third worldism is reactionary and disgusting

[scarletghoul]

Thanks to the irrepressible Palingenisis for pointing this out http://llco.org/archives/11255

The post is not so important, scroll down to the comments, starting at 'serve the people's response to Joseph Ball. This fucking scum needs a shank to the face tbh. They deny the oppression of women in the first world while they participate in it themselves by using words like 'whorish'. They can fuck off and die

I am making this thread because some leftists seem sympathetic to this crap, of at least say "well they do make some good points". No. They are reactionary and have no place on the left. Hopefully this example will illustrate that clearly

Here's my reply and brief summary of TWism for them (awaiting moderation over there, but I felt like sharing it..):
I am absolutely disgusted by some of the comments here referring to battered women as oppressors and enemies.

“First World women enjoy extensive wardrobes (often quite whorish) at the expense of the Third World” This tells me all I need to know about you smug misogynist pieces of shit.

Third Worldism is based off a mixture of short-sighted snobbery towards the workers in developed countries and a racist fetishising of the third world.
Believe it or not there are many reactionary workers in poor countries too, and I know from first hand experience that first world workers are perfectly capable of committing to revolution. You’re just too fucking out of touch, undialectical, and downright lazy to bother.

So shut the fuck up with this misogynist bullshit; you’re useless, ignorant, and no one likes you.

[Palingenisis]

I want to read over it tomorrow just to be clear...But I found the whole thread pretty shocking. Its almost as if because they are "enemies" battered women in the first world deserve no compassion and that their pain is so concern of Communists....As much as I dislike middle class feminism my heart goes out to any battered middle class woman. The degradation suffered in such "relationships" is horrible and life-shattering. Have they crossed the final line that makes them just another aspect of our sick society and in no way related to the Communist movement?

[#FF0000]

Thaaaaat's third worldism!

[Magón]

These guys give me a headache. :sneaky:

[Obs]

"kkkingdumb"

[Ism]

Approximately how many people in the world consider themselves as Third Worldists? Is it a big tendency?

[Palingenisis]

Thaaaaat's third worldism!

I had empathy but not sympathy with them.....I mean I live in a sort of First world nation and I see so much oppression and actual exploitation around me. And I have seen it in England too. What planet are they living on?

From now on I regard them as just another product of the fucked up culture of Imperialism.

[Red Commissar]

Thaaaaat's third worldism!

We need an image macro for that.

[Palingenisis]

Of course they are gonna react to this and get more extreme.

One Maoist-Third Worldist already said that workers in the Ukraine werent exploited...Which is an extremely sick statement given what those in its sweat factories and brothels are put through.

[Chris]

Honestly, most third-worldist statements reminds me of the upper middle class radicals that made up the most vocal part of the Norwegian Maoist movement during the 70s (along with the much smaller modern one). Their arguments also mostly consisted in how first worlders either were:
A) Maoists
B) Lackeys with petite-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie mentality (including the Communist Party of Norway, the anarchists and so on).

And is it ironic that such a large degree of Third Worldists apparently have access to the internet?

[Palingenisis]

Honestly, most third-worldist statements reminds me of the upper middle class radicals that made up the most vocal part of the Norwegian Maoist movement during the 70s (along with the much smaller modern one). Their arguments also mostly consisted in how first worlders either were:
A) Maoists
B) Lackeys with petite-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie mentality (including the Communist Party of Norway, the anarchists and so on).

And is it ironic that such a large degree of Third Worldists apparently have access to the internet?

But did they get off on women battering?

These "Maoists" seem to as its pain for enemies....They have entered on pretty scarey territory.

[synthesis]

We say almost all First World peoples deserve less.

It seems like the more Marxist position would be to say that "almost all Third World peoples deserve more"... it's as though they celebrate the supposedly universal poverty of "the Third World" as some sort of pseudo-Marxist asceticism.

[Amphictyonis]

Thanks to the irrepressible Palingenisis for pointing this out http://llco.org/archives/11255

The post is not so important, scroll down to the comments, starting at 'serve the people's response to Joseph Ball. This fucking scum needs a shank to the face tbh. They deny the oppression of women in the first world while they participate in it themselves by using words like 'whorish'. They can fuck off and die

I am making this thread because some leftists seem sympathetic to this crap, of at least say "well they do make some good points". No. They are reactionary and have no place on the left. Hopefully this example will illustrate that clearly

Here's my reply and brief summary of TWism for them (awaiting moderation over there, but I felt like sharing it..):
I am absolutely disgusted by some of the comments here referring to battered women as oppressors and enemies.

“First World women enjoy extensive wardrobes (often quite whorish) at the expense of the Third World” This tells me all I need to know about you smug misogynist pieces of shit.

Third Worldism is based off a mixture of short-sighted snobbery towards the workers in developed countries and a racist fetishising of the third world.
Believe it or not there are many reactionary workers in poor countries too, and I know from first hand experience that first world workers are perfectly capable of committing to revolution. You’re just too fucking out of touch, undialectical, and downright lazy to bother.

So shut the fuck up with this misogynist bullshit; you’re useless, ignorant, and no one likes you.

First world feminism? I disregard liberal feminism and some of 'radical' feminism in favor of materialist/Marxist feminism but to totally disregard our struggles in the west is absurd. Aren't most of these MTW people white guys in the American suburbs anyhow? The one poster does have a point with "Code Pink" being sent to rationalize the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan. Code Pink are liberal as can be so I obviously separate myself from anything they do. Once they started to rationalize the occupation of Afghanistan for woman's rights struggle is when I almost vomited. I don't much consider Code Pink to be a feminist organization anyhow. They give us a bad name and are bourgeois to the core.


CODE PINK said- "Without international troops (in Afghanistan) armed groups could return with a vengeance – and that would leave women most vulnerable."

[StalinFanboy]

They tried to add me on fb. Fuckin' assholes

[Palingenisis]

It seems like the more Marxist position would be to say that "almost all Third World peoples deserve more"... it's as though they celebrate the supposedly universal poverty of "the Third World" as some sort of pseudo-Marxist asceticism.

The problem is that I dont see actual third world proletarians coming out with this line....I see first world males in university coming out with it and that I find really disturbing. For the record I know one middle class girl who was battered senseless in an abusive relationship and that genuinely oppressed her more than I have ever been in my "housing project"/Council estate. It is something truelly horrific to go through and to treat it lightly as they have done shows a serious lack of maturity.

[Palingenisis]

Just to let you all know the Maoist-Third Worldists consider the actual Maoists in India revisionist for upholding the struggle of Greek workers.

[IndependentCitizen]

Holy shit, I wasn't aware that of these people.

I honestly don't know what to say, other than what utter bollocks...

[Robert]

the Norwegian Maoist movement during the 70s

How did this escape my notice?

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Ho-lee Shit. That was the longest continual stream of utter crap I've seen flow forth from the mouth of an organization.

[Nolan]

It all goes back to Mao’s first question, the question of friends and enemies. Are First World females friends or enemies of the Third World? On the whole, First World females are enemies. The same is true of First World queers. The same is true of First World heterosexuals. Just about all First World peoples, except for some exceptional cases and anomalies, are enemies.

Quoted for shock value.

[southernmissfan]

Apparently these folks take their love of peasants over workers pretty seriously. Seems like the logical extreme of ideologies that value the peasantry over the proletariat and the revolutionary potential of semi-developed economies over actual industrial, capitalist nations.

[Nolan]

I am sick of trying to drag First World so-called communists, kicking and screaming, to simply serve the people. Why is it so hard? Revisionism. First Worldist revisionism. It really is not that hard for real communists who are motivated by serve the people. Egalitarianism. Altruism. Serve the people. Serve the people. Serve the people.

Srv teh peepals cumrads!!!11

Wait, I though Marxism-Leninism was concerned with the workers? Oh well I guess I'm just a first-worldist queer-loving revisionist.

[Obs]

Just to let you all know the Maoist-Third Worldists consider the actual Maoists in India revisionist for upholding the struggle of Greek workers.
What organisations do they support?

[Nolan]

What organisations do they support?

The patriotic bourgeoisie.

[Palingenisis]

What organisations do they support?

They see the actual Maoists in the third world as revisionist but progressive...Basically they they support anyone who kills Yanks...They have a love affair with Political Islam that completely ignores social realities in the middle east and north Africa. They believe that they will convert actual Communists involved in armed struggle in difficult conditions to their "pure" vision. :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Apparently these folks take their love of peasants over workers pretty seriously.

It sounds a bit like Pol Pot....:rolleyes:

[Ravachol]

Maoism Third-Worldism is the product of white kids from suburbia who listen to anti-flag all day long. Any critique against them originating in the 'first world' is because of the 'imperialist, first-worldist, privileged labour aristocracy' or whatever and there is no critique coming from the 'third world' because nobody there even cares.

[Palingenisis]

Maoism Third-Worldism is the product of white kids from suburbia who listen to anti-flag all day long. Any critique against them originating in the 'first world' is because of the 'imperialist, first-worldist, privileged labour aristocracy' or whatever and there is no critique coming from the 'third world' because nobody there even cares.

In fairness they probably listen to extremely obscure rap bands.....;)

[Ravachol]

In fairness they probably listen to extremely obscure rap bands.....;)

I'd love seeing them denounce the banlieu youth of France as 'privileged imperialist labour aristocrats' in person :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

I'd love seeing them denounce the banlieu youth of France as 'privileged imperialist labour aristocrats' in person :rolleyes:

Id love seeing them denounce those actually engaged in armed struggle in Butan, Bangeldesh, the Philipines and India as "revisionist" to their faces....There is also the question of the wretched of the earth in USA...I would rather be poor in Ireland than the in USA (the whole thing about food stamps is so degrading).

[L.A.P.]

Of course they are gonna react to this and get more extreme.

One Maoist-Third Worldist already said that workers in the Ukraine werent exploited...Which is an extremely sick statement given what those in its sweat factories and brothels are put through.

