Marx and Engels Disproved MTW?

[Soseloshvili]

I was just re-reading Volume 1 of Marx's Capital, and found that in the introduction by Ernst Mandel, there's actually a reference to something that both Marx and Lenin said that defeats the theories of Maoism-Third-Worldism, mainly the theory that First Worlders are never proletarian, as they make tens of thousands while Third Worlders starve, and that this is because First Worlders collectively extort money from Third Worlders through Imperialism and therefore, make up an entire oppressor class.

Turns out that both Marx and Lenin wrote that in developed countries, wages would have to be higher because in developed countries the worker's conception of what constitutes an "acceptable" wage is higher, so the bourgeoisie are forced to forfeit more to keep the proletariat docile. Mandel referred to this as the "historical-moral needs of the working class":


If one compares Marx's own economic theory of wages to the opinions held by academic economists of his time, one sees at once the step forward which he accomplished. For one he points out not only that labour-power, having been transformed by Capitalism into a commodity of all other commodities, but also that the value of labour-power has a characteristic distinct from that of all other commodities - to wit that it is dependent on two elements: the physiological needs and the historical-moral needs of the working class....

...The physical capacity to work can be measured by the calory inputs that have to compensate losses of energy. But the willingness to work at a given rythm, a given intensity, under given conditions, with a given equipment of higher and higher value and increasing vulnerability, presupposes a level of consumption which is not simply equivalent to a sum-total of calories, but is also a function of what is commonly considered by the working class to be its "current", "habitual" standard of living. Marx notes these havitual standards very greatly from country to country, and are generally higher in those countries which have an advanced, developed Capitalist industry than in those which are still at pre-industrial levels, or are going through the throes of "primative" industrial capital accumulation.

We thus reach an unexpected conclusion: according to this aspect of Marx's work, real wages would actually have to be higher in more advanced Capitalist countries - and therefore also in more advanced stages of Capitalism - than in less developed countries

So basically, First Worlders don't necessarily earn their money by extorting it from Third Worlders. It's just that here, there is a "historical-moral" ideal of what we are worth that is higher than that of the semi-industrialized Third World(that's not even mentioning the fact that the cost of living is much higher in the First World).

Marx always maintained that Imperialism was a movement of the Aristocracy and Bourgeoisie, not of whole nations. Only by this link of "exploitation through extortion" have Maoist-Third-Worldist been able to de-proletarianize the First World working class. However it just isn't so, our psychological monetary self-worth actually causes First Worlders to cost the bourgeoisie more. This is why the bourgeoisie take advantage of Third World labour, because the proletariat of the Third World have yet to place themselves at a higher monetary worth with by a sort of collective psychology like the First World has.

Mandel makes reference to the following quotes by Marx and Lenin to prove their being proponents of this idea:


This much, however, can even now be mentioned in passing, namely that the relative restriction on the sphere of the workers' consumption (which is only quantitative, not qualitative, or rather, only qualitative as positions though the quantitative) gives them as consumers .... an entirely different importance as agents of productionnfrom that which they possessed e.g. in antiquity or in the Middle Ages, or now possess in Asia.


The more productive the world market, the higher will be its wages, as compared with the other.


.... when discussing the relation between the growth of capitalism and of the “market,” we must not lose sight of the indubitable fact that the development of capitalism inevitably entails a rising level of requirements for the entire population, including the industrial proletariat. This rise is created in general by the increasing frequency of exchange of products, which results in more frequent contacts between the inhabitants of town and country, of different geographical localities, and so forth. It is also brought about by the crowding together, the concentration of the industrial proletariat, which enhances their class-consciousness and sense of human dignity and enables them to wage a successful struggle against the predatory tendencies of the capitalist system. This law of increasing requirements has manifested itself with full force in the history of Europe—compare, for example, the French proletariat of the end of the eighteenth and of the end of the nineteenth centuries, or the British worker of the 1840’s and of today. This same law operates in Russia, too: the rapid development of commodity economy and capitalism in the post-Reform epoch has caused a rise in the level of requirements of the “peasantry,” too: the peasants have begun to live a “cleaner” life (as regards clothing, housing, and so forth). That this undoubtedly progressive phenomenon must be placed to the credit of Russian capitalism and of nothing else is proved if only by the generally known fact (noted by all the investigators of our village handicrafts and of peasant economy in general) that the peasants of the industrial localities live a far “cleaner” life than the peasants engaged exclusively in agriculture and hardly touched by capitalism.

Really, as Maoists you follow the Marx-Engels-Lenin line, and are therefore both Leninists and Marxists. What I'm showing you here is that Marxism and Leninism are in direct contradiction with Maoism-Third-Worldism.

Are there any counter-justifications, I'm interested to hear. Just as a sidenote I'm actually impartial to MTW, I'm not militantly against it or for it.

[ComradeMan]

Dude... when was Das Kapital written? Did that thought cross your mind?

[Soseloshvili]

Dude... when was Das Kapital written? Did that thought cross your mind?

The introduction by Mandel was written in 1976. That's not really ancient, in fact it can be considered modern. So even if you want to discard Marx and Lenin as being "old" (which I wouldn't understand, as they are very relevant despite their age) what I said can still be proven by the more "contemporary" writings of Ernst Mandel.

[Dean]

Indeed, the very concept of Surplus Value, which is explained in Chapter 9 (and the preceding chapters culminate in this discussion), postulates that the laborer is not given the full rate of value which is his due in accordance with the market valuation of his product. The rate at which this surplus value is realized is also the rate of valorization of capital.


If you are reading the introduction by Mandel, I take it you're reading the Ben Fowkes translation? So far that is the best one I've found.

[Victory]

Really, as Maoists you follow the Marx-Engels-Lenin line, and are therefore both Leninists and Marxists. What I'm showing you here is that Marxism and Leninism are in direct contradiction with Maoism-Third-Worldism.

Are there any counter-justifications, I'm interested to hear. Just as a sidenote I'm actually impartial to MTW, I'm not militantly against it or for it.

We don't treat everything Marx and Engel’s said as eternal fact or dogma, which is why we're Maoist-Third Worldists in the first place. We've looked at the conditions existing in the world today and applied a global class analysis. Although we are Marxists, in contrast to most keyboard-Communists, we do not treat Marxism, Leninism or any other theoritcal works as static.

In reference to, "Marxism and Leninism are in direct contradiction with Maoism-Third-Worldism.", such a response is dogmatic, as what you are saying is that 'the only way to be a Leninist or a Marxist is to agree with everything they ever said'.

Maoism-Third Worldism had not even been theorised in the backward times of the 19th and early 20th century. Capitalism has changed since then, which is why much of what people said in the 19th and early 20th century is not relevent to the Capitalism of today.

