Maoism-Third Worldism - A Brief Summary

[Victory]

The following is a brief summary of Maoism-Third Worldism.

The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the economic domination of Africa, Asia and Latin America, therefore it is not in the material interests of the vast majority of people in a country such as Britain to have a Socialist Revolution because the people's standards of living would significantly decrease directly due to a Socialist Revolution.

The only reason, for example, a welfare state exists in the United States and Britain is because of imperialism and how the US and Britain dominate the economies of the Third World and in-turn are able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production.
The Third World today is the productive force for countries such as Britain and the United States. There is little productive forces left in Britain anymore, so when Communists talk about 'taking the means of production from the ruling class in Britain", there is very little productive forces to actually take.


"Even the poorest in the First World, are net-beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system. In other words, even the poorest in the First World receive more value than they create. First World populations have no material interest in a socialist redistribution of the global social product. Under such a redistribution, they would lose out significantly. It is simply not possible to raise everyone up to the current level of the First World worker. It is not possible because to do so would far exceed what is produced. And, such a levelling-up is not ecologically sustainable." - (1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven


A Socialist Revolution will not happen in a country such as the United States or Britain until Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. When Socialist Revolutions do occur throughout the Third World, the cheap productive forces exploited by Capitalists such as the ones in Britain, would be forced back to the First World and thus, the people would no longer be able to live above the value of labour because Britain would no longer be able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production in the Third World, due to Socialist Revolutions occurring and thus, ending the imperialist and economic domination of those Third World countries.

Whilst the Third World remains a puppet and productive force for countries such as Britain, it is not in the material interests of the vast majority of people in first world countries to have a Socialist Revolution because the vast majority of people's standards of living would significantly decrease. Even if somehow a Socialist Revolution did indeed occur in a First World Country today, the vast majority of people would soon become disillusioned with Socialism and call for the restoration of Capitalism, because they would soon learn how Socialism brought lower standards of living for them than what previously existed in Capitalism.
Whilst the economic domination of the third world exists, the Ruling Class will always be able to afford to provide workers with high standards of living, and enable workers to live above the value of labour.


"In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American people who make up the overwhelming majority of the world's population." - Lin Biao


Although many Communists living in the British state will be disheartened by the following statement; it is important to understand how Revolutionaries can be of most benefit to Socialist world revolution and acting in the global interests of humanity. Due to the fact that world socialist revolution hinges on the successes of Socialist Revolution occurring in Africa, Asia and Latin America, it is of most importance to analyse the class situation existing in the world today.

Karl Marx died long before Capitalism had developed into the advanced state that it exists today. It also developed into a much more advanced state than Lenin ever spoke about. Marxism must not be regarded as a dogmatic static theory that is best suited to any situation or condition existing in the world, at any period, regardless of whether it is the 20th century or the 30th century.
The fact is; Capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries is very different to the Capitalism of the 21st century, and this must be acknowledged by all those who genuinely aim to fight for the liberation of mankind.
The world is ever-changing and will always remain this way. For this reason, Communists should fight for Revolution where they can be of most benefit, in the countries which makes world revolution most likely - the third world; the productive force and provider of high standards of living for people living in first world countries such as Britain.

With that said, revolutionary situations will naturally occur throughout First World countries once Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. For this reason, it is of little importance to fight for Socialist revolution in countries such as Britain at this particular stage.


(1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/

Credited and Recommended Websites relevant to Maoism-Third Worldism

Ahiman Malaya
http://amihanmalaya.wordpress.com/

Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement
http://raimd.wordpress.com/

[Victory]

I don't argue to personally 'rely' on revolution in the third world. We should struggle for Revolution, but in the countries where revolutionaries can be of most benefit.
Ultimately, world revolution 'relies' on revolution in the third world, but that doesn't mean as somebody who is born in the first world, you cannot go to the third world and meet your highest and most effective potential as a revolutionary. You can.
The important thing is to study and specialise in the skill in which you will use to help Third World emancipation.

Growing up in First World countries doesn't stop you from moving to the third world and struggling for revolution in those countries. - By that, I don't just mean the only means you should use when in third world countries is joining an armed struggle. - You could do many things in third world countries to help bring about the oppressed peoples emancipation, not just fight violently in an armed organisation - With that said armed struggle is the most effective weapon in bringing about revolution, and should be considered by all genuine revolutionaries.
There are countries throughout the world that need able determined revolutionary fighters, there are never 'Too many revolutionaries'.

Whilst in First World countries, it helps to try and educate people about 'Maoism-Third Worldism'. But ultimately, that will not serve as a means to an end. A revolution will not happen in a country such as Britain before revolutions have happened throughout third world countries.

Educate yourself in the short term, so you can be a bigger benefit as a revolutionary in the long term. But don't get hung up in using the excuse of remaining in the first world because 'you can be progressive in first world countries'.

This is often an excuse used by Communists all too often. I know 70 year old 'Communists' who have spent their entire lives as parasites benefiting off the rape and pillage of the third world, and watching people starve to death, whilst they attempt to justify it every single time by 'holding study classes', and saying 'it's important to study so we can understand how to change the world'. - We know how to change the world, by fighting for revolution in third world countries and killing the opportunist 'Communists' that use such a cosy first worldist parasital excuse.

So yeah, to summarize, don't rely on revolution anywhere, fight for revolution where you can be most effective as a revolutionary - In the Third World.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The following is a brief summary of Maoism-Third Worldism.

The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the
Third World and in-turn are able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production.
The Third World today is the productive force for countries such as Britain and the United States. There is little productive forces left in Britain anymore, so when Communists talk about 'taking the means of production from the ruling class in Britain", there is very little productive forces to actually take.


"Even the poorest in the First World, are net-beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system. In other words, even the poorest in the First World receive more value than they create. - (1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven


A Socialist Revolution will not happen in a country such as the United States or Britain until Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. When Socialist Revolutions do occur throughout the Third World, the cheap productive forces exploited by Capitalists such as the ones in Britain, would be forced back to the First World and thus, the people would no longer be able to live above the value of labour because Britain would no longer be able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production in the Third World, due to Socialist Revolutions occurring and thus, ending the imperialist and economic domination of those Third World countries.


Whilst the economic domination of the third world exists, the Ruling Class will always be able to afford to provide workers with high standards of living, and enable workers to live above the value of labour.

"

(1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/

I don't know where to begin with this.

"The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the"

A massive exaggeration.The nuts and bolts of this were discussed (and refuted) by Thug Lessons in the OI section a few weeks ago.

MTWism disses First World struggles-African-American struggle, Native Americans, working class people in general.

I'll have to ask, what is your take on JDPON and the revolutionary Plan de San Diego? Do you uphold this?


Monkey Smashes Heaven
BTW, the burritos in Seattle suck. For authentic Mexican food, you'll have to go to Tacoma.Yummy yummy tacos, burritos, quesidillas! Yummy! Of course Tacoma is working class....

[M-26-7]

The fact is; Capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries is very different to the Capitalism of the 21st century, and this must be acknowledged by all those who genuinely aim to fight for the liberation of mankind.

You're right, except in the exact opposite of the way that you think you are:


This paper investigates the distribution of well being among world citizens during the last two centuries. The estimates show that inequality of world distribution of income worsened from the beginning of the 19th century to World War II and after that seems to have stabilized or to have grown more slowly. In the early 19th century most inequality was due to differences within countries; later, it was due to differences between countries.

From the abstract of a paper called "Inequality Among World Citizens: 1820-1992" by Francois Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson, The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4. (Sep., 2002), pp. 727-744.

Link (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28200209%2992%3A4%3C727%3AIAWC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S)

I suggest you read the whole thing, as your ideas seem to be based on your own speculation about what capitalism was like 100 or 200 years ago and how that compares to today, whereas this paper investigates the question empirically, and comes to the opposite conclusion: most inequality today is due to differences within countries. And I would add that this is actually not too surprising a conclusion, given what we know about how neoliberalism operates. Neoliberalism's prescriptions are very clearly not a case of "rich countries" versus "poor countries", but of "rich" vs. "poor" globally.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I agree with MSH on this issue. I think first world communist tend to be chauvinist towards MTWism because the communist is in first would nations argument is- 'nu-uh I am just as oppressed and someone living in slave like condition in a sweat shop.' (sarcasm) or that 'there are no different levels of oppression' And any active communist should tell you (if he/she is honest with him/herself) that the average worker in a first world nation is not very revolutionary.

In the USA communist think it is revolutionary to do acts of civil disobedience and protest using liberal slogans. Not to mention most communist in the USA think that by selling some paper that they are raising revolutionary working class consciousness. My least favorite part is how dogmatic everyone is. That is another good point brought up by victory is that Marx-Lenin etc are not alive today and to follow them dogmatically is silly and just plain goes against dialect materialism.

MTWism does not dis on anyone. The most oppressed people tend to be the most revolutionary.

[Sasha]

Ultimately, world revolution 'relies' on revolution in the third world, but that doesn't mean as somebody who is born in the first world, you cannot go to the third world and meet your highest and most effective potential as a revolutionary. You can.

as long as i see no proof that 3th worldists are writing their shit in an 3th world jungle with an AK on their shoulder i see no reason not to consider them posturing cowards.
the revolution is won in the 3th world? well fuck off to the congo or bolivia then and while your there ask about Che and how well that played out for him.

and if you now excuse me, i'm out to spend my labor arestrocratic inflated by raping the 3th world through imperialism wages on buying a new filter for my gas-mask.
Because contrair too you i bet i do sometimes spend my time behind burning baricades.

[Widerstand]

I think first world communist tend to be chauvinist towards MTWism because the communist is in first would nations argument is- 'nu-uh I am just as oppressed and someone living in slave like condition in a sweat shop.' (sarcasm) or that 'there are no different levels of oppression'

I for one am against MTWism because it states that the workers in the first world actively and willingly contribute to the exploitation of the third world, which is bullshit because there are very few non-3W alternatives to most products, let alone affordable ones; and that the proletariat of the first world is not a revolutionary subject, because it's material conditions are virtually better than those of the 3W-proletariat, even though being exposed to the same mode of production.



And any active communist should tell you (if he/she is honest with him/herself) that the average worker in a first world nation is not very revolutionary.

That's a failure of the communist movement (or a success of the capitalists, if you will), rather than a structural issue.


My least favorite part is how dogmatic everyone is. That is another good point brought up by victory is that Marx-Lenin etc are not alive today and to follow them dogmatically is silly and just plain goes against dialect materialism.

Mao isn't alive either. Whether or not a person is alive has little actual say on the value of their ideas.

Also, complaining about dogmatism on the basis that it "goes against dialectical materialism" is pretty ironic.


MTWism does not dis on anyone.

Except everyone not part of the third world.


The most oppressed people tend to be the most revolutionary.

Statistical evidence for this claim?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

MTWism does not dis on anyone. The most oppressed people tend to be the most revolutionary.

I would have to disagree with both of these assertions.Have you read this?

Monkey Smashes Heaven
I have proposed, in the past, that the JDPON should disperse the Amerikkkans throughout the Third World instead of allowing them to remain in occupied North America. Here are some of my reasons:

1) A geographic concentration of Amerikkkans would facilitate counterrevolution. It would also be difficult to exercise proletarian dictatorship over hundreds of millions of enemies: we would need to import a huge unproductive sector of police and such from the Third World. As a practical matter, it would be better to thin the Amerikkkans out, making them minorities in the Third World, where they could easily be controlled and supervised by the international proletariat.

2) Amerikkkans will need to undergo re-education. It would be very difficult to re-educate them in their own kkkountry. They need to be in a proletarian environment where they can learn from the masses.

3) There are land claims to settle, mainly for the First Nations, but also for Aztlán [occupied Mexico -- MSH) and perhaps the Black nation. Conceivably some other nations could be moved to North America if they wished to be, such as Nauru or the small nations in Ghana whose land has been ruined by imperialist corporations. Amerikkkans are going to have to move out of much of North America and make room for other nations.

4) Amerikkkan kkkulture is almost totally reactionary. There is little worth saving in Amerikkkan kkkulture. It would be better to force Amerikkkans to assimilate to the more culturally and politically advanced peoples of the Third World. There is also historic justice in forcing Amerikkkans to assimilate, just as they destroyed so many other nations and cultures.

5) In the early stages of socialism, the Third World will require skilled workers and technicians of various kinds, including medical personnel. These persyns are disproportionately concentrated in the First World. Moving them to the Third World will be a practical way to address an urgent need.

6) The Third World is also owed big reparations. An excellent way to make those reparations is to put Amerikkkans to work building infrastructure in the Third World: roads, housing, water supplies, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, schools. Amerikkkans can also work in Third World factories and fields to expand production for the benefit of the Third World.

7) Part of the process of civilizing and proletarianizing Amerikkkans will be putting them to productive work--for a change. Amerikkka has so little productive capacity that there may not be many ways to put all those people to work in occupied North America. They may have to go to the factories and fields of the Third World.

8 ) Amerikkkans will need to be reduced to a Third World standard of living. If they stay in occupied North Amerikkka, they will benefit from the vastly better infrastructure and all the stolen wealth that they currently hold. It would be better to move them to the Third World as a way of accelerating the process of re-education.

9) There are historical precedents for relocating large numbers of enemies. Millions of Germans were forced to move after the Soviet victory over fascism in World War II. Even enemies like the united $nakes and the "united" KKKingdom agreed that it was necessary to move Germans off land that was needed for Poles, Czechs, and others. Again, this is related to the national question of the First Nations, Aztlán [occupied Mexico -- MSH], and the Black nation.

Is this a good idea? What are its advantages and disadvantages? How can we improve upon it?

I am fiercely anti-American myself but there a difference between fighting imperialism and advocating genocide.

The research I've done on MTWists indicates that most of them are actually amerikkkan univer$ity $tudent$.They also have lousy taste in Mexican food. Their lack of a dialectical materialist analysis forces them to conflate burrittos, tacos, and quesdillas. Its all the same to them.

Kleber should pay me a commission for this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQmyCCNn_8

[ZeroNowhere]

From what I recall, the last thread in the main Revleft forums on the subject dissipated after we actually looked at the amounts invested in various countries by capitalists. Given that they are supposed to be making a loss in the 'First World', it would seem strange that they invest there as much as they do.

[The Hong Se Sun]

My evidence is reality, just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations.

I know Mao is not alive but I'm talking about people that think if Mao, Trotsky etc didn't say for you to do it then it can't work.

Also I should say it is wrong to blame the first world worker for the exploitation of the third world but it is true that they are helping keep the third world shitty.

And dogmatism is actually against dialect materialism. Dogmatism fits better with historical dialect.

But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime. I'm not even a MTWist but I recognize the reality of a situation. But MSH takes it a little further than it should be because it tends to sound like the TW should hate the first world and it raises a type of nationalist like bullshit in the first world communist

[ZeroNowhere]

My evidence is reality, just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations.While I'll admit that most 20th Century capitalist revolutions took place in 'ultra-oppressed nations', the ones before them did not necessarily do so.

[GreenCommunism]

MTWism disses First World struggles-African-American struggle, Native Americans, working class people in general.

total bullshit,they support those people, especially the native american.

I am fiercely anti-American myself but there a difference between fighting imperialism and advocating genocide.

The research I've done on MTWists indicates that most of them are actually amerikkkan univer$ity $tudent$

while deportation is not genocide but ethnic cleansing, i sure wouldn't be in favor of it either, problem is, they consider that america's counter-revolutionary movement will be too hard for the third world to control.


I for one am against MTWism because it states that the workers in the first world actively and willingly contribute to the exploitation of the third world, which is bullshit because there are very few non-3W alternatives to most products, let alone affordable ones; and that the proletariat of the first world is not a revolutionary subject, because it's material conditions are virtually better than those of the 3W-proletariat, even though being exposed to the same mode of production.

??? i don't understand, the cheapest goods will be bought no matter if it is produced in the first or the third world.


as long as i see no proof that 3th worldists are writing their shit in an 3th world jungle with an AK on their shoulder i see no reason not to consider them posturing cowards.
the revolution is won in the 3th world? well fuck off to the congo or bolivia then and while your there ask about Che and how well that played out for him.

and if you now excuse me, i'm out to spend my labor arestrocratic inflated by raping the 3th world through imperialism wages on buying a new filter for my gas-mask.
Because contrair too you i bet i do sometimes spend my time behind burning baricades.

i really hate this mentality. first off third worlders would have a hard time buying gas mask, secondly, mtw could use their wealth as first worlders to finance third world revolutionary movement, and to be honest, this should always have been what communist do, support a movement which actually has momentum though i personally don't know which one should be supported right now.

also i hate how primitivist can't use their computer to talk because it's hypocritical or any idiocy like that, this is another way to attack people instead of attacking ideas.

[Kiev Communard]

As someone who is living in the country that is probably the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe (even Romania is not that impoverished), I have to say that the "Third Worldism" is deeply misguided. If their idea of automatically "revolutionary" character of all "Third Worlders" were true, then why it is "evil social-imperialist labour aristocrats" of France and Spain marching against austerity programmes, while most Ukrainian workers are, sadly, completely passive and apolitical?

In fact, the basic mood of the most "Third World" of all Ukrainian population (denizens of Volhyn and Halychina) is extremely right-wing and national-conservative. The impoverished and economically backward province of Ternopil is the only one where the Neo-Nazi "Freedom Party" got a near-majority in local elections. If the "Third Worldism" were correct, they must have been instead the most left-wing due to the poverty and economically backward (de-industrialised) state of the region, yet they were behaving contrary to such scenario. This, and many other facts, show the utterly oversimplistic and reductionist character of "Thrid Worldist" ideas.

Besides, by focusing on praising each and every nationalist movement in the global South, regardless of its political and socioeconomic programme, the "Third Worldists" play the role of "useful idiots" for the Western capitalists, who may use them as the example of "irrationality" and "traitorousness" of the revolutionary socialists by associating socialism with "Third Worldism".

[Widerstand]

My evidence is reality, just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations.

You mean like, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, China and such?


Also I should say it is wrong to blame the first world worker for the exploitation of the third world but it is true that they are helping keep the third world shitty.

How do they do this?


And dogmatism is actually against dialect materialism. Dogmatism fits better with historical dialect.

I don't exactly give a shit about dialectical materialism.


But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime.

Location: Illinois

"Okay..."

[Widerstand]

??? i don't understand, the cheapest goods will be bought no matter if it is produced in the first or the third world.

Your point? I was arguing against the notion that workers in the first world act as a second bourgeoisie to the third world proletariat, because they extract surplus value from workers in the third world by buying products produced in the third world.

[ZeroNowhere]

But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime.Yes, down with all of the brown people. Indeed, my brown head is currently going down onto my brown desk

[Dimentio]

The problem with the Third World (unless you count countries like China to it) is that most of those countries are so weak that they will either be defeated or isolated if going in an anti-western route.

If the United States wanted for example, they could go all Timur Lenk and exterminate the entire populations of Afghanistan and Iraq. If the World Revolution is going to be wielded by an army of 120 million AK47-wearing guerillas marching into Europe and North America, you would soon see mushroom clouds engulf them.

[Obs]

Didn't we use to restrict these guys?

[4 Leaf Clover]

I hate that people attach term third-worldism to maosim like they are something inseparable. and please people stop playing cowboys , like who is a bigger revolutionary and who spends more time smashing windows

[28350]

I just wish you guys would spell shit right

[Victory]

As someone who is living in the country that is probably the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe./QUOTE]

How more wrong can you be?

Ukraine is nowhere near a Third World country. A the people in Ukraine live above the value of labour.

Try going to Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. - Then you will witness the third world.

You are the one who is misguided by claiming Ukraine is 'close to a third world country'. That's a pretty crazy statement considering how Ukraine depends on imperialism.


[QUOTE=psycho;1886029]as long as i see no proof that 3th worldists are well fuck off to the congo or bolivia then and while your there ask about Che and how well that played out for him.


I don't know about Che, but I know that a Socialist Revolution has only ever occurred in backward countries, and never ever occurred in a first world country. - Therefore, it makes me concerned that you attack Che Guevara for fighting for revolution in countries where Socialist Revolution has only ever happened.

From the blown out backward state of Germany, to the Russian Revolution.
All revolutions that have occurred throughout history have occurred in only backward societies.

I think your analysis of Maoism-Third Worldism based on the experiences of Che Guevara just shows how intellectual you really are.

I can't help but hate people like you, who conviently justify living in privilege because you couldn't survive two days in poverty, due to how you will miss your comfortable bedroom and your parasital wages.

[GreenCommunism]

As someone who is living in the country that is probably the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe (even Romania is not that impoverished), I have to say that the "Third Worldism" is deeply misguided. If their idea of automatically "revolutionary" character of all "Third Worlders" were true, then why it is "evil social-imperialist labour aristocrats" of France and Spain marching against austerity programmes, while most Ukrainian workers are, sadly, completely passive and apolitical?

In fact, the basic mood of the most "Third World" of all Ukrainian population (denizens of Volhyn and Halychina) is extremely right-wing and national-conservative. The impoverished and economically backward province of Ternopil is the only one where the Neo-Nazi "Freedom Party" got a near-majority in local elections. If the "Third Worldism" were correct, they must have been instead the most left-wing due to the poverty and economically backward (de-industrialised) state of the region, yet they were behaving contrary to such scenario. This, and many other facts, show the utterly oversimplistic and reductionist character of "Thrid Worldist" ideas.

Besides, by focusing on praising each and every nationalist movement in the global South, regardless of its political and socioeconomic programme, the "Third Worldists" play the role of "useful idiots" for the Western capitalists, who may use them as the example of "irrationality" and "traitorousness" of the revolutionary socialists by associating socialism with "Third Worldism". well the nazi and the communist are both fighting for the same market shares, disaffected working class people. also, ukraine is pretty much close to the second world in my opinion but what do i know. a third worldist i know told me they have alot of third-worldist in eastern europe, he think it is because they are slowly in a transition from second to first world and can see the difference.


Your point? I was arguing against the notion that workers in the first world act as a second bourgeoisie to the third world proletariat, because they extract surplus value from workers in the third world by buying products produced in the third world. what are your arguments? what you said sounds like some liberal idea that we can choose products based on the human rights violation of the corporation.


I hate that people attach term third-worldism to maosim like they are something inseparable. and please people stop playing cowboys , like who is a bigger revolutionary and who spends more time smashing windows the point of third-worldism is to go beyond mao while accepting his heritage and the whole communist heritage in fact.

[Widerstand]

[QUOTE=Kiev Communard;1886077]As someone who is living in the country that is probably the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe./QUOTE]

How more wrong can you be?

Ukraine is nowhere near a Third World country. A the people in Ukraine live above the value of labour.

Try going to Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. - Then you will witness the third world.

You are the one who is misguided by claiming Ukraine is 'close to a third world country'. That's a pretty crazy statement considering how Ukraine depends on imperialism.

"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."
"the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe."
"the closest one may find in Europe."

You are obviously able to decently speak English, so why not read what people actually say?

[Widerstand]

like some liberal idea that we can choose products based on the human rights violation of the corporation.

No, I said that we can't, and therefore we can't really be blamed for the exploitative behavior those companies engage in, which is exactly what TWMs interpretation of 'labor aristocracy' often enough amounts to: Blaming the First World workers for 'supporting' capitalist atrocities in third world countries.

[GreenCommunism]

they profit off it and don't even bother pressuring your government to do something about it. why can't you blame the first world worker for being so blind to the atrocities in the third world? shit there even are plenty of documentaries about it, even if one saw them they wouldn't care. just like people look at killer coke and still buy coke. or won't do anything about it. it's hard to get people outside to protest. so imagine actually doing something about oppression.

[Obs]

I'm not gonna touch on the MTW'ist arguments, others are already doing that more masterfully than I could, but I do have one question.

Don't you see that you risk looking like unparralleled dumbfucks when you write things like "Amerikkka" or "U$" or "€urope" or, Jesus Christ, "kkkountry"?

[Victory]

No, I said that we can't, and therefore we can't really be blamed for the exploitative behavior those companies engage in, which is exactly what TWMs interpretation of 'labor aristocracy' often enough amounts to: Blaming the First World workers for 'supporting' capitalist atrocities in third world countries.

I don't think you have grasped the idea that doing nothing to stop acts of rape and pillage is giving concent to the people who are committing acts of rape and pillage.

I don't know about USA, but I know that the vast majority of people I know realise that they benefit from cheap labour, but do nothing about it.
The reason people do nothing about it is because it's not in their material interests to do ANYTHING about it.