The idea of First-Second-Third world countries is for the most part just a racist idea that separates nations that are predominantly brown form ones that are white. The only time when that idea is valid is when it's thrid world nations being ones under imperialist control while first world nations being the one controlling the other nations, but besides that the idea is utter racist bullshit. What is not so thrid world about Harlem and Compton? The difference between a Western nation versus a "Third World" nation is that a Western nation will turn a blind eye to the poverty and exploitation.

[Rafiq]

The problem with Third Worldists include that they regard everything based on living conditions.

The fact that the third world has worse living conditions, Makes them think that that automatically makes every third worlder a proletarian.

They are simply idiots.

Third Worldists... are enemies of the working class, and pose a Nationalistic, and dangerous threat to the left (Not really, but Idealogically they do).

[RGacky3]

The idea of First-Second-Third world countries is for the most part just a racist idea that separates nations that are predominantly brown form ones that are white.

Thats not where it comes from. It comes origionally from the cold war, to describe non-alligned "up for grabs" countries in the south.

[synthesis]

Id love seeing them denounce those actually engaged in armed struggle in Butan, Bangeldesh, the Philipines and India as "revisionist" to their faces....There is also the question of the wretched of the earth in USA...I would rather be poor in Ireland than the in USA (the whole thing about food stamps is so degrading).

Thanked for the part about food stamps, but I don't know if it's a good policy to judge criticism based on whether or not the critic would say it to the face of the subject of criticism. I can't honestly say that in 1939 I would have told Hitler what I thought about him to his face; I'd like my death to accomplish something relatively meaningful. Criticisms should be judged on the basis of their validity - which in this case is nil. I hope my point is coming across here and no one thinks I'm comparing Maoists to Hitler or anything.

[bcbm]

the whole thing about food stamps is so degrading

getting to be less so now than more and more of us are using them:unsure:

[Palingenisis]

getting to be less so now than more and more of us are using them:unsure:

My point is that they should just give people money....The whole food stamp thing seems to be saying we dont trust not to spend money on drink or drugs.

[ComradeMan]

The idea of First-Second-Third world countries is for the most part just a racist idea that separates nations that are predominantly brown form ones that are white. The only time when that idea is valid is when it's thrid world nations being ones under imperialist control while first world nations being the one controlling the other nations, but besides that the idea is utter racist bullshit. What is not so thrid world about Harlem and Compton? The difference between a Western nation versus a "Third World" nation is that a Western nation will turn a blind eye to the poverty and exploitation.

You've raised a good point and something I have thought for a long time. If you saw some of the slums in Italian cities, Naples, Palermo etc you could say they were third world- perhaps worse in a sense.

Third-worldness is not a map, it's a condition- and how much of that condition exists in each country in proportion to the rest of the country etc.

20 million or more Americans live below the poverty line in the richest country on the planet.

[Chris]

But did they get off on women battering?

These "Maoists" seem to as its pain for enemies....They have entered on pretty scarey territory.
Hmm, no the norwegian maoists were pretty progressive with regard to woman's rights and such. Although, mostly for the third world (and China in particular). They were also pretty much built on a paranoid fear of the USSR (the Soviet Union will invade anytime now, and kill us, the True Communists).



How did this escape my notice?
The movement? I don't think it is that famous outside of Norway, but it was pretty much the largest Maoist movement in western europe (perhaps Europe?). The descendant party of the movement (Red) regularily gets 1.3% of the vote in national elections and have one major, although they have gone full on revisionist/reformist by now. A splinter group called Tjen Folket (Serve the People) still exist, and they are pretty much a stone throw from Third Worldists.
It really destroys support for Leninists, when they associate us with a bunch of guys screaming about slaughtering soldiers, petite-bourgeoisie and good know what else. Not to mention them couping the largest anti-racist organisation, and using it as a cash cow (they siphon money to their organisation).

There's a movie about the maoist movement of the 70s called "Gymnaselærer Pedersen" (College Teacher Pedersen). Somewhat entertaining, and it was filmed in my home town.

[Milk Sheikh]

MTWs may be a little acerbic sometimes (for lack of a better term, lol), but they have statistics and logic on their side. So far, no one has been able to debate them. So merely calling them names doesn't help; let's see if anyone can prove them wrong.

[Milk Sheikh]

You've raised a good point and something I have thought for a long time. If you saw some of the slums in Italian cities, Naples, Palermo etc you could say they were third world- perhaps worse in a sense.

Third-worldness is not a map, it's a condition- and how much of that condition exists in each country in proportion to the rest of the country etc.

20 million or more Americans live below the poverty line in the richest country on the planet.

All these so-called poor people in the first world call themselves poor because they can't afford the latest electronic gadgets or plasma TV, or because they don't get to fly to France or Spain for their vacation.:rolleyes: That would be the MTW argument: they'd argue that FW poor are just spoilt brats whining about their condition for no reason, in total contrast to the 'actual poor' in TW.

[Jazzratt]

O hey. I remember this poo balloon came to revleft once. Gosh what an unbearable pillock he was.

[bailey_187]

MTWs may be a little acerbic sometimes (for lack of a better term, lol), but they have statistics and logic on their side. So far, no one has been able to debate them. So merely calling them names doesn't help; let's see if anyone can prove them wrong.

i remember Prairie Fire having a good go at them once

also KC once, IIRC, pretty much killed a MTW thread by asking question they could not answer

[Obs]

MTWs may be a little acerbic sometimes (for lack of a better term, lol), but they have statistics and logic on their side. So far, no one has been able to debate them. So merely calling them names doesn't help; let's see if anyone can prove them wrong.
Perhaps they have statistics on their side - no one can deny that the money spent on the welfare of citizens in the first world comes from exploitation of third world workers. Even so, their assumption seems to be that lowering the welfare in the first world will necessarily lead to increasinging it in the third. This is, obviously, bizarre. If capital isn't forced to give its money to workers in the first world, it'll simply keep that money as profit.

[#FF0000]

All these so-called poor people in the first world call themselves poor because they can't afford the latest electronic gadgets or plasma TV, or because they don't get to fly to France or Spain for their vacation.:rolleyes: That would be the MTW argument: they'd argue that FW poor are just spoilt brats whining about their condition for no reason, in total contrast to the 'actual poor' in TW.

well i'm going to be homeless soon or does that not matter because I'm first world?

MTW is based on two things. A middle class douchebag's view of workers in the first world and a dumb racists "noble savage" image of a worker in the third.

[ComradeMan]

All these so-called poor people in the first world call themselves poor because they can't afford the latest electronic gadgets or plasma TV, or because they don't get to fly to France or Spain for their vacation.:rolleyes: That would be the MTW argument: they'd argue that FW poor are just spoilt brats whining about their condition for no reason, in total contrast to the 'actual poor' in TW.

You've got to be joking...

The slums of Naples, for example, are terrible, the people don't have money for food, they can't go to the dentist, there is pollution and the rubbish is piled high in the streets. There are people living in buildings that are dangerous and infested with rats and of course crime and drugs are rife- it's not some spoilt kid crying about not being able to buy the latest cellphone.

Your patronising ignorance is insulting.

[Palingenisis]

well i'm going to be homeless soon or does that not matter because I'm first world?


Fuck...I hope you found a way out of it.

Of course it matters...As I said Id rather be poor here than in the USA because even if there are more chances of making serious money over there (if you asshole enough) if you get sick or unemployed than what? Yet the chance of getting rich seems to bewitch a lot of Americans so they dont care about that stuff.

And it is true that super profits plundered from the third world are used to bribe a portion of the first world working class, what is true also is the fact that surplus value is still extracted from all first world workers which third worldists deny.

I think involvement in local community or workplace struggles would cure them.

[Meridian]

Workers are oppressed in capitalism no matter what. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Marx. It's not an exploitation contest.

[#FF0000]

Fuck...I hope you found a way out of it.

We've managed to keep it at bay so far. My seasonal job that was keeping us afloat let me go a full month before they said they would but I've gotten creative at making and saving money. We're on the edge of a knife but I'm optimistic about it :lol:


Of course it matters...As I said Id rather be poor here than in the USA because even if there are more chances of making serious money over there (if you asshole enough) if you get sick or unemployed than what? Yet the chance of getting rich seems to bewitch a lot of Americans so they dont care about that stuff.

Yeah, and on top of the security net that a lot of European countries have, there's also the benefit of being in a country where there is just so much stuff. I mean even if I do end up homeless, I won't go hungry because it is just so easy to steal food. But even that depends on where in the country you end up being broke.

[TC]

Obviously I disagree with LLCO with regard to first world feminism but I've read equally objectionable (I would say, given that its anti-first-world-feminism but not explicit male chauvinism, it is conservative not reactionary) statements from anarchists and trotskyists and marxist-leninists on this forum. Its clearly not something that all maoist-third-worldists agree on.

As for the comments, so, there is a crank in the comments section - did/n't read all o/f it but it seems like lots o/f people disagree with him...I hardly think finding one troll on a MTWist website means that third worldism as a whole is di/sgus/ting especially as other MTWists are complaining (including some who seem to represent the position of the site more)

[Palingenisis]

I think its more general with than one troll though.

[TC]

Workers are oppressed in capitalism no matter what. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Marx. It's not an exploitation contest.

Oppression, exploitation, and privilege is not a simple top down, two classes only (with 99.99% of the population in one class) set of phenomena...such a view isn't Marxism its vulgar reductionist psudo-Marxism. It is possible to be both oppressed and oppressive, to be privileged and exploited, to have a variety of different power relations and class/economic relations. Categories are not pure and discrete and eternal, they are messy and complex and contain intersectionalities of different social practices and institutions.

[milk]

Honestly, most third-worldist statements reminds me of the upper middle class radicals that made up the most vocal part of the Norwegian Maoist movement during the 70s (along with the much smaller modern one). Their arguments also mostly consisted in how first worlders either were:
A) Maoists
B) Lackeys with petite-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie mentality (including the Communist Party of Norway, the anarchists and so on).