With that said;

"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

“The minority puts a dogmatic view in place of the critical, and an idealist one in place of the materialist. They regard mere discontent, instead of real conditions, as the driving wheel of revolution. Whereas we tell the workers; You have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national liberation struggles, not only in order to change conditions but also to change yourselves and make yourselves capable of political rule; you, on the contrary, say; ‘We must come to power immediately, or else we may as well go to sleep’. Whilst we make a special point of directing the German workers’ attention to the underdeveloped state of the German proletariat, you flatter the national feeling and the status-prejudice of the German artisans in the crudest possible way - which, admittedly is more popular. Just as the word “people” has been made holy by the democrats, so the world “proletariat” has been made holy by you.” - Karl Marx - on the 1850 split in the German Communist League

"Dogmatism ...run[s] counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid." - Mao Zedong, 1957

"If Marx were alive today he would use his scientific method to apply a global class analysis, and he would see clearly that the wealth of the First World is the result of thievery. Right in the Communist Manifesto Marx clearly defines the proletariat as a class that owns nothing, is immiserated, and has nothing to sell but its labor power. This is an exact description of today's Third World masses, minus the compradors and collaborators. Thus, the revolutionary class is found in the Third World."

[ComradeMan]

-double post- please delete- server meltdown!

[ComradeMan]

We don't treat everything Marx and Engel’s said as eternal fact or dogma, which is why we're Maoist-Third Worldists in the first place. We've looked at the conditions existing in the world today and applied a global class analysis. Although we are Marxists, in contrast to most keyboard-Communists, we do not treat Marxism, Leninism or any other theoritcal works as static....

Interesting points and what I meant when I made the comment about when Das Kapital was written.

It depends too on perception and perspective. Do you analyse things on a horizontal global scale, state by state or nation by nation or do you analyse things on a vertical scale state by state?

However although I do understand where Third Worldists are coming from I do think they are too extreme in their views too. They seem to forget that capitalism and capitalists operate in a modern multi-national, globalised world and thus demonising the proletariat/ex-proletariat of the post-industrial nations is also unfair. The former proletariat are no longer necessary to industrial exploitations as such so instead we have credit exploitation and usury whereas in the developing, i.e. indusrtialising nations we find what was found in Europe and America at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. There are plenty of "workers" who are now unemployed in Europe or who have had to find other labour markets because the factories have moved to the developing world for cheaper labour? Should those workers now hate the workers of the developing world for undercutting their labour? When of course the old "first world" is completely imporverished and in debt and the developing world is fully industrialised with labour movements and all the rest the pendulum will probably swing back in the other direction and the developing (-ed) world will have it's have its credit-slavery and the factories in Europe and America will re-open to provide work for the impoverished and indebted workers- unless of course demographic trends affect this somehow.

Capitalism is parassitic- it moves, from one "field" to another and when the soil has been fully exploited and the harvest taken it needs to move to fresher fields and leave the old ones fallow for a while- as any good farmer will tell you. The rotation of these economic "fields" is the mechanism through which the capitalistic system ensures an economic niche in order to guarantee its survival.

[Milk Sheikh]

Interesting points and what I meant when I made the comment about when Das Kapital was written.

It depends too on perception and perspective. Do you analyse things on a horizontal global scale, state by state or nation by nation or do you analyse things on a vertical scale state by state?

During Marx's time, higher income levels were directly related to whether or not one owned the MoP. Not always, but most of the time. Today, things are entirely different. Entertainers, for instance, may not own the MoP, but they earn so much that it'd be ridiculous to call them 'workers.' Meaning, the definition of 'worker' has to be changed according to the change in social and economic conditions: MoP is less relevant today, and income levels are more relevant.


There are plenty of "workers" who are now unemployed in Europe or who have had to find other labour markets because the factories have moved to the developing world for cheaper labour? Should those workers now hate the workers of the developing world for undercutting their labour?

The factories are being moved to the developing world so as to create surplus value from the labor power of a vast pool of workers, technical and otherwise. A portion of that value goes toward welfare benefits of the first world workers. As you can see, first world workers, even the unemployed ones, benefit from the labor extracted from the third-world workers. This isn't a moral evaluation, and I don't think Maoist third-worldists are blaming or condemning the first-world workers in this instance; they're simply trying to highlight the fact 'third world labor' indirectly benefits not only the bourgeois but also the first-world workers.


Capitalism is parassitic- it moves, from one "field" to another and when the soil has been fully exploited and the harvest taken it needs to move to fresher fields and leave the old ones fallow for a while- as any good farmer will tell you. The rotation of these economic "fields" is the mechanism through which the capitalistic system ensures an economic niche in order to guarantee its survival.

All this may well be true, but the point is: as long as workers have something to lose, they won't fight against capitalism. Third-worldists claim this is especially true of first-world workers. Since they benefit from third-world labor, they might even have more in common with their bourgeois than they do with a fellow worker in the third-world.

They point to numerous wars, racist attitude toward immigrants, and all that as clear instances of first-world workers siding with their bosses and fighting against third-world workers. Not that one is agreeing with them, but I am just trying to give a more balanced picture here.

[Chris]

But why don't the MTW account for increased living costs and inflation in developed countries? A loaf of bread of the same quality costs much much more om the developed world than in the underdeveloped world.

In Norway, it is common that over half your income goes to housing. Now this isn't houses, an apartment in Oslo can easily cost over half a worker's monthly income.

When measuring income levels, at least account for something as basic as necessary living cost and various taxes. A normal norwegian worker can spend about 25-30% of his income on something else than housing and taxes, and some of that has to go to the neccessities of food/clothing.
Of course, these 25-30% of the income can by much more in terms of luxury goods than the same would go for a Nepalesan or Indian worker.


But arent the MTW doing exactly the same as union scabs? Their glorification of a % of workers, is splitting the working class movement as a whole. The only MTWs I've ever met have been from bourgeois or petite-bourgeois families (most of them being students), and it seems to me that them looking down on the common worker in the developed world is as much with their own insecurity regarding their own class as anything else. They can't bear to look in the eyes of the workers who have put them in that position, the justify themselves by saying that those workers are not "real" workers.
Of course this is just my own experience with MTWs from the "First" World.

Splitting up workers in developed/undeveloped world, we can just as well start splitting miners/factory workers/lumberjacks/office workers and so on and so on. Someone getting a 2% payraise doesn't make them less of a proletarian, especially considering the rampant inflation in countries.

[ComradeMan]

The factories are being moved to the developing world so as to create surplus value from the labor power of a vast pool of workers, technical and otherwise. A portion of that value goes toward welfare benefits of the first world workers. As you can see, first world workers, even the unemployed ones, benefit from the labor extracted from the third-world workers. This isn't a moral evaluation, and I don't think Maoist third-worldists are blaming or condemning the first-world workers in this instance; they're simply trying to highlight the fact 'third world labor' indirectly benefits not only the bourgeois but also the first-world workers.

-Welfare benefits in the firts world are by no means universal to start with. Some countries like Sweden have relatively good systems but others such as Italy hardly have any at all, they stop you from starving to death on the street. The US had little welfare benefit either compared to other nations. The third-worldists also do note that the welfare and state safetry nets are being cut back left-right-and-centre too. The first world workers do not benefit from the exploitation of third world labour. I say they contribute to it indirectly/inadvertently but that is a different argument.

-Trickle down effects are well documented, capitalists use the same argument to say that the proletariat benefit from capitalism.


