Maoist-Third Worldists remain silent about France

[The Vegan Marxist]

I find it quite amusing that when a first world nation like France begins erupting in massive working class strikes & urban riots against the capitalist injustices, the MTW's remain completely silent on the current situation, given that it pretty much destroys their theory of the first world working class being too "privileged" to rebel against capitalism. I mean, their theories predominantly reside on areas like the United States, yet, correct me if I'm wrong, but France is more "privileged" than the US is by a long shot! Yet, the working class look past these "privileges" & have revolted.

Of course, they may claim that this was a rare exception. :rolleyes:

[Weezer]

Well, there's only like 23 Maoist-Third Worldists in the world(21 of them being self-hating white teenagers), so it's not like they have much of a voice to sound.

[Obs]

Perhaps this should be moved to OI so the MTWs on our forum (that is, half the global MTW movement) could get a chance to respond.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Perhaps this should be moved to OI so the MTWs on our forum (that is, half the global MTW movement) could get a chance to respond.

Are they not allowed to post on the politic's thread anymore, or what?

[Kléber]

iHrrh64Qdsk


The first worldist crypto-Trotskyists of and the Swiss Party of Labour have sided with the Greek and French reformists in fighting for their little wage cuts. Do these "proletarians" realize that the struggles of Third World workers? When you compare the two, the Greeks are fucking laughable. The French cry because their retirements are cut back two years. Boo goddamn hoo. Third world workers don't have pensions. They work until they die. These Greek and French crybabies have cars and food and homes while most of the worlds population live in huts and starves to death. Their "fight backs" aren't something to glamourize or to take seriously. I am appalled when I hear these petite bourgeois "Communist" or "Socialist" parties side with the idiot workers in Greece and France. So what is the alternative? I say, more austerity. More cutbacks. More attacks on the Greek and French complacent, lazy, and privileged "workers". Maybe then they will become radicalized. I pick the side of the French and Greek bourgeoise and their decisions for the austerity cuts. I support them because if more cuts occur, if there is more unemployment, if there is more homelessness, if the Greek and French workers are reduced to Third World conditions, then THAT is why they will become revolutionary. Until then, these "worker movements" are not revolutionary. They are not insurrectionary. They are a fucking farce and a spit in the face of workers worldwide. First Worldist little Eichmanns have trouble understanding but until they are reduced to rubble, they will realize. Once again, Maoism Third-Worldism proves to be the dominant ideology and the actual next step to worldwide Communism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ Wow....just wow. This truly shows how reactionary & counterrevolutionary the MTW's really are.

[Obs]

Are they not allowed to post on the politic's thread anymore, or what?
MTWs are restricted to OI afaik.

[Dimentio]

I find it quite amusing that when a first world nation like France begins erupting in massive working class strikes & urban riots against the capitalist injustices, the MTW's remain completely silent on the current situation, given that it pretty much destroys their theory of the first world working class being too "privileged" to rebel against capitalism. I mean, their theories predominantly reside on areas like the United States, yet, correct me if I'm wrong, but France is more "privileged" than the US is by a long shot! Yet, the working class look past these "privileges" & have revolted.

Of course, they may claim that this was a rare exception. :rolleyes:

The MTW's would claim that the French people are fighting to defend their privileges.

[Cirno(9)]

Well, there's only like 23 Maoist-Third Worldists in the world(21 of them being self-hating white teenagers), so it's not they have much of a voice to sound.
AsYoAa2HrQ0
The whole thing with "there are a very very very small select number of white people that are good" with the implication that the viewer might be one sounds like it was taken from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Forming Cults

[Wanted Man]

Who cares? They're just a bunch of idiots trolling on Youtube from their parents' detached houses in suburban AmeriKKKa.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well, as perhaps some clarification, the *official* Third Worldist argument is that the global value of labor rests at about $4.20ish an hour or $8,400ish a year. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/blast-of-the-past-from-irtr-a-rough-estimate-of-the-value-of-labor/) This would imply that these French protesters are objectively demanding to receive far more value than they create and thus are opposing an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product. i.e. They're objectively demanding the super-exploitation of third world working people by the French bourgeoisie, according to this theory. Hence these strikes would, under such an outlook, be viewed as implicitly reactionary, just as the cuts themselves would be. Either set of demands, so goes this thinking, results in the further stratification of the global social product's distribution; in the further concentration of global wealth. It's not really an unintelligible argument, IMO.

The LLCO's theory of value is described at some length here. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/revisiting-the-value-of-labor-power/)

[Wanted Man]

Well, as perhaps some clarification, the *official* Third Worldist argument is that the global value of labor rests at about $4.20ish an hour or $8,400ish a year. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/blast-of-the-past-from-irtr-a-rough-estimate-of-the-value-of-labor/) This would imply that these French protesters are objectively demanding to receive far more value than they create and thus are opposing an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product. i.e. They're objectively demanding the super-exploitation of third world working people by the French bourgeoisie, according to this theory. Hence these strikes would, under such an outlook, be viewed as implicitly reactionary, just as the cuts themselves would be. Either set of demands, so goes this thinking, results in the further stratification of the global social product's distribution; in the further concentration of global wealth. It's not really an unintelligible argument, IMO.

I hope the French riot cops beat the shit out of those objectively reactionary first-worldist rabble! Scum!

[EvilRedGuy]

Anti-worker thirdworldist pigs. :glare:

[Zanthorus]

Well, as perhaps some clarification, the *official* Third Worldist argument is that the global value of labor rests at about $4.20ish an hour or $8,400ish a year. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/blast-of-the-past-from-irtr-a-rough-estimate-of-the-value-of-labor/).. For a wage-worker to be a proletarian, they must meet specific criteria. Namely, they must be... living at or below the subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.

I might've known that the MTW's anti-Marxist arguments would rest on the equally anti-Marxist theoretical foundations of the Malthusian-Ricardian "iron law of wages".

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Actually, the theory of value they provide (see the latter link from my last post) is pretty solid. Unlike the pseudo-intellectual theories of the broader left, they implicitly recognize the validity of Marx's distinction between workers and proletarians. Most Westerners conveniently argue that workers and proletarians are today still just as synonymous as they were in Marx's day. In reality though, Marx and Engels defined proletarians as wage-workers who met specific criteria. According to actual Marxist theory, proletarians are wage-workers who 1) are engaged in the actual processes of production, and 2) live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation. Thus, according to Marx's and Engels' definition of proletarians, most American workers aren't proletarians. We have about 145 million or so workers, out of which only about 18 to 24 million are actually engaged in productive work for one thing, and only a fraction of those live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.