And is it ironic that such a large degree of Third Worldists apparently have access to the internet?


The Workers’ Communist Party (AKP) led by Pal Steigan, who headed out on a solidarity visit to Democratic Kampuchea in 1978.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3232/paldk.jpg

Although Monkey Smashes Heaven (now archived at the LLCO site) is well-written, the content seems to consist of old strategy and tactics (Comintern united front, and Maoist people's war), but writ large with this, ahem, analysis of theirs.

[ComradeMan]

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A5l_Steigan

(translated from Norwegian with online translation).

Relations with the Khmer Rouge [edit]
In the future, it is especially AKPs support for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and Steigans role in relation to this, as has been discussed. Political scientist Bernt Hagtvet has gone so far as to claim that "Paul Steigan must personally be held accountable for what happened [1]. When they got an end to America's five-year bombing campaign against Cambodia Khmer Rouge emerged as the force that could drive the country forward. Their Maoist rhetoric contributed to a special interest from the AKP (ml), and among other Steigan went on a study tour to Cambodia, where he håndhilset of Pol Pot.

When accusations of genocide began to come against the Khmer Rouge were not these allegations taken seriously by Steigan and the AKP, according Steigan because he had experience with similar accusations including in Vietnam had been baseless propaganda. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 stood Steigan along with most of the political Norway, with the exception of the Communist Party who openly supported the invasion, in his support for the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate representative of Cambodia.

In "On the Tiananmen Square" wrote Steigan on experiences from Cambodia, where he estimated the death toll to be between 50 000 and 300 000, estimates that at that time came from, respectively, the CIA and Amnesty International and Steigan described as "sinister figures" . Among other things, this led to accusations of, among others Hagtvet that Steigan helped to relativize the genocide in Cambodia. In the same book he also talked about parts of the Khmer Rouge terror activity. As the scale of the genocide in Cambodia has become more known, Steigan described this as "monstrous" and "diametrically opposite to what we believed and hoped." He also says that what the Khmer Rouge was responsible for has nothing to do with Marxism.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A5l_Steigan

Wikipage in Norwegian.
I ettertiden er det særlig AKPs støtte til Røde Khmer i Kambodsja, og Steigans rolle i forhold til dette, som har vært omtalt. Statsviteren Bernt Hagtvet har gått så langt som å kreve at «Pål Steigan må personlig stå til rette for det som skjedde»[1]. Da de fikk en slutt på USAs fem år lange bombekampanje mot Kambodsja fremsto Røde Khmer som den kraften som kunne drive landet fremover. Deres maoistiske retorikk bidro til en særlig interesse fra AKP(m-l), og blant andre Steigan dro på studietur til Kambodsja, der han håndhilset på Pol Pot.
Da anklager om folkemord begynte å komme mot Røde Khmer ble ikke disse anklagene tatt alvorlig av Steigan og AKP, i følge Steigan fordi han hadde erfaring med at tilsvarende anklager blant annet i Vietnam hadde vært grunnløs propaganda. Da Vietnam i 1979 invaderte Kambodsja sto Steigan sammen med det meste av det politiske Norge, med unntak av Norges Kommunistiske Parti som åpent støttet invasjonen, i sin støtte til Røde Khmer som den legitime representanten for Kambodsja.
I «På den himmelske freds plass» skrev Steigan om erfaringene fra Kambodsja, der han anslo dødstallene til å ligge mellom 50 000 og 300 000, anslag som på det tidspunktet kom fra henholdsvis CIA og Amnesty International og som Steigan omtalte som «uhyggelige tall». Blant annet dette bidro til anklager fra blant andre Hagtvet om at Steigan bidro til å relativisere folkemordet i Kambodsja. I samme bok omtalte han også deler av Røde Khmers aktivitet som terror. Etter hvert som omfanget av folkemordet i Kampuchea har blitt mer kjent har Steigan omtalt dette som «uhyrlig» og «diametralt motsatt av det vi trodde og hadde håpet på». Han sier også at det Røde Khmer sto for ikke har noe med marxisme å gjøre.




^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-0) «Det unnvikende oppgjøret» (http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2003/07/17/373822.html)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-1) «Røde Khmers ideologi og terroren i Kambodsja» (http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2003/07/31/374865.html)

[Widerstand]

Fucking Maoists... you don't see Anarchists or Council Communists or even Trotskyists endorsing this Third Worldist crap.

[Palingenisis]

Fucking Maoists... you don't see Anarchists or Council Communists or even Trotskyists endorsing this Third Worldist crap.

LOL....The hugely popular Green Anarchist magazine in England used to any rate put forward the idea that the revolutionary force in the world was third world peasants, also the anarchist Love and Rage federation used to promote Settlers by J. Sakai....A lot of crust punks are third worldists. :blushing:

Also MonkeySmashesHeaven (just look at their weird videos on youtube that could well be the product of drugs) is very much an American thing. Though there is a space cadet on IrishRepublican.net who promotes a weird mixture of reactionary Irish nationalism, liberation theology, Maoism-Third Worldism and social conservatism.

[Meridian]

Oppression, exploitation, and privilege is not a simple top down, two classes only (with 99.99% of the population in one class) set of phenomena...such a view isn't Marxism its vulgar reductionist psudo-Marxism. It is possible to be both oppressed and oppressive, to be privileged and exploited, to have a variety of different power relations and class/economic relations. Categories are not pure and discrete and eternal, they are messy and complex and contain intersectionalities of different social practices and institutions.

Yes, but what I said does not contest what you say.

Edit: I realized now that I wrote "workers are oppressed no matter what" instead of "workers are exploited no matter what". I meant the latter.

[ComradeMan]

LOL....The hugely popular Green Anarchist magazine in England used to any rate put forward the idea that the revolutionary force in the world was third world peasants, also the anarchist Love and Rage federation used to promote Settlers by J. Sakai....A lot of crust punks are third worldists. :blushing: .

Green Anarchist :rolleyes:

used to = not anymore :rolleyes:

What's your big issue with anarchists all the time?

[28350]

Thats not where it comes from. It comes origionally from the cold war, to describe non-alligned "up for grabs" countries in the south.

No, this "First/Second/Third World" trichotomy comes from Mao. It's a little different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory


In fairness they probably listen to extremely obscure rap bands.....;)

I doubt it. Their videos all have really shitty techno.

[RGacky3]

No, this "First/Second/Third World" trichotomy comes from Mao. It's a little different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory)


The way its used in the west is not Maos way of using it.

[#FF0000]

I doubt it. Their videos all have really shitty techno.

To be fair I think the Hate Amerikkka Beat is pretty great

[Palingenisis]

To be fair I think the Hate Amerikkka Beat is pretty great

Are you serious?

It sounds like a CRAP dance tune from the 90s. I know this moron who listens to "2unlimited" in an "ironic" way....Probably MSH are the same. More evidence of them being "hipsters".

Working class parents can be proud of Goth daughter or a Skinhead (though obviously not bonehead) son...But hipsters and crust punks I wonder though :rolleyes: (but perhaps this is my *****y workerism coming out :blushing:).

Anyway are you being serious?

[ComradeMan]

Are you serious?

It sounds like a CRAP dance tune from the 90s. I know this moron who listens to "2unlimited" in an "ironic" way....Probably MSH are the same. More evidence of them being "hipsters".

Working class parents can be proud of Goth daughter or a Skinhead (though obviously not bonehead) son...But hipsters and crust punks I wonder though :rolleyes: (but perhaps this is my *****y workerism coming out :blushing:).

Anyway are you being serious?

2Unlimited were cool and I liked Anita Doth at the time.

[Tommy4ever]

YaY, go RevLeft "Maoists"! Bash those "fucking scum" Maoist Third Worldists! "Fuck off and die" is somehow considered an intellectual statement meriting fully 20 Thanks here. Wow. That just shows how fake you are.

I could respond at greater length, but (1) this kind of dialogue is beneath me. You all can complain about us all you want, but we're making real, and often big, gains on every front on which we're working at present. After barely six months of existence, the LLCO is already a larger organization than many of those to which you all might belong. So like I said, you can complain about us all you want while we pass you right on by and start to lead the next great wave of socialist revolutions. That's fine with me.

Well, I guess I will say that, look, I am a first world woman (unlike most people who gave the OP Thanks). My mother was herself battered very badly. So was Comrade Prairie Fire's. We actually discussed this type of thing at some length in the Comments at the link in the OP. The basic idea here though is the reality that even that kind of thing really doesn't change the political orientation of first world women (including my mother, for example). Third world women are exploited and oppressed. We support their struggles against that. And of course we oppose that abuse of first world women that does occur too. The main point here though is that first world women aren't really exploited, but rather ultimately are net exploiters overwhelmingly, i.e. they are net recipients of imperialist plunder in the, if you will, super-wages that they receive. Almost the whole U.S. population are net beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system in this way. Obviously, men tend to benefit a lot more than women. When we're talking about (2) Amerika, we're talking about a whole nation of exploiters (net beneficiaries of the imperialist system; people whose living standards would have to decline under an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product), more or less. Calls for women to get as much pay as men must be viewed in the light of that. They are in essence calls for women to receive a "bigger piece" of the plunder taken from the third world. We have to, in other words, get outside or little national perspectives -- our little national wealth bubble mentality -- and think about what a socialist redistribution of wealth means on a global scale. Objectively, first world feminists are calling for increasing the global wealth gap in demanding as much pay as first world men get, for example.

Living standards in (3) Amerika are already so decadent that they're not even ecologically sustainable. Even most Yankee "workers" have more access to capital than the third world bourgeoisie generally. All first world people, including even the poorest generally, are among the world's richest 15%. And you think that some portion of this 15% needs to get richer? Objectively, there is only one place that the difference can come from: the other 85%.