With that said, the primary principle of Maoism-Third Worldism has nothing to do with 'blaming first world workers', it's about building a World Socialist Revolution, which is why Maoist Third Worldists argue that revolution must first come about in the third world.

Maoism-Third Worldism is the highest stage of Revolutionary theory. It's about building world revolution, not about ignoring revolution in the first world because first world people contribute to the economic domination of third world.



I'm not gonna touch on the MTW'ist arguments, others are already doing that more masterfully than I could, but I do have one question.

Don't you see that you risk looking like unparraleled dumbfucks when you write things like "Amerikkka" or "U$" or "€urope" or, Jesus Christ, "kkkountry"?

Only to people in the First World, who are only ever going to build a revolution when it's in their material interests to. - Which won't happen until revolution has succeeded throughout the third world.

[Obs]

just like people look at killer coke and still buy coke.
uh

what are your arguments? what you said sounds like some liberal idea that we can choose products based on the human rights violation of the corporation.

[Weezer]

(1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/about/

6. We uphold the broad united front against imperialism, especially Amerikkkan imperialism. We support all of those who are exploited or oppressed and point their spears at the Great Satan, Unkkkle $am.

Please.

[Widerstand]

they profit off it and don't even bother pressuring your government to do something about it. why can't you blame the first world worker for being so blind to the atrocities in the third world? shit there even are plenty of documentaries about it, even if one saw them they wouldn't care. just like people look at killer coke and still buy coke. or won't do anything about it. it's hard to get people outside to protest. so imagine actually doing something about oppression.

Let me get this straight:

You first namecall me for making an argument I didn't make.
I then correct you and point out what I really meant.
You then respond with the exact argument you tried to call me out for?

Like...are you actually serious?


I don't think you have grasped the idea that doing nothing to stop acts of rape and pillage is giving concent to the people who are committing acts of rape and pillage.

I don't think you have grasped the idea that, despite you having no idea whether or not I am actually "doing nothing" or not, "doing nothing about X" is still not the same as "actively supporting X".



I don't know about USA

Me neither.


, but I know that the vast majority of people I know realise that they benefit from cheap labour, but do nothing about it.
The reason people do nothing about it is because it's not in their material interests to do ANYTHING about it.

If I do as you suggested and move to the third world I will do something about it? Have you ever heard of the concept of gentrification?



Maoism-Third Worldism is the highest stage of Revolutionary theory. It's about building world revolution, not about ignoring revolution in the first world because first world people contribute to the economic domination of third world.

That doesn't even make any sense.


Only to people in the First World, who are only ever going to build a revolution when it's in their material interests to.

And the people in the third world are going to build a revolution because of what?



- Which won't happen until revolution has succeeded throughout the third world.

So is Greece a third world country, or are people there just unreasonably pissed off, or is third world revolution already happening? Or will they stop rioting as soon as they realize that they can still exploit some third world folks so it's all good?

[Victory]

And the people in the third world are going to build a revolution because of what?


Because they are living below the value and labour and because the standards of living for the vast majority will massively improve.



So is Greece a third world country, or are people there just unreasonably pissed off, or is third world revolution already happening? Or will they stop rioting as soon as they realize that they can still exploit some third world folks so it's all good?


I LOVE it when reactionaries try to use Greece as an example.

Greece is a clear example of why revolutions in the first world will not occur - The people in Greece were not fighting for Socialism, they were fighting because they wanted higher wages, increased welfare, improved conditions and more jobs. - Which in the first place, has only been provided at such a higher level than the third world due to imperialism.

What the people in Greece were really calling for was the continued rape and pillage of the Third World so that they could live in higher standards of living.

Eventually, the Capitalist class promised improvements in Greece, the economy was bailed out by imperialism, and in-turn the people stopped protesting - Thus, they were bought off.

Like I said, even if a Socialist Revolution did occur first in a country such as Britain (Which it won't), people would soon become disillusioned with the revolution because the standards of living for the vast majority would decrease, and at no time ever improve.

[Widerstand]

Because they are living below the value and labour and because the standards of living for the vast majority will massively improve.

All of these are clearly material interests.



I LOVE it when reactionaries try to use Greece as an example.

Sick burn, you got me!



Greece is a clear example of why revolutions in the first world will not occur - The people in Greece were not fighting for Socialism, they were fighting because they wanted higher wages, increased welfare, improved conditions and more jobs. - Which in the first place, has only been provided at such a higher level than the third world due to imperialism.

I love your lack of understanding of anything. No, I really do.



What the people in Greece were really calling for was the continued rape and pillage of the Third World so that they could live in higher standards of living.

Yes, I'm sure if the Greeks would've called for stricter austerity measures instead, conditions in the third world would've improved. :rolleyes:


Eventually, the Capitalist class promised improvements in Greece, the economy was bailed out by imperialism, and in-turn the people stopped protesting - Thus, they were bought off.

People stopped protesting? Wut?

[RED DAVE]

Like I said, even if a Socialist Revolution did occur first in a country such as Britain (Which it won't), people would soon become disillusioned with the revolution because the standards of living for the vast majority would decrease, and at no time ever improve.Like I said, even if a Socialist Revolution did occur first in a country such as China (Which it won't), people would soon become disillusioned with the revolution because the standards of living for the vast majority would decrease, and at no time ever improve.[/quote]But according to you, a socialist revolution did happen in China, and the standard of living of the working class improved, and then, I guess, the working class sold out to capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Victory]

Like I said, even if a Socialist Revolution did occur first in a country such as China (Which it won't), people would soon become disillusioned with the revolution because the standards of living for the vast majority would decrease, and at no time ever improve.But according to you, a socialist revolution did happen in China, and the standard of living of the working class improved, and then, I guess, the working class sold out to capitalism.

RED DAVE[/QUOTE]


I didn't say China...

And to dispute your claim, it was the Capitalists that already existed within the Communist party that bought about Capitalism. - Mao warned about this.

[GreenCommunism]

uh


Let me get this straight:

You first namecall me for making an argument I didn't make.
I then correct you and point out what I really meant.
You then respond with the exact argument you tried to call me out for?

Like...are you actually serious?

i didn't do namecall, i said the argument looked liberalish. my point is that people don't even friggin try. because they don't care. they don't care because of material conditions.


Yes, I'm sure if the Greeks would've called for stricter austerity measures instead, conditions in the third world would've improved.

think of it this way, the workers fought for their share of the pie, they did not fight for the third world. i rarely see any communist movement talk of the third world in their programme except when it comes to war.

[RED DAVE]

But according to you, a socialist revolution did happen in China, and the standard of living of the working class improved, and then, I guess, the working class sold out to capitalism.
I didn't say China...Why not? At the time of its revolution, in the late 1940s, wouldn't you classify China as an undeveloped country?


And to dispute your claim, it was the Capitalists that already existed within the Communist party that bought about Capitalism. - Mao warned about this.Mao invited the capitalists in with his wretched "block of four classes." What I would like you to do, though, is to account for the behavior of the Chinese working class. How come it did not wage a protracted struggle against the restoration of capitalism? Even if you include the Cultural Revolution as an attempt by the working class to cling to power (and I think this interpretation is nonsense), comparing this to the Russian Civil War, shows that capitalism was restored in China without significant, organized, working class opposition.

The upshot of all this is that Maoism-Third Worldism is bullshit. Every revolution carried out under this ideology, most signficantly China and Vietnam, have led to the restoriation of capitalism.

RED DAVE

[M-26-7]

I see that the coward who made the OP has not replied to my criticisms yet. I wonder why.

[Victory]

Why not? At the time of its revolution, in the late 1940s, wouldn't you classify China as an undeveloped country?
Yes, your point?



Mao invited the capitalists in with his wretched "block of four classes." This was a strategy to eliminate the imperialist occupiers in China. - Which worked.


Even if you include the Cultural Revolution as an attempt by the working class to cling to power (and I think this interpretation is nonsense), comparing this to the Russian Civil War, shows that capitalism was restored in China without significant, organized, working class opposition.Many people lacked education about Marxism Leninism - They will in any revolution, until the final stages. It's important to also acknowledge that reform was improving the standards of living for the people - Thus, they became disillusioned with Socialism - The peoples standards of living in China has improved massively today because Africa is practically semi-colonised by China.
There was also the popular belief that the reforms in China were initiated with the intention of strengthening the development of Socialism.
Even people today believe China is Socialist. - Which is why you view the Chinese Revolution simplistically.



The upshot of all this is that Maoism-Third Worldism is bullshit. Every revolution carried out under this ideology, most significantly China and Vietnam, have led to the restoration of capitalism. Maoism-Third Worldism is a theory which was centrally developed by Lin Biao in 1972. It's not a guiding 'ideology' of a state, but a strategy for creating world revolution.

[Victus Mortuum]

The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the economic domination of Africa, Asia and Latin America, therefore it is not in the material interests of the vast majority of people in a country such as Britain to have a Socialist Revolution because the people's standards of living would significantly decrease directly due to a Socialist Revolution.

Run-on sentence, man. But, to address your actual claim:

What is 'the value of labor' supposed to mean? How do you know what that value is? How do you know they are living above that value?

You seem to be claiming that a worker-class individual who is living in the United States is drawing surplus-value from worker-class individuals who are living in (say) the PRC simply because they are purchasing products that are produced in that country. That statement doesn't make sense because the workers in the PRC have relatively the same access to those products as Americans do. The products are sold at the highest possible price in a country so that the international capitalists can make as great a profit as possible. The paid prices then go between profit and wages. None of the extracted profit is returning to American workers, it is returning to said capitalists. The whole argument is based on the flawed argument that capitalists can/actively do somehow keep prices suppressed in 1st world countries.


The only reason, for example, a welfare state exists in the United States and Britain is because of imperialism and how the US and Britain dominate the economies of the Third World and in-turn are able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production.

No. A welfare state exists in the US due to the years of struggle by the worker-class against the capitalist/ruling-class. This welfare gives US (and other welfare gov'ts) workers some small protections against traditional surplus-value extraction in the US, and comes not from 'lesser' developed countries' surplus-value, but 1st world capitalist profit.


The Third World today is the productive force for countries such as Britain and the United States. There is little productive forces left in Britain anymore, so when Communists talk about 'taking the means of production from the ruling class in Britain", there is very little productive forces to actually take.

This is just not true. "1st world" countries still have massive and growing GDP's. Now, I will agree that capital investment is leaving "1st world" countries (as far as they are welfare states, at least) because of the general movement toward an average rate of profit. Profit rates are lower in states with worker protections and capital burdens and strong unions, therefore capital export and labor import are common in these countries (hence immigration issues from Mexico in the US (are other highly developed nations dealing with this?) and outsourcing issues). Profit rates are higher is states with no worker protections, little capital burdens, and weak unions, therefore capital import and labor export are common in these countries.


Even the poorest in the First World, are net-beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system. In other words, even the poorest in the First World receive more value than they create. First World populations have no material interest in a socialist redistribution of the global social product.

A general global redistribution at regular 1st world worker wages doesn't work because a number of countries have still yet to fully industrialize (hence undeveloped and 3rd world) and generate the social production capacity that capitalism creates.


Under such a redistribution, they would lose out significantly. It is simply not possible to raise everyone up to the current level of the First World worker. It is not possible because to do so would far exceed what is produced. And, such a levelling-up is not ecologically sustainable." - (1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven

This is true, but not because of the "exploitation" by the welfare countries' workers. It has everything to do with wholly or largely undeveloped countries which do not yet have competitive productive capacity.


A Socialist Revolution will not happen in a country such as the United States or Britain until Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. When Socialist Revolutions do occur throughout the Third World, the cheap productive forces exploited by Capitalists such as the ones in Britain, would be forced back to the First World and thus, the people would no longer be able to live above the value of labour because Britain would no longer be able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production in the Third World, due to Socialist Revolutions occurring and thus, ending the imperialist and economic domination of those Third World countries.

A socialist revolution happens regardless of the specific rate of exploitation in that country (within reason, at least). It has to do with class consciousness and destruction of false ideology, primarily. Granted a rising rate of exploitation tends to agitate the workers and generate those two things (as is happening in many "1st world" countries right now).


Whilst the Third World remains a puppet and productive force for countries such as Britain, it is not in the material interests of the vast majority of people in first world countries to have a Socialist Revolution because the vast majority of people's standards of living would significantly decrease. Even if somehow a Socialist Revolution did indeed occur in a First World Country today, the vast majority of people would soon become disillusioned with Socialism and call for the restoration of Capitalism, because they would soon learn how Socialism brought lower standards of living for them than what previously existed in Capitalism.

Ignoring the points I've already addressed, they would become disillusioned with control of their workplaces, their government, and their lives? With self-determination?


Whilst the economic domination of the third world exists, the Ruling Class will always be able to afford to provide workers with high standards of living, and enable workers to live above the value of labour.
I think you give capitalists way too much credit.

[M-26-7]

Yes, your point?


This was a strategy to eliminate the imperialist occupiers in China. - Which worked.

Many people lacked education about Marxism Leninism - They will in any revolution, until the final stages. It's important to also acknowledge that reform was improving the standards of living for the people - Thus, they became disillusioned with Socialism - The peoples standards of living in China has improved massively today because Africa is practically semi-colonised by China.
There was also the popular belief that the reforms in China were initiated with the intention of strengthening the development of Socialism.
Even people today believe China is Socialist. - Which is why you view the Chinese Revolution simplistically.


Maoism-Third Worldism is a theory which was centrally developed by Lin Biao in 1972. It's not a guiding 'ideology' of a state, but a strategy for creating world revolution.


You're right, except in the exact opposite of the way that you think you are:



From the abstract of a paper called "Inequality Among World Citizens: 1820-1992" by Francois Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson, The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4. (Sep., 2002), pp. 727-744.

Link (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28200209%2992%3A4%3C727%3AIAWC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S)

I suggest you read the whole thing, as your ideas seem to be based on your own speculation about what capitalism was like 100 or 200 years ago and how that compares to today, whereas this paper investigates the question empirically, and comes to the opposite conclusion: most inequality today is due to differences within countries. And I would add that this is actually not too surprising a conclusion, given what we know about how neoliberalism operates. Neoliberalism's prescriptions are very clearly not a case of "rich countries" versus "poor countries", but of "rich" vs. "poor" globally.

Please, dispute or just submit to self criticism.

[Kléber]

don't you people get it? YOU'RE SLAVES TO A FUCKING MACHINE

[Sexy Red]

I tried debating with a Maoist on Youtube. He kept telling me to die.

I think Maoism was only meant to help out China and other Asian countries most likely. The Asian Nationalism it inputs is quite blatant and Communism knows no borders so no to Maoism. And Vietnam can a test to that now.

[AK]

This thread is lol. Also, I've never seen any definitive proof that first world workers live above the value of their labour. Why the fuck would a capitalist give them more than the value of their labour anyway? Capitalism fucking runs on extracting suplus value from workers, otherwise we wouldn't even see any capitalist businesses in the first world because they wouldn't be fucking profitable. Maoism-Third Worldism is the ideology of idiots who don't understand workers and their relation to capitalists. That is all I have to declare.

[GreenCommunism]

the skepticism from people here is disgusting. maoism-third-worldism is not maoism alright, get that through your thick skull.


This thread is lol. Also, I've never seen any definitive proof that first world workers live above the value of their labour. Why the fuck would a capitalist give them more than the value of their labour anyway? Capitalism fucking runs on extracting suplus value from workers, otherwise we wouldn't even see any capitalist businesses in the first world because they wouldn't be fucking profitable. Maoism-Third Worldism is the ideology of idiots who don't understand workers and their relation to capitalists. That is all I have to declare. can i link articles here? shit is simple, direct producers are the one creating value in society, and everyone else like a small shop is getting money off the direct producer which is the only one creating value, now in the first world, with all the technology we have, the direct producer are very few and with delocalisation it is in the third world. what happens is that different corporations fight for the exploited values of the third world and can afford a profit by hiring people at over the wage that they actual produce simply because there is a lack of skilled professionals .

these arguments might be wrong, i am not quite sure, and i am willing to debate them, however, how can anyone really claim that profits from the 1st world are used to pay for the welfare system? where did those profit come from? the third world. if anyone on this planet receives more in a month for doing nothing than for someone who worked his whole month, then you can't argue that there is no labor aristocracy.

[Kiev Communard]

How more wrong can you be?

Ukraine is nowhere near a Third World country. A the people in Ukraine live above the value of labour.

Try going to Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. - Then you will witness the third world.

Umm...




98 Namibia 6,614
99 China, People's Republic of 6,567
100 Ukraine 6,339
101 Egypt 6,123
102 Angola 6,117

If we take your word for face value, that would mean that Chinese and Namibians "live above the value of their labour", as their GDP per capita is HIGHER than that of Ukraine you claim to be "imperialist", and are therefore First World imperialists :D. Oh, and Ecuadorians too (7,881 USD per capita GDP)!

On a more serious note, see this map, by the way. The countries with the GDP below global average are marked in orange, including "imperialist" Ukraine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Average_GDP_PPP_per_capita.svg/500px-Average_GDP_PPP_per_capita.svg.png

Nice job for showing Third-Worldism's stupidity.

[GreenCommunism]

If we take your word for face value, that would mean that Chinese and Namibians "live above the value of their labour", as their GDP per capita is HIGHER than that of Ukraine you claim to be "imperialist", and are therefore First World imperialists http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif. Oh, and Ecuadorians too (7,881 USD per capita GDP)!

On a more serious note, see this map, by the way. The countries with the GDP below global average are marked in orange, including "imperialist" Ukraine:

wow you just abused someone's ignorance about eastern europe. i now see how third-worldism is wrong!

[Kiev Communard]

wow you just abused someone's ignorance about eastern europe. i now see how third-worldism is wrong!

The Third Worldism is permeated with ignorance not only on the East Europe. The most appalling of this "movement"' mistakes is its blind romantization of nationalist (including Islamist) leaders and falling in love with them just for the sake of their anti-Western rhetorics (while in fact these nationalists most frequently either used to, or even now continue to co-operate with the West - see Pol Pot, Khomeini, the Taliban). Yet for the Third Worldists they remain "anti-Imperialist heroes", despite massacring the hundreds of leftists and other progressives. In fact, the Third Worldism is just as "revolutionary" as National Bolshevism, ignoring completely the class divisions in both "First World" and "Third World" nations and presenting them as some uniform societies, which is completely ahistorical and unscientific.

[Obs]

wow you just abused someone's ignorance about eastern europe. i now see how third-worldism is wrong!
You don't get it do you. He's making the point that he is speaking as a third-world worker.

[GreenCommunism]

The Third Worldism is permeated with ignorance not only on the East Europe. The most appalling of this "movement"' mistakes is its blind romantization of nationalist (including Islamist) leaders and falling in love with them just for the sake of their anti-Western rhetorics (while in fact these nationalists most frequently either used to, or even now continue to co-operate with the West - see Pol Pot, Khomeini, the Taliban). Yet for the Third Worldists they remain "anti-Imperialist heroes", despite massacring the hundreds of leftists and other progressives. In fact, the Third Worldism is just as "revolutionary" as National Bolshevism, ignoring completely the class divisions in both "First World" and "Third World" nations and presenting them as some uniform societies, which is completely ahistorical and unscientific.

lol, what the fuck do you know about national-bolshevism? what country are you making a reference to?

mtw talks about the world as a whole, there are countries who are inbetween, and there are jobs which are inbetween a direct producer and who isn't. they don't accept everything marx said, or what lenin said, or what mao said, it is their own stuff they came up with by a group of people who more or less agreed with the ideology.

by the way, how did the taliban cooperate with the west? these regimes have to survive just like any of them, just like hugo chavez has to cooperate with iran to form a certain bloc of anti-imperialists, you are again acting as an ultra-leftist.


You don't get it do you. He's making the point that he is speaking as a third-world worker.
hm so what? they don't even use mao's third world definition, he might be a first worlders according to the mtw. how many direct producers are there in ukraine? what are teh industries etc.

[Kiev Communard]

how many direct producers are there in ukraine? what are teh industries etc.


By the mid-80s a multi-branch, developed industry was created in Ukraine covering about 20 major industries, namely power generating, fuel, ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical and petrochemical and gas, machine-building and metal-working, forest, wood-working and wood pulp and paper, construction materials, light, food and others. In 1990, for instance, approximately 300 billion kWh of energy, approximately 40 million tons of ferrous metals rolled stock, and 6.5 million tons of steel pipes were produced; more than 100 million tons of iron ore were mined; 37 thousand metal cutting machine-tools, and more than 100 thousand tractors were manufactured in Ukraine.

Ukraine has five nuclear power stations with fifteen reactors with a total power output of 13.6 thousand MW (13 reactors of WWR type and 2 reactors of RBMK type in the Chernobyl NPS). In addition there are 47 thermal power stations with a total power output of 32.4 thousand MW, 6 large hydraulic power stations on the Dnieper and 55 small stations on other rivers.

In the coal-mining industry, more than 300 mines are operated in three coal-mining regions. Ukraine produces only 5.5 million tons of its own oil, but the ramified network of oil pipelines supports the operation of 10 petroleum plants. The Ukrainian gas pipelines transport the Russian gas to Central and Western Europe.

Approximately 200 large enterprises are operating in ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, pipe and rolling industry. These include the world largest complexes for the production of cast iron, steel, rolled stock and pipes in Dniepropetrovsk, Zaporozhje, Donetsk, Makeevka, Mariupol and other cities.

The mechanical engineering sector is represented by enterprises producing metallurgical, oil, chemical, mining, power generating, railway (locomotives, carriages, tank-cars, etc.), road construction and transportation (ships, aircraft, cars, city transport) equipment, machinery for agriculture, light and food industry, metal-cutting machine tools, instrumentation.

The Zaporozhje ‘Motor-Sich’ plant manufactures aircraft engines for all the CIS countries. One of the world largest aerospace concerns - ‘Pivdenny’ - is functioning in Dniepropet-rovsk; Kharkov turbines are known in many countries. A high-capacity chemical production complex is located in the city of Kaloush.

Altogether, the industry of Ukraine includes more than 10000 state and joint stock enterprises, and hundreds of private and collectively owned small and medium-sized businesses have been established over the last years, which operate in various industries.

http://www.usndt.com.ua/industry.htm

See this (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wFQJ49regUsJ:www.shevchenko.org/MatPhysTech/OutsourcingUkr2007.pdf+Industry+in+Ukraine&hl=uk&gl=ua&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShra7ylZuAe8Gv7v8eBgbZtsJqL33FoJBVT-88Ra0m1Dc8ShMwCRH5DmkAlQwhDw6FtCKEwwy8INc8d8FxvP10 aW7QkJtKBLBycweOdQ1-TRZ-yR2lFXwO73r98-C2Knry3OM8z&sig=AHIEtbQ8WteVDOVbi8h1vCbpQe2-Ybv8rQ) as one more testimony to the basically "Third World" character of Ukrainian economy, as this is the guide for Western companies on outsourcing the software industry to Ukraine - just like with India.

More importantly, employment statistics of Ukrainians:




Compensation of employees > % of expense 12.83 % [56th of 97]
Economic activity > Men aged 65 plus 9.13 [142nd of 162]
Employees, industry, female > % of female employment 21.2 % [18th of 86]
Employees, industry, male > % of male employment 38.3 % [15th of 86]
Employees, services, female > % of female employment 62 % [64th of 86]
Employment in agriculture > % of total employment 19.4 % [15th of 94]
Employment in industry > % of total employment 24.2 % [28th of 94]
Female decision makers 36% [11th of 67]
Female economic activity growth -2% [129th of 156]
force, total 22,324,960 [27th of 184]
Labor force 21,580,000 [24th of 132]
Labor force > By occupation
agriculture 24%, industry 32%, services 44%
Labor force > By occupation > Industry 20% [2nd of 29]
Labor force > By occupation > Services 55% [2nd of 29]
Regulation 73 [10th of 123]
Regulation > Employment Conditions 93 [4th of 123]
Unemployment rate 3.8% [91st of 107]
Unemployment, total > % of total labor force 8.6 % [34th of 101]
Vacation > Minimum vacation time around the world > legally required 24 calendar days
Workers' remittances and compensation of employees, paid > US$ 34,000,000 $ [95th of 149

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/up-ukraine/lab-labor




The data from population census of 2001 (the latest available at the moment):




Permanent population

Employed population by occupation group and employment status
UKRAINE


......Skilled workers employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing 446630 [Employee] 331708 [Members of cooperatives or collective enterprises] 77508 [Employer] 5252 [Self-employed] 28862 [Employed in family business without salary] 3300 [Those who haven't been classified]

.....Skilled workers with tools 2077844 1961125 66595 1663 47696 765

http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/social_economic/s4/?box=4.15W&out_type=&id=&rz=1_1&rz_b=2_1&k_t=00&id=&botton=cens_db

[Kiev Communard]

lol, what the fuck do you know about national-bolshevism? what country are you making a reference to?