Even most of those who actually do have some sort of material interest in an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product here are only in that condition because they are oppressed (e.g. unemployed or underemployed), not because they're exploited (i.e. receiving less value than they create).

The point here is that the argument they provide is NOT "anti-Marxist". If anything, it much more closely adheres to Marx's thinking on the subject of value than do their detractors. What I'd like to see is a serious critique of their theory on value, not just (likely ignorant) dismissive one-liners.

[Reznov]

Well, there's only like 23 Maoist-Third Worldists in the world(21 of them being self-hating white teenagers), so it's not they have much of a voice to sound.

Lmfao :laugh:

But, France really isn't revolting or rioting. They are just doing it because their chains are getting tugged at.

When the Roma got deported did you see this happening? Nope. Because they only give a shit when it directly affects them.

Once Sarkozy plays into their demands a little bit, he will let it die down and then just silently do his plans without a big group of the proletarian noticing.

[Dimentio]

Actually, the maoist-third worldists got a point there. At the same time, being poor in Sweden could mean living on 1000 dollar a month in welfare or disability benefits and having a hard time getting enough to eat or to manage sudden costs. The prices are also a lot higher in first world nations.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

That's true, but even after you factor in living costs, the typical American for example has a staggering disposable annual income of $32,000 or so. If I'm not mistaken, this suggests that the typical American is among the wealthiest 10% of the world's population.

In many respects, history seems to bear out the validity of their theory on value. To date, only one imperialist country has actually experienced a proletarian revolution: the eastern part of Germany. And how did that come about? By way of the dictatorship of the international proletariat, not by way of domestic revolt.

[Reznov]

That's true, but even after you factor in living costs, the typical American for example has a staggering disposable annual income of $32,000 or so. If I'm not mistaken, this suggests that the typical American is among the wealthiest 10% of the world's population.

I think you have to stop looking at it in such a broad spectrum.

It seems like we have that much, but the prices here are adjusted as such and the entire system is designed to keep us as wage slaves. (The better your paid, the more golden your chains so to speak.)

But I realize it does seem a little harder when someone is pretty much able to buy themselves food clothes and other stuff that those in the poor Third World cannot.

Either way, something needs to change. We have to unite against the Bourgeoisie and thats the bottom line.

[Saorsa]

In reality though, Marx and Engels defined proletarians as wage-workers who met specific criteria. According to actual Marxist theory, proletarians are wage-workers who 1) are engaged in the actual processes of production, and 2) live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.

Erm, what writings of Marx and Engels is your claim based on?

I particularly want sources for point 2. Who defines subsistence? I've never encountered such an argument in their writings before.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Actually, the theory of value they provide (see the latter link from my last post) is pretty solid. Unlike the pseudo-intellectual theories of the broader left, they implicitly recognize the validity of Marx's distinction between workers and proletarians. Most Westerners conveniently argue that workers and proletarians are today still just as synonymous as they were in Marx's day. In reality though, Marx and

They also ignore the distinction between proletarians and subsistence farmers, the employed and the unemployed, etc. because their population calculations include hundreds of millions of such people.


Engels defined proletarians as wage-workers who met specific criteria. According to actual Marxist theory, proletarians are wage-workers who 1) are engaged in the actual processes of production, and 2) live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.

1) In the actual process of production? No, that's not true at all. Marx called unproductive workers proletarians because they have to sell their labor for a wage.

2) This is Marx and Engels earliest theory of wages as adopted from Ricardo...


Thus, according to Marx's and Engels' definition of proletarians, most American workers aren't proletarians. We have about 145 million or so workers, out of which only about 18 to 24 million are actually engaged in productive work for one thing, and only a fraction of those live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.

If you accepts MSH's definitions of productive work, which is completely wrong.


Even most of those who actually do have some sort of material interest in an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product here are only in that condition because they are oppressed (e.g. unemployed or underemployed), not because they're exploited (i.e. receiving less value than they create).


I don't get how workers are supposed to know if they are receiving more value than they create even if they really are. They simply see themselves having to do all the work while, relative to them, the capitalists have basically all the wealth.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Also I wonder what the implications of Maoist Third Worldist theories are for a place like India, where the majority of its working class is also employed in the services(ie unproductive and hence not really proletarian according to MSH) sector.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Saorsa wrote:
Erm, what writings of Marx and Engels is your claim based on?

I particularly want sources for point 2. Who defines subsistence? I've never encountered such an argument in their writings before.

As just one example, consider Engels' Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). Particularly, examine points 2 and 3. On the other criteria, Karl and Eleanor Marx are cited on that in the second LLCO link I provided earlier.

At any rate, the LLCO has defined subsistence at a much higher level than the UN. The LLCO theory contends for somewhere in the area of $4.20 an hour as subsistence, whereas the UN regards subsistence as $1.25 a day.


Reznov wrote:
I think you have to stop looking at it in such a broad spectrum.

What spectrum might you propose? The national one?


It seems like we have that much, but the prices here are adjusted as such and the entire system is designed to keep us as wage slaves.

Like I said, the $32,000ish figure I provided was the amount of disposable income the typical American makes in a year. In gross income, the typical American makes $50,000 a year.

I mean none of what I've pointed out here is to say that I'm per se all in agreement with *official* Third Worldism. I have my disagreements with the LLCO as well. They just don't as much revolve around their theory of value as most people's critiques do. My main critique of them is that they're pretty dogmatic about who their allies and enemies respectively must be. For example, if you read the intro on their site (http://llco.org/), they claim that, according to their theory, first world people are almost entirely "enemies of the world’s peoples" who "should be regarded as part of the imperialist bourgeoisie, or imperialist petty-bourgeoisie, or imperialist labor aristocracy". This is a rather defeatist argument IMO. Simply because few Americans are exploited doesn't mean Americans have no progressive potential. It just means that genuinely progressive-minded Americans can't win on their home turf. It's on the basis of this defeatist outlook vis-a-vis Americans almost as a whole that you get the name-calling and such.

[RED DAVE]

According to actual Marxist theory, proletarians are wage-workers who 1) are engaged in the actual processes of production, and 2) live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.Show me a source for this in Marx and Engels.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

RED DAVE:

Pay attention to the contents and links in my posts. I've already provided multiple sources for the info you're requesting.

SocialismOrBarbarism:

Same goes for you. To once again highlight the quotes from Karl and Eleanor Marx they're finding important in connection to productive labor, for example, these are cited in their article here. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/revisiting-the-value-of-labor-power/)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

As just one example, consider Engels' Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm).