(1) You stay classy. ;)

(2) You appear to have made a spelling error here Comrade. It is in fact spelt America. It's ok, we all make typos like this sometimes but I find this one quite suprising considering your location is listed as somewhere in the USA and you haven't made spelling errors elsewhere.

(3) Clumsy today aren't you. Mabye you should practise typing out the word, that might help you get over this mistake. Sometimes if you repeat and error often enough it feels like it is correct.

ciao

[Nolan]

YaY, go RevLeft "Maoists"! Bash those "fucking scum" Maoist Third Worldists! "Fuck off and die" is somehow considered an intellectual statement meriting fully 20 Thanks here. Wow. That just shows how fake you are.

I could respond at greater length, but this kind of dialogue is beneath me. You all can complain about us all you want, but we're making real, and often big, gains on every front on which we're working at present. After barely six months of existence, the LLCO is already a larger organization than many of those to which you all might belong. So like I said, you can complain about us all you want while we pass you right on by and start to lead the next great wave of socialist revolutions. That's fine with me.

Well, I guess I will say that, look, I am a first world woman (unlike most people who gave the OP Thanks). My mother was herself battered very badly. So was Comrade Prairie Fire's. We actually discussed this type of thing at some length in the Comments at the link in the OP. The basic idea here though is the reality that even that kind of thing really doesn't change the political orientation of first world women (including my mother, for example). Third world women are exploited and oppressed. We support their struggles against that. And of course we oppose that abuse of first world women that does occur too. The main point here though is that first world women aren't really exploited, but rather ultimately are net exploiters overwhelmingly, i.e. they are net recipients of imperialist plunder in the, if you will, super-wages that they receive, stocks and real estate that they may own, etc. They have a real, material stake in the continuation of the present system. Almost the whole U.S. population are net beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system in this sort of way. Obviously, men tend to benefit more than women (at present!). When we're talking about Amerika, we're talking about a whole nation of exploiters (net beneficiaries of the imperialist system; people whose living standards would have to decline under an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product), more or less. Calls for women to get as much pay as men must be viewed in the light of that. They are in essence calls for women to receive a "bigger piece" of the plunder taken from the third world. We have to, in other words, get outside or little national perspectives -- our little national wealth bubble mentality -- and think about what a socialist redistribution of wealth means on a global scale. Objectively, first world feminists are calling for increasing the global wealth gap in demanding as much pay as first world men get, for example.

Living standards in Amerika are already so decadent that they're not even ecologically sustainable. Even most Yankee "workers" have more access to capital than the third world capitalists generally. All first world people, including even the poorest generally, are among the world's richest 15%. And you think that some portion of this 15% needs to get richer? Objectively, there is only one place that the difference can come from: the other 85%. So when you're demanding stuff like a $20 minimum wage for all first worlders or whatever, understand where the difference can only come from ultimately. Understand, in other words, that you're advancing what in essence is a social-imperialist position.

Thank you for the blatantly anti-Marxist analysis of "first world" workers.

Aren't third worldists restricted? Someone needs to get on that.

[Tommy4ever]

My spelling was not an accident, but a conscious choice. The K substitution is a sort of shorthand for Klan, as in Ku Klux Klan. I'm treating the enemy according to the enemy's legacy.

I have only recently switched to an MTW line, and yeah I kind of do expect to get banned for it, but I'm hoping we can be above that level of 'dialogue' for a change. I'm just saying it would be nice.

I realise what you were doing and was mocking you for being an intolerable oaf.

[trivas7]

If third-worldism is reactionary, so it Trotskyistism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc. It's this kind of intramural bickering that insures the political impotence of the left.

[Palingenisis]

Living standards in Amerika are already so decadent that they're not even ecologically sustainable. Even most Yankee "workers" have more access to capital than the third world capitalists generally. All first world people, including even the poorest generally, are among the world's richest 15%. And you think that some portion of this 15% needs to get richer? Objectively, there is only one place that the difference can come from: the other 85%. So when you're demanding stuff like a $20 minimum wage for all first worlders or whatever, understand where the difference can only come from ultimately. Understand, in other words, that you're advancing what in essence is a social-imperialist position.

Did it ever occur to you that they maybe among the richest 15 per cent because the richest 5 per cent are so unfathomly richer than everybody else?

[Palingenisis]

If third-worldism is reactionary, so it Trotskyistism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc. It's this kind of intramural bickering that insures the political impotence of the left.

The left in the United States of Amerika has been so impotent because of the oppression and exploitation of the Black Nation.

[gorillafuck]

Third worldists are dumb, but to be honest they are the sort of thing that revleft makes too big a deal out of, similar to the obsession with primitivists.

[trivas7]

The left in the United States of Amerika has been so impotent because of the oppression and exploitation of the Black Nation.
Nonsense.

[Palingenisis]

Nonsense.

Great argument...You have me convinced....:blink:

Not.

[Palingenisis]

Third worldists are dumb, but to be honest they are the sort of thing that revleft makes too big a deal out of, similar to the obsession with primitivists.

Im not for their restriction...But I can understand the dislike for them. Many members of the working class in the first world suffer pretty harsh conditions and than some one comes along and tells them that their struggles to improve life for themselves and others are reactionary? They may well react emotionally.

[RGacky3]

ou all can complain about us all you want, but we're making real, and often big, gains on every front on which we're working at present.

Such as?


Third world women are exploited and oppressed. We support their struggles against that. And of course we oppose that abuse of first world women that does occur too. The main point here though is that first world women aren't really exploited, but rather ultimately are net exploiters overwhelmingly, i.e. they are net recipients of imperialist plunder in the, if you will, super-wages that they receive, stocks and real estate that they may own, etc. They have a real, material stake in the continuation of the present system. Almost the whole U.S. population are net beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system in this sort of way. Obviously, men tend to benefit more than women (at present!). When we're talking about Amerika, we're talking about a whole nation of exploiters (net beneficiaries of the imperialist system; people whose living standards would have to decline under an authentically socialist redistribution of the global product), more or less.

Is there any math to back that up? Any numbers at all? BTW, do you subscribe to the "trickle down" theory? Becaues it kind of sounds like it.

net beneficiaries? How? Do you know how much wealth there is in the world? How much of it do you think is in the ghettos, trailor parks, and such of the US?

You don't have any numbers, you do'nt have any evidence, you don't have any real reasoning, nothing, its just a hunch, and a baseless one at that.

BTW .... Your an exploiter too right? You benefit from Capitalism? Does'nt that mean, that, as a materialist, you should fight for your own material benefit, or are you an idealist?


Even most Yankee "workers" have more access to capital than the third world capitalists generally. All first world people, including even the poorest generally, are among the world's richest 15%. And you think that some portion of this 15% needs to get richer? Objectively, there is only one place that the difference can come from: the other 85%. So when you're demanding stuff like a $20 minimum wage for all first worlders or whatever, understand where the difference can only come from ultimately. Understand, in other words, that you're advancing what in essence is a social-imperialist position.

Your first statement is blatently false.

As far as the 15%, do you have numbers? Do you know how rich the first world rich really are? Did you know the US is probably the most unequal country in the world, due to the huge amount of wealth.

In first world countries Capitalists fight unions tooth and nail, you know why? Because it cuts their profit.

The problem with third worldists is they have a totally ignorant and simplistic view of how economics work. Factories in the US have to make a profit, no matter what, no one runs a factory at a loss, no worker in the US is getting excess what he produces. Capitalists in the US are INSANELY rich, they exploit the first world AND the third world, thats why most of the wealth is in the first world.

[RGacky3]

The K substitution is a sort of shorthand for Klan, as in Ku Klux Klan. I'm treating the enemy according to the enemy's legacy.


Arn't you the Enemy? You exploiter.

[Kotze]

Bash those "fucking scum" Maoist Third Worldists! "Fuck off and die" is somehow considered an intellectual statement meriting fully 20 Thanks here.
:marx:{Fuck off an die!)

[Nolan]

My spelling was not an accident, but a conscious choice. The K substitution is a sort of shorthand for Klan, as in Ku Klux Klan. I'm treating the enemy according to the enemy's legacy.


Which is immature at best. This tendency to reduce all the injustices of the American system to something about the KKK does nothing but dumb down the movement and make us seem like a bunch of out of touch social democrats. The KKK is completely irrelevant today and its reactionary legacy pales in comparison to that of the federal government.

[gorillafuck]

Im not for their restriction...But I can understand the dislike for them. Many members of the working class in the first world suffer pretty harsh conditions and than some one comes along and tells them that their struggles to improve life for themselves and others are reactionary? They may well react emotionally.
I actually would be for their restriction since this site is for people who support workers struggles. But I mean, how many of them exist? Probably 8 and a half people are Maoist Third Worldists.


The KKK is completely irrelevant today and its reactionary legacy pales in comparison to that of the federal government.
Yeah, but not long ago it was extremely relevant.

[bcbm]

Working class parents can be proud of Goth daughter or a Skinhead (though obviously not bonehead) son...But hipsters and crust punks I wonder though :rolleyes: (but perhaps this is my *****y workerism coming out :blushing:).


haha what

[Lt. Ferret]

i stopped taking this seriously when i read "I am a first world woman" while it sits on a German hosted internet message board.

[Lt. Ferret]

also the Klan was dismantled in the 90s by the FBI doing the same COINTELPRO shit they did to leftists in the 60's. anyone trying to represent the klan is a liar and a fraud at this point. I don't see why this broken up impotent group of southern racists is somehow indicative of America.

[#FF0000]

Are you serious?

It sounds like a CRAP dance tune from the 90s. I know this moron who listens to "2unlimited" in an "ironic" way....Probably MSH are the same. More evidence of them being "hipsters".

I love how aggressive it is. Just all these images of people shooting up Americans in the dankest jungles of Southeast Asia to the most unrelenting beat in the world is so over the top I can't help but love it. Also it sounds more like an industrial beat than anything else, to me.