I am making references to the original German National Bolshevism of 1920s, whose leaders thought that all Germans, irrespective of their class position, were some sort of "exploited" by "evil Anglo-Jewish capitalists", and that the revolution should be national, not class-based. Something tells me that many Third Worldists follow basically the same creed, Just substitute "Germans" for "Third Worlders" and "evil Anglo-Jewish capitalists" for "crackpot AmeriKKKans" , and you'll see the similarities between these two positions. That's why "Maoism-Third-Worldism", despite its name and rhetoric, is closer to "Third Position" than to revolutionary left (including historical - and modern - Maoism).

[GreenCommunism]

I am making references to the original German National Bolshevism of 1920s, whose leaders thought that all Germans, irrespective of their class position, were some sort of "exploited" by "evil Anglo-Jewish capitalists", and that the revolution should be national, not class-based. Something tells me that many Third Worldists follow basically the same creed, Just substitute "Germans" for "Third Worlders" and "evil Anglo-Jewish capitalists" for "crackpot AmeriKKKans" , and you'll see the similarities between these two positions. That's why "Maoism-Third-Worldism", despite its name and rhetoric, is closer to "Third Position" than to revolutionary left (including historical - and modern - Maoism). except that the proletarian nation you talk about was germany and italy, as opposed to oppressed people who starve while there is an obesity problem in the usa. there is a huge difference, but it's good taht you don't talk out of your ass like people often do about the russian national-bolsheviks. by the way,i think those national-bolsheviks were in favor of a socialist economy but simply wanted to drop the internationalism.

thanks for the statistics about ukraine, it's eye opening, the point remians however, that mtw don't care about countries who are inbetween , it is a universal analysis of the world of today . countries in between won't be targeted as either mortal ennemy or noble allies, they are inbetween and requires a solution adapted to them.

i also fail to see how close mtw is to the national-bolsheviks, they are internationalist at heart, they mostly criticize first world communist movement for asking more money and already living pretty nice standard of living.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

what happens is that different corporations fight for the exploited values of the third world and can afford a profit by hiring people at over the wage that they actual produce simply because there is a lack of skilled professionals

Lol, what, all first worlders are skilled professionals?


these arguments might be wrong, i am not quite sure, and i am willing to debate them, however, how can anyone really claim that profits from the 1st world are used to pay for the welfare system? It actually doesn't come from profit at all. Welfare policies in the first world are almost universally payed for by circulating wealth from higher payed sections of the working class to lower payed sections. The working class as a whole in most first world countries, even during welfare capitalism's heyday, only saw around a three percent increase in the total portion of the wealth that factors into their standard of living than they would have without social welfare programs.


where did those profit come from? the third world. if anyone on this planet receives more in a month for doing nothing than for someone who worked his whole month, then you can't argue that there is no labor aristocracy.More in a month for doing nothing? Who's that referring to, people on unemployment and welfare? And this is the labor aristocracy? You maoist third worldists are so reactionary you'll even call homeless people parasites.

[Sasha]

by the way, how did the taliban cooperate with the west?


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/oneworld/20011115/wl/u_s_policy_towards_taliban_influenced_by_oil_-_say_authors_1.html

Thursday November 15 01:21 PM EST

U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors

By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service

PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.

''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).



The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain.

On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.

Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden.

Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet.



Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of closest aides to President Bush, linking them to oil business.

Bush's family has a strong oil background. So are some of his top aides. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. oil companies.

Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities.



Brisard and Dasquie contend the U.S. government's claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. ''Actually,'' Dasquie says, ''the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism.''

''Bin Laden wanted settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Qaddafi,'' Dasquie claims. ''Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organised attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qaddafi.''

Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organisation, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden.

''Qaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained co- operation,'' Dasquie says. ''Until today, members of IFG openly live in London.''

The book confirms earlier reports that the U.S. government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban.

''Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan,'' says the book.

''Representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings,'' it says. ''Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table.''

These meetings, also called ''6+2'' because of the number of states (six neighbours plus U.S. and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In a French television news programme two weeks ago, Naik said during a ''6+2'' meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around ''the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid.''

''And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,'' he added.

Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan.

''Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation','' Naik claimed.

staunch anti-imperialists indeed

[Kiev Communard]

except that the proletarian nation you talk about was germany and italy, as opposed to oppressed people who starve while there is an obesity problem in the usa.

Don't forget that in 1920s Germany and Italy, especially the latter, were much closer to the "Second World", and the Southern Italy to "Third World", than to their modern selves. The National Bolsheviks and Mussolini might just as well have used the same mode of reasoning as the MIM with respect of this.




thanks for the statistics about ukraine, it's eye opening, the point remians however, that mtw don't care about countries who are inbetween , it is a universal analysis of the world of today . countries in between won't be targeted as either mortal ennemy or noble allies, they are inbetween and requires a solution adapted to them.

And what about such nations as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, other "oil monarchies", on the one hand, and the "Asian Tiger economies" (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.), on the other hand? Would Third Worldists treat them as "First Worlders" (the UAE ruling class is, for instance, much richer and exploitative towards immigrant working-class majority than that of France, for instance), or their "non-European" status would somehow make them "Third-World" still?

[GreenCommunism]

like i told you, they won't dismiss their whole analysis for a single country that doesn't fit their model. i do think south korea and japan is first world, but it probably matters a whole lot about the population as a whole, as opposed to the numbers of bourgeois profiting from oil revenues. those countries also usually aren't very imperialist in the world right now, thus they don't use armed force to enforce exploitation.

[Widerstand]

like i told you, they won't dismiss their whole analysis for a single country that doesn't fit their model. i do think south korea and japan is first world, but it probably matters a whole lot about the population as a whole, as opposed to the numbers of bourgeois profiting from oil revenues. those countries also usually aren't very imperialist in the world right now, thus they don't use armed force to enforce exploitation.

South Korea contributes more troops to the ISAF than Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Ukraine, Portugal, Slovenia, Luxemburg and Iceland. Are then, all of these allegedly First World, exploitative countries "not very imperialist", either?

[Saorsa]

The upshot of all this is that Maoism-Third Worldism is bullshit. Every revolution carried out under this ideology, most signficantly China and Vietnam, have led to the restoriation of capitalism.

The Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions were not carried out under Third Worldist ideology. Third Worldism is not Maoism - they're very embarrassing, I guess in the same way the Posadaists are embarrassing for Trotskyism.

Mao always expressed solidarity with the struggles of black people and working class people in your own country Dave. You know this as well as anyone.

[GreenCommunism]

South Korea contributes more troops to the ISAF than Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Ukraine, Portugal, Slovenia, Luxemburg and Iceland. Are then, all of these allegedly First World, exploitative countries "not very imperialist", either? i fucking told you i consider south korea to be first world, are you blind? i don't know about the south korean military i actually was thinking of japan, you will point out one mistake of my part due to my ignorance and constantly dismiss a whole theory. this is annoying.


The Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions were not carried out under Third Worldist ideology. Third Worldism is not Maoism - they're very embarrassing, I guess in the same way the Posadaists are embarrassing for Trotskyism.

Mao always expressed solidarity with the struggles of black people and working class people in your own country Dave. You know this as well as anyone. __________________oh will you get it through your thick skull that they support the struggles of black people? they just don't see them as oppressed as the third world which is frigging true, even huey newton talked about how their opression is not the same as the one in africa. if anythign they consider them part of the second world, they have a strong link to native americans struggle however, and i respect this one much more than greedy first world workers who are asking for more money when their standard of living is quite acceptable , when has there ever been a strike in the usa to protest against the low price of a ressource in the third world? where is the proletarian internationalism you are all talking about, you hypocrits.

[Kotze]

greedy first world workers who are asking for more money when their standard of living is quite acceptableIf only the greedy first world workers stopped exploiting their capitalists, so the first world capitalists would finally, as they have always been dreaming, have the means to help the third world, AMIRITE?

[Palingenisis]

See this (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wFQJ49regUsJ:www.shevchenko.org/MatPhysTech/OutsourcingUkr2007.pdf+Industry+in+Ukraine&hl=uk&gl=ua&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShra7ylZuAe8Gv7v8eBgbZtsJqL33FoJBVT-88Ra0m1Dc8ShMwCRH5DmkAlQwhDw6FtCKEwwy8INc8d8FxvP10 aW7QkJtKBLBycweOdQ1-TRZ-yR2lFXwO73r98-C2Knry3OM8z&sig=AHIEtbQ8WteVDOVbi8h1vCbpQe2-Ybv8rQ) as one more testimony to the basically "Third World" character of Ukrainian economy, as this is the guide for Western companies on outsourcing the software industry to Ukraine - just like with India.

I was briefly in the Ukraine.

Its certainly appeared to my friend who I was travelling with and had been to Latin America as a lot more "third world" than large parts of Latin America. I find the assertion of Ukrainian workers being part of the Labour Aristocracy weird.

[Palingenisis]

lol, what the fuck do you know about national-bolshevism? what country are you making a reference to?

.

Because they believe that the principle contradiction is between and not classes and because they basically speak about "proletarian nations" versus "bourgieous" nations the way the National Bolsheviks did.

They also have a weird inverted national chauvanism similar to the Anti-Germans against their own nation of the "United $nakes of AmeriKKKa"...They may "hate" the USA but they sure do obesess about it.

[RED DAVE]

The Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions were not carried out under Third Worldist ideology. Third Worldism is not Maoism - they're very embarrassing, I guess in the same way the Posadaists are embarrassing for Trotskyism.Your words say, "No, no," but your actions say, "Yes, yes."

Fact is, there is little to distinguish between Maoism and Third Worldism as the Maoist notion of the block of four classes makes it impossible for Maoists to function in the "First World." So, they rely on revolution in the Third World, which they compromise with alliances with native capitalists. What does this lead to: capitalism.




Mao always expressed solidarity with the struggles of black people and working class people in your own country Dave. You know this as well as anyone.Sure he did. We all know that Mao made statements about supporting struggles in the First World. We also know that he made a political alliance with Nixon: one of the worst imperialist and racist presidents in US history, murderer of the Black Panthers, etc.

Maoism and Thrid Worldism are kissing cousins. Both of them contradict the Marxist (and Leninist) proposition of the leading revolutionary role of the proletariat, in all countries.

RED DAVE

[Palingenisis]

I think he is accusing the Ukraine of being "Imperialist" because it is "white". Its psychologically sick....The non-whites are cast in a "feminine role" of always being poor defenseless victims, whites in a "masculine role" as the evil bully, rapist, etc...And of course Maoist Third Worldists as the Knights in shining armour...Im exaggerating a bit but not THAT much.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am making references to the original German National Bolshevism of 1920s, whose leaders thought that all Germans, irrespective of their class position, were some sort of "exploited" by "evil Anglo-Jewish capitalists", and that the revolution should be national, not class-based. Something tells me that many Third Worldists follow basically the same creed, Just substitute "Germans" for "Third Worlders" and "evil Anglo-Jewish capitalists" for "crackpot AmeriKKKans" , and you'll see the similarities between these two positions. That's why "Maoism-Third-Worldism", despite its name and rhetoric, is closer to "Third Position" than to revolutionary left (including historical - and modern - Maoism).

Did they really think that German industrialists were "exploited" by Versailles imperialism? :confused:


by the way,i think those national-bolsheviks were in favor of a socialist economy but simply wanted to drop the internationalism.

[...]

i also fail to see how close mtw is to the national-bolsheviks, they are internationalist at heart, they mostly criticize first world communist movement for asking more money and already living pretty nice standard of living.

The "leftist Nazbols" among the self-described Nazbols were/are pan-nationalists in their inter-nationalism. They are neither nationalistic nor trans-nationalistic: from Vladivostok to Gibraltar is one of their slogans.

MTW ignores the class nature of petro states: that's buying out your lumpen domestic population literally!


And what about such nations as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, other "oil monarchies", on the one hand, and the "Asian Tiger economies" (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.), on the other hand? Would Third Worldists treat them as "First Worlders" (the UAE ruling class is, for instance, much richer and exploitative towards immigrant working-class majority than that of France, for instance), or their "non-European" status would somehow make them "Third-World" still?

You read my thread on this subject???

[Obs]

I was briefly in the Ukraine.

Its certainly appeared to my friend who I was travelling with and had been to Latin America as a lot more "third world" than large parts of Latin America. I find the assertion of Ukrainian workers being part of the Labour Aristocracy weird.
Yeah, but the Ukrainians are white.

[Widerstand]

Yeah, but the Ukrainians are white.

Kill all the white men!

World revolution come!

[Sasha]

also i hate how primitivist can't use their computer to talk because it's hypocritical or any idiocy like that, this is another way to attack people instead of attacking ideas.

well actualy thanks for bringing that up, primitivists writing blogs (i.e. hyporcritic people who want deny me the fruits of progress while using them themself) its exact the same kind of attitude that pisses me of with 3th worldist. its not about attacking the person its attacking the fundamental hypocrisy behind their proffesed ideas.
if ever i meet an 3th worldist from the actual 3th world i would be very intrested in what they have the say, sadly they seem all to be first world armchair revolutionarys slagging off the hard and dangerous actvist work valuable revolutionarys are doing.
so yes, that is very much like primitivists writing blogs, or for that matter, fascists *****ing about freedom of speech.

[Victory]

The Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions were not carried out under Third Worldist ideology. Third Worldism is not Maoism - they're very embarrassing, I guess in the same way the Posadaists are embarrassing for Trotskyism.

Mao always expressed solidarity with the struggles of black people and working class people in your own country Dave. You know this as well as anyone.
Uhh, I think you'll find your very wrong.

Third Worldism is mainly based on "Long live the victory of Peoples War" - A article written by Lin Biao entirely based upon Maoism, and also, the "Three Worlds theory", a theory put forward by Mao arguing that there exists three politico-economic worlds.

I think it is you who is the joke, and most of the people here who seem to have become disillusioned by thinking that Maoism-Third Worldism is about 'hating first world workers'. It's not, it's about building a world revolution using the highest and most effective stage of analysis relevant to the 21st century.

Go ahead and build your revolutions in first world countries, but don't expect me or the world majority to show you sympathy in 50 years time when we see that your whole life you've been living as a parasite, along with failing entirely.

- The responses show the reality of Communists on this forum, how the vast majority of you make judgements so quickly, when you clearly haven’t studied Maoism-Third Worldism at all. - Would this be related to the fact that you live in the First World and are emotionally attached to it's workers and live in such privilege that you would never even think of struggling for revolution in the Third World, and giving up extreme privilege for abject poverty.

It's easy to talk about revolution like the vast majority of people in countries such as Britain do. But the people who matter most aren’t ever going to take you seriously, because they full well know that you benefit from their misery, and once more, accept it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'll just have a quick say to this.

Maoism-Third Worldism is bullshit, period! These people predominantly claim that there is no true "working class" member in first world nations, & prove such based on their acquirement of wealth & materials. This is a very un-Marxist analysis on what classifies the main difference between Capitalists & Working Class - the means of acquiring said wealth & materials. Just because one has a nice car or is a millionaire does not mean you're not working class, nor does it mean that you're a Capitalist. Take actors for example. They are popular millionaires. They acquire their mass wealth by selling their acting skills (labor force) to movie industries (capitalists) in order to gain a wage. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being rich. Under a Socialist system, people can get rich. Hell, more people would be able to do so because they're no longer being exploited from their true wages.

So M-TW, at least, is a highly revisionist group of first world teens to 20 year olds who think they're the next John Brown (I'm being serious, they compare themselves to John Brown because they consider John Brown as a "nation traitor" instead of a working class man who fought for black liberation through militant means). I cannot respect M-TW whatsoever, due to their clear revisionism & opposition to every other true Communist party & organization.

That's all I have to say. Fuck Maoism-Third Worldism!

[ZeroNowhere]

I think it is you who is the joke, and most of the people here who seem to have become disillusioned by thinking that Maoism-Third Worldism is about 'hating first world workers'. It's not, it's about building a world revolution using the highest and most effective stage of analysis relevant to the 21st century.

Go ahead and build your revolutions in first world countries, but don't expect me or the world majority to show you sympathy in 50 years time when we see that your whole life you've been living as a parasite, along with failing entirely.

- The responses show the reality of Communists on this forum, how the vast majority of you make judgements so quickly, when you clearly haven’t studied Maoism-Third Worldism at all. - Would this be related to the fact that you live in the First World and are emotionally attached to it's workers and live in such privilege that you would never even think of struggling for revolution in the Third World, and giving up extreme privilege for abject poverty.

It's easy to talk about revolution like the vast majority of people in countries such as Britain do. But the people who matter most aren’t ever going to take you seriously, because they full well know that you benefit from their misery, and once more, accept it.
So what I take from your argument is that being a Maoist-Third-Worldist isn't to do with one hating first world workers so much as trying to make as many people as possible hate oneself.

[Victory]

I'll just have a quick say to this.

Maoism-Third Worldism is bullshit, period! These people predominantly claim that there is no true "working class" member in first world nations, & prove such based on their acquirement of wealth & materials. This is a very un-Marxist analysis on what classifies the main difference between Capitalists & Working Class - the means of acquiring said wealth & materials. Just because one has a nice car or is a millionaire does not mean you're not working class, nor does it mean that you're a Capitalist. Take actors for example. They are popular millionaires. They acquire their mass wealth by selling their acting skills (labor force) to movie industries (capitalists) in order to gain a wage. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being rich. Under a Socialist system, people can get rich. Hell, more people would be able to do so because they're no longer being exploited from their true wages.

So M-TW, at least, is a highly revisionist group of first world teens to 20 year olds who think they're the next John Brown (I'm being serious, they compare themselves to John Brown because they consider John Brown as a "nation traitor" instead of a working class man who fought for black liberation through militant means). I cannot respect M-TW whatsoever, due to their clear revisionism & opposition to every other true Communist party & organization.

That's all I have to say. Fuck Maoism-Third Worldism!

You have a clear lack of knowledge about Maoism-Third Worldism.
MTW has nothing to do with arguing people who get paid more are not working class - It's to do with the difference between politico-economic worlds and how people benefit, and also accept such benefit because it's in their material interests to accept it.

You can't claim what you just said and also be a Maoist. What you just said was an attack on Mao and labelling him and his 'Three World theory' as revisionist. - The three world theory argues that there are three different politico-economic worlds, which you just disputed as revisionist.

"There is a tendency of the bourgeois and the opportunists to convert a handful of very rich and privileged nations into 'eternal' parasites on the body of mankind, to 'rest on the laurels' of the exploitation of negros, Indians, ect., keeping them in subjection with the aid of excellent weapons of extermination provided by modern militarism. On the other hand, there is a tendency of the masses, who are more oppressed and who bear the brunt of imperialist wars, to cast off this yoke and to overthrow the bourgeoisie. It is in the struggle between these two tendencies that the history of the labour movement will now inevitably develop." - V.I Lenin

[PirateJenny]

There have been incorrect claims made by both the supporters and detractors of Maoism-Third Worldism in this thread. It is good that so many are standing up to the chauvinism and dipshitism of First Worldism here.

Firstly, Maoist-Third Worldists have never made the claim that GNP levels somehow correspond to exploitation levels across countries. So, all this spamming about Ukraine means nothing since Maoist-Third Worldists have never made such claims. To claim as much is obviously ridiculous. The claim by Maoist-Third Worldists is that within the imperialist system income levels and asset levels, in other words, overall standard of living, correspond to exploitation levels. The standard of living in a country is not the same thing as a GNP -- one would have to be really stupid to think that it was. But, this is revleft, which has a long history of banning any intelligent discourse on this topic and allowing every kind of nonsense imaginable.

There is only so much value produced by the global system. Because the value produced is finite, if someone is getting more than an equal share of the global pie, someone else is getting less. This is an obvious consequence of not only the labor theory of value, but, also, of any non pie-in-the-sky approach to value. The bourgeoisie appropriates more value than it produces. It appropriates more than its share of the global pie. In other words, value is flowing to the bourgeoisie from elsewhere. Even though the labor aristocracy does not own the means of production in the same way as the bourgeoisie, it still appropriates more value than it produces and more value that it would under a socialist distribution of the global surplus. In other words, more value is flowing to the labor aristocracy than it produces, more than it should receive. There is a MTW saying: "The FW 'working class' may not be driving the buss, but they are enjoying the ride."

Also, Maoist-Third Worldists do not claim that non-productive workers can't ever be exploited. Obviously, they can be. There are exploited non-productive workers in the Third World. They are exploited if they receive less than a fair share of the global pie, if they receive less than they would under a global socialist distribution. Nonetheless, the growth of the non-productive sector and shrinking of the productive sector within a country roughly corresponds to the level of parasitism within a country. If people want to actually engage with what Maoist-Third Worldists have written on this topic, instead of silly caricatures and outright lies, then, a good place to start are the following articles on Monkey Smashes Heaven/Leading Light Communist Organization called "Revisiting Value and Exploitation," "Real versus Fake Marxism on Socialist Distribution," "Book review of Teresa Hayter’s The Creation of World Poverty," and "Book review of André Gunder Frank’s Lupenbourgeoisie: Lumpendevelopment." Click on the "economics" category and there are dozens of very detailed articles proving the economics of Third Worldism. Certainly Maoist-Third Worldists have offered more detailed economic documentation of their views than First Worldists who can only resort to bald assertions and sob stories.

Secondly, the Mao-Deng "Three Worlds Theory" of the 1970s has little to do with Maoism-Third Worldism. The Mao-Deng Theory was advanced in opposition to the correct line of Lin Biao's Long Live the Victory of People's War! Throughout the 1970s, there was a First Worldist turn in the CCP. Even though the "Three Worlds Theory" divided the globe into functional blocks known as "worlds," the policies associated with this period were more First Worldist. This turn can be observed in the pages of Beijing Review.

Thirdly, Maoist-Third Worldists support the struggles of oppressed nations within the First World while recognizing that there is limited potential for these struggles at present because these nations also have a large labor aristocracy. In the past pre-MTW Maoist formations often emphasized the support of these FW national liberation struggles and the organization of the so-called lumpen as the main task of revolutionaries. Maoist-Third Worldists see this as a mistaken view, it is a view that seems to be advocated by some of the remnants of the degenerated Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM). Maoist-Third Worldists emphasize the Third World as the main thing, not First World captive nations and the First World lumpen.

Fourthly, someone claimed that they had done "research" showing that Maoist-Third Worldists are all "college students." I really wonder what kind of research this could possibly entail. In addition, what does being college educated or not have any bearing on the truth of falsity of the assertions of Maoism-Third Worldism. In general, having an education usually counts as a plus in my book, but, again, this is the drooling wonderland of revleft. I've heard it all, that Maoist-Third Worldists are "all old hippies," "all academics," "rich White kids," "all Black nationalists," "all man-hating lesbians," etc. None of this has any bearing on whether Maoism-Third Worldism is correct or not.

Revleft has a long history of banning those who advocate for Maoism-Third Worldism. Those who advocate for the proletarian view should be aware of this.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I just wanted to point out how early in this thread I said "But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime. I'm not even a MTWist but I recognize the reality of a situation." To which someone replied: "Location: Illinois "Okay"" This only goes to prove my point. Especially coming from some one in Germany.

Also when I said: "just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations." he replied: "You mean like, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, China and such?"

Which is funny because the only two successful revolutions he listed here were in oppressed nations.

Also there was this garbage in reply to my first quote: "Yes, down with all of the brown people. Indeed, my brown head is currently going down onto my brown desk" I don't even know what to say about this. I'm not sure what he was talking about.


But I will say one more thing. That I don't even consider myself a MTWist but I love MTWism because it has shown me how chauvinist socialist can be in the first world and how they will oppose anything that goes against their interest just like the imperialist will do. I love how people that are suppose to be accepting and open and revolutionary are still xenophobic chauvinist. Thanks Pirate Jenny for your post that is good stuff though I'm sure the replies you will mainly get is 'MTW is stupid'.