:rolleyes:


The thesis that the “natural,” i.e., normal, price of labor power coincides with the wage minimum, i.e., with the equivalent in value of the means of subsistence absolutely indispensable for the life and procreation of the worker, was first put forward by me in Sketches for a Critique of Political Economy (Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher , Paris 1844) and in The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. As seen here, Marx at that time excepted the thesis. Lassalle took it over from both of us. Although, however, in reality wages have a constant tendency to approach the minimum, the above thesis is nevertheless incorrect.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Same goes for you. To once again highlight the quotes from Karl and Eleanor Marx they're finding important in connection to productive labor, for example, these are cited in their article here. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/revisiting-the-value-of-labor-power/)

I have dealt with Marx and productive labor as well, for example in this post and others in the thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1888165&postcount=99

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

What you highlighted in the first of your above two posts is precisely the distinction between the LLCO's theory and Marx's, which they also highlight in the article "Revisiting value and exploitation" (which I will not link to a third time on this thread). So yes, that difference is original to them.

[Dimentio]

The main problem with MTW is not it's conception of justice, but the fact that if a MTW revolution happened in the Third World and the global south invaded the global north, the global north would answer by annihilating the global south population with the usage of nuclear and biological warfare.

In short, to prosper, socialism needs a superpower which is in the first world or in the semi-first world. Resource control is the most important bit.

[RED DAVE]

According to actual Marxist theory, proletarians are wage-workers who 1) are engaged in the actual processes of production, and 2) live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.
Show me a source for this in Marx and Engels.
RED DAVE:

Pay attention to the contents and links in my posts. I've already provided multiple sources for the info you're requesting.Oh you've given sources and links all right. Problem is, they don't say what you allege.

For instance, you cited Engels' Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). And here is what it says, Point 2, right at the top:


The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.Now, note that there is nothing in this definition that says as you bullshitted:


proletarians are wage-workers who 1) are engaged in the actual processes of production, and 2) live at or below a subsistence level as a result of their exploitation.Workers who engage in parts of the process of capitalist circulation of commodities are all proletarians. Transportation, communication, distribution, service, maintenance, are all proletarians.

Are you going to deny that a fleet truck driver in the United States is a proletarian? Are you going to deny that a telephone line-person is a proletarian?

I think that reading too much M-TW stuff has affected your brain.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

She almost became a MTW before she decided to stay with the Avakian cult.

[Palingenisis]

TribalUumba "The first worldist crypto-Trotskyists of and the Swiss Party of Labour have sided with the Greek and French reformists in fighting for their little wage cuts. Do these "proletarians" realize that the struggles of Third World workers? When you compare the two, the Greeks are fucking laughable. The French cry because their retirements are cut back two years. Boo goddamn hoo. Third world workers don't have pensions. They work until they die. These Greek and French crybabies have cars and food and homes while most of the worlds population live in huts and starves to death. Their "fight backs" aren't something to glamourize or to take seriously. I am appalled when I hear these petite bourgeois "Communist" or "Socialist" parties side with the idiot workers in Greece and France. So what is the alternative? I say, more austerity. More cutbacks. More attacks on the Greek and French complacent, lazy, and privileged "workers". Maybe then they will become radicalized. I pick the side of the French and Greek bourgeoise and their decisions for the austerity cuts. I support them because if more cuts occur, if there is more unemployment, if there is more homelessness, if the Greek and French workers are reduced to Third World conditions, then THAT is why they will become revolutionary. Until then, these "worker movements" are not revolutionary. They are not insurrectionary. They are a fucking farce and a spit in the face of workers worldwide. First Worldist little Eichmanns have trouble understanding but until they are reduced to rubble, they will realize. Once again, Maoism Third-Worldism proves to be the dominant ideology and the actual next step to worldwide."


Is this for real for another one of your spoof's kebler???

[The Vegan Marxist]

TribalUumba "The first worldist crypto-Trotskyists of and the Swiss Party of Labour have sided with the Greek and French reformists in fighting for their little wage cuts. Do these "proletarians" realize that the struggles of Third World workers? When you compare the two, the Greeks are fucking laughable. The French cry because their retirements are cut back two years. Boo goddamn hoo. Third world workers don't have pensions. They work until they die. These Greek and French crybabies have cars and food and homes while most of the worlds population live in huts and starves to death. Their "fight backs" aren't something to glamourize or to take seriously. I am appalled when I hear these petite bourgeois "Communist" or "Socialist" parties side with the idiot workers in Greece and France. So what is the alternative? I say, more austerity. More cutbacks. More attacks on the Greek and French complacent, lazy, and privileged "workers". Maybe then they will become radicalized. I pick the side of the French and Greek bourgeoise and their decisions for the austerity cuts. I support them because if more cuts occur, if there is more unemployment, if there is more homelessness, if the Greek and French workers are reduced to Third World conditions, then THAT is why they will become revolutionary. Until then, these "worker movements" are not revolutionary. They are not insurrectionary. They are a fucking farce and a spit in the face of workers worldwide. First Worldist little Eichmanns have trouble understanding but until they are reduced to rubble, they will realize. Once again, Maoism Third-Worldism proves to be the dominant ideology and the actual next step to worldwide."


Is this for real for another one of your spoof's kebler???




Nope, it seems real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHrrh64Qdsk

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is it not extremely ironic that MTWs are presenting their arguments via the computer, that medium of the 'cry-babyish' first-worldists. Who actually are these people? Are they literally a tiny sect of internet wackos or is there any practical application of their 'theories'?

[Palingenisis]

Nope, it seems real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHrrh64Qdsk

Very, very little comrade about the MonkeySmashesHeaven brigade seems real.

Im still unsure whether the whole thing is not a Trotskyite troll....

[maskerade]

why do we give these idiots so much attention?

[zimmerwald1915]

why do we give these idiots so much attention?
Because they are at the same time extremely talented trolls, and hilarious.

[Dimentio]

Because they are entertaining, in the same way as a slobbering drunkard in a preteen disco.

[maskerade]

fair enough.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Dimentio wrote:
The main problem with MTW is not it's conception of justice, but the fact that if a MTW revolution happened in the Third World and the global south invaded the global north, the global north would answer by annihilating the global south population with the usage of nuclear and biological warfare.

In short, to prosper, socialism needs a superpower which is in the first world or in the semi-first world. Resource control is the most important bit. What would you say to Lin Biao's argument that "the spiritual atom bomb that the masses possess is far mightier than the physical atom bomb"? Surely the success of the people's war in China forever discredited the notion that, when it comes to warfare, as Stalin once put it, "whoever has the most tanks and planes will win".

I say the real strength of the communist movement is the masses, not advanced weaponry. And I really think Western communist often just want to see their role and importance in world revolution as special when it isn't.