All this may well be true, but the point is: as long as workers have something to lose, they won't fight against capitalism. Third-worldists claim this is especially true of first-world workers. Since they benefit from third-world labor, they might even have more in common with their bourgeois than they do with a fellow worker in the third-world.

-But times have changed. Europe is largely post-industrial and has moved from being societies that produce to societies that consume, usually on credit.

-The third world workers have something to lose too, if they don't collaborate with their labour with the first world multinationals etc. Poor people in Europe could accuse the labour of the third world of collaboration and undermining the work of 150 years of labour movements in the "West".


They point to numerous wars, racist attitude toward immigrants, and all that as clear instances of first-world workers siding with their bosses and fighting against third-world workers. Not that one is agreeing with them, but I am just trying to give a more balanced picture here.

-But aren't the third-worlders expressing a form of racism towards the western proletariat? Third-worlders can also hold pretty damn reactionary attitudes too.

- ditto.

[Dean]

In reference to, "Marxism and Leninism are in direct contradiction with Maoism-Third-Worldism.", such a response is dogmatic, as what you are saying is that 'the only way to be a Leninist or a Marxist is to agree with everything they ever said'.


This doesn't follow. Pointing out contradictions between two sets of ideas don't indicate a dogmatic stance toward either one.

Also [email protected]"keyboard communists." WTF do you think you are?

[Raúl Duke]

Also [email protected]"keyboard communists." WTF do you think you are?

QFT

Unless you're a guerrilla in the "3rd world," etc than you're just a hypocrite.

I think a re-evaluation is needed. Many people working minimum wage here barely make a living in the US, even if that wage is in some ways higher than in the 3rd world.

I remember a man from Immokalee saying that his wages in America were actually more or less the same as in Mexico if you take into account its relation to cost of living, the only issue is that there's less agricultural jobs in Mexico/Central America due to Nafta.

[Soseloshvili]

We don't treat everything Marx and Engel’s said as eternal fact or dogma, which is why we're Maoist-Third Worldists in the first place. We've looked at the conditions existing in the world today and applied a global class analysis. Although we are Marxists, in contrast to most keyboard-Communists, we do not treat Marxism, Leninism or any other theoritcal works as static.

Funny, it seems to me that whenever I say something that can be taken as anti-Marxist a Maoist is always there to tell me how I'm in contradiction with Marxism and Leninism. So a Maoist is the ideal Marxist-Leninist in his own mind, insofar as Marxism-Leninism doesn't contradict his / her ideology, at which point your revert to referring to those attempting to prove you wrong as people who use Marx and Lenin as justifications and claim Maoism is independent from both Leninism and Marxism.

Keyboard Communists, I like it. I'm going to use that sometime now.

But seriously, everyone on this website is a "keyboard Communist", especially Maoist-Third-Worldists as there aren't any organized iniatives by the Maoist-Third-Worldist movement for them to actually take part in.

At least as a "First Worldist" Communist, as you would label me, I help organize campaigns and help organize social action groups. Not to mention unionizing my work place. So I don't really fit this "keyboard Communist" label


Maoism-Third Worldism had not even been theorised in the backward times of the 19th and early 20th century. Capitalism has changed since then, which is why much of what people said in the 19th and early 20th century is not relevent to the Capitalism of today.

You deny that there was a Third World in the earlier 20th and 19th centuries? Well, that's clearly misguided. Yes, the very size of the Third World proletariat as it exists today is much larger than it was during the time of Marx or Lenin, however it did exist, very much so.

Marx wrote constantly about the exploitation foreign business imposed on the peoples of Asia, or the primitive industries (such as mining) imposed upon the peoples of Africa to force them into a colonized mode by many European corporations of the time. Same goes for the people of India, the people of Eastern Europe (even more so during Marx's time, but even to some degree during Lenin's time) and the Aboriginal peoples of the Americas.

That and considering your entire ideology is based off of concepts such as Class War, Surplus-Value, The unequal division of Capital among independent economic forces (companies), and things such as socially recognized / unrecognized labour (all of which are 19th century ideas), that means your entire ideology of Communist according to you isn't "relevent to Capitalism today"


With that said;

"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

You see, here's a common misunderstanding. In this quotation, Lenin never refers to an entire country as a parasite. He is merely referring to the tendency of the Western bourgeoisie to take advantage of places with a sort of "super-majority" of workers, where the bourgeoisie is underdeveloped and makes up very very little of the population. Notice in this he never specificies "entire" countries.

Not to mention that it's documented (I'm not going to pull up a quote to prove this unless you challenge it) that Lenin actively believed that revolutionary Russia's greatest ally would be the German working class (which by your definition aren't Proletarian at all, especially if you use this quote as proof which is of Lenin's time)


“The minority puts a dogmatic view in place of the critical, and an idealist one in place of the materialist. They regard mere discontent, instead of real conditions, as the driving wheel of revolution. Whereas we tell the workers; You have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national liberation struggles, not only in order to change conditions but also to change yourselves and make yourselves capable of political rule; you, on the contrary, say; ‘We must come to power immediately, or else we may as well go to sleep’. Whilst we make a special point of directing the German workers’ attention to the underdeveloped state of the German proletariat, you flatter the national feeling and the status-prejudice of the German artisans in the crudest possible way - which, admittedly is more popular. Just as the word “people” has been made holy by the democrats, so the world “proletariat” has been made holy by you.” - Karl Marx - on the 1850 split in the German Communist League

"Dogmatism ...run[s] counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid." - Mao Zedong, 1957

So... you're sourcing Marx and Mao... to prove to me that by using Marx and Lenin as my source I'm being dogmatic. Hypocritical contradictions, for the win.


"If Marx were alive today he would use his scientific method to apply a global class analysis, and he would see clearly that the wealth of the First World is the result of thievery. Right in the Communist Manifesto Marx clearly defines the proletariat as a class that owns nothing, is immiserated, and has nothing to sell but its labor power. This is an exact description of today's Third World masses, minus the compradors and collaborators. Thus, the revolutionary class is found in the Third World."

Source this quote, please.

[Comrade Marcel]

Ernst Mandell? Srsly? "Euro-comminism?

BTW, MSH answered this sort of stuff already:

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/revisiting-the-value-of-labor-power/

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/real-versus-fake-marxism-on-socialist-distribution/

I find it rather odd that you are using M & E's description of a time when there was a proletarian in the countries that are now 1st world to prove that there is a proletarian NOW even though the conditions are completely different. Read more M & E, and you will hear them describe the proletarian:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm

For example.

[Amphictyonis]

Dude... when was Das Kapital written? Did that thought cross your mind?

Marx predicted globalization. He didnt use that term but he predicted it none the less.

[Amphictyonis]

China is the backbone of capitalism. What would Mao say about that? Marx and Engels would also laugh at the prospect of the undeveloped third world overthrowing the bourgeoisie without the help of workers in the advanced capitalist nations.

If anything China is now actually ready for a true socialist revolution (now that it has developed under capitalism).

[Victory]

It makes me cringe when I hear people claim that "Maoism-Third Worldism is racist towards the advanced Capitalist workers".