Some one called most MTWist armchair revolutionaries, funny how you write that sitting in a chair behind a computer.:rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

There is only so much value produced by the global system. Because the value produced is finite, if someone is getting more than an equal share of the global pie, someone else is getting less. This is an obvious consequence of not only the labor theory of value, but, also, of any non pie-in-the-sky approach to value. The bourgeoisie appropriates more value than it produces. It appropriates more than its share of the global pie. Surely this only works if we assume that all producers produce the same value and therefore we can work out an equitable return of the pie. This is patently not true. Secondly, it does not account for the fact that
value is produced by one class and owned and controlled by another. It is the global bourgeosie which benefits from the extraction of surplus value from the global workforce, not the peoples of particular nations.


Even though the labor aristocracy does not own the means of production in the same way as the bourgeoisie, it still appropriates more value than it produces and more value that it would under a socialist distribution of the global surplus.


By what mechanisms does the so-called labour aristocracy appropriate this value? It would appear that the only answer is through the largesse of the FW bourgeoisie, given that the labour aristocracy has no control over it: A policy of "We super exploit the third world worker so we can pay you more than you are worth." What generosity on behalf of our bosses! But, of course, this is far from the experience of the FW proletariat who are continually exhorted to curb their pay demands in order to compete with workers from the developing world.

As a matter of interest, which groups of workers specifically are in the labour aristocracy? According to the Tory government in my country its all the workers in the public sector, the bin collectors, the cleaners, the teachers, the nurses, who they are preparing to through into unemployment.

[Widerstand]

I just wanted to point out how early in this thread I said "But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime. I'm not even a MTWist but I recognize the reality of a situation." To which someone replied: "Location: Illinois "Okay"" This only goes to prove my point. Especially coming from some one in Germany.

First off, if you want to talk to me, don't do it in your stupid chauvinist third person style. Second, are you somehow going to argue now that Illinois is more Third World than Germany and therefore your opinion is more correct than mine? Fine, I'd love to see you do that.



Also when I said: "just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations." he replied: "You mean like, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, China and such?"

Which is funny because the only two successful revolutions he listed here were in oppressed nations.

You were talking about "every revolution ever", not "every successful revolution ever". All my examples are countries that had revolutions.

[PirateJenny]

Surely this only works if we assume that all producers produce the same value and therefore we can work out an equitable return of the pie. This is patently not true. Secondly, it does not account for the fact that value is produced by one class and owned and controlled by another. It is the global bourgeosie which benefits from the extraction of surplus value from the global workforce, not the peoples of particular nations. Marx assumed as much.

Yours is an old argument that has be dealt with here:

“First Worldists often use this argument to justify why First World so-called workers deserve more than their Third World counterparts. They say that First World so-called workers are akin to skilled workers, and therefore deserve more. Of course Marx argued against the First Worldists that productivity of producers (bracketing for a moment the fact that very few in the First World produce!) should not be tied to entitlement. Do not capitalists always argue, like the First Worldist so-called Marxist, that they are not idle, but contribute highly skilled mental labor to production? Do not superstar CEOs argue that they are the big-idea people without which the whole enterprise would fail. In any case, this is moot because it is a myth that First World so-called workers are more productive than Third World workers. The United States Tariff Commission reported in 1973 that levels of productivity are the same in similar types of industry. (28) In fact, as Hayter points out, the productivity of labor in underdeveloped countries, or the amount produced at a particular time, is increasingly recognized as similar to that in developed countries. Since machinery is often inferior or secondhand in the Third World, and Third World workers have worse working environments, are paid substantially less, work longer, etc., it can be argued that Third World workers are more productive than First World so-called workers.(29) ”

As for the second part of your assertion, it is false. Maoism-Third Worldism does recognize that the bourgeoisie has a role that is different than that of the labor aristocracy. In fact, I mentioned this in my prior post. Nonetheless, both the bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy are net-beneficiaries of exploitation. Thus, they align with each other against the Third World peoples.


By what mechanisms does the so-called labour aristocracy appropriate this value? It would appear that the only answer is through the largesse of the FW bourgeoisie, given that the labour aristocracy has no control over it: A policy of "We super exploit the third world worker so we can pay you more than you are worth." What generosity on behalf of our bosses! But, of course, this is far from the experience of the FW proletariat who are continually exhorted to curb their pay demands in order to compete with workers from the developing world.
The above quote is the kind of stupidity I was referring to earlier. Instead of actually reading what Maoist-Third Worldist and MIM articles actually say, the poster quoted above reduces the value transfers to a silly caricature of a literal bribe. There are numerous descriptions of how value transfers happen from the Third to the First World found in numerous academic works -- one doesn’t even need to buy into Maoism-Third Worldism to understand that imperialism transfers value from the Third to First World populations. One of the articles I cited above mentions a very lowball calculation arrived at by Samir Amin on the topic, for example. The mechanisms for value transfer range from unequal exchange to social democratic bribes (of value acquired from exploitation and plunder).
At least make an effort at reading at least one of the articles I cited before spouting off.

[graymouser]

Even though the labor aristocracy does not own the means of production in the same way as the bourgeoisie, it still appropriates more value than it produces and more value that it would under a socialist distribution of the global surplus.
Not in a Marxist framework, it doesn't.

Take auto manufacturing in the United States. These are well paid workers - sometimes as much as $70/hour - who, inasmuch as there is a labor aristocracy, currently compose a part of it. Let's say a car retails at $20,000 US. (The figures here are simplified but not too far from reality.) The total production cost of the car is $10,000, and the manufacturer sells it to the dealer at right around $15,000. Labor in this car costs on average around $2,000, with the other $8,000 of the production price being the remainder of the means of production involved in making the car. This means that the workers added $7,000 of value to the car ($15,000 - $10,000) and were paid $2,000. $5000 in surplus-value was still extracted.

In the pure terms of Marx's Capital, these labor aristocrats are still being paid out of the value that they add in the creation of commodities. Being paid "above the value of their labor" is an undialectical way of looking at the question of labor's value, and entirely alien to Marx's analysis. Value is determined by "socially average labor-time" which in the first world societies has been pushed up not by imperialist profits but by previous successful campaigns by labor for higher wages. There is no way in Marx's theory to actually say someone is paid over their value created and still show a profit on balance. The only way for your scenario to be true would be for the imperialists to actually sell the vehicle for less than the sum of MP + L where MP is the cost of means of production, and L is the cost of labor.


Even though the labor aristocracy does not own the means of production in the same way as the bourgeoisie, it still appropriates more value than it produces and more value that it would under a socialist distribution of the global surplus.
This is a place where adding up GDP figures for the world and dividing them among everyone is misleading. Much of the current income going to first world workers goes to their biggest expenses - housing and health care in the US - neither of which would be bought on the market in a socialist society. Presumably the revolution in the third world countries would mean building up their means of production constructively, so their relative share of GDP would increase dramatically over what it is now.


There is a MTW saying: "The FW 'working class' may not be driving the buss, but they are enjoying the ride."
The global offensive against the world working class in the last three decades has meant to an increasing degree that "the ride" is ending - M-TW seems to be writing off these workers as not resisting any of this. Foolish, as the removal of any link in the imperialist chain would only be a spur to third world revolutions.

[Kiev Communard]

You read my thread on this subject???

No, I've actually came up on this idea independently from you :D, but I would be glad to get a link.

[28350]

The upshot of all this is that Maoism-Third Worldism is bullshit.
Yes.


Every revolution carried out under this ideology, most signficantly China and Vietnam, have led to the restoriation of capitalism.
RED DAVE
Thankfully none have been (carried out under this ideology).

[PirateJenny]

Not in a Marxist framework, it doesn't.

Take auto manufacturing in the United States. These are well paid workers - sometimes as much as $70/hour - who, inasmuch as there is a labor aristocracy, currently compose a part of it. Let's say a car retails at $20,000 US. (The figures here are simplified but not too far from reality.) The total production cost of the car is $10,000, and the manufacturer sells it to the dealer at right around $15,000. Labor in this car costs on average around $2,000, with the other $8,000 of the production price being the remainder of the means of production involved in making the car. This means that the workers added $7,000 of value to the car ($15,000 - $10,000) and were paid $2,000. $5000 in surplus-value was still extracted.

In the pure terms of Marx's Capital, these labor aristocrats are still being paid out of the value that they add in the creation of commodities. Being paid "above the value of their labor" is an undialectical way of looking at the question of labor's value, and entirely alien to Marx's analysis. Value is determined by "socially average labor-time" which in the first world societies has been pushed up not by imperialist profits but by previous successful campaigns by labor for higher wages. There is no way in Marx's theory to actually say someone is paid over their value created and still show a profit on balance. The only way for your scenario to be true would be for the imperialists to actually sell the vehicle for less than the sum of MP + L where MP is the cost of means of production, and L is the cost of labor. You are wrong in many ways.

Firstly, you don’t understand the labor theory of value. Here is an eloquent description of the LTV by Eleanor Marx:

“The sum thus entering the pocket of the capitalist Marx calls surplus-value. It is not all profit, but includes the employer’s profit. He has to share it with others: with the Government in the shape of rates and taxes, with the landlord for rent, with the merchant, etc… Thus, all of the classes of society not composed of actual and immediate producers of wealth… all classes, from kings and queens to music-masters and greengrocers, live upon their respective shares of this surplus value. In other words, they live upon the net producer of the surplus labor which the capitalist extracts from his work people, but for which he does not pay. It matters not whether the share of surplus-labor falling to each member of society not actually a producer is granted as a gift by Act of Parliament from the public revenue, or whether it has to be earned by performing some function not actually productive. There is no fund out of which they can be paid, but the sum total of the surplus value created by the immediate producers, for which they are not paid.”

According the LTV, all value comes from direct producers and those closely tied to direct production. Others may be necessary to realizing value, but they do not create it. This is why Marx can say in Capital Vol. 3 Chapter XVII that clerks employed in merchant enterprises (Walmart, is by the way, the number one employer in the USA), are not the source of profits and are not “cheated.”

“We must make the same distinction between him and the wage-workers directly employed by industrial capital which exists between industrial capital and merchant’s capital, and thus between the industrial capitalist and the merchant. Since the merchant, as mere agent of circulation, produces neither value nor surplus-value.. it follows that the mercantile workers employed by him in these same functions cannot directly create surplus-value for him.. In other words, that he does not enrich himself by cheating his clerks.” (Marx, Capital Vol. 3 Chapter XVII)

Marx does not think that non-productive laborers contribute value. One can even say that the capitalist, in some sense, is necessary to the realization of value under the current mode of production. That fact does not mean he contributes value. Think of tellers in a bank. Are they the source of a bank’s profits? No. Just like the clerks at the supermarket aren’t picking the lettuce in the back. Starbuch’s employees are not growing the beans, etc. And, it is an empirical fact that the vast majority of the US workforce falls into these kinds of categories. They do not add value, according to Marx.

Secondly, your example is one of a productive laborer who is overpaid. Your example assumes things that are contested. When the car is finally sold, in your example, that does not mean all that value that is realized as profit was contributed by the autoworker at the plant. This is covered in the article Revisiting Value and Exploitation on MSH:

“The world economy is made up of chains of economic interaction. Each commodity has a point where it was produced. Before a commodity finally leaves circulation, it might be exchanged several times. Let’s say a commodity was produced at point A. It was bought by a middleman company and transported and sold again at point C. After being sold at the department store, the commodity leaves circulation. This chain can be represented thus:

A->B->C

At each stage of the commodity’s journey, profit may be obtained. Let’s suppose profit is obtained when the commodity is sold from the factory at A to the middleman at B. Also, profit is obtained when the middleman company B sells it to the retail store C. And, profit is also obtained when the retailer C sells the commodity to the consumer. Even though profit is obtained at each point in the circulation chain, surplus value can only be produced by the direct producer, according to Marx. Even though profit is obtained by the middlemen and distributor, this profit is not produced by the workers employed by either the middleman B or the retailer C.”

Even though this is talking about a circulation chain, you can easily think of a similar example that holds for production. A car is not built from the ground up at the factory. Parts are ordered, usually from the Third World, etc. Thus the value realized at the final point where most profit is made is often a function of value that has been contributed over a whole process of production, it is not just the manifestation of the value of the last First World guy (or last point in the production process) who worked on the thing. The addition of value can be distributed over the whole process. Because of this First World workers who are closer to the final realization can be paid out of surpluses that are actually generated further down the chain of production. This isn’t even accounting for value transfers generated through broader unequal exchange and plunder and social democratic bribes.

In any case, this should not be a debate about what Marx did or did not write. This is a discussion about whether First World workers are asses or masses.

[graymouser]

Thus the value realized at the point where profit is made is often the total value that has been contributed over a whole process, it is not just the manifestation of the value of the last guy (or last point in the production process) who worked on the thing. The addition of value is distributed over the whole process. Because of this First World workers who are closer to the final realization can be paid out of surpluses that are actually generated further down the chain of production. This isn’t even accounting for value transfers generated through broader unequal exchange and plunder and social democratic bribes.
This may be something but it is not Marxist analysis. If the inputs - building, utilities, land use, taxes, and parts - into a car other than labor are $8000, then those have already completed the process. Surplus-value created in them has been extracted within the stream of commodities - so you are effectively saying that the capitalists who employ third-world workers are themselves exploited. :lol: Your economics have nothing to do with Marxism.

[PirateJenny]

This may be something but it is not Marxist analysis. If the inputs - building, utilities, land use, taxes, and parts - into a car other than labor are $8000, then those have already completed the process. Surplus-value created in them has been extracted within the stream of commodities - so you are effectively saying that the capitalists who employ third-world workers are themselves exploited. Your economics have nothing to do with Marxism. Wrong.

Nothing I have written implies that capitalists in the Third World are exploited. I have just stated, along with Marx, that value can be transferred from one group of workers to another. Look at the example Marx gives of the clerk. If he isn't producing value, where does the value he is paid come from? Well, according to Marx's LTV, it comes from those involved in direct production. All value does. You can claim all you want that my view isn't Marxist, but Marx would disagree.

The problem here is that you've been raised on revisionism, on a bullshit "Marxism."

[Victus Mortuum]

1) Personal attacks aren't conducive to productive dialog

2) The OP and other MTWs ignored my complete response to the OPs argument for MTW

3) You're acting like the only productive value is value going directly into creation of a new thing. This is patently false. Yes, direct production facilities from raw materials produce value. But, raw material extraction and retrieval also produces value, Shipping labor provides productive labor as well. So does anything that actually contributes to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

[PirateJenny]

1) Personal attacks aren't conducive to productive dialog

2) The OP and other MTWs ignored my complete response to the OPs argument for MTW

3) You're acting like the only productive value is value going directly into creation of a new thing. This is patently false. Yes, direct production facilities from raw materials produce value. But, raw material extraction and retrieval also produces value, Shipping labor provides productive labor as well. So does anything that actually contributes to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services 1. I agree, but I call them like I see them. There is very little productive dialogue that can be had between Maoist-Third Worldists and the drooling First Worldists/social fascists/social imperialists/other morons,etc. here.

2. I have no idea what your arguments are. I'll try my best to answer in broad strokes. I will also address those who take the time to base their criticism on official MTW writings. I don't have time to answer every brilliant post that appears on this forum.

3. This is already covered in MTW articles. The first article that I mentioned, "Revisiting Value and Exploitation," presents arguments based on Marx's theory of value and arguments independent of it. In fact, that article presents the limitations of Marx's theory of value better than you do. Perhaps you ought read it? It would be nice if the expert critics here read at least one article on MTW political economy from official MTW sources. This is not to belittle our comrades here, it is just that the articles go into much more depth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, I've actually came up on this idea independently from you :D, but I would be glad to get a link.

On petro states:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/parasite-state-theory-t123172/index.html?p=1608551
http://www.revleft.com/vb/three-worlds-theory-t122814/index.html

[graymouser]

Wrong.

Nothing I have written implies that capitalists in the Third World are exploited. I have just stated, along with Marx, that value can be transferred from one group of workers to another. Look at the example Marx gives of the clerk. If he isn't producing value, where does the value he is paid come from? Well, according to Marx's LTV, it comes from those involved in direct production. All value does. You can claim all you want that my view isn't Marxist, but Marx would disagree.

The problem here is that you've been raised on revisionism, on a bullshit "Marxism."
You are drawing a false equivalence between non-productive work (the clerk) and productive work at high wages (as this occurs in the United States). This is a grotesque distortion that relies upon extending surplus-value of means of production down the production process after the capitalist who generated it has already been paid for a component at its value. Which is nonsense.

[PirateJenny]

You are drawing a false equivalence between non-productive work (the clerk) and productive work at high wages (as this occurs in the United States). This is a grotesque distortion that relies upon extending surplus-value of means of production down the production process after the capitalist who generated it has already been paid for a component at its value. Which is nonsense. Firstly, I have shown that Marx admitted that value can be transferred from one group of workers to another. This is clearly shown in the quotes and should not be disputed by anyone who can read. Just as value is transferred from the productive to unproductive worker, value can be transferred from one productive worker to another. There is nothing preventing this from happening. In fact, it happens all the time.

I would also add that the vast majority of US workers are not productive in Marx's sense. Even if you were right, which you aren't, the vast majority of the US workforce is not exploited in any meaningful sense. In other words, even if I granted that you were right in this case, which you aren't, it would still point toward Third Worldism since so few Amerikans are employed doing productive labor.

Secondly, you simply assume that all the value of an earlier component is realized when it is sold earlier. This is why I said you simply assume what is being contested. Why make this assumption, especially when production is globalized and more complex than ever? We can easily think of examples where your assumption does not hold in obvious ways. Let’s use an example. Country I in the Third World is forced so give up its oil at undervalued prices so that the imperialists can extract unjust reparations for the “invasion” of K. This undervalued oil, when used for production purposes of commodity X in the First World, would translate into a greater profit margin at the final point in the production chain, when the final commodity X is sold. So, what you have is value that is created earlier on by oil workers in I in the Third World, however, this value remains unrealized earlier on due to unequal exchange, extreme unequal exchange under this condition of virtual plunder by imperialists. This happens all the time under imperialism, but in more subtle ways. Oh wait.. Nah.. this could never happen. Imperialists don’t force unequal trade conditions on other peoples. They would never do that! The neoliberals must be right.. the market is always fair and right, power never enters into it..

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

According the LTV, all value comes from direct producers and those closely tied to direct production. Others may be necessary to realizing value, but they do not create it. This is why Marx can say in Capital Vol. 3 Chapter XVII that clerks employed in merchant enterprises (Walmart, is by the way, the number one employer in the USA), are not the source of profits and are not “cheated.”

This is a complete vulgarization of the LTV. You're thinking of pure, abstract commercial capital. Wal Mart, which employs millions of workers who transport, store, stock, etc goods is obviously not an example of pure buying and selling.


We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, "The Costs of Circulation,") to what extent the transport industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a distributable form, may be regarded as production processes continuing within the process of circulation. These episodes incidental to the circulation of commodity-capital are sometimes confused with the distinct functions of merchant's or commercial capital. Sometimes they are, indeed, practically bound up with these distinct, specific functions, although with the development of the social division of labour the function of merchant's capital evolves in a pure form, i.e., divorced from those real functions, and independent of them. Those functions are therefore irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the specific difference of this special form of capital. In so far as capital solely employed in the circulation process, special commercial capital, partly combines those functions with its specific ones, it does not appear in its pure form. We obtain its pure form after stripping it of all these incidental functions.

And from the same chapter you quote from:


Commercial capital, therefore — stripped of all heterogeneous functions, such as storing, expressing, transporting, distributing, retailing, which may be connected with it, and confined to its true function of buying in order to sell — creates neither value nor surplus-value, but acts as middleman in their realisation and thereby simultaneously in the actual exchange of commodities, i.e., in their transfer from hand to hand, in the social metabolism.



Marx does not think that non-productive laborers contribute value. One can even say that the capitalist, in some sense, is necessary to the realization of value under the current mode of production. That fact does not mean he contributes value. Think of tellers in a bank. Are they the source of a bank’s profits? No. Just like the clerks at the supermarket aren’t picking the lettuce in the back. Starbuch’s employees are not growing the beans, etc. And, it is an empirical fact that the vast majority of the US workforce falls into these kinds of categories. They do not add value, according to Marx.

Really?


Quantities of products are not increased by transportation. Nor, with a few exceptions, is the possible alteration of their natural qualities, brought about by transportation, an intentional useful effect; it is rather an unavoidable evil. But the use-value of things is materialised only in their consumption, and their consumption may necessitate a change of location of these things, hence may require an additional process of production, in the transport industry. The productive capital invested in this industry imparts value to the transported products, partly by transferring value from the means of transportation, partly by adding value through the labour performed in transport. This last-named increment of value consists, as it does in all capitalist production, of a replacement of wages and of surplus-value.


As Rubin summed it up,


Productive capital directly organizes the process of the creation of consumer goods in the wider sense. This process includes all work which is necessary for the adaptation of goods for the purpose of consumption, for example, preservation, transport, packaging, and so on. Capital in the process of circulation organizes "genuine circulation," purchase and sale, for example the transfer of the right of ownership abstracted from the actual transfer of products.

True, cashiers aren't productive, but that's not because of the content of their labor but because their wages are exchange with revenue and not capital.


In any case, this should not be a debate about what Marx did or did not write. This is a discussion about whether First World workers are asses or masses.Even if what you are saying is for the most part true, there are tens of millions of workers in the United States. If we assumed that 10-15% of them fulfilled your definition of productive labor, then we'd still have a working class as large as that in many third world countries. How are we any less obligated to organize those workers because they aren't a majority?

[AK]

There have been incorrect claims made by both the supporters and detractors of Maoism-Third Worldism in this thread. It is good that so many are standing up to the chauvinism and dipshitism of First Worldism here.
What the fuck is first worldism? Find me some evidence that someone on this board identifies with that new-found "ideology" :laugh:

[The Vegan Marxist]

There is a MTW saying: "The FW 'working class' may not be driving the buss, but they are enjoying the ride."


Yeah, you're absolutely fucking right. I do quite enjoy having a car that half the time doesn't work for me, so I have to get others to take me to work. I do enjoy having to spend 10-12 hours a day at work to gain a wage that doesn't even amount to how much labor I put in for them. I did enjoy my 6 months unemployed searching for a job where none is found. I do enjoy that I'm struggling to keep gas in my car a week, sometimes having to use others cars just to get by one week of not being able to put gas in my car. I do enjoy the fact that I only got to put in 1 year of college education, & haven't been able to get any more since, & instead working to help attain my common needs. I did enjoy living in the projects for a while, knowing me & my family could get clapped at any second, making us have to move down here with even less jobs to find. You're absolutely fucking right. I do enjoy in my life here in the good 'ol first world USA!

Seriously, you have no fucking clue what it's like to live a daily life of struggle. I have no sympathies with bullshit rhetoric such as that by you revisionist M-TWs.

[PirateJenny]

Your Marx quotes confirm exactly what I have said. I said that value creation is bound up with direct production and that which is close or closer to direct production. It does not continue infinitely into circulation so that anyone and everyone who is a wage earner is, therefore, contributing value. And, some transportation is value creating, according to Marx. You should probably be arguing with the other people in this thread not with me on this point. To throw open the door, as First Worldists do and, perhaps, I.I. Ruben does, effectively eliminates the distinction entirely, and tosses the LTV.

Nothing in the quotes that you provide go against what has been put forward earlier. Yes, the closer you get to pure merchant capital, pure circulation, the less value (no value) production in going on. In the same chapter, Marx discusses those employed by merchant capital, and does not qualify it as you have tried to imply. You have tried to imply that what Marx says narrowly only applies to cashiers as a special case, but that isn’t so. There is no reason not to apply it across the board to, as Marx says, “the commercial wage-workers employed by the commercial capitalist” in general.


Even if what you are saying is for the most part true, there are tens of millions of workers in the United States. If we assumed that 10-15% of them fulfilled your definition of productive labor, then we'd still have a working class as large as that in many third world countries. How are we any less obligated to organize those workers because they aren't a majority? The article I mentioned offers the following generous estimates:

“The total population of the United States is 309 million. Of the 145 million people who are employed (this includes the undocumented too) within the United States, roughly 26 million are employed in those sectors of the economy that loosely (since we are relying on Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data) correspond with direct production. (5) However, it is important to note that many of those employed in these sectors are not the direct producers themselves. Many in these sectors are management, etc., even if they are employed in the direct production sector of the economy. It is a conservative estimate that at least 10% to 30% of this sector can be considered to not be direct producers in a literal or extended sense. We can generously say that 23.4 million to 18.2 million people in the United States can be counted as direct producers in the loosest sense of the term. (6)”

None of the claims of Maoism-Third Worldism hinge on Marx’s LTV or Marx’s distinction between productive and unproductive labor. I have said this several times. I am not particularly interested in Marxology for its own sake. My point in raising Marx is that there is a basis in Marx for the idea that value can be transferred from one worker to another -- a claim that was disputed by people here. I don’t consider Marx’s writings the Holy Bible and neither should anyone else. The claims of Maoism-Third Worldism should be judged against reality. One merely needs to look at who benefits and who does not under a global socialist distribution of the social product to know that First World workers, whether productive or not, would lose out under socialism. One merely needs to look at the complete lack of First World revolution to confirm what Maoism-Third Worldism advances.