Is it not extremely ironic that MTWs are presenting their arguments via the computer, that medium of the 'cry-babyish' first-worldists. Who actually are these people? Are they literally a tiny sect of internet wackos or is there any practical application of their 'theories'?The "tiny sect of internet whackos" you're describing are actually, according to them anyway, organizationally larger than many, if not most, of their critics at this point. Groups like the LLCO are growing today for a reason: because they're more intellectually honest than most.

[Obs]

What would you say to Lin Biao's argument that "the spiritual atom bomb that the masses possess is far mightier than the physical atom bomb"?
No they're pretty much fucked if they get hit with an atom bomb no matter how you look at it.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Oh I see. So I guess that since the enemy has nukes, we should just give up on world revolution. :rolleyes: Just can't win, after all.

[Obs]

the point ->























your head ->

[Palingenisis]

Because they are at the same time extremely talented trolls, and hilarious.

You wouldnt to happen to know (or maybe actually be?) one of these extremely talented and hilarious trolls? ;)

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, I myself ain't agree with MRD here, because he missed one point. His arguments are true if all the workers of the world have the same productivity level, BUT THIS ISN'T FACT. A workers in France or Sweden or somewhere else should have higher pay than a worker in the third world because they work with more sophisticated and modern machinery, therefore they produce more and thus certainly able to get a higher part of their production as salary or wage. Instead of asking them to let off all struggle until and unless the productivity level of the third world countries is lifted to level of first world, in my opinion it would be better to fight for increasing wages and living conditions of workers of the third world so that the rulers and capitalists there would be forced to introduced more improved technology. The argument said by MRD is in fact reactionary (though I doubt he is) and can be a tool for first world bourgeoisie and their bootlickers to suppress the struggle of workers of first world.
But at the same time, I want to thank MRD that at least he kept in mind the condition of people and workers of the third world and his oppositions are just going on slandering him by saying dirty words like "troll, entertainer" etc. In my opinion, I can not consider them as lefts as they are unable to prove their points, which I have supplied in my post. Basically, they are making revleft just like some kind of pub instead of a serious place of discussion.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well "he" is a she. But anyhow, bearing in mind that socialist remuneration is based on the actual amount of productive work done during a comparable period, might you have some sort of statistical validation of that point? I'd certainly bear it in mind if you could provide it.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

A further point against MSH's statistical calculations is that while they include more workers than actually exist in the world, they at the same time deny huge portions of the working class as being actually working class, which is another reason why they would have to divide total value by a lower amount of workers and hence get a higher value of labor.

[bailey_187]

Well "he" is a she. But anyhow, bearing in mind that socialist remuneration is based on the actual amount of productive work done during a comparable period, might you have some sort of statistical validation of that point? I'd certainly bear it in mind if you could provide it.

Here:

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

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Higher productivity doesn't mean more is value produced, it actually means less...

[Ravachol]

This would imply that these French protesters are objectively demanding to receive far more value than they create and thus are opposing an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product. i.e. They're objectively demanding the super-exploitation of third world working people by the French bourgeoisie, according to this theory. Hence these strikes would, under such an outlook, be viewed as implicitly reactionary, just as the cuts themselves would be.


I love how this argument almost completely mirrors the bourgeoisie argument of "don't demand higher wages! It'll lead to lay-offs you self-centred scum!" :rolleyes:

Capital's natural tendency to maintain it's profit margins will always mean that driving back Capital in one area means it's going to intensify it's attacks in another. The issue is one of generalized resistance such that attacks become infeasible in all areas thus driving Capital back everywhere.



I say, more austerity. More cutbacks. More attacks on the Greek and French complacent, lazy, and privileged "workers". Maybe then they will become radicalized. I pick the side of the French and Greek bourgeoise and their decisions for the austerity cuts. I support them because if more cuts occur, if there is more unemployment, if there is more homelessness, if the Greek and French workers are reduced to Third World conditions, then THAT is why they will become revolutionary.


Yeah, let's all have a race to the bottom first before realising our project of getting as fucking much from this desert as possible! :rolleyes:
It's pretty obvious this loon has never actually been in a situation remotely resembling what he describes, otherwise he'd know that resistance is actually quite hard when you're starving,homeless and without access to any kind of material base for organising revolt. Also, his reactionary comments deserve a shovel to the face, just sayin..

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Bailey:

In an overall sense, you just made the reverse case intended. What the key "almost" remark demonstrates is that, even despite having vastly inferior technology to work with, third world workers still outproduce first world workers overall, even on a per capita basis, based on the sheer amount of work (exploitation, in this case) they're expected to endure. The "per unit costs" only have a very vague similarity because first world workers don't work nearly as much as third world workers. The jobs are moving to China, Mexico, Egypt, the Philippines, etc. for a reason: because capitalist production is more efficient there, not because it isn't. The fact that the jobs are moving from the first world to the third world, if anything, is strong evidence that your argument is wrong.

[Kiev Communard]

Bailey:

In an overall sense, you just made the reverse case intended. What the key "almost" remark demonstrates is that, even despite having vastly inferior technology to work with, third world workers still outproduce first world workers overall, even on a per capita basis, based on the sheer amount of work (exploitation, in this case) they're expected to endure. The "per unit costs" only have a very vague similarity because first world workers don't work nearly as much as third world workers. The jobs are moving to China, Mexico, Egypt, the Philippines, etc. for a reason: because capitalist production is more efficient there, not because it isn't. The fact that the jobs are moving from the first world to the third world, if anything, is strong evidence that your argument is wrong.


And so? Do you propose that the Left should cheer capitalists outsourcing jobs to the "less costly" countries, or what?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I'm saying that, for example, here on our home turf, we should be for the replacement of most existing jobs (which are unproductive) with productive ones. And we should also fully support an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product, which would indeed entail living standards generally going down somewhat for the majority of people in imperialist countries...precisely because the wealth thereof is principally derived from the exploitation of the working people of the third world.

To lay out my personal assessment though, I think there is a lot more positive potential in even first world countries than the LLCO believes. Now the RCP for example would assess that about 90% of the U.S. population can be won over to the side of proletarian revolution. On the other hand, the LLCO argues that there is no significant interest in revolution here in America. I disagree with both of these assessments. About 30% of the U.S. population lives at or below the subsistence level. (About 15% at subsistence level and about 15% below, roughly.) Hence I argue that this 30% (or so) has a material interest in socialist revolution. Again though, this also doesn't mean that we have a significant domestic social base for revolution; the base being the source of wealth. As I pointed out earlier, even while we have a considerable number of poor people, we lack much in the way of a proletariat (which is the main social base of a capitalist society). The social base of the American imperialist superstructure resides primarily in the third world; the principal source of this country's wealth. Hence it is indeed my view that our revolution in this country will have to come from without, even while a significant number of people can be won here to support that. This is an independent view I take.