Working class parents can be proud of Goth daughter or a Skinhead (though obviously not bonehead) son...But hipsters and crust punks I wonder though :rolleyes: (but perhaps this is my *****y workerism coming out :blushing:). I wouldn't really care about that sort of thing with my kids. As long as they know how to shop (read: are cheap like me) I don't care what they end up wearing.

I'll disown one that buys an everyday sort of shirt for more than 20 bucks though. Gotta be out of your fucking mind.


also the Klan was dismantled in the 90s by the FBI doing the same COINTELPRO shit they did to leftists in the 60's. anyone trying to represent the klan is a liar and a fraud at this point. I don't see why this broken up impotent group of southern racists is somehow indicative of America.

Is this so? I remember reading somewhere that there's still a lot of Klan hanging around in the Midatlantic. I guess "Klan" just doesn't mean much anymore?

[Lt. Ferret]

It's like being a Nazi, you're not part of the Nazi Party that steamrolled Europe.

Basically anyone in the Klan now is a poser.

[ComradeMan]

I don't agree with a lot of Lieut. Ferret's politics or positions but at the same time I don't think this is right or fair either :> Lt. IMPERIALI$T BABY KKKILLER

A lot of people here's parents probably pay the taxes and buy the petrol that puts him there... hypocrisy a little.

[RGacky3]

A lot of people here's parents probably pay the taxes and buy the petrol that puts him there... hypocrisy a little.

Thats not hypocrisy at all, where taxes go we don't have a say in.

But I agree, Imperiali$st Baby KKKiller is juts immature and stupid.

[ComradeMan]

Thats not hypocrisy at all, where taxes go we don't have a say in.

But I agree, Imperiali$st Baby KKKiller is juts immature and stupid.

And where he is sent he doesn't have a say in either.

[ComradeMan]

When we're talking about genuinely poor and oppressed or exploited people in Amerika, we're basically talking about some undocumented workers and some prison laborers and that's just about it. A negligible percentage of the total U.S. population, not exactly a coherent revolutionary social base..

43.6 million Americans were living in poverty in 2009, up and 1 in 7 are on food stamps in 2011, so that's about 50 million or more people. Negligible?

The official number of poor in the United States in 2008 is about 39.1 million people, greater in number but not percentage than the officially poor in Indonesia, which has a far lower Human Development Index and the next largest population after the United States.[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-15)[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-16) The poverty level in the United States, with 12.65% (39.1 million people in poverty, of a total of 309 million) is comparable to the one in France, where 14% of the population live with less than 880 euros per month.[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-17)[19 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-18)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Two_official_measures _of_poverty

^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-15) Census Bureau:Poverty: 2007 and 2008 American Community Surveys (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-1.pdf)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-16) BPS:Miskin (http://sumut.bps.go.id/f_brs/Miskin-010807.pdf)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-17) US Population Clock (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-18) INSEE Nombre et taux de personnes vivant sous le seuil de pauvreté selon leur âge (http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&id=58)




No, because I am a real communist. I am using the resources I receive to further the cause of communism, including the defeat of the first world by the third world...

How exactly? By posting on RevLeft from Vermont? (I couldn't insert a K or a $ in Vermont).



Many people here have commented on the way Maoist Third Worldists commonly spell things, like Amerika. Not that it really matters anyway, but understand that there is some disagreement in the LLCO over the way to spell certain things. There still exists some influence among some of our members from the old Maoist Internationalist Movement and how they spelled things (e.g. united $naKKKes of ameriKKKa, womyn, wimmin, Kanada, united KKKingdumb, I$rael, etc.) .

How about PeKKKing or Hong KKKong? $hanghai?
:lol:

[Lt. Ferret]

$outh KKKorea.

[Lt. Ferret]

Also, I'll accept baby killer in that i'm pro-choice and i have certainly practiced what i've preached, so to speak.

[Tommy4ever]

Do people who do moronic misspellings like ''Amerika'' not understand how much this debases their argument? Monkey Riding Dragon's argument is pretty hard to swallow as it is. Put in a few ''Amerikas'' and it really does look like someone trying to parody this sort of organisation.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Is third-worldism actually represented anywhere other than western countries these days?

More specifically, does this ideology exist outside of internet forums, blogs and youtube videos?

[RGacky3]

And where he is sent he doesn't have a say in either.

Its a Volunteer army ...

Thats like saying "I took a job as a hit man, its not my fault they sent me on a hit."

People that live in a country have to pay taxes.


No, because I am a real communist. I am using the resources I receive to further the cause of communism, including the defeat of the first world (the exploiter nations) by the third world (the exploited nations).


Your still a net exploiter buddy, plus your working against your own material interests, which makes you :ohmy: AN IDEALIST!!! OH DEAR LORD!!!

As for your other stuff, they've already been debunked by Comrademan of all people, and by many others many other times.

BTW, Capitalists IN AMERICA, national Capitalists need to make a profit, a factory in the US NEEDS to make a profit, they cannot take a loss, so by that fact only the AMerican working class IS exploited, also, much of the US does live like the third world.

Second, NEVER has working class improvements in history been given in the first world, its allways been long and hard fights won by the first world working class, and those improvements are always under attack by Capitalists.

When your talking about net worth, look at the productivity of hte US compared to the wages, also look at how much money the AMerican Capitalists have, its a HUGE difference. also as far as "net value" non of the value counts really unless its liquid value, having a home and transportation is not liquid.

The fact of the matter is there are many reasons why the first world has gotten better off than the third world, but it is NOT that they've been bought off or that the Capitalists decided to take a hit on their profits.

[scarletghoul]

Im not too bothered about the AmeriKKKa spelling. In fact sometimes they can be pretty creative (New $tealand is the best i've heard. Bob Afakeian was funny too). The KKK of course is not explicitly around in any significant form, but I think the point of the spelling is to emphasise the inherent white supremacy of the US. Anyone who doubts that can just research the US prison system, the ghettoes, the immigrant workforce, the reservations, etc.

Though Ive heard third worldists say the black americans are oppressors too.. so not sure whats going on with that..

Anyway the TWist view is very different to Mao's three worlds theory (which I dont agree with but thats not the point). There doesnt seem to be any 2nd world in TWism.. They just talk about the first world and third world. If you explained TWism to a child they would go "where is the second world ?? you cant just go from first to third ..". In Mao's theory there was at least a second world (imperialist allies that were well off but still under control of first world countries. Australia, NATO countries, etc). third worldism isnt even this nuanced..

Also why do so many 'first world' countries have 1000s of troops from the US or UK in them against the will of their people

[RGacky3]

Do you grasp the significance? This implies that even many of the poorest people in Amerika obviously have access to a staggering, extravagant amount of food! We're talking about people on welfare! We're talking about people on food stamps! Well this surplus food comes from somewhere! It is no coincidence that so many Amerikans are plagued by obesity while a billion people around the world...overwhelmingly in the third world...go hungry, and while tens of thousands of people...again, overwhelmingly in the third world...starve to death every day. Amerikans have because others have not. Sorry.

YOu don't have a CLUE to how markets work, peopel don't starve in the third world because Americans are eating it all. If your gonna be a Marxist at least learn elementary economics.

the agriculture industry is made up of huge corporations who need to make a profit, to make that profit food prices need to be kept relatively high, to maximise profits local agriculture in the third world needs to be bought up and controled so as not to dilute the market.

Many things keep food prices artificially high, one is the market itself, commodity speculation, and the such (thats what caused the food crisis a couple years ago(.

Another is restricting supply, which is why many farmers are PAID to not farm, so as to keep the supply down, along with that many local farms in the third world are shut down or bought up so that the only food available is imported food. Other times when borders are open the markets there are flooded with food so as to put local farmers out of buisiness, since large agriculture can produce more efficiently, that creates a food economy dependant on imports even though they have an agriculture calability.

In the United States however food is subsidized, whereas other countries don't have that ability due to free trade agreements.

Theres more to the way food markets work, but the bottom line is your totally wrong and your simplistic answer is simply factually wrong.


As for me personally, as I stated earlier, I have only just begun my own journey down this revolutionary road. I have not yet completed the initiation process into the LLCO.

I'm assuming it involves group sex and a beat in, am I right?


In spite of the newness of this movement, it is growing by leaps and bounds. 2010 was the most successful year yet. In another 2 to 5 years, none of you will be able to ignore us because we'll be one of the largest communist groups in Amerika (ironically enough!).


I really really really doubt that, probably not the largest communist group (as in sickle and hammer Leninist style) and definately not the largest socialist group (which includes the serious ones), but hey, make me eat my words.

[ComradeMan]

I suppose in someone's confused mathematical logic, 50 million somehow constitutes the vast majority of 308 million (percentages do matter!), but this matter aside, there is ample reason to question the U.S. government's "poverty" statistics. The UN defines poverty as living at or below $1.25 a day. That condition describes about 1% of Amerikans. The U.S. government defines poverty as living at or below $7 a day. There's a slight difference, you'll notice. .

You'll also notice that 50 million is by no one's standards "negligible"- it also flies in the face of leftist thinking in that if one man is poor then so am I- notwithstanding my own personal income.

The next thing you fail to grasp is that $7 a day in the US or $1 a day in a third world country could also depend on factors such as how much the cost of living is in the respective countries.

How much is a kilo of rice, or a loaf of bread in the respective $7/1$ countries?

The other thing you fail to notice is the subjectivity of it. If a hobo is poor in New York on the streets he doesn't think to himself- oh well, at least I'm not in Rio does he?



According to a recently-released survey, about one-third of Amerikans are obese or borderline obese before reaching age 1. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20101231/hl_hsn/inusobesityafflictsevensomeofthetiniesttots) (And they tell us that bourgeois decadence is but the fruit of the "hard work" of its recipients!) Here though is the factoid revealed therein that I found the most significant:.

That means they eat shit for the most part- hardly bourgeois decadence? I don't think a cheeseburger is really very bourgeois, is it?