[PirateJenny]

Yeah, you're absolutely fucking right. I do quite enjoy having a car that half the time doesn't work for me, so I have to get others to take me to work. I do enjoy having to spend 10-12 hours a day at work to gain a wage that doesn't even amount to how much labor I put in for them. I did enjoy my 6 months unemployed searching for a job where none is found. I do enjoy that I'm struggling to keep gas in my car a week, sometimes having to use others cars just to get by one week of not being able to put gas in my car. I do enjoy the fact that I only got to put in 1 year of college education, & haven't been able to get any more since, & instead working to help attain my common needs. I did enjoy living in the projects for a while, knowing me & my family could get clapped at any second, making us have to move down here with even less jobs to find. You're absolutely fucking right. I do enjoy in my life here in the good 'ol first world USA!

And still you have the time to spam your sob story and 3,000 other posts online. You're a real trooper.

First Worldists don't do analysis, they tell stories.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And still you have the time to spam your sob story and 3,000 other posts online. You're a real trooper.

First Worldists don't do analysis, they tell stories.

Oh shut the fuck up. Yeah, I have the time to post a few minutes worth of typing. That's a big part of my life, I tell you what. :rolleyes:

Your analysis is incorrect & lacks any materialist platform. You're all just a bunch of idealists.

[Victus Mortuum]

The article I mentioned offers the following generous estimates:

“The total population of the United States is 309 million. Of the 145 million people who are employed (this includes the undocumented too) within the United States, roughly 26 million are employed in those sectors of the economy that loosely (since we are relying on Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data) correspond with direct production. (5) However, it is important to note that many of those employed in these sectors are not the direct producers themselves. Many in these sectors are management, etc., even if they are employed in the direct production sector of the economy. It is a conservative estimate that at least 10% to 30% of this sector can be considered to not be direct producers in a literal or extended sense. We can generously say that 23.4 million to 18.2 million people in the United States can be counted as direct producers in the loosest sense of the term. (6)”

I'd LOVE to actually see where these "statistics" came from, and the specific meanings of the words used in the claimed "statistics". Current US unemployment figures are around 9.6% (the worst they've been in a long time), and there are 300 million people in the US...

[PirateJenny]

Oh shut the fuck up. Yeah, I have the time to post a few minutes worth of typing. That's a big part of my life, I tell you what.

Your analysis is incorrect & lacks any materialist platform. You're all just a bunch of idealists.

So says your crystal ball. Thank you for demonstrating the true superiority of your First Worldist line.

Typical First Worldist, social fascist dipshitism.

[Victus Mortuum]

And still you have the time to spam your sob story and 3,000 other posts online. You're a real trooper.

First Worldists don't do analysis, they tell stories.

STFU Aren't you supposed to be fighting your guerrilla war in some 3rd world country? You fucking hypocrite

[PirateJenny]

I'd LOVE to actually see where these "statistics" came from, and the specific meanings of the words used in the claimed "statistics". Current US unemployment figures are around 9.6% (the worst they've been in a long time), and there are 300 million people in the US...

What does the unemployment rate have to do with the figures provided about the number of those doing productive labor? The numbers I cite are extrapolated from BLS numbers. The method is explained in the footnotes to the article "Revisiting Value and Exploitation" on MSH. I can't post links because I am a new user here. Otherwise, I would be posting all kind of links.

You claim that the US working class has hit hard times. Well, then go out and organize them for "socialism." If you can't gain any traction now, given the current crisis, then you might as well admit that I'm right. So, go do it. Let's see how well you do. I won't hold my breath waiting for your revolution. When all your efforts amount to nothing, maybe then you'll realize that your beloved Amerikan working class doesn't give a shit about "socialism," even in its bastardized form offered by all the virtually identical First Worldist sects.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Your Marx quotes confirm exactly what I have said. I said that value creation is bound direct production and that which is close or closer to direct production. It does not continue infinitely into circulation so that anyone and everyone who is a wage earner is, therefore, contributing value. And, some transportation is value creating, according to Marx. You should probably be arguing with the other people in this thread not with me on this point. To throw open the door, as First Worldists do and, perhaps, I.I. Ruben does, effectively eliminates the distinction entirely, and tosses the LTV.

No, you've just got the distinction wrong. It's the distinction between wages exchanged with revenue and wages exchanged with capital, or to say the same thing, between capital employed in the process of circulation and capital employed in the process of production. You seem to be confusing value with actual "substance," whereas value is a social relation.


Nothing in the quotes that you provide go against what has been put forward earlier. Yes, the closer you get to pure commercial capital, pure circulation, the less value (no value) production in going on. In the same chapter, Marx discusses those employed by merchant capital, and does not qualify it as you have tried to imply.No, he discusses those employed by merchant capital in its function as pure commercial capital:


Since the merchant, as mere agent of circulation, produces neither value nor surplus-value.. it follows that the mercantile workers employed by him in these same functions cannot directly create surplus-value for him.. In other words, that he does not enrich himself by cheating his clerks.”
But wal mart for example is not a mere agent of circulation. You are still dealing with pure abstract commercial capital and are ignoring all the real processes of production that are usually connected, the " processes of production which are carried out in the process of circulation," "processes of production which are only continued in circulation, the productive character of which is hence merely concealed by the circulation form," etc. Hence the significance of these quotes that I posted:


Commercial capital, therefore — stripped of all heterogeneous functions, such as storing, expressing, transporting, distributing, retailing, which may be connected with it, and confined to its true function of buying in order to sell — creates neither value nor surplus-value

But these functions are the functions carried out by many of wal marts employees.


We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, "The Costs of Circulation,") to what extent the transport industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a distributable form, may be regarded as production processes continuing within the process of circulation. These episodes incidental to the circulation of commodity-capital are sometimes confused with the distinct functions of merchant's or commercial capital.


You have tried to imply that what Marx says narrowly only applies to cashiers as a special case, but that isn’t so. No I haven't. It doesnt have anything to do with that particular form of labor. It's the way in which it relates to capital. If cashiers were to be contracted out on a capitalistic basis, then they would be productive laborers.



None of the claims of Maoism-Third Worldism hinge on Marx’s LTV or Marx’s distinction between productive and unproductive labor. I have said this several times. I am not particularly interested in Marxology for its own sake. My point in raising Marx is that there is a basis in Marx for the idea that value can be transferred from one worker to another -- a claim that was disputed by people here. Well this is true, but there's a long jump from that to third worldism. I mean, is there some sort of insoluble contradiction between teachers employed by the state on a non-productive basis and teachers employed by private schools? Are the former exploiting the latter?



I don’t consider Marx’s writings the Holy Bible and neither should anyone else. The claims of Maoism-Third Worldism should be judged against reality. One merely needs to look at who benefits and who does not under a global socialist distribution of the social product to know that First World workers, whether productive or not, would lose out under socialism. One merely needs to look at the complete lack of First World revolution to confirm what Maoism-Third Worldism advances.

Okay, so lets judge them against reality. In Marx there is an often ignored(by third worldists) mechanism for value transfer from the third world to the first world. This arises from the fact that capital receives profit according to the total capital they employ and not how much surplus value they contribute to the total surplus. This means that capitalists producing in more capital intensive sectors appropriate some of the value produced in more labor intensive sectors, and that a similar relation could exist between nations. However, to happen on a major scale this required the predominance of the international market, which has itself lead to a protracted decrease in the standard of living for first world workers, so this process itself would seem to make your theory one which will not be able to hold up in the face of reality. Personally I've yet to see any detailed analysis of the world economy and to what extent a process like that could be occuring from the third worldists, all I see is impressionism. "First world workers are rich in relation to third world workers, so they're obviously exploiting them." Economically this isn't necessarily so. The capitalist class amasses quite a large surplus on the backs of the world working class, and for workers that still pressure their bourgeoisie for a greater share of the value they create, wide differences in income are possible. But that would mean they were less exploited, not that they weren't exploited at all.

Unlike the third worldists, I have a study that is helpful:
http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf (http://homepage.newschool.edu/%7EAShaikh/labthvalue.pdf)

As the author puts it, "In Marxian analysis the direction of individual price-value deviations is quite important, since it determines transfers of surplus value between sectors and regions, and between nations on a world scale."

And from the analysis of the data, he finds that, due to the extremely integrated nature of our economy, the deviation between prices as if they were determined by labor value and as they are formed through the equalization of the rate of profit is pretty small(8-9%), meaning that most profit, or at least a portion, is likely coming from value produced in those sectors/nations as opposed to that which is appropriated from other capitals. And, in fact, this is the case according to data provided by Andrew Kliman:

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/401.html


There are two other factors determining the value of the long-run rate of profit: the relationship between profits and wages, and the rise in money prices above the real value of goods and services, which, according to Marx’s theory, is determined by labor-time.

Abstracting price deviations, "there’s the actual labor rate of profit, which is what the money rate of profit would have been if money prices didn’t rise above real values."

http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/oldsite/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/figure5.png




This shows that, independently of any deviations, there is still a surplus being appropriated within the national boundaries of the US, from the US working class.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

One merely needs to look at the complete lack of First World revolution to confirm what Maoism-Third Worldism advances.

Also I didn't realize that socialism had been established in the third world...

[Sasha]

thread moved to OI,
3th worldists restricted acording guidelines,
verbal warning to "pirate jenny"; call users/workers "social fascists" one more time and you will get banned

[GreenCommunism]

first worlders feels threatened because people on welfare gain more than an entire year of hard work, then claim they are miserable. hah spoiled children, look guys i'm on welfare for life due to illnesses, do you see me *****ing at all?

i have a computer, okay food, free electricity, i can drink beer every once in awhile. I DON'T EVEN DO FUCKALL FOR MANKIND. you know i'm sorry, the only parties with a bit of internationalism are electoralist who have to compromise in europe, hey there's my own party in quebec which is opposed to the afghan war and the iraq war. gee whiz so few of them, and they don't get much vote.

to be honest i find one flaw in mtw, and it's america, i kinda half-agree with sesoshvilli there, people don't have infinite welfare like i do.

to be honest, i feel guilty, i'm useless to society, i feel miserable, i need to feel like i contribute to society, but hell i don't even have to, we have third worlders to give some to me. i don't care about the whole economic analysis. i totally disagree that my money comes from the taxes of other people, just like i disagree that it comes from bourgeois in our own world. the gains of the proletariat in the first world doesn't encourage them to seek more, because football and porn is too attractive, none of them want class war, unions in the 70s talked about class war, but no longer, why so?

so how can anyone justify my high standard of living ? you know, i'm simply not materialistic, i want to live close to earth with little material posessions. so perhaps i simply don't care about flat screen tv's. i simply cannot get it, that you believe that you can have a flat screen tv, and someone else on this planet could never dream of affording it, and that you are not a labor aristocracy, actually, it seems most people here agree about the theory of labor aristocracy. i don't see why the hell i would be restricted at all. i'm sorry for calling you people spoiled children, but think of my situation. and how little i give a fuck about material posession, i used to not care about the third world and didn't want to be exploited at all. but with age all of this changed, i'm now a pseudo-hippy who thinks money can't buy happiness ,so when i see people who are buying stuff made off children chained to desk in a sweatshop, complaining they are being exploited, i have a knee-jerk reaction.

[RGacky3]

i don't care about the whole economic analysis.

Thats the problem.


none of them want class war, unions in the 70s talked about class war, but no longer, why so?

Because its many many variables, but saying that its because unions were catered to by the ruling class is rediculous.


so how can anyone justify my high standard of living ? you know, i'm simply not materialistic, i want to live close to earth with little material posessions. so perhaps i simply don't care about flat screen tv's. i simply cannot get it, that you believe that you can have a flat screen tv, and someone else on this planet could never dream of affording it, and that you are not a labor aristocracy, actually, it seems most people here agree about the theory of labor aristocracy. i don't see why the hell i would be restricted at all. i'm sorry for calling you people spoiled children, but think of my situation. and how little i give a fuck about material posession, i used to not care about the third world and didn't want to be exploited at all. but with age all of this changed, i'm now a pseudo-hippy who thinks money can't buy happiness ,so when i see people who are buying stuff made off children chained to desk in a sweatshop, complaining they are being exploited, i have a knee-jerk reaction.

Justify your high standard of living? I don't think that needs to be justified, people in the third world arn't poor because of your comfort.

[Victory]

'Restricted', Are you going to restrict Che Guevara when he claimed First World people exploit Third World people and benefit through imperialism in his book 'Socialism and Man in Cuba'?

Maoism-Third Worldism is a correct analysis of the world situation today in relation to Socialism and Revolutionary theory.

Now please restrict me too; An Anti-Revisionist who is actually active in revolutionary movements and has experienced something different than privilege and welfare. I want nothing to do with idiots who are obviously emotionally attached to first world people and are falsely emotionally offended when somebody criticises a form a parasitism and puts forward an argument to build a world Communist revolutionary movement in the most effective way possible.

I suggest some of you travel and experience life in the third world, Colombia and Ecuador, where people can't afford to put shoes on their feet, when in contrast you moan about university loans being cut and minimum wages being lowered.

PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD DON'T HAVE SUCH WELFARE BECAUSE THEY DON'T BENEFIT FROM IMPERIALISM!

[GreenCommunism]

Thats the problem.

no, i believe in the economic analysis, even if it wasn't true i would still be a third worldist. that was my point.


Justify your high standard of living? I don't think that needs to be justified, people in the third world arn't poor because of your comfort.

if there was a sudden equality of everyone according to a maximum of 1 to 4 wage difference, you and i would lose alot, so yes, people in the third world are poor becaues of my comfort. at least to some extent.


I suggest some of you travel and experience life in the third world, Colombia and Ecuador, where people can't afford to put shoes on their feet, when in contrast you moan about university loans being cut and minimum wages being slightly lowered.


i'm waiting for someone to give a good argument against this.

[Obs]

'Restricted', Are you going to restrict Che Guevara when he claimed First World people exploit Third World people and benefit through imperialism in his book 'Socialism and Man in Cuba'?

Maoism-Third Worldism is a correct analysis of the world situation today in relation to Socialism and Revolutionary theory.

Now please restrict me to; An Anti-Revisionist who is actually active in revolutionary movements and experienced something different than privilege and welfare. I want nothing to do with idiots who are obviously emotionally attached to first world people and are falsely emotionally offended when somebody criticises a form a parasitism and puts forward an argument to build a world Communist revolutionary movement in the most effective way possible.

You can silence people on the internet, but sadly for you, I'm extremely active in movements and don't sit on the internet talking about 'revolution' my entire life.

I suggest some of you travel and experience life in the third world, Colombia and Ecuador, where people can't afford to put shoes on their feet, when in contrast you moan about university loans being cut and minimum wages being slightly lowered.

PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD DON'T HAVE SUCH WELFARE BECAUSE THEY DON'T BENEFIT FROM IMPERIALISM!
Quit getting mad at the Internet.

[The Vegan Marxist]

'Restricted', Are you going to restrict Che Guevara when he claimed First World people exploit Third World people and benefit through imperialism in his book 'Socialism and Man in Cuba'?

Maoism-Third Worldism is a correct analysis of the world situation today in relation to Socialism and Revolutionary theory.

Now please restrict me too; An Anti-Revisionist who is actually active in revolutionary movements and has experienced something different than privilege and welfare. I want nothing to do with idiots who are obviously emotionally attached to first world people and are falsely emotionally offended when somebody criticises a form a parasitism and puts forward an argument to build a world Communist revolutionary movement in the most effective way possible.

I suggest some of you travel and experience life in the third world, Colombia and Ecuador, where people can't afford to put shoes on their feet, when in contrast you moan about university loans being cut and minimum wages being lowered.

PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD DON'T HAVE SUCH WELFARE BECAUSE THEY DON'T BENEFIT FROM IMPERIALISM!

Jesus, you sound like Fox News. "WE'RE THE VICTIMS! THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE LOVE THEIR WELFARE LIVES & BENEFIT FROM IT MORE THAN I DO OFF IT!" Only problem is that a good majority, from personal experience of all the people I know currently on welfare/food stamps, are only getting around $200 a month. I don't know your standard of living, but that's not enough for those holding a house/apartment, with a car, & working. Especially for me, since I have to drive a half an hour just to get to work, as do many others, so that means more gas needed per trip. People do not benefit from welfare, not a vast majority of them. We survive off of it. It's a necessity. Though, with that kind of mentality, all you're claiming is that you want us to starve like Ethiopians until you gain our "support" as "first worldists".

[Victory]

Jesus, you sound like Fox News. "WE'RE THE VICTIMS! THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE LOVE THEIR WELFARE LIVES & BENEFIT FROM IT MORE THAN I DO OFF IT!" Only problem is that a good majority, from personal experience of all the people I know currently on welfare/food stamps, are only getting around $200 a month. I don't know your standard of living, but that's not enough for those holding a house/apartment, with a car, & working. Especially for me, since I have to drive a half an hour just to get to work, as do many others, so that means more gas needed per trip. People do not benefit from welfare, not a vast majority of them. We survive off of it. It's a necessity. Though, with that kind of mentality, all you're claiming is that you want us to starve like Ethiopians until you gain our "support" as "first worldists".

Let me put something into perspective for you.

A good comrade of mine receives £6000 a year to live on. He has a daughter and is provided housing.
With this welfare, although the very minimum in Britain, he can afford privileges such as electricity, television, a laptop, food, takeaways and benefits such as an IPOD.

Now £6000 a year in the United Kingdom is considered poverty, you cannot receive much less than than £6000 if you have a daughter (Which seems small, but is a lot and is only possible due to imperialism and the economic domination of the third world.)

In the Third World, the vast majority of people find it hard to afford shoes to put on their feet, let alone being able to afford benefits such as electricity and takeaways.

Don't try and be an apologetic for the benefits of imperialism. People don't get food stamps, housing and welfare cheques in the Third World.

I don't think you have ever been to a third world country, which might explain why you live in a bubble like so many Americans do.

You might claim to be a Communist, but the effects of the United States government have definitely played a role in shaping your politics.


I don't know your standard of living, but that's not enough for those holding a house/apartment, with a car, & working. Especially for me, since I have to drive a half an hour just to get to work, as do many others, so that means more gas needed per trip.The fact you speak about having housing, a car and a job shows how much the United States political system has played a role in shaping your world outlook and politics.

People don't have such prvileges in the Third World. Get in reality.

[Dean]

My experience is that third-worldists have some erroneous view that capitalist accumulation of wealth is not as large as it really is, so the wealth extracted from third world nations must be going to other places - namely, the proletarian in the first world.

They basically don't think exploitation is as bad as it really is. Its an absurd, childish notion that is only conceivable if you perform absolutely no analysis of economics.

[Kiev Communard]

Let me put something into perspective for you.

A good comrade of mine receives £6000 a year to live on. He has a daughter and is provided housing.
With this welfare, although the very minimum in Britain, he can afford privileges such as electricity, television, a laptop, food, takeaways and benefits such as an IPOD.

Now £6000 a year in the United Kingdom is considered poverty, you cannot receive much less than than £6000 if you have a daughter (Which seems small, but is a lot and is only possible due to imperialism and the economic domination of the third world.)

In the Third World, the vast majority of people find it hard to afford shoes to put on their feet, let alone being able to afford benefits such as electricity and takeaways.

Don't try and be an apologetic for the benefits of imperialism. People don't get food stamps, housing and welfare cheques in the Third World.

I don't think you have ever been to a third world country, which might explain why you live in a bubble like so many Americans do.

You might claim to be a Communist, but the effects of the United States government have definitely played a role in shaping your politics.

The fact you speak about having housing, a car and a job shows how much the United States political system has played a role in shaping your world outlook and politics.

People don't have such prvileges in the Third World. Get in reality.

Let me ask you a question. If the only expoliters who apparently oppress the Third World working class and toiling peasantry are "social-imperialist labour aristocrats", should we (and specifically I) constantly denounce "First Worlders", while ignoring our native exploiters? Because as far as I may see, you are arguing that Third World bourgeoisie (including, for instance, Ukrainian oligarchy) is not that bad in comparison with those pesky AmeriKKKans.

[GreenCommunism]

Let me ask you a question. If the only expoliters who apparently oppress the Third World working class and toiling peasantry are "social-imperialist labour aristocrats", should we (and specifically I) constantly denounce "First Worlders", while ignoring our native exploiters? Because as far as I may see, you are arguing that Third World bourgeoisie (including, for instance, Ukrainian oligarchy) is not that bad in comparison with those pesky AmeriKKKans.

it's just an analysis of where we should spent our time and effort fighting for revolution. why should you ignore your own bourgeoisie? who said that, the amerikkkan bourgeoisie as you say is simply much more powerful and hurting the world than the ukkkrainian one.( sorry for the k stuff)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Let me put something into perspective for you.

A good comrade of mine receives £6000 a year to live on. He has a daughter and is provided housing.

With this welfare, although the very minimum in Britain, he can afford privileges such as electricity, television, a laptop, food, takeaways and benefits such as an IPOD.

Now £6000 a year in the United Kingdom is considered poverty, you cannot receive much less than than £6000 if you have a daughter (Which seems small, but is a lot and is only possible due to imperialism and the economic domination of the third world.)

In the Third World, the vast majority of people find it hard to afford shoes to put on their feet, let alone being able to afford benefits such as electricity and takeaways.

Don't try and be an apologetic for the benefits of imperialism. People don't get food stamps, housing and welfare cheques in the Third World.

I don't think you have ever been to a third world country, which might explain why you live in a bubble like so many Americans do.

You might claim to be a Communist, but the effects of the United States government have definitely played a role in shaping your politics.

The fact you speak about having housing, a car and a job shows how much the United States political system has played a role in shaping your world outlook and politics.

People don't have such prvileges in the Third World. Get in reality.

So, that's around $8,000 annually. People like him are privileged to have electricity to their home, food to keep them healthy, & transportations. I'm telling you right now, things like television & Ipods don't constitute as a reason good enough not to give my life for revolution. If you think that TVs & Ipods will be the reason people won't wage revolution in first world nations, then you're sadly mistaken.

Let's look at people like Joseph Stack. He had money, a home, job, transportation, & a family. Though, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he fly a small plane into an IRS building filled with FBI & CIA? He also left a manifesto detailing his life experiences & how, despite the "benefits" he gained, he still was being fucked over & decided to give his life for a cause. What about millionaire actors like Danny Glover who's an active Communist & fights for workers rights all the time, & has even been willing to go to jail for such a cause, because the wealth, the "benefits" as you so like to claim, does not constitute reasoning for the inability to give your life up for a cause.

Your theories are bullshit. Again, you're nothing more than an idealist who upholds an ideal that calls for the death of an entire nation, including conscious working class people.

[Victory]

Let me ask you a question. If the only expoliters who apparently oppress the Third World working class and toiling peasantry are "social-imperialist labour aristocrats", should we (and specifically I) constantly denounce "First Worlders", while ignoring our native exploiters? Because as far as I may see, you are arguing that Third World bourgeoisie (including, for instance, Ukrainian oligarchy) is not that bad in comparison with those pesky AmeriKKKans.

What you should do is fight for Socialist Revolution in the countries where fighting for revolution is most effective and likely to bring about a world revolution, in other words, fight for Socialist Revolution in the Third World.

A Socialist Revolution will not happen in a country such as Britain or the United States for the reasons I stated in my original post.

I'm not big on the idea of verbally attacking First World people, it doesn't make much difference to me. I don’t think it helps the movement, but even if such attacks were not present, the first world people would still play an extremely minimal role in building revolution in the third world - It’s not in their material interests to adhere to such an idea.

Most 'revolutionaries' in the first world aren't going to want to adhere to Maoism-Third Worldism.

As a Maoist-Thirdist I argue that revolutionary situations will naturally come about in first world countries, regardless as to whether or not people fight for revolution in first world countries at this present time. This is due to how when Revolution occurs throughout the third world and force the productive forces back to countries such as Britain, the standards of living for the vast majority of people in countries such as Britain will significantly decrease.
Thus, this will create conditions ideal for revolution.

In other words, because Revolutionary situations will naturally occur in the first world without the help of 'revolutionaries' today, what ‘revolutionaries’ from the first world are in fact doing is mostly ineffective and to a large extent pointless.