[Kiev Communard]

I'm saying that, for example, here on our home turf, we should be for the replacement of most existing jobs (which are unproductive) with productive ones. And we should also fully support an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product, which would indeed entail living standards generally going down somewhat for the majority of people in imperialist countries...precisely because the wealth thereof is principally derived from the exploitation of the working people of the third world.

To lay out my personal assessment though, I think there is a lot more positive potential in even first world countries than the LLCO believes. Now the RCP for example would assess that about 90% of the U.S. population can be won over to the side of proletarian revolution. On the other hand, the LLCO argues that there is no significant interest in revolution here in America. I disagree with both of these assessments. About 30% of the U.S. population lives at or below the subsistence level. (About 15% at subsistence level and about 15% below, roughly.) Hence I argue that this 30% (or so) has a material interest in socialist revolution. Again though, this also doesn't mean that we have a significant domestic social base for revolution; the base being the source of wealth. As I pointed out earlier, even while we have a considerable number of poor people, we lack much in the way of a proletariat (which is the main social base of a capitalist society). The social base of the American imperialist superstructure resides primarily in the third world; the principal source of this country's wealth. Hence it is indeed my view that our revolution in this country will have to come from without, even while a significant number of people can be won here to support that. This is an independent view I take.


If your idea that only the layers of the popular classes living "at subsistence levels" are revolutionary, why we don't see social revolutions in Africa or Burma? The revolutions usually happen when the workers have something to lose, not when they are accustomed to the thought that "we are poor and doomed, nobody can do anything to alleviate the situation". The example of France during the Commune of Paris or Russia in 1917 show that revolutions usually happen in the societies that are neither abysmally poor, nor relatively well-off, because in the former case the imperatives of poor survival tend to make the workers or other exploited layers fearful of rapid change that could, in their view, worsen their situation (we see this very well in Ukraine), while in the latter one (I think the U.S. comes into mind first) the consumerism and the delusion of belonging to "great middle class" makes working class unreceptive to the revolutionary ideas.

[Ravachol]

I'm saying that, for example, here on our home turf, we should be for the replacement of most existing jobs (which are unproductive) with productive ones.


Productive as defind by what? The accumulation cycle of Capital? Oh boy.. :rolleyes:



And we should also fully support an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product, which would indeed entail living standards generally going down somewhat for the majority of people in imperialist countries...
precisely because the wealth thereof is principally derived from the exploitation of the working people of the third world.


So you propose we copy the current economical and industrial framework one-to-one only under some sort of 'socialist' management and then proceed to 'redistribute' what is produced using these structures (developed under and for the reproduction of Capital) thus effectively reproducing capitalism in all but name?

This has nothing to do with communism, which would restructure the spheres of production and consumption in such a way that it's not a matter of 'redistribution of what is produced by capitalist production relations', as you propose, but a matter of a completely different mode of production. Thinking about 'redistribution' and 'the level of wealth going down a bit' implies that you seek to maintain the structure of the sphere of production as it currently is. Which is not what the communist project is or ought to be about.



About 30% of the U.S. population lives at or below the subsistence level. (About 15% at subsistence level and about 15% below, roughly.) Hence I argue that this 30% (or so) has a material interest in socialist revolution.


You take narrow determinism to a whole new level bro. A 'material interest in revolution' isn't related to once closeness to the subsistence level. A material interest in revolution is related to both a consequent decline in material conditions (whatever their level as compared to the rest of the world), the consciousness emering from struggle against this decline and the resistence against the alienation and other societal ills resulting from Capitalism.

[iskrabronstein]

Bailey:

In an overall sense, you just made the reverse case intended. What the key "almost" remark demonstrates is that, even despite having vastly inferior technology to work with, third world workers still outproduce first world workers overall, even on a per capita basis, based on the sheer amount of work (exploitation, in this case) they're expected to endure. The "per unit costs" only have a very vague similarity because first world workers don't work nearly as much as third world workers. The jobs are moving to China, Mexico, Egypt, the Philippines, etc. for a reason: because capitalist production is more efficient there, not because it isn't. The fact that the jobs are moving from the first world to the third world, if anything, is strong evidence that your argument is wrong.

I hope you will excuse the charged language, because I intend no offense, but this argument is some of the most vulgar materialist analysis I have heard in a long time.

Increased effectiveness of productive means within an economy increases the productivity of labor, but this increased productive capacity decreases the value per commodity, while increasing the net commodity availability. In both a practical and an economic sense, 1st world workers are more productive than their 3rd world counterparts - the 1st world has access to better nutrition, medical treatment, working conditions, and most importantly improved productive means.

Capital does not outsource jobs to the 3rd world to take advantage of increased productivity there - the very idea is ludicrous. Capital exports jobs to the 3rd world because underdeveloped markets are more easily penetrated by foreign interests, and weaker state and social hegemonies are subject to deformation by strong capitalist interests. The real bonus to centering productive capacity in the 3rd world comes from the increased collusion possible between foreign and national capital, and the state - in the form of tax breaks, monopoly licenses, state interference with competitors, etc. The movement of capital is not a simple reflection of economic conditions; it is a complex interrelationship of the political, economic, and social factors involved that must be taken into account.

The marginal rate of profit per laborer is equivalent because lowered living standards and availability of capital resources lead to decreased productivity on both an individual and collective level.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Kiev:

My assessment is that revolution is possible in Africa, but unlikely in the near future because the main source of impoverishment (which there, unlike here, is pervasive) is oppression (e.g. mass unemployment), not exploitation.

The (authentic) socialist revolutions that have occurred thus far have all been linked most fundamentally to the social base of the society in question. The contradiction between the base and the superstructure is what makes for revolutionary potential. Exploitation, in other words, is the most essential factor. Africa, however, is mostly unproductive. It is largely not being allowed to develop. Therein lies the reality that socialist revolution is not likely imminent in many places on the African continent. Though we can see some revolutionary potential even in a few African countries like Somalia and Yemen, for example.

IMO Central and South Asia quite obviously hold the greatest revolutionary potential at present. This is where you see the real contest of which forces will lead the global resistance to imperialism: radical Islam or Maoism? And yes, these are the only two possibilities at present. And at present, unfortunately the former would appear to be in the lead overall.

[Weezer]

Off topic:

What is Monkey Smashes Heaven supposed to mean? Is it suggesting that third world workers are monkeys trying to smash Heaven(First World)?

[Obs]

Off topic:

What is Monkey Smashes Heaven supposed to mean? Is it suggesting that third world workers are monkeys trying to smash Heaven(First World)?
I'm pretty sure it's some bullshit orientalist romanticising of the mystic East and whatnot. It sounds strange only to our decadent first-world labour aristocratic ears.