[red cat]

Some data that might help :

1 US Dollar = 45.3 Indian Rupees

Cost of a 400 gm loaf of bread in India = Rs. 14

A somewhat conservative estimate states that over 77% of the Indian population lives on less than Rs. 20 a day.

[Obzervi]

43.6 million Americans were living in poverty in 2009, up and 1 in 7 are on food stamps in 2011, so that's about 50 million or more people. Negligible?


The condition described as "poverty" in Amerikkka would equate a life of luxury to a third world peasant. I'm not denigrating first world comrades, I'm simply pointing out that before we can move into a new and improved economic system, we have to equalize things on a global scale. The wealth will have to be redistributed.

[Obzervi]

Is third-worldism actually represented anywhere other than western countries these days?

More specifically, does this ideology exist outside of internet forums, blogs and youtube videos?

Its quite common among the proletariat in many African countries which have suffered at the brutal hands of first world colonialists. The fact that you weren't even aware of this does not surprise me. Its another example of how out of touch predominantly white first world leftists are with the rest of the world. This movement is about everybody having a voice, not first world exploiters pretending to speak for the impoverished and oppressed.

[Lt. Ferret]

Where are you from?

[Obzervi]

Where are you from?

I am from Amerika, but I have Indigenous blood running through my veins.

[Lt. Ferret]

:lol::lol::laugh::laugh::rolleyes::rolleyes::laugh ::lol:

[RGacky3]

The condition described as "poverty" in Amerikkka would equate a life of luxury to a third world peasant. I'm not denigrating first world comrades, I'm simply pointing out that before we can move into a new and improved economic system, we have to equalize things on a global scale. The wealth will have to be redistributed.

Way over generalization, many in the first world go hungry, many in the third world do pretty ok, its not all that simple.

If there is global redistribution and you actually look at the numbers, its not comming from the first world working class, thats not where the big money is.


Its quite common among the proletariat in many African countries which have suffered at the brutal hands of first world colonialists. The fact that you weren't even aware of this does not surprise me. Its another example of how out of touch predominantly white first world leftists are with the rest of the world. This movement is about everybody having a voice, not first world exploiters pretending to speak for the impoverished and oppressed.

You know this how? That third worldism is popular in the third world? You don't, you don't have a damn clue.

No one is pretending to speak for the third world except for third worlders.


I am from Amerika, but I have Indigenous blood running through my veins.

No one gives a shit about your indigenous blood, your still an atristocrat exploiter buddy (according to third worldists) (btw, almost everone thats latino has indigenous bloog, get over yourself).

[scarletghoul]

Is Pine Ridge first world ?

[ComradeMan]

The condition described as "poverty" in Amerikkka would equate a life of luxury to a third world peasant. I'm not denigrating first world comrades, I'm simply pointing out that before we can move into a new and improved economic system, we have to equalize things on a global scale. The wealth will have to be redistributed.

And the conditions of the rich bourgeoisie in the Third World would be beyond the wildest dreams of many "middle-class" Americans.

Go to Brazil, there's lots of poverty- terrible poverty, but at the same time not everyone is poor either.... ;)

I also think that you are making incredibly arrogant value judgements, "speaking" for people. So, you live in abject poverty in the ghetto or in a trailer or something or you're on the streets- it doesn't matter that someone else somewhere else may be "mathematically" poorer.... get it?

[RGacky3]

it doesn't matter that someone else somewhere else may be "mathematically" poorer.... get it?

adjusted for cost of living, and ajusted for total net wealth of GDP, their math is wrong. they're assuming that the excess wealth (in dollor value, not adjusted for cost of living and so on) in the first world is due to dispossession of hte third world, which is just not mathematically true, if you look at the wealth disparity of the super rich and everyone else, you can see that the ultimate benefits are going almost entirely up.

If that theory was correct American workers would be doing awesome and Norwegian workers would be in the crapper. But no, thats not reality.

[Widerstand]

The central purpose of this communist vanguard of a new type is to carry Third Worldism out to the third world, toward the aim of the revolutionary peoples there taking it up independently as the basis of their fighting. The LLCO is very serious about this historic task.

Excuse me while I spit water all over my keyboard laughing.


Through its various front groups and direct influence, the LLCO now already pretty much commands the whole radical left political scene in Denver and is moving some of their surplus activists there into other cities.

Sounds all very communist :rolleyes:


In another 2 to 5 years, none of you will be able to ignore us because we'll be one of the largest communist groups in Amerika (ironically enough!).

No, not ironic, it's build in.

[ComradeMan]

The central purpose of this communist vanguard of a new type is to carry Third Worldism out to the third world, toward the aim of the revolutionary peoples there taking it up independently as the basis of their fighting. The LLCO is very serious about this historic task.

So let me see if I have understood, "bourgeois" and presumably mostly white first world exploiters basically have to take the struggle to eliminate themselves to the Third World- who are of course so inept and incompetent they can't organise themselves (racism/cultural supremacy?) and then bring it back to the first world? :laugh:

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Its quite common among the proletariat in many African countries which have suffered at the brutal hands of first world colonialists. The fact that you weren't even aware of this does not surprise me. Its another example of how out of touch predominantly white first world leftists are with the rest of the world. This movement is about everybody having a voice, not first world exploiters pretending to speak for the impoverished and oppressed.
I'm in regular contact with comrades from Africa, and indeed comrades from all over the world. These comrades are of different political persuasions; Trots, straight up Maoists etc, but never has third-worldism been brought to my attention by anyone other than obscure posters on Revleft and the blogs/websites they reference.

If you prove me otherwise, I will eat my hat, but as it stands I suspect that most third-worldist in fact live in the first world, just like me, thus rendering them an enemy to themselves.

[Palingenisis]

No, not ironic, it's build in.

What do you mean by that? :confused:

RAIM Denver from their youtube vids and from what I have been told seem to be (white nation) student trendies.

The other thing that needs to be said is that the quality as opposed to quanity of food available to USAan proletarians is often of a very low standard (hence the obescity). To buy decent food that would be available easily to people in Africa and Asia would be extremely expensive to someone living in the States.

However we shouldnt ignore the fact also that a significant proportion of the first world proletariat has been bribed by super-profits wrung from the third world. That doesnt stop the fact that they still have surplus value extracted from them (I cant imagine Business men not trying to make a profit off people's labour).

[RGacky3]

1) We have a much more scientific definition of the three worlds, and...


Come now, your theory looks like it was made with nothing more than the CIA world factbook and a risk board.


2) That our strategic approach to world revolution more essentially corresponds to Lin Biao's strategy of global people's war.

A Strategy again devised with the help of a risk board and the CIA world factbook.

[RGacky3]

However we shouldnt ignore the fact also that a significant proportion of the first world proletariat has been bribed by super-profits wrung from the third world. That doesnt stop the fact that they still have surplus value extracted from them (I cant imagine Business men not trying to make a profit off people's labour).

The food thing has been already explained and explained by serious Marxists and Socialists that understand political economy.

As far as first world proletariat being bribed, what gain by the first world workers was given to them? Name ONE, being forced to give up something is not a bribe. Also who is bribing them? The multinationals? The local Capitalists? They all need to make a profit, none of them can "bribe" proletarians, infact thats the opposite of what they actually do, they try to strip away gains so the workers won't think they can get more.

You thirdworldists are completely divorced from reality.

If the wealth from the third world went to first world workers the multinational capitalists would not be as rich as they are.

That idea of workers being "Bribed" flies in the face of all logic.

[28350]

Are there some actual theoretical texts of MTWism?
I feel like a critique based on "you're stupid" "no, you are" isn't valid.

[RGacky3]

I doubt there are many theoretical texts, because they arn't serious actors, any more than MIM were serious actors.

But there has been plently of critique here, none of which has been really addressed, except for "Americans are Far, Africans starve, obviously Americans are eating all their food," step back for a second and read that statement again.

[bailey_187]

MTWists talk about "globalredistribution", is this born out of a weird Maoist obsesion with being against "the theory of productive forces"?

The original theorists of Fascism in Italy had a similar view to the MTWists too, " Corradini spoke of Italy as being a "proletarian nation" that needed to pursue imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) in order to challenge the "plutocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy)" nations of France and the United Kingdom." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-mb9-88)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fusion_of_nationalism_and_Sorelianism_and_ split_in_the_left_.281907.E2.80.931914.29
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-mb9-88)

[Bud Struggle]

Most of this debate is just interCommunist disscussion about who is more "Communist" than the next guy--which is all fair. Fight away.

But there is the real point of redistribution of wealth AFTER the proverbial Revolution. If things are to be fair the does have to be a mass change in wealth from the First world to the Third. Now theoretically everything could be brought up to first world standards in time--but at first the First world Proletariat should immediately stop taking advantage of Third world wealth. And I would imagine that the primary goal of world society would be to bring up the living standard of all the disadvantaged people in the world.

That would take some doing. And I thing a good deal of sacrifice on the part of the First world.

I believe someone said (and if suppose I could dig up the number if pressed) that the AVERAGE income of the world is something on the level of $7000 a year. Which would be a great boost in income to most of the world, but a major decline in the First world. I think it would be highly unfair for the First world to keep up its standard of living until the Third world catches up. I would imagine the Third world would look for it's fair share and seek to stop being exploited immediately after the Revolution.

As I said I think things would improve in time--if indeed Communism does what it promises, but since we in the First world live off of so much plunder from the Third--the decline in living standards for a good long time would be precipitous.

[bailey_187]

So should Lenin have "redisitributed" the (relative) wealth of the Putlov factory workers to the peasents of Siberia?

[red cat]

MTWists talk about "globalredistribution", is this born out of a weird Maoist obsesion with being against "the theory of productive forces"?