Maoism-Third Worldism is a strategic theory for overthrowing Capitalism on a global scale. It holds the primary belief that the most effective means to overthrow the global Capitalist system is through the developing world, which the developed world depends on for productive forces, and believes should be used as the base of operations for overthrowing Capitalism and spreading Socialism on a global scale.

People can't come to grips with the correct understanding that Maoism-Third Worldism is a revolutionary strategic theory, as similar to a military strategic theory, but on a global scale

I've said such many times before, and explained it in-detail. But no matter what I or anybody says; Nothing is going to change your mind, because you've already made up your mind and incorrectly cast MTW aside as a 'racist', 'reactionary' and 'anti-advanced Capitalist working class' theory.

[scarletghoul]

Third Worldism is bullshit, sorry Victory. Its not necessarily 'racist' or anything like that, the problem is that it's completely short-sighted and undialectical. We had a conversation before where you said how only third world countries were anywhere near revolution so therefore they are the only hope. That's rubbish. Things are constantly changing, and no first world country can keep its workers happy forever. Things are starting here in Europe, even if at a very early stage. You can't just tail existing revolutions, you should help build the revolutionary movement here. To reject Europe as having no hope of revolution is to be a complete idiot.

[Soseloshvili]

Seriously, all of you trying to argue for MTW haven't answered the three major questions I and others posed here:

1) Because the workers of the first world grew up in a much more developed surrounding, they have different "historical-moral needs" from their rulers, the bourgeoisie. Basically, in the first world, since you see around you a higher standard of living you evaluate yourself as "worth" what you see around you as the norm.

This is why the third world proletariat is so alluring for the first world bourgeoisie. It has no "moral-historical needs" like First Worlders. This doesn't mean that the First World have instead become oppressors alongside the bourgeoisie, that just means that they are in a more developed stage of Capitalism.

2) In the First World, the cost of living far exceeds the cost of living in the Third World. Mainly, this comes in the form that we're entirely dependent on commodities. In the Third World, things still are much the way they were in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the First World: commodities are an option. Many workers in the Third World (probably most) have access to Community-, Family- or Self-owned livestock, crops and water. This isn't an option for us, we have to pay the bourgeoisie for every little thing we need. We even pay for our water.

This isn't to mention the very phenomenon of rent, and debt. Third Worlders aren't exposed to rent, most of them have constructed their own living space. However, like a comrade from Norway mentioned above, rent here takes up a significant portion of our wages. I know that here, in Toronto, it's not uncommon to see people paying +$2000 easily for rent a month for an apartment.

3) Maoism-Third-Worldism is in contradiction with Marxism and Leninism, pure and simple. The main claim I see here is "times have changed, Marx doesn't apply". Well that would be a lack of understanding on your part, considering absolutely everything you believe in is a direct interpretation of Marxism-Leninism. Marx predicted every major action of Capitalism in a time when it was still in its infancy. Like a comrade above mentioned, globalization was predicted by Marx. So was the free trade movement, so was Monopoly Capitalism, so was Capitalism's tendency to rely more and more on machinery. He also predicted that in more developed countries, workers would make more money. This happened. He never said they'd stop being workers, on the contrary he said this would be a good thing. You do say that, therefore you are in contradiction with the principles of the ideology you believe in.

I would like it if some proponent of MTW could respond to these questions, instead of beating around the bush.


It makes me cringe when I hear people claim that "Maoism-Third Worldism is racist towards the advanced Capitalist workers".

Did anyone here say that? :confused: I don't believe so. I strongly disagree with that statement anyway.


Maoism-Third Worldism is a strategic theory for overthrowing Capitalism on a global scale. It holds the primary belief that the most effective means to overthrow the global Capitalist system is through the developing world, which the developed world depends on for productive forces, and believes should be used as the base of operations for overthrowing Capitalism and spreading Socialism on a global scale.

It is also the belief that the workers of the First World have essentially de-proletarianized, throwing in their lot with the bourgeoisie, and must be overthrown with the bourgeoisie. Don't try to tell me it isn't that, don't make me laugh. Every proponent of MTW seems to tell me how I'm nothing but an exploiter myself, and am no longer a worker.


People can't come to grips with the correct understanding that Maoism-Third Worldism is a revolutionary strategic theory, as similar to a military strategic theory, but on a global scale

So, you're claiming your ideology is military strategy, and not an ideology? It is entirely an ideology, an interpretation of Maoism (an ideology) based of the the writings of Lin Biao (a theorist, meaning MTW is a theory, another word for which is ideology). It cannot be denied to be as such.


I've said such many times before, and explained it in-detail. But no matter what I or anybody says; Nothing is going to change your mind, because you've already made up your mind and incorrectly cast MTW aside as a 'racist', 'reactionary' and 'anti-advanced Capitalist working class' theory.

I quote the last thing I wrote for the opening post of this thread:


Are there any counter-justifications, I'm interested to hear. Just as a sidenote I'm actually impartial to MTW, I'm not militantly against it or for it.

I'm NOT militant against or for MTW. I wanted to hear people's responses. I don't believe MTW is "racist" (that doesn't even make sense). You're definately not reactionary, you stick up for Third World proletarians.

"Anti-advanced Capitalist working class" sounds about right, and really, if you are pro-MTW, this shouldn't be an insult to you.

[Soseloshvili]

Oh, I forgot to respond to this one

*ahem* and hopefully by responding to it someone will actually respond to me instead of letting this thread die *ahem*


During Marx's time, higher income levels were directly related to whether or not one owned the MoP. Not always, but most of the time. Today, things are entirely different. Entertainers, for instance, may not own the MoP, but they earn so much that it'd be ridiculous to call them 'workers.' Meaning, the definition of 'worker' has to be changed according to the change in social and economic conditions: MoP is less relevant today, and income levels are more relevant.

This is plain and simple, a labour aristocracy. You take a kind of "all or nothing" approach to the proletariat it seems. Either all of them are workers, or none of them are workers. By this oversimplification and clear lack of knowledge of Marx and Lenin, you can claim MTW as truth.

I'm not denying that there's a labour aristocracy in the First World. Without a doubt, there is such a thing, and a sizeable one too. That doesn't mean that there isn't a First World proletariat!

[Milk Sheikh]

This is plain and simple, a labour aristocracy. You take a kind of "all or nothing" approach to the proletariat it seems. Either all of them are workers, or none of them are workers. By this oversimplification and clear lack of knowledge of Marx and Lenin, you can claim MTW as truth.

I'm not denying that there's a labour aristocracy in the First World. Without a doubt, there is such a thing, and a sizeable one too. That doesn't mean that there isn't a First World proletariat!

Isn't labor aristocracy a Trotskyist concept, rejected by other Marxists? Anyway, MTW may argue that most of these FW workers are in service industry, whereas TW workers are in manufacturing and therefore produce more value than they're paid for. They'll also point to less (and more flexible) working hours of FW workers and contrast it with the sweatshops in the TW.