[bcbm]

radical Islam or Maoism? And yes, these are the only two possibilities at present

fuck

[The Vegan Marxist]

Off topic:

What is Monkey Smashes Heaven supposed to mean? Is it suggesting that third world workers are monkeys trying to smash Heaven(First World)?

Doesn't really matter. They'll no longer be "Monkey Smashes Heaven" here soon anyways. They're moving to a new site or something, & will be going by a new name.

[black magick hustla]

radical islam came into being after the defeat of our class in the middle east by the white counterrevolution in the late 70s. The clerical scum decimated the shoras and that was the end of working class militancy. it offers nothing and if anything it is the spiritual aberattion caused by a rotting mode of production. something similar happened with maoism, it came into being after the fateful defeat of shanghai workers by the hands of the KMT in 1927, when the organic urban working class leadership was decimated. After that event the Chinese Communist Party was more invested in its survival and its political success, which required the military defeat of the KMT, and therefore it went to the countryside.

[Barry Lyndon]

radical islam came into being after the defeat of our class in the middle east by the white counterrevolution in the late 70s. The clerical scum decimated the shoras and that was the end of working class militancy. it offers nothing and if anything it is the spiritual aberattion caused by a rotting mode of production. something similar happened with maoism, it came into being after the fateful defeat of shanghai workers by the hands of the KMT in 1927, when the organic urban working class leadership was decimated. After that event the Chinese Communist Party was more invested in its survival and its political success, which required the military defeat of the KMT, and therefore it went to the countryside.

To compare the Chinese Communists with Islamic fundamentalists is frankly ridiculous......

But something one could expect from a Left com.

[synthesis]

I think he was comparing them with the KMT. He was saying that Maoism arose as an adaptation to the defeat of urban working class militancy.

[black magick hustla]

To compare the Chinese Communists with Islamic fundamentalists is frankly ridiculous......

But something one could expect from a Left com.

i like you because i dont think you ever engaged anything i said ever in this place

gj whiteboy

[Obs]

Doesn't really matter. They'll no longer be "Monkey Smashes Heaven" here soon anyways. They're moving to a new site or something, & will be going by a new name.
Yeah, now they'll be "Leading Light Communist Organization". From these 50 middle class college dropouts who can't get laid, the revolution shall be sparked!

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Off topic:

What is Monkey Smashes Heaven supposed to mean? Is it suggesting that third world workers are monkeys trying to smash Heaven(First World)?

The title is inspired by a Red Guard leaflet wherein the author writes: "We revolutionaries are monkey kings. We will turn the world upside down — the messier, the better…"

It's simply intended to indicate the kind of revolutionary process they're for in an attention-grabbing way.

MSH is the LLCO's official theoretical journal. I doubt it's going away. It's simply moving to a different location and continues to be retained there under the same name.


Yeah, now they'll be "Leading Light Communist Organization". From these 50 middle class college dropouts who can't get laid, the revolution shall be sparked!

Amazingly, according to the brilliant estimates we've seen here, their numbers have more than doubled since the start of this thread. ;) Just showing that not only are most people here oblivious to what their theory is (yet critique it nonetheless), but also haven't a clue on anything else related to them, be it their class composition, support, or whatever.

[Obs]

Amazingly, according to the brilliant estimates we've seen here, their numbers have more than doubled since the start of this thread. ;) Just showing that not only are most people here oblivious to what their theory is (yet critique it nonetheless), but also haven't a clue on anything else related to them, be it their class composition, support, or whatever.
Yeah, no one really cares.

[VNHCM]

Off topic:

What is Monkey Smashes Heaven supposed to mean? Is it suggesting that third world workers are monkeys trying to smash Heaven(First World)?

Not that! The "Monkey smashes heaven" phrase refers to a fictionalized character (Sun Wukong) of mythological classical Chinese novel "Journey to the West". It is about heroic struggle of a little guy to overcome his limitation and defy many oppressive forces upon him.:thumbup1:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong

[chegitz guevara]

The idea that the average American has $32K disposable income is ridiculous. If I'm standing next to Bill Gates, we each have an average of about 16 billion in wealth. The vast majority of our people live pay check to paycheck, and many of us are sliding slowly into deeper debt even as we are paid. Keep in mind also that where you live means a great deal. $50K a year in Manhattan is poverty wages.

[red cat]

The idea that the average American has $32K disposable income is ridiculous. If I'm standing next to Bill Gates, we each have an average of about 16 billion in wealth. The vast majority of our people live pay check to paycheck, and many of us are sliding slowly into deeper debt even as we are paid. Keep in mind also that where you live means a great deal. $50K a year in Manhattan is poverty wages.

Some MTH of MSH sympathizer should provide a list of prices of some commodities in the USA, including food-items and common electronic gadgets. Otherwise no comparison between an average citizen of the first world with that of the third world is possible.

[RED DAVE]

Some MTH of MSH sympathizer should provide a list of prices of some commodities in the USA, including food-items and common electronic gadgets. Otherwise no comparison between an average citizen of the first world with that of the third world is possible.Why should we even bother when we, as Marxists, are dealing with class and not income level?

The workers engaged in the current IWW organizing drive at Jimmy John's are doubtless better off than those in a maquiadora. And they are certainly looking for a higher wage. Are we to write them off as imperialist parasites?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Oh I see. So I guess that since the enemy has nukes, we should just give up on world revolution. :rolleyes: Just can't win, after all.

The peoples in the Third World need the support of a superpower in the first world which is non-capitalist in order to achieve that kind of revolution.

[red cat]

Why should we even bother when we, as Marxists, are dealing with class and not income level?

The workers engaged in the current IWW organizing drive at Jimmy John's are doubtless better off than those in a maquiadora. And they are certainly looking for a higher wage. Are we to write them off as imperialist parasites?

RED DAVE

Income levels create sections in between classes. Knowing the income levels of first world workers might help in anticipating how close they are to the situation that will force them to declare the revolutionary war.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

red cat wrote:
Some MTH of MSH sympathizer should provide a list of prices of some commodities in the USA, including food-items and common electronic gadgets. Otherwise no comparison between an average citizen of the first world with that of the third world is possible.\

According to the U.S. government, subsistence level income in this country is somewhere in the general area of $10,000 a year. Compare that to the $50,000 gross income (and $32,000 net income) of the typical American.

[red cat]

\

According to the U.S. government, subsistence level income in this country is somewhere in the general area of $10,000 a year. Compare that to the $50,000 gross income (and $32,000 net income) of the typical American.