The original theorists of Fascism in Italy had a similar view to the MTWists too, " Corradini spoke of Italy as being a "proletarian nation" that needed to pursue imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) in order to challenge the "plutocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy)" nations of France and the United Kingdom." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-mb9-88)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fusion_of_nationalism_and_Sorelianism_and_ split_in_the_left_.281907.E2.80.931914.29
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-mb9-88)

Third worldism is one of the major components of Leninism and hence, Maoism. However, what is presented as third worldism by groups like the MSH etc. is nothing but an excuse to condemn the workers movements in the imperialist countries.

Maoist third worldism states that there is a very powerful upper layer of the working class in imperialist countries that is bribed out of the super-profits by imperialists. Imperialists keep the rest of the working class in better conditions than their third world counterparts because it wants to keep them from declaring the revolutionary war. The theory of "bribing" does not apply to the vast majority of the working class because substantial surplus value is extracted from them too. Furthermore the overall revolutionary nature of the working class of imperialist countries is confirmed by the revolutionary and anti-war movements that have taken place there throughout history.

[bailey_187]

No one has convincingly shown how the wealth the Imperialists take is given to the "labour aristocrats".

Also this whole theory came about to explain the emergence of non-revolutionary 'workers' parties in Europe. But the emergence of similar parties in the Third World (e.g. the CPI-Marxist) invalidates it.

[Obzervi]

No one has convincingly shown how the wealth the Imperialists take is given to the "labour aristocrats".

Also this whole theory came about to explain the emergence of non-revolutionary 'workers' parties in Europe. But the emergence of similar parties in the Third World (e.g. the CPI-Marxist) invalidates it.

Maybe you need some facts to wake you up.



On average, one American consumes as much energy as

2 Japanese
6 Mexicans
13 Chinese
31 Indians
128 Bangladeshis
307 Tanzanians
370 Ethiopians


Americans eat 815 billion calories of food each day - that's roughly 200 billion more than needed - enough to feed 80 million people.
Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily.
250 million people have died of hunger-related causes in the past quarter-century — roughly 10 million each year.

These consumption rates do not come about in a vacuum. They are only possible due to extreme exploitation of the third world. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the correlation between resources and production, because at the moment it is the First Worlders who control the vast majority of the world's resources to their benefit. Labor is only one of the factors of production. The surplus extracted from your labor is miniscule in comparison to the surplus in resource and labor value extracted from the Third World to benefit you. The standard of living of every First Worlder will have to decrease dramatically. Anyone who actively seeks to uphold these vast disparities is the enemy of equality.

You have entered the stage of shock and denial. Don't worry, comrade, I myself was at that point myself when I first learned the truth. The reason is because I found it hard to accept that I was part of the problem, I was inadvertently an exploiter despite the fact that I have indigenous blood running through my veins. The system is set up to blind us.

[red cat]

No one has convincingly shown how the wealth the Imperialists take is given to the "labour aristocrats".

Exactly how the labour aristocracy is bribed is a matter to be investigated by the communists and the working class of the imperialist countries themselves. There is something functionally similar to the labour aristocracy in the third world and they have been exposed by the advancing revolutionary movements. From these experiences we know that it is safe to assume that when a big labour organization in the first world remains silent or even attacks genuine revolutionary movements, its leadership is not doing so without making huge material gains. These material gains may come in the form of money or certain other social benefits.


Also this whole theory came about to explain the emergence of non-revolutionary 'workers' parties in Europe. But the emergence of similar parties in the Third World (e.g. the CPI-Marxist) invalidates it. The ruling classes create pseudo-communist parties in every country. In the imperialist countries these parties are bigger and more influential due to the labour aristocracy deluding a big portion of the working class. In the third world countries there is almost always some revolutionary movement, big or small, that poses a substantial challenge to these parties. Even the revisionist parties in the third world dare not to falsify history beyond a certain point. In south Asia even the most corrupt revisionists are forced to uphold Stalin, and to some extent, Mao, in words.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

In fairness, I wouldn't try to deny that the third world is exploited by the first world in many ways. The first world does live comfortably in comparison to the third world, off of the backs of these people. British folk are fortunate enough to live comfortably in comparison to most of those in Africa, and that is thanks to years and years of imperialism.

I would hope that most people that live in 'the west' would recognize this, and even take this as an inspiration and motivating force for their anti-capitalist politics. However, the fact that third-worldists blame workers in the west for these unfortunate historical circumstances is insulting, given that first world workers control the means of production no more than workers in the third world do.

Workers in the first world, second world, forth world, fifth world and indeed any geographical location on the planet with a proletariat, are reliant on each other, given that we are all tied together in the framework of international capitalism and must dismantle this framework in unity, if we are to ever be free from its inherent exploitation. Whether people are fatter in the first world is irrelevent in the context of the international struggle for working class liberation; as workers who are slaves to capital, we are all the pawns of an exploititative system. The only difference between workers in one part of the world to another is hardly a qualitative difference.

[ComradeMan]

In fairness, I wouldn't try to deny that the third world is exploited by the first world in many ways. The first world does live comfortably in comparison to the third world, off of the backs of these people. British folk are fortunate enough to live comfortably in comparison to most of those in Africa, and that is thanks to years and years of imperialism..

...and slavery abolitionists, chartists, trade unionists, labour activists sufragettes and plenty of people who lost their lives fighting for better rights too.

At the height of European imperialism many Europeans lived in terrible conditions and squalor- see Engels, we shouldn't forget that either.

[red cat]

In fairness, I wouldn't try to deny that the third world is exploited by the first world in many ways. The first world does live comfortably in comparison to the third world, off of the backs of these people. British folk are fortunate enough to live comfortably in comparison to most of those in Africa, and that is thanks to years and years of imperialism.

I would hope that most people that live in 'the west' would recognize this, and even take this as an inspiration and motivating force for their anti-capitalist politics. However, the fact that third-worldists blame workers in the west for these unfortunate historical circumstances is insulting, given that first world workers control the means of production no more than workers in the third world do.

Workers in the first world, second world, forth world, fifth world and indeed any geographical location on the planet with a proletariat, are reliant on each other, given that we are all tied together in the framework of international capitalism and must dismantle this framework in unity, if we are to ever be free from its inherent exploitation. Whether people are fatter in the first world is irrelevent in the context of the international struggle for working class liberation; as workers who are slaves to capital, we are all the pawns of an exploititative system. The only difference between workers in one part of the world to another is hardly a qualitative difference.

Very well said. It should also be mentioned that when first worldists denounce the historical struggles of third world workers as anti-worker, or compare their military actions with Nazi massacres, call them homophobes, capitulationists, class-collaborationists etc, the third world working class is also deeply insulted.

[Bud Struggle]

Very well said. It should also be mentioned that when first worldists denounce the historical struggles of third world workers as anti-worker, or compare their military actions with Nazi massacres, call them homophobes, capitulationists, class-collaborationists etc, the third world working class is also deeply insulted.

I agree. If we are going to have a Revolution to make all people equal--then lets have a Revolution to make all people EQUAL. Really equal. Across the board equal--everybody--as soon as possible.

What we don't want from a Revolution is just to broaden the base of Bourgoisie Trust Fund Babies to include a bunch of First World slackers.

Equal IS equal. I'm no Commie but if we are going to do it--we should di it right.

[red cat]

I agree. If we are going to have a Revolution to make all people equal--then lets have a Revolution to make all people EQUAL. Really equal. Across the board equal--everybody--as soon as possible.

What we don't want from a Revolution is just to broaden the base of Bourgoisie Trust Fund Babies to include a bunch of First World slackers.

Equal IS equal. I'm no Commie but if we are going to do it--we should di it right.

But we won't decide how people will be equal or what their immediate needs are. So instead of saying "let's make people equal", I would rather say put all options in front of the masses and "let the masses decide". Let the masses decide if they want to continue the revolutionary war or they need a temporary period of rest. Let the masses decide whether they will allow private businesses, employ experts, or take control of all technical and administrative aspects of industries themselves. Let the masses decide who is their friend and who is their foe.

[Bud Struggle]

But we won't decide how people will be equal or what their immediate needs are. So instead of saying "let's make people equal", I would rather say put all options in front of the masses and "let the masses decide". Let the masses decide if they want to continue the revolutionary war or they need a temporary period of rest. Let the masses decide whether they will allow private businesses, employ experts, or take control of all technical and administrative aspects of industries themselves. Let the masses decide who is their friend and who is their foe.

OK. I have no problem with that. But my guess is that they are going to want a good life very soon (or at least soon--no period of REST. Bourgeoise thinking!) iPhones and Internet and all of that for the best and the brightest.

And who should get those things? There should be qualifying test for those that study the hardest and get the best grades. Those that produce the most for the people. Those that offer the greatest good to the masses.

Let the best qualify. For the rest: we need coal miners and factory workers and short order cooks.

[red cat]

OK. I have no problem with that. But my guess is that they are going to want a good life very soon (or at least soon--no period of REST. Bourgeoise thinking!) iPhones and Internet and all of that for the best and the brightest.

And who should get those things? There should be qualifying test for those that study the hardest and get the best grades. Those that produce the most for the people. Those that offer the greatest good to the masses.

Let the best qualify. For the rest: we need coal miners and factory workers and short order cooks.

Given the opportunity and motivation everyone will study hard and score almost the same result. The differences in test scores that we see now are almost totally due to unequal development and faults of the education system itself. So everyone should get the same facility, except for when he requires something extra due to his profession. Our immediate goal should be to provide for the basic necessities of the whole population. The special commodities which are produced less due to concentration of resources for producing basic commodities, should be alloted to people according to the needs of their profession.

[Bud Struggle]

Given the opportunity and motivation everyone will study hard and score almost the same result. The differences in test scores that we see now are almost totally due to unequal development and faults of the education system itself. So everyone should get the same facility, except for when he requires something extra due to his profession. Our immediate goal should be to provide for the basic necessities of the whole population. The special commodities which are produced less due to concentration of resources for producing basic commodities, should be

I totally agree. Everything should be "pro-rated" but the best and brightest should ALWAYS succeed. And I have no doubt slackers in Capitalism will find a "happy place" working for the good of the people!

Life will be good.