[LeftSideDown]

The idea that you get higher wages simply because you think you deserve them is ridiculous. You're saying that third world workers would suddenly have American wages IF ONLY they thought that these wages were due them. You're saying that wages can be higher than productivity if workers just BELIEVE. Honestly, you should CLEARLY be able to see whats wrong with that theory pretty damn easily.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On the so-called 'aristocracy of labour', check this out:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1957/06/rootsref.htm

Comrades might recall the solidarity that workers throughout the 'first world' showed toward workers threatened with death for striking in Guatemala back in the 1980s:

http://www.globallabour.info/en/2009/08/3_boycott_cocacola.html

There are many other examples like this, which Maoists either do not know about, or prefer to forget.

[Revolution starts with U]

The idea that you get higher wages simply because you think you deserve them is ridiculous. You're saying that third world workers would suddenly have American wages IF ONLY they thought that these wages were due them. You're saying that wages can be higher than productivity if workers just BELIEVE. Honestly, you should CLEARLY be able to see whats wrong with that theory pretty damn easily.

First, we're saying wages could better reflect productivity if the workers just DEMAND it.
Second, it's true. American history is the greatest example of that. Wages did not even come close to reflecting productivity until the labor movement started to gain ground.
Crusoe
You know
Was make believe

[LeftSideDown]

First, we're saying wages could better reflect productivity if the workers just DEMAND it.
Second, it's true. American history is the greatest example of that. Wages did not even come close to reflecting productivity until the labor movement started to gain ground.
Crusoe
You know
Was make believe

I would like to see proof.

Company A pays its workers 3.50 dollars an hour, when the DMVP is $3.50.
Company A then cuts its pay to 3.45, their BEST workers leave and go to...
Company B which offers 3.50

Companies have an incentive to raise wages to DMVP to get the best workers from other places offering less than DMVP, and workers have the incentive to have wages as high as possible.

[L.A.P.]

I was just re-reading Volume 1 of Marx's Capital, and found that in the introduction by Ernst Mandel, there's actually a reference to something that both Marx and Lenin said that defeats the theories of Maoism-Third-Worldism, mainly the theory that First Worlders are never proletarian, as they make tens of thousands while Third Worlders starve, and that this is because First Worlders collectively extort money from Third Worlders through Imperialism and therefore, make up an entire oppressor class.

Turns out that both Marx and Lenin wrote that in developed countries, wages would have to be higher because in developed countries the worker's conception of what constitutes an "acceptable" wage is higher, so the bourgeoisie are forced to forfeit more to keep the proletariat docile. Mandel referred to this as the "historical-moral needs of the working class":



So basically, First Worlders don't necessarily earn their money by extorting it from Third Worlders. It's just that here, there is a "historical-moral" ideal of what we are worth that is higher than that of the semi-industrialized Third World(that's not even mentioning the fact that the cost of living is much higher in the First World).

Marx always maintained that Imperialism was a movement of the Aristocracy and Bourgeoisie, not of whole nations. Only by this link of "exploitation through extortion" have Maoist-Third-Worldist been able to de-proletarianize the First World working class. However it just isn't so, our psychological monetary self-worth actually causes First Worlders to cost the bourgeoisie more. This is why the bourgeoisie take advantage of Third World labour, because the proletariat of the Third World have yet to place themselves at a higher monetary worth with by a sort of collective psychology like the First World has.

Mandel makes reference to the following quotes by Marx and Lenin to prove their being proponents of this idea:







Really, as Maoists you follow the Marx-Engels-Lenin line, and are therefore both Leninists and Marxists. What I'm showing you here is that Marxism and Leninism are in direct contradiction with Maoism-Third-Worldism.

Are there any counter-justifications, I'm interested to hear. Just as a sidenote I'm actually impartial to MTW, I'm not militantly against it or for it.

I just think Third Worldists are more funny than a real opposing idea that I should take seriously.

[Soseloshvili]

Isn't labor aristocracy a Trotskyist concept, rejected by other Marxists? Anyway, MTW may argue that most of these FW workers are in service industry, whereas TW workers are in manufacturing and therefore produce more value than they're paid for. They'll also point to less (and more flexible) working hours of FW workers and contrast it with the sweatshops in the TW.

Labour aristocracy is not a Trotskyite concept. It is a Leninist one. Since you defend MTW, you've probably read Lenin's Imperialism, I suggest if you haven't you read it, if you have, revisit it. It mentions the labour aristocracy.

Also if you think service workers don't produce surplus value, you clearly have no conception of Marxism, read this, part 2 of a series by Political Affairs:

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/you-might-be-a-marxist-if-you-want-to-end-the-exploitation-of-workers-part/


The idea that you get higher wages simply because you think you deserve them is ridiculous. You're saying that third world workers would suddenly have American wages IF ONLY they thought that these wages were due them. You're saying that wages can be higher than productivity if workers just BELIEVE. Honestly, you should CLEARLY be able to see whats wrong with that theory pretty damn easily.

Obviously you have no conception of political economy. You just read everything I said and in your mind went "blah blah blah METAPHYSICAL"... essentially what Marx's critics did over 100 years ago. Like them, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course workers, if they believe (believe without realizing it, of course) that they are worth at least $50, will not work for $20. It is in the Capitalists best interest to keep the consumers complacent, and so must give them what they want (because though wages cut into their profits, a poor consumer cuts in even more). It's no coincidence that the more developed stage of Capitalism a country is in, the higher workers' wages (this is applicable everywhere).

There is very obvious proof of this. In Industrial America, do you see workers working for $2.00/ hour, like they would in say Bangladesh or Botswana? Well, since they're industrial workers, just like those in Bangladesh and Botswana, according to you they're worth the same (because according to you, what workers believe they are worth doesn't matter, all that matters is their physical capacity to work).

This is because the working American views himself as worth much more than a measly $2.00/ hour. In America, a worker assesses himself as being worth what it takes to buy food, his home, as well as several extra things he grew up knowing was normal; TV, a phone, et cetera. In Bangladesh, the worker has never known anything but the bare necessities. So he believes himself to be worth that $2.00.

Does this mean anything? No! No matter how golden your chains, you're still exploited. Not to mention cost of living increases that partially compensate.

[LeftSideDown]

Obviously you have no conception of political economy. You just read everything I said and in your mind went "blah blah blah METAPHYSICAL"... essentially what Marx's critics did over 100 years ago. Like them, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Of course workers, if they believe (believe without realizing it, of course) that they are worth at least $50, will not work for $20. It is in the Capitalists best interest to keep the consumers complacent, and so must give them what they want (because though wages cut into their profits, a poor consumer cuts in even more). It's no coincidence that the more developed stage of Capitalism a country is in, the higher workers' wages (this is applicable everywhere).

They will not work for $50, for a time. Their value scales are such that the principle (getting paid what I'm worth) is worth more than the lower wage. As soon as reality sinks in (unless this person is actually work that amount) and value scales shift as some things become more pressing (like hunger) he will be willing to shift his value scales. If I think my poop sculpture is worth $50 that doesn't mean it will sell for that much, and until I lower my price I will go hungry because I'm not a good entrepreneur. This is no one's fault. I'm not being exploited when someone pays me $1 just to shut me up and tell me to do something better with my life. You've got this awful concept in your head that capitalists are just fountains of wealth and they can pay any wages. No, they cannot pay more than the MVP and will tend to pay more than the DMVP. You cannot pay someone who makes one car a day more than one car a day without going out of business before long.