Many people, especially older 'Communists' who have been fighting for ‘revolution’ their entire lives in countries such as Britain are not going to want to adhere to such an analysis, as it basically means that all their time spent on building 'revolution' has been ultimately, a waste of time.

My second post in this topic points out what I believe 'revolutionaries' from the first world should do to be more effective as a revolutionary.

[Palingenisis]

The idea that the poorer you are the more revolutionary isnt true. Often class struggle heightens when living conditions are improving but meeting the expectations people expected....And on the other times of economic hardship can make people more conservative and even selfish because of the fear factor involved.

[Palingenisis]

What the fuck is first worldism? Find me some evidence that someone on this board identifies with that new-found "ideology" :laugh:

First Worldism actually does exist....Its the tendency of many within the "ultra-left" to dismiss social and political struggles in the third world as having any real progressive content and to see the revolution coming from the "advanced" first world. It goes hand in hand with a contempt for anything rural. I believe that the International Communist Current were attacked as such by another Left Communist organization.

[Hit The North]

A good comrade of mine receives £6000 a year to live on. He has a daughter and is provided housing.
With this welfare, although the very minimum in Britain, he can afford privileges such as electricity, television, a laptop, food, takeaways and benefits such as an IPOD.


Who do you think pays for this welfare? Do you think it is first world workers paying taxes or third world workers working in dire conditions? If you think it is the latter, then please explain the process whereby the labour of a seamstress in Pakistan, ends up paying for your friend's unemployment cheque. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know.

Meanwhile, the idea that electricity and food are privileges is beyond silly.


Now £6000 a year in the United Kingdom is considered poverty, you cannot receive much less than than £6000 if you have a daughter
Yes, relative poverty. You appear to only think in terms of absolute poverty. But you'll be happy to know that the current government hopes to further reduce your friend's benefits and help to reduce the gap between the poor in the UK and the poor in the third world that way. No doubt, you'll be voting Conservative at the next election in recognition of their struggle against imperialism :lol:.


(Which seems small, but is a lot and is only possible due to imperialism and the economic domination of the third world.)You keep saying this but have yet to explain it.


In the Third World, the vast majority of people find it hard to afford shoes to put on their feet, let alone being able to afford benefits such as electricity and takeaways.
I agree that explaining why the world's poor live in such desperate and dehumanising conditions is important. But it would help if instead of referring to the Third World, you mentioned particular countries. At one time the third world would have included China and India as well as other nations which are now economic powerhouses.

Is this the third world you're referring to:

http://www.gocurrency.com/international-travel/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/shanghai_jinmao.jpg


Or this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mRpyqhS46kE/Sxf7AjR24HI/AAAAAAAAAIE/TNBBukA7xGE/s1600/poverty_children_pictures-640x425.png


(The first image is the Chinese city of Shanghai. The second image is picture of hungry children.)

If its the first image, how do you explain the enormous amount of electricity which powers it? And who do you think lives and works among its gleaming towers - Western imperialists?

If it's the second, how much value do you think the imperialist bourgeoisie can pump out of people living in such wretched conditions? Enough to power a global economy?

Moreover, do you think the millions of Chinese workers who live in those modern cities depend upon the work of the global poor in order to sustain their increasingly affluent lifestyles? Is it the rural poor who have constructed, power and maintain these huge modern cities and work in their high-tech industries? Do you think that the car-driving, ipod listening working class of Beijing, Shanghai, Tainjin and Wuhan have joined the ranks of the labour aristocracy, idly living off the work of the hungry children?


Don't try and be an apologetic for the benefits of imperialism. People don't get food stamps, housing and welfare cheques in the Third World. The truth is that the real apologists for the benefits of imperialism are those who line up with the imperialist bourgeoisie and blame western workers lifestyles for the plight of the global poor. They point accusing fingers and say, "If it wasn't for your mania for cheap clothing, the poor in Asia and Africa would have a decent standard of living!" But this is just a ploy to divide workers.

The economics just don't work. If Nike underpay Haitian workers to make their trainers so that the unit cost for a pair, (including labour costs and other costs) is two dollars and then they sell each pair to American consumers for fifty dollars, in what way is the American worker benefiting from the exploitation of the Haitian?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Exactly what Bob the Builder pointed out. China is most definitely a third world nation. Yet, it still holds the characteristics you third worldists tend to claim only resides under first world nations.

[Sasha]

Who do you think pays for this welfare? Do you think it is first world workers paying taxes or third world workers working in dire conditions? If you think it is the latter, then please explain the process whereby the labour of a seamstress in Pakistan, ends up paying for your friend's unemployment cheque. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know.

Meanwhile, the idea that electricity and food are privileges is beyond silly.

Yes, relative poverty. You appear to only think in terms of absolute poverty. But you'll be happy to know that the current government hopes to further reduce your friend's benefits and help to reduce the gap between the poor in the UK and the poor in the third world that way. No doubt, you'll be voting Conservative at the next election in recognition of their struggle against imperialism :lol:.

You keep saying this but have yet to explain it.

I agree that explaining why the world's poor live in such desperate and dehumanising conditions is important. But it would help if instead of referring to the Third World, you mentioned particular countries. At one time the third world would have included China and India as well as other nations which are now economic powerhouses.

Is this the third world you're referring to:

http://www.gocurrency.com/international-travel/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/shanghai_jinmao.jpg


Or this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mRpyqhS46kE/Sxf7AjR24HI/AAAAAAAAAIE/TNBBukA7xGE/s1600/poverty_children_pictures-640x425.png


(The first image is the Chinese city of Shanghai. The second image is picture of hungry children.)

If its the first image, how do you explain the enormous amount of electricity which powers it? And who do you think lives and works among its gleaming towers - Western imperialists?

If it's the second, how much value do you think the imperialist bourgeoisie can pump out of people living in such wretched conditions? Enough to power a global economy?

Moreover, do you think the millions of Chinese workers who live in those modern cities depend upon the work of the global poor in order to sustain their increasingly affluent lifestyles? Is it the rural poor who have constructed, power and maintain these huge modern cities and work in their high-tech industries? Do you think that the car-driving, ipod listening working class of Beijing, Shanghai, Tainjin and Wuhan have joined the ranks of the labour aristocracy, idly living off the work of the hungry children?

The truth is that the real apologists for the benefits of imperialism are those who line up with the imperialist bourgeoisie and blame western workers lifestyles for the plight of the global poor. They point accusing fingers and say, "If it wasn't for your mania for cheap clothing, the poor in Asia and Africa would have a decent standard of living!" But this is just a ploy to divide workers.

The economics just don't work. If Nike underpay Haitian workers to make their trainers so that the unit cost for a pair, (including labour costs and other costs) is two dollars and then they sell each pair to American consumers for fifty dollars, in what way is the American worker benefiting from the exploitation of the Haitian?


i think your point needs some further clarification:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/poverty_homeless_french_man_shopping_trolley.jpg

french labor aristrocrat exploiting the 3th world

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mugabe_queen1.jpg

anti imperialist revolutionary hero robert mugabe.

and you wonder why see 3th worldism as an reactionary ideoligy?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

to be honest, i feel guilty, i'm useless to society, i feel miserable, i need to feel like i contribute to society, but hell i don't even have to, we have third worlders to give some to me. i don't care about the whole economic analysis. i totally disagree that my money comes from the taxes of other people, just like i disagree that it comes from bourgeois in our own world.

You don't care about economic analysis, you just "disagree." So why even talk? You've made it clear that your views aren't based on reality but impressionism and faith. It doesn't matter what the hell you think, those are the facts.


the gains of the proletariat in the first world doesn't encourage them to seek more, because football and porn is too attractive, none of them want class war, unions in the 70s talked about class war, but no longer, why so?So your proof that workers in the first world form an aristocracy is that the unions have sat back while workers gains have been under relentless attack for fourty years, and yet your whole problem with them is that they have those gains in the first place? Suddenly first worldists not fighting for a better standard of living(which according to you comes from third world workers) is now something bad? There are material reasons for the transformation of the unions...production is no longer confined to the national boundaries on which unions are based.


so how can anyone justify my high standard of living ? you know, i'm simply not materialistic, i want to live close to earth with little material posessions. so perhaps i simply don't care about flat screen tv's. i simply cannot get it, that you believe that you can have a flat screen tv, and someone else on this planet could never dream of affording it, and that you are not a labor aristocracy, actually, it seems most people here agree about the theory of labor aristocracy. i don't see why the hell i would be restricted at all. i'm sorry for calling you people spoiled children, but think of my situation. and how little i give a fuck about material posession, i used to not care about the third world and didn't want to be exploited at all. but with age all of this changed, i'm now a pseudo-hippy who thinks money can't buy happiness ,so when i see people who are buying stuff made off children chained to desk in a sweatshop, complaining they are being exploited, i have a knee-jerk reaction.So you're fully capable of crying out against the first world privilege of people who actually work, but you are unwilling to give up your own that you don't even work for(which comes from taxing other workers in your country*)?

*http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/BIODICT.pdf (http://homepage.newschool.edu/%7EAShaikh/BIODICT.pdf)


This question had surfaced in the guise of the argument that the social expenditures of the welfare state constitute a large and growing net "social wage" which workers receive over and above their apparent wages. But an examination of this argument reveals that it either ignored the taxes paid by workers or else seriously underestimated them. My earliest estimates for select postwar years in the U.S. showed an entirely different pattern(Shaikh 1978). Namely, that workers paid more in taxes than was spent by the state on items which entered into their standard of living (e.g. transfer payments,health, education, welfare, housing, roads, recreation, postal services, etc.). That is to say, there was a net tax (negative net "social wage") imposed on U.S. workers.Subsequent studies confirmed this pattern for the U.S. (Tonak, 1984; Shaikh and Tonak, 1987b, Miller 1989). However, similar studies by others (in collaboration with myself) on Britain, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Germany over the postwar period reveal that the U.S. is exceptional, in the sense that all other welfare states end up transferring a positive (albeit modest) social wage to wage earners. But by far the most striking finding of these studies is that the international range of variation of the net social wage is relatively narrow (seldom varying beyond ±6% of wages and salaries), and that for the combined working population of the six countries studied so far the average net social wage over the postwar period seldom ranged beyond ±3%. It would seem that principal contribution of the welfare state in this regard is to recirculate within the working class (and to dampen the effects of recessions). It certainly does not induce any sustained net transfer to workers

[Hit The North]

Exactly what Bob the Builder pointed out. China is most definitely a third world nation. Yet, it still holds the characteristics you third worldists tend to claim only resides under first world nations.

Well that's not exactly my point but its pretty close. The point is that these designations, "third world", "first world", etc. don't reflect changing realities. Countries like China and India still have large areas of underdevelopment, but at the same time have areas which are very much at the forefront of global development and integral to the global economy. These countries are undergoing industrial revolutions, sucking millions of people out of the backward conditions of the countryside and into advanced and burgeoning cities. Of course, these cities are grinding houses of exploitation and millions live in appalling conditions while a growing middle class live in increasing luxury (although probably on the back of credit), but capitalism does that in every city in the world. But the really important thing is that this process is creating a billion more proletarians. A billion more people who exist precariously at the sharp end of the contradictions of capitalism. A billion more people who can put their shoulders to the wheel of revolutionary change.

In a way this process undercuts and supersedes the two polar positions in this debate. It undercuts the argument of the M-TWers because their argument is predicated on support for a third world rural working class which is being transformed through the ceaseless process of urbanisation which accompanies economic development. It undercuts the first world chauvinism of prioritising the western working class because there is now a massive and potentially powerful urban proletariat in the East.

I mean, if such an evaluation can be made, with all factors taken into account, the Chinese proletariat is probably the most important section of the global proletariat right now.

[Victory]

Who do you think pays for this welfare? Do you think it is first world workers paying taxes or third world workers working in dire conditions? If you think it is the latter, then please explain the process whereby the labour of a seamstress in Pakistan, ends up paying for your friend's unemployment cheque. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know.

It is the Third World productive forces and the ruling classes ability to profit massively from cheap production and natural resources in third world countries.


Meanwhile, the idea that electricity and food are privileges is beyond silly. In principle, electricity and food shouldn't be a privilege, but when the vast majority of people worldwide aren't able to afford electricity and food stamps, such are privileges.


But you'll be happy to know that the current government hopes to further reduce your friend's benefits and help to reduce the gap between the poor in the UK and the poor in the third world that way. No doubt, you'll be voting Conservative at the next election in recognition of their struggle against imperialism.This analysis is incorrect. The Conservative government may be pro-cuts, but they are not anti-imperialist and will continue to dominate the third world as they are now, if not more. Don't think because the Conservatives are making cuts, that they are automaticly going to stop raping the third world for every penny they possibly can. They remain Capitalists.


I agree that explaining why the world's poor live in such desperate and dehumanising conditions is important. But it would help if instead of referring to the Third World, you mentioned particular countries. At one time the third world would have included China and India as well as other nations which are now economic powerhouses.Both governments themselves are powerhouses, but the vast majority of people live below the value of labour and are victims of imperialism and economic domination. From this, the First World are able to provide higher standards of living for citizens in first world countries, and disencourage and prevent Socialist revolutions from occuring, by having the ability to provide workers with higher wages whenever their interests become a serious threat.


If its the first image, how do you explain the enormous amount of electricity which powers it? And who do you think lives and works among its gleaming towers - Western imperialists?Such industrialisation exists in many third world countries. But that doesn't mean such countries are not part of the third world.
A small percentage of people in Third World countries might live above the value of labour, but the vast majority do not.
With that said, there are scattered people who are not 'labour aristocrats' in the First World, but the vast majority remain otherwise.


If it's the second, how much value do you think the imperialist bourgeoisie can pump out of people living in such wretched conditions? Enough to power a global economy?Let me use an example of Colombia. Maoism-Third Worldism does not only adhere to people living below the value of labour, but to the resources which First World countries gain through imperialism and economic domination.
In Colombia, the oil industry is almost entirely owned by businesses in the United States. However, most of the workforce is not of the Colombian population . It is much cheaper for businesses to transfer an already trained workforce living in the United States to Colombia, than to train Colombian people to work in the Colombian oil industry. Little jobs are created for the Colombian people from the oil industry due to this fact.



The truth is that the real apologists for the benefits of imperialism are those who line up with the imperialist bourgeoisie and blame western workers lifestyles for the plight of the global poor. They point accusing fingers and say, "If it wasn't for your mania for cheap clothing, the poor in Asia and Africa would have a decent standard of living!This has nothing to do with Maoism-Third Worldism. Such are subjective views from Maoist-Third Worldists themselves.

Maoism-Third Worldism is an analysis for building world revolution in the most effective way possible.

You misunderstand the theory of Maoism-Third Worldism. It is a theory about bringing about a World Revolution in the most effective and quickest way possible.
This is the biggest misconception about Maoism-Third Worldism.

People, like the moderators on this board have joined forces with the reactionary idea, that because some people have made subjective opinions about the people who live in the first world, that it is directly relevant to Maoism-Third Worldism as a theory. It is not.

Maoism-Third Worldism is a theory about building a world revolution, not about 'hating on first world people'.

[Hit The North]

It is the Third World productive forces and the ruling classes ability to profit massively from cheap production and natural resources in third world countries.


I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Social security benefits come from a pot of money which the state derives from taxation or, as we've recently discovered, from borrowing money from the financial markets. Taxation is basically the working class paying for its own security, but organised by the state. You seem to assume that the money comes from the profits generated by the exploitation of overseas labour. Again, I'd like you to show exactly how this happens. What mechanism of transfer explains how the profit made by a company like BP, end up funding your friends "privileges"?


In principle, electricity and food shouldn't be a privilege, but when the vast majority of people worldwide aren't able to afford electricity and food stamps, such are privileges. For a second time, I refer you to the concept of relative poverty.


This analysis is incorrect. The Conservative government may be pro-cuts, but they are not anti-imperialist and will continue to dominate the third world as they are now, if not more. Don't think because the Conservatives are making cuts, that they are automaticly going to stop raping the third world for every penny they possibly can. They remain Capitalists. Of course. I think we can add sarcasm to the list of things you don't get. But, nevertheless, from your analysis which argues that the majority of workers, whether employed or unemployed, are living off the back of "third world" labour (TWL), that they share a common interest with their national bourgeoisie in perpetuating the exploitation of TWL, then why not line up with the Tories? You certainly have no reason to line up with the working class of Sheffield (where you currently reside). Ultimately, as long you cling to this M-TW theory, then you cannot participate in the defence of working class interests against the current Tory government, without, from your point of view, supporting the privileges which perpetuate the misery of peoples in the third world. The best you can be, is a cheerleader, on the sidelines, for struggles on the other side of the world.

To use a scatological metaphor, you are about as useful to the class struggle as a fart is to a man in dire need of a shit.


Both governments themselves are powerhouses, but the vast majority of people live below the value of labour and are victims of imperialism and economic domination. From this, the First World are able to provide higher standards of living for citizens in first world countries, and disencourage and prevent Socialist revolutions from occuring, by having the ability to provide workers with higher wages whenever their interests become a serious threat. Firstly, how can a government be an economic powerhouse on its own? This makes no sense. You seem to be conjuring up a scenario where societies such as China and India are mainly stagnant and unchanging, remaining locked in third world conditions, apart from a small political elite.This in no way reflects the progress that is being made in these nations. As Marx points out, where ever capitalist relations settle, they transform the entire society.

Secondly, if you are a Marxist, then you must concede that all workers live below the value of their labour - as this is a necessary condition of capitalist accumulation. Or are you claiming that no capitalist makes a profit in the first world?

Thirdly, you seem to be saying that there is a system of bribery going on in order to offset revolution in the first world. However, if you are correct and the FW working class can just sit back and let the TW do all the work, why would there be a need for revolution in the first place?


Such industrialisation exists in many third world countries. But that doesn't mean such countries are not part of the third world. Sorry, but once again, you are clinging to out-moded categories which were formulated in the first half of the twentieth century.

Your comments regarding the oil industry in Columbia are interesting and point to the effects of imperialism, however, I fail to see how this justifies the contention of M-TW that the western working class is a parasitical class.


You misunderstand the theory of Maoism-Third Worldism. It is a theory about bringing about a World Revolution in the most effective and quickest way possible. But presumably a world revolution which is not in the interests of first world workers? But I would be interested in hearing how this fast-track to world revolution actually manifests itself as a strategy. As an advocate of M-TW living in the "first world", how does your practice coincide with your theory?

[The Hong Se Sun]

I think it is silly how the mods restrict some people for saying things they don't believe in yet when some posters constantly post reactionary and counter revolutionary bullshit those people are not banned.

People being banned for third worldism shows 125% the level of chauvinism in the socialist in the first world.:crying: The MTW call for socialist world wide revolution but since they point out that the first world workers are given privileges through their governments exploitation of the third world masses that means the first world revolutionaries must show their asses and prove to reality that they are still chauvinist reactionaries who if your ideology doesn't point to them as the leading revolutionary force you must be wrong.

[Hit The North]

I think it is silly how the mods restrict some people for saying things they don't believe in yet when some posters constantly post reactionary and counter revolutionary bullshit those people are not banned.

People being banned for third worldism shows 125% the level of chauvinism in the socialist in the first world.:crying: The MTW call for socialist world wide revolution but since they point out that the first world workers are given privileges through their governments exploitation of the third world masses that means the first world revolutionaries must show their asses and prove to reality that they are still chauvinist reactionaries who if your ideology doesn't point to them as the leading revolutionary force you must be wrong.

Well if you read my post at the bottom of the previous page you will see that I argue that the Chinese working class perhaps have the most potential amongst the global proletariat, and I can assert this without having to concede to any of the points made by the reactionary and moralistic ideologues of M-TW. But where the leadership of the next international wave of revolution will come from, it is not at all certain - as the Russian revolution demonstrated nearly one hundred years ago. But one thing is sure, the global revolution will not happen on the basis of the actions of a small, impoverished proletariat who happen to live in an economic backwater. It will have to strike at the heart of the global capitalist system - and contrary to the teaching of M-TW, this is not in the rural ditches of Africa and Asia. But whether it begins in Asia or Africa, or elsewhere, the global revolution will not complete itself until the Western working class also involves itself in the struggle.

The point is that any doctrine which points to the third world and says, "They are the revolutionaries," and then points to the first world working class and says "And you are the parasites!", any doctrine like that, is not going to achieve the maximum international solidarity that the revolution will require.

[RGacky3]

People being banned for third worldism shows 125% the level of chauvinism in the socialist in the first world.

Not being ok with being called parasites and aristocrats is not the same as chauvinism.

Also YOUR from Chicago? Does'nt imperialism benefit you? And as a materialist (I presume) and not an Idealist, should'nt you work for YOUR benefit rather than petty morality (trying to help the poor)? If imperialism is in your benefit what are you doing? Unless your a moralist (which if you are, great, so am I).

[RED DAVE]

You misunderstand the theory of Maoism-Third Worldism. It is a theory about bringing about a World Revolution in the most effective and quickest way possible.So stop wasting your time with us parasites and get going. Let us know how you're doing from time to time so we can be envious and sabotage you.

RED DAVE

[Bud Struggle]

So stop wasting your time with us parasites and get going. Let us know how you're doing from time to time so we can be envious and sabotage you.

RED DAVE

Dave, regardless of all else--you are a true believer and one of the few uncompromised Communists on this site.

I don't agree with you, of course--but I do admire your dedication.

You are the real thing.

[Victory]

But presumably a world revolution which is not in the interests of first world workers? But I would be interested in hearing how this fast-track to world revolution actually manifests itself as a strategy. As an advocate of M-TW living in the "first world", how does your practice coincide with your theory?

It is in the interests of First World Workers because the entire basis of Maoism-Third Worldism is to bring about a World Revolution in the most effective and quickest way possible.

The Third World is the countryside. The first world is the city.
Without the Third World and being able to economically dominate such countries for masses of cheap resources, the standards of living for the vast majority of people in first world countries will decrease significantly, thus creating conditions ideal for revolution.


Ask me the latter question in about 1 years time when I've finished university.

[RED DAVE]

Ask me the latter question in about 1 years time when I've finished university.Why don't we wait till you get a job and/or do some real political work?

RED DAVE

[Victory]

Why don't we wait till you get a job and/or do some real political work?

RED DAVE

You have no idea of my political work or experience.

From here on, I've finished posting. I've explained the theory in my original post, if you don't want to know, goodluck with your beautiful dream of having a revolution in the heart of imperialism. - It's very convenient that you argue to remain in such a country, where you can live like a king compared to the majority of people living in a country such as Colombia.

[RED DAVE]

You have no idea of my political work or experience.Enlighten us.


From here on, I've finished posting.Goodbye and goodluck.


I've explained the theory in my original post, if you don't want to know, goodluck with your beautiful dream of having a revolution in the heart of imperialism.Yeah, we first world revolutionaries are just beautiful dreamers.


It's very convenient that you argue to remain in such a country, where you can live like a king compared to the majority of people living in a country such as Colombia.Send us a postcard (or an email) when you get down there.

Punk!

RED DAVE

[The Red Next Door]

Not being ok with being called parasites and aristocrats is not the same as chauvinism.

Also YOUR from Chicago? Does'nt imperialism benefit you? And as a materialist (I presume) and not an Idealist, should'nt you work for YOUR benefit rather than petty morality (trying to help the poor)? If imperialism is in your benefit what are you doing? Unless your a moralist (which if you are, great, so am I).

No, he is not from Chicago; he is from my area

[Fabrizio]

I think the OP makes some good points. I don't agree with Maoism or undemocratically overthrowing the state, but it's true that the emphasis of progressive change needs to happen in the developing world, as these are the countries which have an interest in shifting the balance of power and wealth.

However, progressives in the developed world can definitely help by winning the argument for a mutually beneficial and enlightened foreign policy towards developing regions of the world - along the lines of the Marshall Plan, for example. This is the real progressive struggle today.


As someone who is living in the country that is probably the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe (even Romania is not that impoverished), I have to say that the "Third Worldism" is deeply misguided. If their idea of automatically "revolutionary" character of all "Third Worlders" were true, then why it is "evil social-imperialist labour aristocrats" of France and Spain marching against austerity programmes, while most Ukrainian workers are, sadly, completely passive and apolitical?

Well they enjoy incredibly good conditions and are marching to defend them. This doesn't mean they want a revolution. In fact they want to "defend the French way of life". Look at their attitudes towards immigrants and minorities.

