was based on Finance capital. Lenin's pamphlet isnt a difinitive theory of Imperialism.