There is very obvious proof of this. In Industrial America, do you see workers working for $2.00/ hour, like they would in say Bangladesh or Botswana? Well, since they're industrial workers, just like those in Bangladesh and Botswana, according to you they're worth the same (because according to you, what workers believe they are worth doesn't matter, all that matters is their physical capacity to work).

I see people working for $0 dollars in America. I also see people PAYING to work. Its called internships. While you'll no doubt find something to say these aren't jobs, I figured I'd mention it. And no, in America you see 19% black youth unemployment because of a minimum wage laws that causes unemployment for some and boosts wages of others.


This is because the working American views himself as worth much more than a measly $2.00/ hour. In America, a worker assesses himself as being worth what it takes to buy food, his home, as well as several extra things he grew up knowing was normal; TV, a phone, et cetera. In Bangladesh, the worker has never known anything but the bare necessities. So he believes himself to be worth that $2.00.

And the reason that American workers can consistently do this is because they are, on average, much more productive. IF I think that I"m worth a huge house, a Mercedes Benz, an Alienware computer, and countless other amenities this does NOTHING to my wage. I cannot be paid more than I am productive, except where someone has made a mistake of my productivity. And I tell you this with certainty that the reason wages in America are so high is not because of systematic mistakes of capitalists in calculating wages.


Does this mean anything? No! No matter how golden your chains, you're still exploited. Not to mention cost of living increases that partially compensate.

I don't believe in the LTV, so I think if someone wants to sell his labor, he is not being exploited.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Wants" to...

[LeftSideDown]

"Wants" to...

Don't they? Sure, in an abstract sense, no one "wants to" have any costs. And yet costs are inherent in everything. Every action you take has costs and all costs are opportunity costs. So sure, we'd love not to have to economize time, costs and benefits, or resources. When you understand that no one does something where costs outweigh benefits, then you will realize that all action reveals preference, so if I decide that its worth the cost of working to receive certain benefits then I WANT that action. If I don't want the costs more than the benefits, I won't do it. The worker, if he isn't being forced by a gun to work, is profiting, at least psychically.

[Revolution starts with U]

The point is that the common man's ability to be productive entirely hinges on his need to sell his only piece of capital; his labor. He cannot invest and labor. He cannot invest in his own labor (not unless he happens to work for a benevolent capitalist, live in a welfare state, or is a skilled laborer, and only then over large amounts of time). LTV"s aside, labor is exploited by ownership as long as (private) ownership exists.

[LeftSideDown]

The point is that the common man's ability to be productive entirely hinges on his need to sell his only piece of capital; his labor. He cannot invest and labor. He cannot invest in his own labor (not unless he happens to work for a benevolent capitalist, live in a welfare state, or is a skilled laborer, and only then over large amounts of time). LTV"s aside, labor is exploited by ownership as long as (private) ownership exists.

What do you mean he cannot "invest" and labor? Tons of workers do this. Lots of people are paid in money and shares in a company, lots have investment funds or retirement plans, a LOT of people save money (savings = investment). He can invest in his own labor, he'll just be self employed.

Any exchange necessarily benefits both parties. If you are benefiting, in what sense are you being exploited? In that you could've benefited more had you gotten a higher price? So lets say you're paid whatever you make... under your criterion you're still being exploited because you could've benefited more if you had gotten a still higher price. The value of any item of exchange varies depending on who is trading, suffice it to say if I sell an orange for a book, I value a book more than an orange and the book owner values an orange more than the book. No one is exploited. If I sell 8 hours of labor for 56 dollars, I value 56 dollars more than 8 hours of my labor and whoever is trading dollars for labor values the 8 hours of labor more than 56 dollars. Only when someone is forced (not by circumstances) to make an exchange they would not make voluntarily is there exploitation.

[Revolution starts with U]

What do you mean he cannot "invest" and labor? Tons of workers do this. Lots of people are paid in money and shares in a company, lots have investment funds or retirement plans, a LOT of people save money (savings = investment). He can invest in his own labor, he'll just be self employed.
Yes, the liberal welfare state gives the worker much more labor protections than laissez faire. We are all well aware of this. This still does not apply to most unskilled labor. It also always subject to liquidation with no reimbursement. It's a good gain that labor struggled for 200 years for, but it's not worker's democracy.


Any exchange necessarily benefits both parties.
You forgot your qualifier "voluntary." :D
What you said means if I rob you, but leave you a stick of gum it "benefitied both" of us. Idk, in a sense it did.. at least you got that stick of gum :thumbup1:
Even w/ your qualifier, it's still rather ridiculous. Define voluntary, then define coercion and persuasion

If you are benefiting, in what sense are you being exploited?
Some slaves arguably had a better life in america than africa (if you define "better life" as something including technology and "modernity.)"

In that you could've benefited more had you gotten a higher price?
In the fact that because someone claims "ownership" over the means of producing value, one is entitled to charge interest for its use.

So lets say you're paid whatever you make... under your criterion you're still being exploited because you could've benefited more if you had gotten a still higher price.
If I am a wage laborer (I am not) I have no choice in the matter. It's not about a higher price. It's about prodicing something someone else is absolute control of (unaccountable private tyrannies). It's about democracy, and representation.

The value of any item of exchange varies depending on who is trading, suffice it to say if I sell an orange for a book, I value a book more than an orange and the book owner values an orange more than the book. No one is exploited. If I sell 8 hours of labor for 56 dollars, I value 56 dollars more than 8 hours of my labor and whoever is trading dollars for labor values the 8 hours of labor more than 56 dollars.
The first part and the second are not related in the slightest. One only obtains the orange, makes/obtains the book, or trades either of these through labor.

Only when someone is forced (not by circumstances) to make an exchange they would not make voluntarily is there exploitation
Those qualifiers there are where the problem lies in your theory.

[LeftSideDown]

Yes, the liberal welfare state gives the worker much more labor protections than laissez faire. We are all well aware of this. This still does not apply to most unskilled labor. It also always subject to liquidation with no reimbursement. It's a good gain that labor struggled for 200 years for, but it's not worker's democracy.

I don't think its a labor movement that made higher standards of living, but I'm too tired to bring up why.


You forgot your qualifier "voluntary." :D
What you said means if I rob you, but leave you a stick of gum it "benefitied both" of us. Idk, in a sense it did.. at least you got that stick of gum :thumbup1:
Even w/ your qualifier, it's still rather ridiculous. Define voluntary, then define coercion and persuasion

You're right, my bad. I should've put voluntary, although there is a sense in which exchange involves "voluntary" (if you look up http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exchange the definition there, most of them say "giving up something in exchange for something" not "having something taken in exchange for something).

Voluntary: Any action undertaken without coercion.
Coercion: the invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else's person or (just) property.
Persuasion: (I don't see why this is important, but I'll give it a crack) The use of non-coercive means, usually speech, employed to cause a shift in someone's scale of values.


Some slaves arguably had a better life in america than africa (if you define "better life" as something including technology and "modernity.)"

If its not voluntary, I don't care that they had an arguably higher standard of living. Some people do not want this and they should not be forced to work for it. The only time you're certain someone is benefiting is if they voluntarily act that way. Benefits are NOT objective.