To be honest if they were to accept some "levelling" with their "comrades" in other countries in the EU, they could probably help to solve a lot of the crisis of that organization, without the need to hit so hard on, say, Greece.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I just wish you guys would spell shit right
you shouldn't assume English is everyone's mother tongue

[RGacky3]

No, he is not from Chicago; he is from my area

My point stands

[RED DAVE]

I think the OP makes some good points. I don't agree with Maoism or undemocratically overthrowing the state, but it's true that the emphasis of progressive change needs to happen in the developing world, as these are the countries which have an interest in shifting the balance of power and wealth.What makes you think that the working class in the advanced industrial countries doesn't have "an interest in shifting the balance of power and wealth" (which is a pretty weak way of talking about socialism).


However, progressives in the developed world can definitely help by winning the argument for a mutually beneficial and enlightened foreign policy towards developing regions of the world - along the lines of the Marshall Plan, for example. This is the real progressive struggle today.What kind of nonsense is this?

First of all, are you talking about "a mutually beneficial and enlightened foreign policy" for capitalist countries? Then you are fantasizing.

Secondly, if you're talking about the attitude of "the developed world" towards the "developing regions" after a socialist revolution, then you have liquidated Third Worldism.


Well they enjoy incredibly good conditions and are marching to defend them. This doesn't mean they want a revolution. In fact they want to "defend the French way of life". Look at their attitudes towards immigrants and minorities.There is much to criticize in the attitude of the French working class, but their desire to maintain their high standard of living and social services must be supported by revolutionaries.


To be honest if they were to accept some "levelling" with their "comrades" in other countries in the EU, they could probably help to solve a lot of the crisis of that organization, without the need to hit so hard on, say, Greece.Comrade, decide if you're a revolutionary of some sort or a liberal.

RED DAVE

[GreenCommunism]

There is much to criticize in the attitude of the French working class, but their desire to maintain their high standard of living and social services must be supported by revolutionaries. i'm pretty sick of the obvious, no workers ever in the history of the communist movement, did a strike to support an oversea strike, this is proletarian internationalism and class war, it never happened, ironically i am a nationalist but i feel the communist movement is plagued with nationalists. nationalists who are blind to the peoples of hte world and make shitty excuse like I DONT WANT TO LOSE MY SUV WHAAAAA. sure i don't want your living standards to be in the hand of the bourgeoisie, but by asking for nothing but gains for yourselves, as it is demonstrated time and time over again in this GLOBALIST society. everyone with a brain will see the obvious. would you lose your living standards and live solely for the revolution? no one here is willing to be ascetic and live like the third world for their liberation. everyone is too used to luxury, just like i fucking am.

nothing of all the arguments pointed against it matters, they are all superficial or some kind of stupid what aboiut this country, what about this specific case. it doesn't matter. fact is i don't see communism gaining a foothold in the masses except after an anti-fascist war such as france which nowdays still has alot of loyal members and the nostalgia of the old times still earns a few votes.

other than that, look at other communist parties?

[GreenCommunism]

So you're fully capable of crying out against the first world privilege of people who actually work, but you are unwilling to give up your own that you don't even work for(which comes from taxing other workers in your country*)?


to be honest, if it wasn't for my first world priviledge i would have probably murdered people out of desesperation. i would give it up, if you can afford me human dignity and a decent jobs. but all of this doesn't matter, WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE A VERY DECENT LIFE. just like me! everyone here agrees that stealing from the bourgeois is not the same as stealing from an homeless guy, why the hell should i care, and beside, how much of that money really comes from the workers and which comes from the corporations? you know how the libertards talk, 40% of quebec doesn't pay tax, because they receive more services than they pay for.

[RGacky3]

i'm pretty sick of the obvious, no workers ever in the history of the communist movement, did a strike to support an oversea strike, this is proletarian internationalism and class war, it never happened, ironically i am a nationalist but i feel the communist movement is plagued with nationalists.

Thats rediculous, strike to support an overseas strike? How is that gonna help? Should they just strike all the time? Thats idiotic.


nationalists who are blind to the peoples of hte world and make shitty excuse like I DONT WANT TO LOSE MY SUV WHAAAAA.

I don't think that excuse has ever been made, and there is no excuse TO be made because its not their job, I thought you were a materialist???


sure i don't want your living standards to be in the hand of the bourgeoisie, but by asking for nothing but gains for yourselves, as it is demonstrated time and time over again in this GLOBALIST society.

Solidarity movements are all over the place.


would you lose your living standards and live solely for the revolution? no one here is willing to be ascetic and live like the third world for their liberation. everyone is too used to luxury, just like i fucking am.

IF its just like you what are you *****ing about? Why should people loose everything and live solely for the revolution? THey should'nt, people in the third world should'nt, people should do what they can to make things better.

I don't know what your mad about here?


to be honest, if it wasn't for my first world priviledge i would have probably murdered people out of desesperation.

In that case your probably a psychopath.


i would give it up, if you can afford me human dignity and a decent jobs. but all of this doesn't matter

First world privilage? Are you saying you DESERVE less???


WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE A VERY DECENT LIFE. just like me! everyone here agrees that stealing from the bourgeois is not the same as stealing from an homeless guy, why the hell should i care, and beside, how much of that money really comes from the workers and which comes from the corporations? you know how the libertards talk, 40% of quebec doesn't pay tax, because they receive more services than they pay for.

You should'nt care, about anything, at all, can I recomend to you a nice joint and a glass of wine?

[The Hong Se Sun]

Yes I am from the first world but I also recognize my part in the world as a first world citizen. Just because I am not from the third world does not mean I can't sympathize with them and have more faith in them than the first world.

And thank you to whoever un-restricted me. I'm just with Victory than no one in the first world will fight to lower their living standards and while MSH makes attacks that are silly towards first world workers, they are right about a lot of things also.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And thank you to whoever un-restricted me. I'm just with Victory than no one in the first world will fight to lower their living standards and while MSH makes attacks that are silly towards first world workers, they are right about a lot of things also.

Capitalism has been lowering the living standards of first world workers for decades. Why do you think socialism would do the same?

[GreenCommunism]

Capitalism has been lowering the living standards of first world workers for decades. Why do you think socialism would do the same? when has this happened? globalisation slightly lowers wages in the first world but it comes back in cheaper goods. your argument is retarded


Thats rediculous, strike to support an overseas strike? How is that gonna help? Should they just strike all the time? Thats idiotic.proletarian internationalism is ridiculous and idiotic.


Solidarity movements are all over the place.*facepalm* what have they ever done?


I don't think that excuse has ever been made, and there is no excuse TO be made because its not their job, I thought you were a materialist???we can't have our way of life all over the world because of pollution, inevitably we will have to live a more simple life in a socialist revolution and global redistribution of wealth.


IF its just like you what are you *****ing about? Why should people loose everything and live solely for the revolution? THey should'nt, people in the third world should'nt, people should do what they can to make things better.

I don't know what your mad about here?nobody is willing to sacrifice anything, beside, what about the bolsheviks? they did sacrifice a whole lot of their lives and went into clandestinity. i find that most modern communist party would cooperate with the vichy government because they don't want to go into clandestinity.


In that case your probably a psychopath.major depression does that too, you are ignorant about psychopathy and mental illnesses.


First world privilage? Are you saying you DESERVE less???as long as people suffer, do not have access to proper housing and education as well as sanitation, we all deserve less. it is morally wrong to believe we deserve more. in fact, since 1% of the world owns 40% of the worlds wealth, i am not sure we would lose but all that money would basicly go into the third world, so in fact we wouldn't gain anything, also ,since 20% of thw orld own 75% of the worlds wealth(it would be good to have reliable statistics though) that means 19% of this 20% has 35%, so yes they will lose half their wealth if there is a global and equal redistribution of wealth.


You should'nt care, about anything, at all, can I recomend to you a nice joint and a glass of wine? sorry for getting mad there, my point is, many people in the third world can afford a joint because they can growit illegally, but for the glass of wine? well i doubt it. they can't even relax, and you want me to? why should i. each of my heartbeat is a selfish reminder that the heart of many people in the third world are stopping. and what really stops hearts from beating in the first world? cardio-vascular diseases. this is the enormous absurdity of the world.

[graymouser]

when has this happened? globalisation slightly lowers wages in the first world but it comes back in cheaper goods. your argument is retarded
Globalization actually is the process by which imperialists are rolling back the labor aristocracy and working to remove the national determination of wages.


proletarian internationalism is ridiculous and idiotic.
Stop calling yourself a communist then. Nothing is more essential to communism than proletarian internationalism.


we can't have our way of life all over the world because of pollution, inevitably we will have to live a more simple life in a socialist revolution and global redistribution of wealth.
This is idiotic. Socialism is not socialization of poverty but the development of productive forces in a way that benefits the workers.

[GreenCommunism]

also, stop thanking each other's post mindlessly, i am not doing so with the third worldist . i would like to be unrestricted or know what wouldbe the requirement to do so. i am mostly ideologically third worldist, my compassion for the third world is what drives me to be a communist.

[GreenCommunism]

Globalization actually is the process by which imperialists are rolling back the labor aristocracy and working to remove the national determination of wages.
it is a very minor setback in which the wage share changed from 71% to 66%. the bourgeois keeps pressure on everybody, but as a whole, our populations are protected from the effects of globalism.


Stop calling yourself a communist then. Nothing is more essential to communism than proletarian internationalism.dude i was only responding to his claim that supporting an oversea strike is ridiculous and idiotic.


This is idiotic. Socialism is not socialization of poverty but the development of productive forces in a way that benefits the workers. how do you expect to do that with global warming and etc. this is a part of socialism which is outdated because nobody cared about the environment back then. also, the development of productive forces will take time, will the people in the first world enjoy an unfair amount of luxury until then?

[Omi]

Ok guys, you got me. I'm convinced that I am no more than a labour aristocratic parasite feeding of the hard work of third world workers. I'm ready to accept the maoist-third-worldists positions on how we as first world labour aristocrats are receiving more money than we produce.

Now, what do I do? Kill myself, remove one more parasite from this earth. Or do I just go out and kill other labour aristocrats, much more effective, no?

The problem here is, I do love a lot of other labour aristocrats around me. My friends, my family, etc. So what do I do?

Enlighten me.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Capitalism has been lowering the living standards of first world workers for decades. Why do you think socialism would do the same?


Socialism on a world scale would raise the majority of peoples living standards. But if a nation such as the USA or England had a REAL socialist revolution then their living standards would lower because the first world nation would no longer be able to benefit from the exploitation of the third world workers and their nations goods.

And while capitalism does lower living standards, just because you get some budget cuts or something doesn't mean your living standards are are un-livable or in horrid situations.

Capitalism does however take from third world nations through exploitation of both the land and its people to give to the first world. So yes if you live in a first world country then a socialist revolution there would force you to adapt your living standards to the rest of the worlds which means you would lose some privilege.

[Dean]

when has this happened? globalisation slightly lowers wages in the first world but it comes back in cheaper goods. your argument is retarded
Your argument is retarded. Goods are more expensive in the first world.

[Fabrizio]

Your argument is retarded. Goods are more expensive in the first world.

I guess what he meant was that, yes, westerners lose out from globalization in terms of lower wages, but are benefitted in that they can purchase cheap imports.

And goods in the developed world are certainly not more expensive in real terms. And in the case of technology, often not even in nominal terms.

[Omi]

Capitalism does however take from third world nations through exploitation of both the land and its people to give to the first world.

Wait a second, are you saying that the first world nations uphold imperialist interests just to GIVE it to the first world? So they invade country's to raise our standard of living? It surprises me how generous you think the imperialists actually are.

In my understanding, they will not let the benefits of imperialism turn into welfare. They would rather invest it in more capitalist enterprises, no?

If you are a capitalist who has invested in a sweatshop in a poor country, would you rather invest the extracted surplus value into another sweatshop, rendering your business ''successful'', or would you invest the profits into a so called labour aristocracy?

It all seems very illogical to me.

[4 Leaf Clover]

i consider third worldism some form of communist extremism. its fanatic

[The Hong Se Sun]

Wait a second, are you saying that the first world nations uphold imperialist interests just to GIVE it to the first world? So they invade country's to raise our standard of living? It surprises me how generous you think the imperialists actually are.

In my understanding, they will not let the benefits of imperialism turn into welfare. They would rather invest it in more capitalist enterprises, no?

If you are a capitalist who has invested in a sweatshop in a poor country, would you rather invest the extracted surplus value into another sweatshop, rendering your business ''successful'', or would you invest the profits into a so called labour aristocracy?

It all seems very illogical to me.

No, the big guys are not going to give you the millions they make but you do definitely benefit from their exploitation of the third world workers. It is the exploitation that makes things "cheap" in the first world. I'm saying that the average first world worker won't fight to give a better living standards to a third world nation because that would mean he would have to lower his.

And if that capitalist wants to keep his billions yes he would kick down a small amount of welfare to keep people complacent. If the US took away all its social programs I think a revolution would then maybe be possible.

And your standard of living is raised by living in an imperialist nation (if you do)

Remeber that socialism would put everyone in the same class so if you live in a first world nation you are in the top 34% of the wealth holders on average so yes if everything was equal we would lower our living standards (speaking as a first world worker myself). but I for one am fine with that because I am a communist and I believe in equality. However the rest of Americans do not think that

[GreenCommunism]

Ok guys, you got me. I'm convinced that I am no more than a labour aristocratic parasite feeding of the hard work of third world workers. I'm ready to accept the maoist-third-worldists positions on how we as first world labour aristocrats are receiving more money than we produce.

Now, what do I do? Kill myself, remove one more parasite from this earth. Or do I just go out and kill other labour aristocrats, much more effective, no?

The problem here is, I do love a lot of other labour aristocrats around me. My friends, my family, etc. So what do I do?

Enlighten me.


do the same thing you do, but bring the focus on financing revolutionary parties in the third world.


i consider third worldism some form of communist extremism. its fanatic

you mean ultra-leftism, why is it extremist or fanatic? how different would that be from other communist movement.

[4 Leaf Clover]

do the same thing you do, but bring the focus on financing revolutionary parties in the third world.



you mean ultra-leftism, why is it extremist or fanatic? how different would that be from other communist movement.

because it abandonds materialism , class struggle , and switches it simply for some polar politics. What happened with internationalism

[Dermezel]

because it abandonds materialism , class struggle , and switches it simply for some polar politics. What happened with internationalism

Are you for socialism in one country?

[GreenCommunism]

because it abandonds materialism , class struggle , and switches it simply for some polar politics. What happened with internationalism

first world communist are the one abandoning internationalism by refusing to see that they must support their third world comrade more than with words, by refusing to realize their share of the world's wealth is very high and that by asking for more they only encourage exploitation of their proletarian brothers in the third world.

[Obs]

*facepalm* what have they ever done?
*facepalm* What have YOU ever done?

[Omi]

No, the big guys are not going to give you the millions they make but you do definitely benefit from their exploitation of the third world workers. It is the exploitation that makes things "cheap" in the first world. I'm saying that the average first world worker won't fight to give a better living standards to a third world nation because that would mean he would have to lower his.

This is not true. Things are not cheap in the first world, it all relates to relative income. For a capitalist or smaller business owner commodity's can be quite cheap in the first word, but for others not so much. How on earth could there even be any poverty in the first world, according to the theories of MTW?

And if that capitalist wants to keep his billions yes he would kick down a small amount of welfare to keep people complacent. If the US took away all its social programs I think a revolution would then maybe be possible.

They are actually doing this, for the past few decades. This has not increased the likelihood of revolution in ANY way. But according to the MTW's, the decreasing of living standards in the first world will fuel the increase of living standards in the third? Or doesn't it work the other way around? And we are clearly opposed by MTW's to organise against the lowering of living standards in the FW, for we would only be parasitic of third world workers.

And your standard of living is raised by living in an imperialist nation (if you do)

In a certain sense, yes, the standard of living of the avarage worker in first world nations is heigher than those of third world nations. But first of all I can assure you that my standard of living is below that of higher classes residing in third world nations. Secondly, do you think the imbalance stems from the fact that workers in first world nations buy sweatshop clothing, or by the extraction of surplus value from workers in third world nations by imperialist capital and indiginious capital?

Remeber that socialism would put everyone in the same class so if you live in a first world nation you are in the top 34% of the wealth holders on average

Again: Not true. The fact one resides in a certain area does not entail one holds any wealth at all. That is the problem, we as workers do not have any permament wealth (or capital)! We are depending on wage slavery for a living.

so yes if everything was equal we would lower our living standards (speaking as a first world worker myself). but I for one am fine with that because I am a communist and I believe in equality. However the rest of Americans do not think that

I believe world wide socialism will raise the living standards of every worker on earth.


I think the point here is that MTW is not a form of socialism at all. It analyses society according to nationality and global phenomena such as first and third worlds. If we would instead focus on the devision between classses, instead of reactionairy beliefs such as nationality, we would come to a very diffrent conclusion: The workers around the world have only one enemy, and it is a common enemy for all: Capital. This does not mean we don't have to support comrades fighting in much more dire conditions than we. But class analysis is much more important than national borders of some sort. The US don't extract surplus from third world nations, coorporations do. The US state only extracts wealth by taxation of it's own population, and possibly trade within it's borders.

If any of this doesn't make any sense, it's because i'm really tired and need to get some sleep. cheers!

[GreenCommunism]

*facepalm* What have YOU ever done?

i participated to crappy marchs and protests. what have YOU ever done. i participated to a cuba solidarity event which half of the profits went to haiti relief fund. i think i've done more than you so far. don't be such a douchebag and try to attack me, i'm less of an armchair revolutionary than you are.


I think the point here is that MTW is not a form of socialism at all. It analyses society according to nationality and global phenomena such as first and third worlds. If we would instead focus on the devision between classses, instead of reactionairy beliefs such as nationality, we would come to a very diffrent conclusion: The workers around the world have only one enemy, and it is a common enemy for all: Capital. This does not mean we don't have to support comrades fighting in much more dire conditions than we. But class analysis is much more important than national borders of some sort. The US don't extract surplus from third world nations, coorporations do. The US state only extracts wealth by taxation of it's own population, and possibly trade within it's borders.

If any of this doesn't make any sense, it's because i'm really tired and need to get some sleep. cheers!
we have a fucking service industry. that means, our industry is based on services, not making goods, are there many services which benefits the third world? close to none.

i could argue that first world communism is not socialism , since anarchist spain when has the communist movement ever given financial support to revolutionary movement in areas where there are chances for a revolution to happen. our showing at elections are pitiful, the only way for a communist party to get some support in the west are through active resistance to a fascist government in power just like in france.

[Ravachol]

No, the big guys are not going to give you the millions they make but you do definitely benefit from their exploitation of the third world workers. It is the exploitation that makes things "cheap" in the first world.


The same could be argued for wage surpression on all terrain, whether it's sectorial or regional is irrelevant. Surpressed wages in the food industry allow me to buy cheaper bread and don't affect my income since I don't work in the food industry. Does this mean my surplus value isn't extracted and I'm some kind of labour aristocrat? Don't think so bro.



I'm saying that the average first world worker won't fight to give a better living standards to a third world nation because that would mean he would have to lower his.


I don't see why we would want to raise the living standards of a 'nation'. I, for one, argue for a communist perspective: obtaining the maximum living standards for the working class by eleminating capital and the state.



And if that capitalist wants to keep his billions yes he would kick down a small amount of welfare to keep people complacent. If the US took away all its social programs I think a revolution would then maybe be possible.


You do realize a lot of 'social programs' are no more than an actual extension of the biopower of Capital right? 'social programs' aimed at reintegrating people into the workforce, maintaining a given level of 'healthy workers' and an optimal (from Capital's point of view) birthrate are just Capital's interventions in the biopolitical tissue in order to streamline it's functioning.



Remeber that socialism would put everyone in the same class so if you live in a first world nation you are in the top 34% of the wealth holders on average so yes if everything was equal we would lower our living standards (speaking as a first world worker myself). but I for one am fine with that because I am a communist and I believe in equality. However the rest of Americans do not think that

I don't see what Communism has to do with the lowering of living standards.... One would think that self-managed production without the parasitism and incompetency of Capital would provide us with a higher standard of living.

[Bud Struggle]

first world communist are the one abandoning internationalism by refusing to see that they must support their third world comrade more than with words, by refusing to realize their share of the world's wealth is very high and that by asking for more they only encourage exploitation of their proletarian brothers in the third world.

I'm no Commie, so I have no dog in this fight--but I can see third worldism as being an insidious means of destroying the Communist movement from the inside. It seems to pit worker against worker, Proletarian against Proletarian. It makes some Proletarians a bit MORE Proletarian than others. It allies the First World worker with the Bourgeoisie to an extent making their cause a bit tarnished compared to the really true poor of the world.

To the extent that a worker at GM is a hell of a lot better off than a 10 year old working in a sweat shop for pennies a day--I think the movement looks like it has some merit, but what it really does is fragment the working class into a thousand pieces. Really where do the divisions end? One worker has two pairs of shoes another has only one--another has no shoes at all. And all the while the Bourgeois is unified. A rich guy in the USA is the same as a rich guy in Peru.

It's a dangerous road to travel, Comrades. I'd be careful if I were you. :)

[GreenCommunism]

The same could be argued for wage surpression on all terrain, whether it's sectorial or regional is irrelevant. Surpressed wages in the food industry allow me to buy cheaper bread and don't affect my income since I don't work in the food industry. Does this mean my surplus value isn't extracted and I'm some kind of labour aristocrat? Don't think so bro.

it's mostly because of the huge amount of service sector job in the first world that they call first world workers labor aristocrats.


I don't see why we would want to raise the living standards of a 'nation'. I, for one, argue for a communist perspective: obtaining the maximum living standards for the working class by eleminating capital and the state.

are you saying you wouldn't be in favor raising the living standard of people who are too poor to be educated? as for the second argument, who is arguing against this.


You do realize a lot of 'social programs' are no more than an actual extension of the biopower of Capital right? 'social programs' aimed at reintegrating people into the workforce, maintaining a given level of 'healthy workers' and an optimal (from Capital's point of view) birthrate are just Capital's interventions in the biopolitical tissue in order to streamline it's functioning.

lots but not all, especially in social-democratic countries like some european nation and canada/quebec.


I don't see what Communism has to do with the lowering of living standards.... One would think that self-managed production without the parasitism and incompetency of Capital would provide us with a higher standard of living.

overnight? living standards in the first world would increase ( that is environmental concerns need to be taken care of too) after awhile after the global redistribution of wealth in which each 1% of humanity would have 1% of wealth, but for now, the working class of the first world has double his share of humanity's wealth.


I'm no Commie, so I have no dog in this fight--but I can see third worldism as being an insidious means of destroying the Communist movement from the inside. It seems to pit worker against worker, Proletarian against Proletarian. It makes some Proletarians a bit MORE Proletarian than others. It allies the First World worker with the Bourgeoisie to an extent making their cause a bit tarnished compared to the really true poor of the world.

To the extent that a worker at GM is a hell of a lot better off than a 10 year old working in a sweat shop for pennies a day--I think the movement looks like it has some merit, but what it really does is fragment the working class into a thousand pieces. Really where do the divisions end? One worker has two pairs of shoes another has only one--another has no shoes at all. And all the while the Bourgeois is unified. A rich guy in the USA is the same as a rich guy in Peru.

It's a dangerous road to travel, Comrades. I'd be careful if I were you.

i agree, but the fact is that it is an analysis of the labor aristocrat phenomenon more than it divides proletarians into different category, beside, if he is an exploiter why should we care about alienating him? his class interest are against global redistribution of wealth

[Ravachol]

it's mostly because of the huge amount of service sector job in the first world that they call first world workers labor aristocrats.


Then I'd advise them to read some basic Marx, really. It's the proletarian condition, being subjected to wage slavery and surplus value extraction, one's relation to the means of production that determines class. Not liberal 'white collar, blue collar' nonsense.



are you saying you wouldn't be in favor raising the living standard of people who are too poor to be educated?


Where have I said anything related to that?



as for the second argument, who is arguing against this.


The one aiming at 'nations' instead of class.



lots but not all, especially in social-democratic countries like some european nation and canada/quebec.


I live in the Netherlands, a country that used to be the pinacle of the 'welfare state' and corporatism. All it really does is function as an extension of capital and surpressor of class struggle.



overnight?


Since when does communism 'happen' overnight? Communism and revolution are a process, not a 'moment'.



living standards in the first world would increase ( that is environmental concerns need to be taken care of too) after awhile after the global redistribution of wealth in which each 1% of humanity would have 1% of wealth, but for now, the working class of the first world has double his share of humanity's wealth.