Why don't you list the prices of some items of day-to-day use in the USA ? Then we can really compare the American worker's standard of living with that of his South Asian counterpart. What the government identifies as subsistence income can be far below the real one.

[bricolage]

Income levels create sections in between classes. Knowing the income levels of first world workers might help in anticipating how close they are to the situation that will force them to declare the revolutionary war.
Yet what has been constantly stated here is that 'how close they are to a [revolutionary] situation' has nothing to do with income levels. What you are arguing here is that if we knew the income levels of first world workers and we knew how low they were we could draw links between this and revolutionary potential, the argument being that the lower they are the more revolutionary they are. But when people have no money they don't fight for socialism they fight for their next meal, I'd actually argue that when you are living with essentially nothing you conceive of yourself less as part of a class and more as a individual; you against the world. Fetishising poverty offers us nothing.

[bricolage]

\

According to the U.S. government, subsistence level income in this country is somewhere in the general area of $10,000 a year. Compare that to the $50,000 gross income (and $32,000 net income) of the typical American.
10,000 a year seems very low, does this include rent? (which as we all know is too damn high...) I would imagine living on that would be very hard. It is obvious why the government would push for such a figure, what is less clear is why a supposed communist would base anything on it.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Because, red cat, I don't know the average price of everything off the top of my head. The U.S. government's measure of subsistence is three times the average price of groceries. Compare that to the $50,000 gross income (and $32,000 net income) of the typical American.

About 30% of the U.S. population lives effectively at or below the subsistence level (which shouldn't be interpreted dogmatically by income in a strict sense...precisely because there are complex factors too, like debt, etc.).

[red cat]

Can anyone else here list the prices ?

[red cat]

Yet what has been constantly stated here is that 'how close they are to a [revolutionary] situation' has nothing to do with income levels. What you are arguing here is that if we knew the income levels of first world workers and we knew how low they were we could draw links between this and revolutionary potential, the argument being that the lower they are the more revolutionary they are. But when people have no money they don't fight for socialism they fight for their next meal, I'd actually argue that when you are living with essentially nothing you conceive of yourself less as part of a class and more as a individual; you against the world. Fetishising poverty offers us nothing.

This conception is wrong. If a person is not poor or insecure enough, in most cases, he does not take the risk of declaring a war, which could directly threaten his life. If such conditions are not present for a large section of the population, or that of a class, it will not declare revolutionary war. No matter how wonderful socialism might seem, most workers will not risk their lives to achieve it, until they have no other option. On the other hand, a fight for the next meal by individual workers turns into a class war in the field, during the course of struggle.

[bricolage]

This conception is wrong. If a person is not poor or insecure enough, in most cases, he does not take the risk of declaring a war, which could directly threaten his life.
Quite obviously though we have different conceptions of revolution. I don't believe the primary characteristic of a revolution is 'declaring war' (if we are talking in a military sense here) or risking your life. But if we are talking about risking lives it is just as likely, no much more likely, that someone who is living with nothing will risk their life, for example, stealing as opposed to risking their life fighting for socialism. If you are starving and homeless aside from the fact that your conditions are going to make it pretty hard to engage in meaningful political activity (whatever this may be...) you are hardly going to get food and house joining a revolution that, lets face it, is many many years off. Socialism can feed people, socialists can't.


If such conditions are not present for a large section of the population, or that of a class, it will not declare revolutionary war.The conditions that are required are more to do with class exploitation than lack of income.


No matter how wonderful socialism might seem, most workers will not risk their lives to achieve it, until they have no other option.This is just not true at all. Most workers won't risk their life for socialism even if they have nothing.
And I don't think history really agrees with you here.


On the other hand, a fight for the next meal by individual workers turns into a class war in the field, during the course of struggle.This I can agree with more, but the point still being if everyone is fighting for their next meal chances are they are going to end up fighting each other before they fight the state.

And while this may end up getting the next meal;


As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for -- but we fight for roses, too!

[RED DAVE]

Can anyone else here list the prices ?Start here.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

What would you say to Lin Biao's argument that "the spiritual atom bomb that the masses possess is far mightier than the physical atom bomb"?

That quote only applies to the internal class struggle, not to the global struggle between north and south. If several millions people from the Third World are invading the First World, the First World population would most likely be so scared that they would support their leaders in unleashing nuclear rain on the Third World, killing billions of people.

Historically, technological supremacy has most often defeated sheer numbers, as exemplified by Alexander's conquest of Persia, the Mongol Empire, the Spanish Empire and the British Empire, as well as Israel's continued military victories in conventional warfare against numerically superior Arab armies.

But that doesn't really apply, since you follow scripture and not logic or empiricism. Or you are a troll.

[Kléber]

That quote only applies to the internal class struggle, not to the global struggle between north and south. If several millions people from the Third World are invading the First World, the First World population would most likely be so scared that they would support their leaders in unleashing nuclear rain on the Third World, killing billions of people.

Historically, technological supremacy has most often defeated sheer numbers, as exemplified by Alexander's conquest of Persia, the Mongol Empire, the Spanish Empire and the British Empire, as well as Israel's continued military victories in conventional warfare against numerically superior Arab armies.
The MTW's are wrong that revolution (even if it is indeed most likely to happen in neo-colonial countries) should take the form of nationalist dictatorships pillaging Europe and North America, but I'm not sure I completely agree with you. How would history have gone if revolutionaries were always in fear of the technological might of knights, cannons, helicopters and tanks of the ruling classes?

[Dimentio]

The MTW's are wrong that revolution (even if it is indeed most likely to happen in neo-colonial countries) should take the form of nationalist dictatorships pillaging Europe and North America, but I'm not sure I completely agree with you. How would history have gone if revolutionaries were always in fear of the technological might of knights, cannons, helicopters and tanks of the ruling classes?

There's a difference between overthrowing an unpopular government through people's war or fighting an insurgency against an occupying power - and invading a technologically superior foreign oppressor, where the population largely are behind their elite.

[Amphictyonis]

Off topic:

What is Monkey Smashes Heaven supposed to mean? Is it suggesting that third world workers are monkeys trying to smash Heaven(First World)?

3R_-3w_Iwk0

It means... the creature in the sky....got sucked in a hole now there's a hole in the sky...

and the ground's not cold and if the ground's not cold everything is gonna burn... we'll all take turns...I'll get mine too. ;)

[Dimentio]

Monkey Smashes Heaven is actually a name derived from a fetischisation of racist stereotypes of the MTW's, much like how gangsta rap often could idealise white prejudice about inner-city blacks.