In the fact that because someone claims "ownership" over the means of producing value, one is entitled to charge interest for its use.

My body is a means of producing value... is it unjust that I claim ownership over it and I can charge people for the use of its/my time?


If I am a wage laborer (I am not) I have no choice in the matter. It's not about a higher price. It's about prodicing something someone else is absolute control of (unaccountable private tyrannies). It's about democracy, and representation.

Of course you have a choice. You can choose not to work. You can live off your family, or spouse, or off a private charity, or on the streets off spare change. Or you can steal (not that I think you should). Or you can die. You have lots of choices. While they aren't all particularly desirable (in general), this is not the fault of the person who is offering you resources that could result in a situation that is more desirable to you.


The first part and the second are not related in the slightest. One only obtains the orange, makes/obtains the book, or trades either of these through labor.

I don't understand what you're saying, particularly the last sentence... can you make it more clear, please? And they are related. They are both exchanges. My point is, most reasonable people don't think exchanges of items are exploitative, so why is it that exchanges involving labor time are? If the worker undertakes them voluntarily, he is benefiting more than it is costing him (this is made evident by the fact that he is doing it voluntarily).


Those qualifiers there are where the problem lies in your theory.

Heres the problem. Communists have this whole thing of "they were forced by circumstances"... everyone is forced by circumstances, everyone is forced to economize. Even in a world of infinite abundance of everything, you would still have to economize time. You can say workers are forced by circumstances to sell their labor, but I can just as easily (and correctly) say capitalists are forced by circumstances to buy labor. The circumstance that is common to all humans is the existence of the value scale, but this value scale does not "force" you to pursue it, it is merely the ordering of your preferences that you will pursue. Because circumstances are not an outside agent, even if we do say people are "forced by circumstances" it means nothing.

[Rottenfruit]

All what those mtw loons do is attacking and bashing the working class and creating disunity among us, seriosuly if you care so much about third world workers why dont you focus on helping them instead of basing us "first worlders"

[RGacky3]

I would like to see proof.

Company A pays its workers 3.50 dollars an hour, when the DMVP is $3.50.
Company A then cuts its pay to 3.45, their BEST workers leave and go to...
Company B which offers 3.50

Companies have an incentive to raise wages to DMVP to get the best workers from other places offering less than DMVP, and workers have the incentive to have wages as high as possible.

or there is 10% unemployment and COmpany B does'nt need to hire anyone, and infact also cuts its cost to 3:45 because they need to to keep up with competition, otherwise they'll loose market share and thus fire people anyway.

Thats the problem with marketarians, they love to look at one aspect of the market and ignore everything else, you gotta look at the big picture.

Thats why your predictions (i.e. libertarians) NEVER HAPPEN!!!


And no, in America you see 19% black youth unemployment because of a minimum wage laws that causes unemployment for some and boosts wages of others.


WHeres the connection? There is no connection, maybe theres that because the market ignores poor areas because there is'nt a profit to be made there.

Heres what I want to know why are Norwegian workers doing so well? Why are German workers doing well? Why are French workers doing all right? But why are American workers doing so bad? Why are the Brits taking a hit? Don't get me started on Iceland, Sweeden is'nt doing to good either right now, Ireland is'nt doing to great either.

The interesting thing is Germany, Norway and France all have extremely strong labor organizations and strong democratic control of the economy (I don't mean tax and welfare, I mean actual democratic control).

The other countries dismantled most of that.

(For simplicities sake I'm talking about developed countries).

[LeftSideDown]

or there is 10% unemployment and COmpany B does'nt need to hire anyone, and infact also cuts its cost to 3:45 because they need to to keep up with competition, otherwise they'll loose market share and thus fire people anyway.

Thats the problem with marketarians, they love to look at one aspect of the market and ignore everything else, you gotta look at the big picture.

Thats why your predictions (i.e. libertarians) NEVER HAPPEN!!!

If you change labor to steel you will see what I mean. If there is an undervalued resource in the market, it is in the best interest of entrepreneurs to use this undervalued resource in a more valued way. The market clearing price is determined at the margin, so if a company tries to pay less than the market clearing price for a resource, that resource (regardless of whether or not it is owned by a firm or it is a worker) will move to where its most valued.


WHeres the connection? There is no connection, maybe theres that because the market ignores poor areas because there is'nt a profit to be made there.

Heres what I want to know why are Norwegian workers doing so well? Why are German workers doing well? Why are French workers doing all right? But why are American workers doing so bad? Why are the Brits taking a hit? Don't get me started on Iceland, Sweeden is'nt doing to good either right now, Ireland is'nt doing to great either.

The interesting thing is Germany, Norway and France all have extremely strong labor organizations and strong democratic control of the economy (I don't mean tax and welfare, I mean actual democratic control).

The other countries dismantled most of that.

(For simplicities sake I'm talking about developed countries).

Theres clearly a connection. Let me, for example, show you what happened to American Samoa when the minimum wage increased (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Ask-American-Samoa-how-minimum-wage-killed-jobs-82117032.html)

You're saying an increase in price has no affect on how a scarce resource is used. I'm saying there is.

Define workers doing "well"

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think its a labor movement that made higher standards of living, but I'm too tired to bring up why.


You can throw your theory out the window. Nobody is denying that capitalism is progressive. But if you think a scrap of that would have gotten down to the common man w/o the labor movement, you're out of your mind. Why do you think the labor movement developed in the first place?
The fact is, capitalism works... for the people at the top. And everyone has to fight tooth and nail for the scraps.



Voluntary: Any action undertaken without coercion.
Coercion: the invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else's person or (just) property.
Persuasion: (I don't see why this is important, but I'll give it a crack) The use of non-coercive means, usually speech, employed to cause a shift in someone's scale of values.

Speech cannot be coercive? What if I own all the food and land in an area and refuse to assist you, meaning you will starve... whithin my rights, or coercion?


If its not voluntary, I don't care that they had an arguably higher standard of living. Some people do not want this and they should not be forced to work for it. The only time you're certain someone is benefiting is if they voluntarily act that way. Benefits are NOT objective.
You asked, "if you are benefiting, how are you being exploited?"
Your attempts to differ the fact that you said slaves were not being exploited just shows how much really care whether your system works or not.




My body is a means of producing value... is it unjust that I claim ownership over it and I can charge people for the use of its/my time?

It can be. Are you chargin people for use of your labor to murder people?
You are only allowed to claim "ownership" because the community decides to allow you. There are no natural rights.



Of course you have a choice. You can choose not to work. You can live off your family, or spouse, or off a private charity, or on the streets off spare change. Or you can steal (not that I think you should). Or you can die. You have lots of choices.
And the cat comes out of the bag :thumbup:
What a choice there; work for ownership, steal, starve, or beg. Wow, what a statement...


While they aren't all particularly desirable (in general), this is not the fault of the person who is offering you resources that could result in a situation that is more desirable to you.

No it's not his fault. Not anymore than it is the murder witness' fault that the person was murdered.
It's the systems fault.