What's with this 'redistribution of wealth' thing? I thought communism was about collectivising society and re-appropriating all material wealth from the bourgeoisie. Mere redistribution of wealth strikes me as social-democratic.



beside, if he is an exploiter why should we care about alienating him? his class interest are against global redistribution of wealth

Honestly, it seems like MTW just doesn't understand the concept of class....

[The Hong Se Sun]

"I don't see what Communism has to do with the lowering of living standards.... One would think that self-managed production without the parasitism and incompetency of Capital would provide us with a higher standard of living."- It would in the long run but specifically for the first world worker it would lower their living standards and if I could take this post back to the start, the argument was that the first world workers are not going to fight to lower their own living standards. All he was answered with was small arguments of "yeah but capitalism sucks" and a bunch of made up crap about MTWism.

Like I said before the MSH acts silly with attacking the first world worker but the materialism is correct. We should be supporting our third world revolutionary brothers and some socialist need to realize that in reality life in the USA would have a lower standard because we would no longer be able to consume 1/3 or higher of the worlds resources and would be forced to share those resources. And sure, as communist in the USA we understand the need for this but your average reactionary person in this country will not care we are helping others with our sacrifices and would fight against it.

It is sad but true, the third world is where the world revolution will start.

[Obs]

i participated to crappy marchs and protests. what have YOU ever done. i participated to a cuba solidarity event which half of the profits went to haiti relief fund. i think i've done more than you so far. don't be such a douchebag and try to attack me, i'm less of an armchair revolutionary than you are.
I'd explain to you exactly how you are wrong, but it would be foolish of me to do so on a public forum. Interpret that as you will.

[Omi]

some socialist need to realize that in reality life in the USA would have a lower standard because we would no longer be able to consume 1/3 or higher of the worlds resources

I'm beginning to get the feeling this entire MTW's movement is made up by depressed collage students who are feeling bad because they live such awesome lives and the average third world worker lives in poverty. Well guess what, not everyone in the west live the ''awesome'' life some middle class students do.

[Dean]

I guess what he meant was that, yes, westerners lose out from globalization in terms of lower wages, but are benefitted in that they can purchase cheap imports.
The exploitation of labor does not reduce the value of a product.


And goods in the developed world are certainly not more expensive in real terms. And in the case of technology, often not even in nominal terms.
Actually, they are - though some technology may be an exception, with any other good whose producers are not sufficiently exploiting smaller (3rd world) markets.

[Ravachol]

"I don't see what Communism has to do with the lowering of living standards.... One would think that self-managed production without the parasitism and incompetency of Capital would provide us with a higher standard of living."- It would in the long run but specifically for the first world worker it would lower their living standards and if I could take this post back to the start, the argument was that the first world workers are not going to fight to lower their own living standards.


I still don't see what Communism has to do with any of this. Communism is the resultant state of the process of 'communization', the formation of networks of mutual proletarian solidarity organised on the basis of common material interests against Capital and the State. The formation of these networks happens on the basis of material demands, so per definition, communism cannot be some 'political' practice demanding this or that situation but is the process of realising our own material demands.



Like I said before the MSH acts silly with attacking the first world worker but the materialism is correct. We should be supporting our third world revolutionary brothers and some socialist need to realize that in reality life in the USA would have a lower standard because we would no longer be able to consume 1/3 or higher of the worlds resources and would be forced to share those resources. And sure, as communist in the USA we understand the need for this but your average reactionary person in this country will not care we are helping others with our sacrifices and would fight against it.


You realise that this is a highly idealist conception of 'revolution' right? Positioning revolution as some kind of moralist project has nothing to do with Communism. Communism can occur everywhere and at all times where there are opposed class interests and the exploited class(es) realise (in whatever way) their material demands in opposition to the ruling class(es).


I'm beginning to get the feeling this entire MTW's movement is made up by depressed collage students who are feeling bad because they live such awesome lives and the average third world worker lives in poverty. Well guess what, not everyone in the west live the ''awesome'' life some middle class students do.

Even disregarding that, arguing that the revolutionary subject is per definition a hungry subject is a race to the bottom. Any cuts in material conditions are prercieved as negative, regardless of how 'high' they are compared to the material conditions of others. This is even disregarding the endless stream of subjectivities affecting our desire for revolution produced under Capital's dominance. Whether it be the ever prevailant alienation or the immense disempowerment that is intrinsic to Capital's rule.

[GreenCommunism]

Then I'd advise them to read some basic Marx, really. It's the proletarian condition, being subjected to wage slavery and surplus value extraction, one's relation to the means of production that determines class. Not liberal 'white collar, blue collar' nonsense.first off, stop your marx personality cult, and second, they do not have surplus value extraction since they are labor aristocrats. thus they are not proletariat.


The one aiming at 'nations' instead of class.the tiny amount of proletariat in a country are important of course, the TINY friggin minuscule amount of any proletariat is important, but will they effect social change?


What's with this 'redistribution of wealth' thing? I thought communism was about collectivising society and re-appropriating all material wealth from the bourgeoisie. Mere redistribution of wealth strikes me as social-democratic.collectivising society and redistribution of wealth, i mean come on, we are not going to keep on with your standards under worldwide communism? you mean we get to keep the plunders of colonialism? how stupid would that be.


I'm beginning to get the feeling this entire MTW's movement is made up by depressed collage students who are feeling bad because they live such awesome lives and the average third world worker lives in poverty. Well guess what, not everyone in the west live the ''awesome'' life some middle class students do. so far most of those i've seen have been poor and what you could consider lower strata of the labor aristocracy. thus people i would say they are not bought off and live comfortable lives like most middle class kids.


I still don't see what Communism has to do with any of this. Communism is the resultant state of the process of 'communization', the formation of networks of mutual proletarian solidarity organised on the basis of common material interests against Capital and the State. The formation of these networks happens on the basis of material demands, so per definition, communism cannot be some 'political' practice demanding this or that situation but is the process of realising our own material demands.what affect revolution is the hope for change and how the system gets the hope very high without being able to deliver them, MTW would argue that the system of labor aristocracy is too effective to control the hopes and is able to deliver a certain amount of positive change for the working class for there to ever be a revolution in the first world.


You realise that this is a highly idealist conception of 'revolution' right? Positioning revolution as some kind of moralist project has nothing to do with Communism. Communism can occur everywhere and at all times where there are opposed class interests and the exploited class(es) realise (in whatever way) their material demands in opposition to the ruling class(es).
there has to be a definite break,the demands need to be too high for the capitalists to even consider giving them out and the proletariat realize that only revolution will satisfy his needs.


Even disregarding that, arguing that the revolutionary subject is per definition a hungry subject is a race to the bottom. Any cuts in material conditions are prercieved as negative, regardless of how 'high' they are compared to the material conditions of others. This is even disregarding the endless stream of subjectivities affecting our desire for revolution produced under Capital's dominance. Whether it be the ever prevailant alienation or the immense disempowerment that is intrinsic to Capital's rule. it is a disenfranchised subject which cannot reach his full potential under this system. while this may applies to many proletariat , there is alot of possibilities for such potential to be reached in the first world.

[graymouser]

first off, stop your marx personality cult, and second, they do not have surplus value extraction since they are labor aristocrats. thus they are not proletariat.
This is not true - the surplus value in finished goods is abnormally high, because the corporations that buy them force the prices to go artificially low. However, first world workers are still paid less than the value they add to products in the aggregate. If a $20000 car has $8000 in parts, $2000 in labor to produce the finished goods, $4000 for the dealer, the remaining $6000 in profit could not be realized without the $2000 in final labor - whatever the rest of the costs would be.

What is actually happening is that the supply chain is squeezed - not simply for workers, who are generally paid the socially prevailing wages in their areas, but for the owners of the supply chain companies. They are forced to take lower profits in order to simply survive, and in turn they must resort to the mechanisms of absolute and relative surplus-value that Marx detailed.

More than that, globalization has meant a continued downward pressure on real wages in the first world. Labor aristocracy is a swiftly dying concept, and the new first world working class is in the process of being forced to take lower wages.


collectivising society and redistribution of wealth, i mean come on, we are not going to keep on with your standards under worldwide communism? you mean we get to keep the plunders of colonialism? how stupid would that be.
The point is that socialism would have to be a cooperative effort between former first and third world workers to collectively raise everyone to a high but environmentally sustainable standard of living. This will take a tremendous wave of innovation, with totally different priorities than capitalism, but it is feasible. The standard of living would be totally different, not comparable to what we have today by any metric, since technology would essentially switch to a goal of zero non-renewable resource consumption.


so far most of those i've seen have been poor and what you could consider lower strata of the labor aristocracy. thus people i would say they are not bought off and live comfortable lives like most middle class kids.
This is moronic. "Lower strata of the labor aristocracy"? You mean...the working class? The labor aristocracy is a series of strata of the former.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Prices and wages are only relative. If goods are cheaper to first worlders its because they are payed a larger portion of the value they create and can buy more things. But value isn't somehow being transferred to them from the third world. And in any case the predominance of the world market isnt anything new, any country that had an isolated revolution would be deprived of all sorts of products and resources that they used to import.

Also some people seem to forget than in places like India the majority of the working class is also in "services."

[Sasha]

first off, stop your marx personality cult,

since Ravachol is an anarchist you might first want to check someones political profile before putting your foot in your mouth

[Ravachol]

first off, stop your marx personality cult


Considering that I'm an Anarchist and hold a different analysis of class and power relations than Marx as well as rejecting a lot of his other theories (with regards to the role of the bourgeoisie and the necessity of the development of capitalism as a precondition for communism for example, or his analysis of the state) I hardly see how I have a 'marx personality cult'.

One would suppose a tendency like Maoism-Third-Worldism would hold Marx in high regard though..... :rolleyes:



, and second, they do not have surplus value extraction since they are labor aristocrats. thus they are not proletariat.


Surplus value extraction is the difference between the market price commodities are sold for and the wages paid to workers, it's the accumulation of Capital on the basis of private possesion of constant capital.

Capital -> Buy commodities (including labour) -> production process resulting in commodities worth more (surplus value) -> sale of commodities -> more Capital.

In short: You're wrong.



collectivising society and redistribution of wealth, i mean come on, we are not going to keep on with your standards under worldwide communism? you mean we get to keep the plunders of colonialism? how stupid would that be.


'We' don't keep anything, the entire idea behind collectivisation is that the ownership of 'the plunders of colonialism', amongst other things, isn't exclusive to any group anymore....



what affect revolution is the hope for change and how the system gets the hope very high without being able to deliver them, MTW would argue that the system of labor aristocracy is too effective to control the hopes and is able to deliver a certain amount of positive change for the working class for there to ever be a revolution in the first world.


The same goes for all forms of co-option by Capital and pacification. Whether it be social-democracy, corporatist 'social peace', religion, etc. The entire social machine is aimed at 'pacifying' social contradictions. This occurs everywhere under Capital, not just in the first world. Reactionary religious movements which agitate against 'foreign capital' but spare 'native capital' (the kind MTW is supporting) are just as much pacifications of class struggle.



there has to be a definite break,the demands need to be too high for the capitalists to even consider giving them out and the proletariat realize that only revolution will satisfy his needs.


Where did I say anything about the 'height' of demands? I for one, don't think negotiation with Capital is an option at all. I just don't see how your comment has anything to do with what I said.



it is a disenfranchised subject which cannot reach his full potential under this system.


No member of the proletariat can.

[Fabrizio]

The exploitation of labor does not reduce the value of a product.


I don't understand this quote.

If you pay your employees less you can sell the good for cheaper, yes or no? Therefore cheaper labour may have a downward pressure on wages for westerners, but also has a downward pressure on prices. This was the point the guy was trying to make.

[GreenCommunism]

More than that, globalization has meant a continued downward pressure on real wages in the first world. Labor aristocracy is a swiftly dying concept, and the new first world working class is in the process of being forced to take lower wages.


it isn't dieing that quickly, all it means is even more service industry in the first world.


The point is that socialism would have to be a cooperative effort between former first and third world workers to collectively raise everyone to a high but environmentally sustainable standard of living. This will take a tremendous wave of innovation, with totally different priorities than capitalism, but it is feasible. The standard of living would be totally different, not comparable to what we have today by any metric, since technology would essentially switch to a goal of zero non-renewable resource consumption.

no one is contesting that, MTWist contest that revolution can happen in the first world with the amount of leisure activities we have.


This is moronic. "Lower strata of the labor aristocracy"? You mean...the working class? The labor aristocracy is a series of strata of the former.

the MTWist disagree taht the labor aristocracy is part of the proletarian class, they are another class


If a $20000 car has $8000 in parts, $2000 in labor to produce the finished goods, $4000 for the dealer, the remaining $6000 in profit could not be realized without the $2000 in final labor - whatever the rest of the costs would be.

there are some goods in which there is a market in thefirst world, but i would say taht MTWist believe that this 2000$ in final labor is given by the value that was once exploited from the third world. the main point is that the profits and exploitation of the third world is so high that they are forced to pay workers higher than the value of their work since there is not complete globalisation.


since Ravachol is an anarchist you might first want to check someones political profile before putting your foot in your mouth

can you be less hostile? many anarchist accept marx economical argument. i am curious of hearing about anarchist economist and how they differ from marx.


One would suppose a tendency like Maoism-Third-Worldism would hold Marx in high regard though.....

they do, however they disagree with some of his notions.


Surplus value extraction is the difference between the market price commodities are sold for and the wages paid to workers, it's the accumulation of Capital on the basis of private possesion of constant capital.

Capital -> Buy commodities (including labour) -> production process resulting in commodities worth more (surplus value) -> sale of commodities -> more Capital.

In short: You're wrong.

the market does not create value, not according to the labor theory of value, surplus value is anything that is not needed for capitalism to reproduce itself.


'We' don't keep anything, the entire idea behind collectivisation is that the ownership of 'the plunders of colonialism', amongst other things, isn't exclusive to any group anymore....

so the first world lose, at least for a few generation. do you agree?


The same goes for all forms of co-option by Capital and pacification. Whether it be social-democracy, corporatist 'social peace', religion, etc. The entire social machine is aimed at 'pacifying' social contradictions. This occurs everywhere under Capital, not just in the first world. Reactionary religious movements which agitate against 'foreign capital' but spare 'native capital' (the kind MTW is supporting) are just as much pacifications of class struggle.

they hate comprador regimes very much, they only identify anti-imperialist nations as worth supporting to some degree, this isn't something new here.


Where did I say anything about the 'height' of demands? I for one, don't think negotiation with Capital is an option at all. I just don't see how your comment has anything to do with what I said.
i meant the workers have expectations from society, and revolutions typically occurs when expectations are too high for society to satisfy them so they look for alternative system to satisfy this.


No member of the proletariat can.

certain labor aristocrats can reach a higher amount of their potential than the proletariat, and this according to mtw, is the bait taht the first world will keep biting to.

[Obs]

the MTWist disagree taht the labor aristocracy is part of the proletarian class, they are another class.
Characterised by what, exactly?

[The Hong Se Sun]

I'm beginning to get the feeling this entire MTW's movement is made up by depressed collage students who are feeling bad because they live such awesome lives and the average third world worker lives in poverty. Well guess what, not everyone in the west live the ''awesome'' life some middle class students do.

While I am sure this comment made you feel very clever, and I can not speak for others. Ive never lived in a "middle class" household. When I was growing up my family lived in tents and ghettos and everywhere between. Right now is the most stable my life has been. I don't have a microwave, I don't have a hot water heater, because when it came down to needing to fix the roof or a hot water heater we knew we needed the roof. NO central air no heater, am I one of these middle class kids in collage? Nice made up class analogy.

[The Hong Se Sun]

"You realise that this is a highly idealist conception of 'revolution' right? Positioning revolution as some kind of moralist project has nothing to do with Communism. Communism can occur everywhere and at all times where there are opposed class interests and the exploited class(es) realise (in whatever way) their material demands in opposition to the ruling class(es)."

yes, because the third world will revolt for communism under the slogan "at least it will be communist exploiting us now" or "at least now when we starve we starve for communism" please. If there is no morals behind your program then you are wasting time. Because communism is also about equality and the end of exploitation which means all the things Ive said would need to happen or else we would still be a social imperialist and thus not truly communist.

[Dean]

I don't understand this quote.

If you pay your employees less you can sell the good for cheaper, yes or no? Therefore cheaper labour may have a downward pressure on wages for westerners, but also has a downward pressure on prices. This was the point the guy was trying to make.
No, the point he was making was that labor was exploited in the third world to sell good cheaply to westerners.

But, in fact, the point is to raise the profit margin. Perhaps, when there was competition between 1st and third world goods, the prices were depressed on third world goods. But now that certain types of commodity production are predominantly in the third world, their prices have returned to their perceived social value.

Furthermore, the prices of goods in wealthier areas is almost universally higher. The fact that impoverished labor is exploited on a more severe level does not enrich first world laborers. Both groups are losing out.

[RGacky3]

While I am sure this comment made you feel very clever, and I can not speak for others. Ive never lived in a "middle class" household. When I was growing up my family lived in tents and ghettos and everywhere between. Right now is the most stable my life has been. I don't have a microwave, I don't have a hot water heater, because when it came down to needing to fix the roof or a hot water heater we knew we needed the roof. NO central air no heater, am I one of these middle class kids in collage? Nice made up class analogy.

But your not exploited? And niether is your family? And Imperialism is benefiting you???

[Obs]

But your not exploited? And niether is your family? And Imperialism is benefiting you???
See, kids? Trying to be prolier-than-thou will always backfire.

[Fabrizio]

No, the point he was making was that labor was exploited in the third world to sell good cheaply to westerners.

But, in fact, the point is to raise the profit margin. Perhaps, when there was competition between 1st and third world goods, the prices were depressed on third world goods. But now that certain types of commodity production are predominantly in the third world, their prices have returned to their perceived social value.

Furthermore, the prices of goods in wealthier areas is almost universally higher. The fact that impoverished labor is exploited on a more severe level does not enrich first world laborers. Both groups are losing out.

As I said, goods are only more expensive in the first world in nominal terms, but in real terms they are much cheaper, and as a result overall real wages are much higher in the west. Fact is that globalization has allowed the west to benefit from mass production on a scale that if done domestically would have been neutralized by inflation.

Now I am not saying that it's all one way. The west has lost much of its industrial base and countries like China, India, Brasil have benefitted. But to say that the benefits and costs have been spread completely evenly is ridiculous. Undoubtedly westerners have benefitted more from the expansion of cheap production than they have suffered fromt he donward effect on wages of globalization.

Am I saying that industrial workers in the developing world necessarilly lose out from "globalization". No. But it needs to be managed very differently from what it has been.

[Ravachol]

While I am sure this comment made you feel very clever, and I can not speak for others. Ive never lived in a "middle class" household. When I was growing up my family lived in tents and ghettos and everywhere between. Right now is the most stable my life has been. I don't have a microwave, I don't have a hot water heater, because when it came down to needing to fix the roof or a hot water heater we knew we needed the roof. NO central air no heater, am I one of these middle class kids in collage? Nice made up class analogy.

And all this as a dirty piece of labour aristocratic first-world scum.... oh boy, seems like your exploitation of the third world together with the bourgeoisie didn't work out that well :rolleyes:




yes, because the third world will revolt for communism under the slogan "at least it will be communist exploiting us now" or "at least now when we starve we starve for communism" please.


I don't like to be condescending but you don't seem to understand what communism is...

[The Hong Se Sun]

Not to be condescending but you have no connection with reality when it comes to people.

Am I being exploited? yes, is my Family? yes, are you? yes. Are we all benefiting from the first worlds exploitation of the third world also? yes.

I'm done posting in this thread if no one can come up with an argument better than "but I'm exploited too (in kids whiny voice)"

Say whatever you guys have to say to make yourselves feel like you are just as exploited as the third world workers, you aren't and the reason why the communist movement is so small in the first world nations is because of ignorant dogmatic crap like this. But hey maybe I am wrong, I'm sure you all live in a state of semi-slavery like some/most third world workers do and you guys are maybe not being first world chauvinist :rolleyes:

So you guys can go back to selling your papers and marching around chanting thing now, you won't change anything but hey at least you look cool.

[RGacky3]

I'm sure you all live in a state of semi-slavery like some/most third world workers do and you guys are maybe not being first world chauvinist

So, let me get this straight, if Nigeragua gets in a social-democratic government, that makes their lives better through socialist reforms, and now their lives are better than El Salvadorians, and they are less exploited. Does that make Nigeraguans Labor-Aristocrats????



So you guys can go back to selling your papers and marching around chanting thing now, you won't change anything but hey at least you look cool.

What do Maoists do then? Other than hate themselves?


Am I being exploited? yes, is my Family? yes, are you? yes. Are we all benefiting from the first worlds exploitation of the third world also? yes.



If you are benefiting, you are Baaarreeeelllyy, but knowing your conditions it sounds like you'd be better off under communism, does'nt sound like you reaping a bunch of benefits.

If your exploited, cheaper toothpaste is'nt really that much of a benefit.

[GreenCommunism]

I get that we're all privileged living in under advanced capitalism...I mean we worry about loans for college degrees and medical insurance and gas for our cars, but someone in bangladesh would worry about having enough food to eat. Over here the stuff that stores throw away will support all of the homeless people.

HOWEVER, I can't fault hard working people for trying to make a better life for themselves. Workers don't need to be plunged into misery, for it's the bourgeois who will have to share their wealth when the revolution comes!

i don't have problem fighting cuts, i have problem about asking for more.

someone in france ( melenchon) argued that nobody in an entreprise should be paid more than 20 times someone who is the smallest earner, which isn't bad, but all that means is that the CEO will augment his employees salary at the same time.

[GreenCommunism]

i was restricted because of this bullshit, so bump it.

[RGacky3]

which isn't bad, but all that means is that the CEO will augment his employees salary at the same time.

Except there is only a finite amount of money in a firm.

[GreenCommunism]

i had a job, it was a pain in the ass , does this have anything to do with the amount of money i should receive for alienation and oppression?

[Comrade Marcel]

Ohai, troll!

Lenina Rosenweg AKA Katie1918 (on youtube) AKA MaoismLinBiaosim (also on YT) has such a hard time coping with the material reality that MTW puts forward this person trolls the internet making fake MTW posts to try to make them look bad. Pig behaviour much?

:lol:

[Albania]

I don't know where to begin with this.


MTWism disses First World struggles-African-American struggle, Native Americans, working class people in general.



total bullshit,they support those people, especially the native american.


Lenina is correct and Green is mistaken. Example is the former Maoist Group Sendero Luminoso. The majority of the natives hated them and accepted weapons from the Peruvian government, who some did not completely trust, to defend themselves against Sendero.

Found this report on youtube which explains what happened. Since I am new I cannot post links. No links until 25 post or greater. So go to Youtube and type the following
Inca Indians Return Home - Peru Its by journeymanpictures.

[ComradeMan]

Lenina is correct and Green is mistaken. Example is the former Maoist Group Sendero Luminoso. The majority of the natives hated them and accepted weapons from the Peruvian government, who some did not completely trust, to defend themselves against Sendero.

Found this report on youtube which explains what happened. Since I am new I cannot post links. No links until 25 post or greater. So go to Youtube and type the following Its by journeymanpictures.


Indigenous peoples often have an "awkward" relationship with so-called revolutionary groups- the Miskito indigenes and the Sandinistas.

[Vampire Lobster]

...not this shit again.

Seriously, I'm yet to meet a non-US third worldist. Perhaps a couple from the UK, not sure. From the looks of it, they're all just some well-off brats who realize they don't have to struggle to any extent in their lives because their daddy throws in some money once in a while and then they figure nobody in the West has to.

They should seriously go fuck themselves. With a rake.

[ComradeMan]

...not this shit again.

Seriously, I'm yet to meet a non-US third worldist. Perhaps a couple from the UK, not sure. From the looks of it, they're all just some well-off brats who realize they don't have to struggle to any extent in their lives because their daddy throws in some money once in a while and then they figure nobody in the West has to.

They should seriously go fuck themselves. With a rake.

Err... non-US,

Ali Shariati...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Dr_Ali_Shariati.jpg/220px-Dr_Ali_Shariati.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Dr_Ali_Shariati.jpg)

and many others.

[Vampire Lobster]

I haven't met Ali Shariati :(

I'm not saying there is no Maoist-Third-Worldists outside Western campuses and suburban basements, but the kind of people who dwell in them are certainly important part of the "movement". Most Maoists in the developing world are just your ordinary Maoists as well, with no utterly reactionary Third Worldist strings attached.