[red cat]

Quite obviously though we have different conceptions of revolution. I don't believe the primary characteristic of a revolution is 'declaring war' (if we are talking in a military sense here) or risking your life. But if we are talking about risking lives it is just as likely, no much more likely, that someone who is living with nothing will risk their life, for example, stealing as opposed to risking their life fighting for socialism. If you are starving and homeless aside from the fact that your conditions are going to make it pretty hard to engage in meaningful political activity (whatever this may be...) you are hardly going to get food and house joining a revolution that, lets face it, is many many years off. Socialism can feed people, socialists can't.

Stealing happens when fewer people are at the extreme end of poverty. When more drift to that side, organized robberies happen. When most of the population has got no other choice, then the robberies gain some different characteristics, which we all know. In fact, if an area experiencing increasing poverty is kept under observation, then it is very difficult or even impossible to state when the acts of theft change to those of robbery and when these in turn change to a war against the ruling class.



The conditions that are required are more to do with class exploitation than lack of income.The economic aspect of class exploitation is mostly lack of income.


This is just not true at all. Most workers won't risk their life for socialism even if they have nothing.
And I don't think history really agrees with you here.If a large portion of the working class drops down to that level of poverty, then violent struggles are initiated in many places. These in certain cases join together to form a bigger class struggle.


This I can agree with more, but the point still being if everyone is fighting for their next meal chances are they are going to end up fighting each other before they fight the state.This is a possibility, but I'll say that in the course of prolonged struggle, the working class tends to correctly identify its true class enemies.

[bricolage]

Stealing happens when fewer people are at the extreme end of poverty. When more drift to that side, organized robberies happen.
Not necessarily. There is nothing to say that those stealing will work together to do so or that they won't just steal from each other as opposed to acting in a collective fashion, however...

when these in turn change to a war against the ruling class.
revolution is not the generalisation and theft and the ruling class does not hold class domination by having things in shops windows. You cant steal production and while collective appropriation is most likely to be a part of revolutionary moments it is not where they start and is not what they are defined by.

The economic aspect of class exploitation is mostly lack of income.
More so the extraction of surplus value. Low income is a side effect.

If a large portion of the working class drops down to that level of poverty, then violent struggles are initiated in many places.
I'm not denying poverty breeds violence but...

These in certain cases join together to form a bigger class struggle.
There is nothing to say such violence will be of a class dimension or even be anything but self-destruction (the bad kind).

I think the other point is you have yet to show why it is not in the interests of non-impoverished workers to abolish capitalism if they identity capitalism as exploitative and identify their interests as the abolition of such exploitation. Like I said before, being able to not worry about where your next meal or roof over your head comes from in many cases leaves you more time to worry about socialism. But I'm not saying wealthier workers are more revolutionary than poorer ones, just that this categorisation isn't that useful as such revolutionary potential is the product of a myriad of reasons (of which income may be one of many, but might not).

[quote]This is a possibility, but I'll say that in the course of prolonged struggle, the working class tends to correctly identify its true class enemies.
Only if it identifies itself as the working class.

[gorillafuck]

i.e. They're objectively demanding the super-exploitation of third world working people by the French bourgeoisie, according to this theory.
But they're not demanding that they get more while the bourgeoisie get the same that they have been getting through more exploitation of the third world. They're wanting the French bourgeoisie to provide more for them. Your theory is objectively opposed to class struggle.

[Zanthorus]

If a person is not poor or insecure enough, in most cases, he does not take the risk of declaring a war, which could directly threaten his life.

Except that, during the 1848 revolutions, it wasn't the poorest workers fighting for Communism, or for any kind of radical political change. They were fighting for purely economic gains, as they had been politically pacified by decades of un or under employment. The ones joining the Communist League and the Cologne Democratic Society, the ones fighting for fundamental political change, they were all skilled workers, artisans and master-craftsmen.

Lenin's idea that lack of revolutionary potential occurs from increases in wages and living conditions, and that layers of first-world workers can be 'bought off' by Imperialism, was falsified by the time he was even putting forward the analysis. When Engels had referred to the 'bourgeois labour party', the right-wing of the TUC which opposed the struggle for the eight hour day, supposedly because they were 'bought off' by British colonialism, he had been referring to sections of the class like the miners and the railway workers. Yet these are two sections of the class which throughout the past century in Britain have proved to be some of the most militant. Workers with bettern pay and living conditions generally have a better bargaining position from which to organise against their employers, and are less susceptible to the kind of threats which could shut down organised labour. By contrast, workers with low wages and living conditions are often in a poor position to organise in defence of their own interests. But for Marxists who take their lead to some extent from the 'centre' tendency of the Second International - Karl Kautsky, August Bebel, Jules Guesde and Vladimir Ulyanov himself - what makes the working-class a potential agent for revolutionary social change is precisely it's capacity to organise collectively in defence of it's own interest.

In point of fact, unorganised and impoverished workers have in the past formed a bass for mass right-wing politics, and still do. I quote from this weeks Weekly Worker:


“We pay your benefits,” they [the EDL] chanted at the anti-fascists. To be honest, it is more likely that the opposite was true. Despite the presence of some petty bourgeois elements in the EDL ranks, here was a dead-end mob largely recruited from the poorest and least employed elements of British society.http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004147

Finally, if reformism and opportunism were linked with impoverishment, we would expect to see more exclusively revolutionary parties in third world countries, and less social-democratic and reformist parties. Yet precisely these latter kind of parties do exist and in some cases have large popular influence in third world countries.

[chegitz guevara]

Prices vary by region and by store. You could probably google average staple prices in the U.S.

MRD is off by about 20%. The national average wage for 2009 was just under $41K.

The median household income for 2009 was just under $50K. That means, half of all families were above, half of all families were below.

More than 47% of all individuals make under $25K. and another 28% make between $25K and $50K. More than three quarters of Americans make less than $50K. But, because most families have more than one income, it pushes the median household income up.


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=a7jenngfc4um7_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=personal_income_per_capita&hl=en&dl=en

This one is kind interesting
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-us-household-income-numbers/

Basically, $55K doesn't go very far for a family of four (or even a family of two, as I can testify). More than half their income is taken up in taxes, SSI, and housing costs. That leaves about $1600 a month for everything else. Figure at least half of that is going to food. Then you have utilities, insurance, travel expenses, clothes, and very quickly you can see that family is gonna go into debt. I haven't even included health yet.

It seems like a lot of money, especially if you're really poor. But it gets eaten real quick. The fact is, people on the margins find alterante ways to make ends meet: shuffle bills, charity, theft, sharing expenses with others, etc. Or they just do without. Health care is the big one people do without.

[Red Bayonet]

MTWs are a US Army/police intelligence instigated plot. Just look at Denver RAIM.