I don't understand what you're saying, particularly the last sentence... can you make it more clear, please? And they are related. They are both exchanges. My point is, most reasonable people don't think exchanges of items are exploitative, so why is it that exchanges involving labor time are? If the worker undertakes them voluntarily, he is benefiting more than it is costing him (this is made evident by the fact that he is doing it voluntarily).


An exchange is labor. There's a fundamental difference between an apple, and labor, in that the human race does not exist, make things, or trade them w/o labor. The problem is, in capitalism, common labor, and since most are unskilled that means common people, become a simple commodity at the mercy of ownership.


Heres the problem. Communists have this whole thing of "they were forced by circumstances"... everyone is forced by circumstances, everyone is forced to economize.
Here's the thing. What you're saying is true, to an extent. The difference is that common people don't have the same choices that inheritance does. Ownership, regardless of how it was obtained, gives you the choice to work, or live off investments. Labor can only make that decision in the future; and only then if they are subject to a benevolent capitalist, are skilled laborers, or live under a capitalist welfare state.

Even in a world of infinite abundance of everything, you would still have to economize time. You can say workers are forced by circumstances to sell their labor, but I can just as easily (and correctly) say capitalists are forced by circumstances to buy labor.
That's ridiculous and you know it. I can't even respond to that coherently ...capitalists are forced to buy labor... fuck if they could get robots to do it cheaper they wouldn't buy labor at all. Labor would continue to work, at something, because that's what humans do....
I remember Rush Limbaugh saying once "wealthy people are forced to send their personal shoppers to target because of this recession. what a terrible world we live in." What you said is just as nuts as that.


The circumstance that is common to all humans is the existence of the value scale, but this value scale does not "force" you to pursue it, it is merely the ordering of your preferences that you will pursue. Because circumstances are not an outside agent, even if we do say people are "forced by circumstances" it means nothing.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
You really don't give a fuck do you? You are honest for a capitalist, most won't go quite this far; "accept the system, or go die in a hole for all I care."
(Not to mention it really sidesteps the idea that the system exploits you for the benefit of ownership. Yes, we all share this "value scale" chase. And someone who owns nothing, which is most people, is disadvantaged by a system itself that is not neccessary for human existence.)

[RGacky3]

If you change labor to steel you will see what I mean.

Except you thats a false argument, steel can be replaced, labor cannot, when it can, it is. Also steel does not NEED to be used, also steel cannot work harder, that arugment makes no sense, labor is human beings.


The market clearing price is determined at the margin, so if a company tries to pay less than the market clearing price for a resource, that resource (regardless of whether or not it is owned by a firm or it is a worker) will move to where its most valued.


Steel does'nt have to worry about unemployment, steel cannot work overtime. Thats a retarded argument and you ignored all my points, I"ll repeat them.

"or there is 10% unemployment and COmpany B does'nt need to hire anyone, and infact also cuts its cost to 3:45 because they need to to keep up with competition, otherwise they'll loose market share and thus fire people anyway. "


You're saying an increase in price has no affect on how a scarce resource is used. I'm saying there is.

Define workers doing "well"

I'm saying labor cannot be examined in the same way a resource like steel can.


Theres clearly a connection. Let me, for example, show you what happened to American Samoa when the minimum wage increased (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-82117032.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Ask-American-Samoa-how-minimum-wage-killed-jobs-82117032.html))



Thats one isolated example, and they left to tailand, where the workers were maid 60 cents and hour, so chances are those jobs would have left anyway.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp150/
http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5650&updaterx=2010-10-08+11:40:17

[Soseloshvili]

They will not work for $50, for a time. Their value scales are such that the principle (getting paid what I'm worth) is worth more than the lower wage. As soon as reality sinks in (unless this person is actually work that amount) and value scales shift as some things become more pressing (like hunger) he will be willing to shift his value scales. If I think my poop sculpture is worth $50 that doesn't mean it will sell for that much, and until I lower my price I will go hungry because I'm not a good entrepreneur. This is no one's fault. I'm not being exploited when someone pays me $1 just to shut me up and tell me to do something better with my life. You've got this awful concept in your head that capitalists are just fountains of wealth and they can pay any wages. No, they cannot pay more than the MVP and will tend to pay more than the DMVP. You cannot pay someone who makes one car a day more than one car a day without going out of business before long.

You missed my point completely. You also missed the topic of this thread. I'll start from scratch here.

You grew up watching TV, talking on the phone, sleeping in a house that's warm in the winter and cold in the summer, with lights, flowing water, and some toys, as well as nice clothes. Therefore, because your whole life you've known this as a norm, you value yourself as being worth enough money to afford that.

This is easily proven. Someone who grew up in a poor environment will more easily accept living in the projects than someone who grew up in a rich aristocratic family, if such a person would accept it at all, wouldn't you say? Then my theory is proven. It's not really something that is necessarily against your beliefs, why are you arguing against it?

Well, when a country is more "developed", workers have higher "moral-historical needs" than they do in an underdeveloped country, where people are accustomed to living at an underdeveloped level.

This is why the bourgeoisie takes advantage of underdeveloped labour. Plain and simple. You can justify this, in your own way, by claiming it is somehow not exploitation, but the fact remains that it is done.


I see people working for $0 dollars in America. I also see people PAYING to work. Its called internships. While you'll no doubt find something to say these aren't jobs, I figured I'd mention it. And no, in America you see 19% black youth unemployment because of a minimum wage laws that causes unemployment for some and boosts wages of others.

An internship isn't unpaid labour. It just isn't paid in dollars and cents. It's paid in the form of a service rendered (training, for example) and the promise of more money (jobs which require an internship are usually high paying). Payment isn't always in money, money is just a commodity and payment can take the form of any commodity (which can include a service).



And the reason that American workers can consistently do this is because they are, on average, much more productive. IF I think that I"m worth a huge house, a Mercedes Benz, an Alienware computer, and countless other amenities this does NOTHING to my wage. I cannot be paid more than I am productive, except where someone has made a mistake of my productivity. And I tell you this with certainty that the reason wages in America are so high is not because of systematic mistakes of capitalists in calculating wages.

You misunderstand, I'm not referring to individual self-worth. I'm referring to collectively, a rough minimum standard set by the working class for itself. There came a point when the working class decided it was worth enough to own a car. There came a point when the working class decided it was worth a phone and a TV. This wasn't always standard.

Americans aren't just "more productive" than Third Worlders. If anything, the opposite is true. It's just historical-moral values.


I don't believe in the LTV, so I think if someone wants to sell his labor, he is not being exploited.

And... once again, you like so many others before you have no idea what you're talking about. The labour theory of value was Marx's analysis of Capitalism's method of socially recognizing labour. In theory, something is only worth as much as it takes to produce under Capitalism (this is something's intrinsic value, in Capitalist terms). Marx argued against the LTV, because he objected to the concept of value in itself.

All of this is pointless anyway. This argument was against Maoism-Third-Worldism, not Capitalism, this argument has nothing to do with anti-Capitalism, so I don't know why you're arguing with us about it. You're on the wrong thread. So, why don't you go start your own thread, and I'll wait to see if a Maoist-Third-Worldist will actually respond (it's doubtful, they seem to have shied away, but one can hope) to my earlier posts.