[Hiero]

No one has convincingly shown how the wealth the Imperialists take is given to the "labour aristocrats".

Also this whole theory came about to explain the emergence of non-revolutionary 'workers' parties in Europe. But the emergence of similar parties in the Third World (e.g. the CPI-Marxist) invalidates it.

What have you read?

Check out Samir Amin and Emmanuel Arghiri. In the 70s these economicist tried to work that . So look up unequal exchange theory.

But I doubt you will. No one actually cares about where third worldism came from, it is just some petty moral outrage about some insignificant internet discussion group.



At the height of European imperialism many Europeans lived in terrible conditions and squalor- see Engels, we shouldn't forget that either.


Are you serious? At the same time Engels also noted that there was a rise in living conditions amongst other workers, who he calls the labour aristorcrats. He theorisied that this section of the working class was bribed by the success the ruling class were having on the international trade. Engels started this debate.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Out of curiosity, how do Maoist-Third-Worldists view Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge?

[RGacky3]

Most of this debate is just interCommunist disscussion about who is more "Communist" than the next guy--which is all fair. Fight away.


Nope, its not about that at all, the argument is about the nature of global economics, ultimately.


I believe someone said (and if suppose I could dig up the number if pressed) that the AVERAGE income of the world is something on the level of $7000 a year. Which would be a great boost in income to most of the world, but a major decline in the First world. I think it would be highly unfair for the First world to keep up its standard of living until the Third world catches up. I would imagine the Third world would look for it's fair share and seek to stop being exploited immediately after the Revolution.


If your using pure dollar amounts thats not at all accurate, because of market manipulations, food Should be much cheaper, for example, but its kept high for profit, also much of things are produced are not neccessary for society, which also changes the make up.

So using those dollar amounts don't really work.

Not only that, but your also talking about HUGE differences in cost of living standards around the world, which if the market was take out of the picture, would be much different.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, its not about that at all, the argument is about the nature of global economics, ultimately. Of course, if you a Communist and actually believe there will be a Revolution.. If you are not it's just a word game.




If your using pure dollar amounts thats not at all accurate, because of market manipulations, food Should be much cheaper, for example, but its kept high for profit, also much of things are produced are not neccessary for society, which also changes the make up.

So using those dollar amounts don't really work.

Not only that, but your also talking about HUGE differences in cost of living standards around the world, which if the market was take out of the picture, would be much different. Even taking such things into account--in a global Communist system the First world still uses by far the most resources a good chunk of that taken from the Third world. After the Revolution there will be no reason fro the Third workld to export its goods to keep up the living standards of the First world. Why should Arabia export oil to us when it could be better used evenly distributed around the world?

Same with other commodities. Without a doubt without markets there would be a rapid build up in the Third world and a rapid break down in the First--and that's if there was some sort of central planning. With Central Planning it would be chaos.

[RGacky3]

Of course, if you a Communist and actually believe there will be a Revolution.. If you are not it's just a word game.


The argument was about the nature of the first world working class as relates to the third world working class and the nature of exploitation, thats an economic argument. Not "who is more communist."


in a global Communist system the First world still uses by far the most resources a good chunk of that taken from the Third world.

Those resources are NOT being used by the first world worker, they arn't being given for they're benefit.


Same with other commodities. Without a doubt without markets there would be a rapid build up in the Third world and a rapid break down in the First--and that's if there was some sort of central planning. With Central Planning it would be chaos.

If imperialism stopped globally the people that would be hurt would NOT be hte first world worker, just as the people that got rich when imperialism started was not the first world worker. The breakdown would be of multinational corporations, that would not significantly hurt the first world worker considering the many factors that would go along with it.

Factors such as lower first world wages that result of outsourcing and imperialism, lay offs, less money being wasted on corporate executive compensation, profit and other overhead, resources being used for all benefit rather than just the ruling class benefit (of all countries), such as less weapons spending, less financial wizerdry, and so on and so forth.

Look at history, did living standards for British workers get better during the victorian empire? Not at all.

[Bud Struggle]

The argument was about the nature of the first world working class as relates to the third world working class and the nature of exploitation, thats an economic argument. Not "who is more communist." Maybe--but have you been reading the thread? :D




Those resources are NOT being used by the first world worker, they arn't being given for they're benefit. Of course they are. The First world worker have a thousand times better and more comfortable life than he Third world worker. It's Mexicans and Central Americans comming to the USA for a better life--not the other way around.




If imperialism stopped globally the people that would be hurt would NOT be hte first world worker, just as the people that got rich when imperialism started was not the first world worker. The breakdown would be of multinational corporations, that would not significantly hurt the first world worker considering the many factors that would go along with it. If everything is opened up--no boarders, everything and everyone equal--who in there right mind would be living in a slum in Bangaladesh when they could be in a highrise in NYC? Who is going to be working in a coal mine in Chile when they could be in College in the UK studing Marxist Thought?

There's billions of people out there that will want what you have now.

[RGacky3]

Maybe--but have you been reading the thread? :D


Only the posts with actual points.


The First world worker have a thousand times better and more comfortable life than he Third world worker.

But there is no conection between that and imperialism.


If everything is opened up--no boarders, everything and everyone equal--who in there right mind would be living in a slum in Bangaladesh when they could be in a highrise in NYC? Who is going to be working in a coal mine in Chile when they could be in College in the UK studing Marxist Thought?


Or a Coal mine in West Verginia, but I digress.

Again, if everything is opened up AND imperialism and Capitalism is ended (eventually over time), the whole make up of the world economy would be different.

[Bud Struggle]

Only the posts with actual points. That kind of takes the fun out of it. :D


But there is no conection between that and imperialism. Anyone who benefits from Imperialism is an Imperialist. You have a richer and more comfortable life because some oil company is exploiting workers in Nigheria. You have a computer because some company assembles them in China paying the people a dollar a day. You have clothes from Walmart because they have 8 year olds in the Third world working 12 hours a day sewing them---I think you are VERY complicit in Imperialism.


Or a Coal mine in West Verginia, but I digress. I imagine all coal mines look very similar once you're 1000 feet underground.


Again, if everything is opened up AND imperialism and Capitalism is ended (eventually over time), the whole make up of the world economy would be different. You have a lot more faith human nature (yea, I know--no such thing) than I have. :)

[Widerstand]

Of course they are. The First world worker have a thousand times better and more comfortable life than he Third world worker. It's Mexicans and Central Americans comming to the USA for a better life--not the other way around.

So, if it were true that in fact the First World Workers exploit those in the Third World, or at least contribute to and benefit from their exploitation, then shouldn't higher unemployment in the First World lead to decreased exploitation in the Third (higher wages, lower work time, more welfare, etc.)? I think such a connection does not exist. In fact, since you came talking about migration, why don't we talk about capital migration, or more precisely, jobs moving away from countries with a comparatively good situation for workers (First World) to countries without (Third World)? If the Maoist Third Worldist theory were true, this should in fact lessen the exploitation of the Third World (a classic neoliberal argument by the way). Does it though? Does the Third World worker benefit from producing goods that are too expensive to profitably produce in the First World, often under horrible conditions with little pay, lack of even the most basic security, few to zero labor rights, etc.? Do the now unemployed First World workers benefit from the fact that their jobs are now done in a Third World sweatshop? I think the answer to both is pretty clear: Not really, no.

But of course, there is another explanation for First World workers being better off than Third World workers, and a rather trivial one. If we consider how wages are determined, we find there to be two parts, a fixed one, which is inevitably the cost necessary to reproduce labor force (eg. to keep the worker alive), and a variable one, largely influenced by past labor struggles and their achievements (including welfare benefits like healthcare, campaigns for higher wages, campaigns for lower work time, union tariffs, etc.). These vary from country to country - the first one because the cost to reproduce work force isn't the same in every country (different currencies, food prices, housing prices, taxes, etc.) and the second one because not every country (in fact not even every work place) has the same labor rights, welfare programs, etc.

The reason that the Third World Worker is worse off seems fairly simple: The are less industrialized, often not at all and in fact often with to semi-feudal structures. Add to this the massive invasion of First World capital, often coupled with using political structures to actively suppress labor rights or union movements (most striking example being the SEZs and their sweatshops), and it becomes strikingly apparent that it is in fact not the First World Workers who exploit the Third World, but rather the economic and political situation in the Third World which accounts for their low standard of living.

This is supported and secured by First World capital, no doubt. But the First World Worker doesn't really benefit from it, even though it appears so, and he certainly has no say in it (what worker decides what his employer does at the work place, let alone in other countries?). There's absolutely no reason for capital to "bribe" First World Workers, either. After all, the maximization of profits is essential for capitalism, no? So why then should capital "bribe" First World workers? Of course we could say that when the First World Worker fights a labor struggle, capital "bribes" the workers by giving in to their demands (partially) to secure it's supply of productive forces. We could say that this happens at the expense of the Third World, and there might be a point. But we could also say something entirely different: The Third World Worker "steals" jobs from the First World (and this certainly is observable, because capital goes wherever wages are lowest; to maximize profits), effectively giving capital the means to threat First World workers with job flight. Does that then mean that the Third World Worker collaborates with the capitalists in putting down First World labor struggles? Obviously not, because it's not a matter of collaboration, it's a matter of capital pursuing it's own interests.

[Obzervi]

Nope, its not about that at all, the argument is about the nature of global economics, ultimately.



If your using pure dollar amounts thats not at all accurate, because of market manipulations, food Should be much cheaper, for example, but its kept high for profit, also much of things are produced are not neccessary for society, which also changes the make up.

So using those dollar amounts don't really work.

Not only that, but your also talking about HUGE differences in cost of living standards around the world, which if the market was take out of the picture, would be much different.

You're justification of this disparity is similar to that of "pearl clutchers"; white feminists who deny that they benefit from a White Supremacist system on the backs of people of color. Its sickening that you would justify your ill deserved wealth which was extracted off the backs of the Third World.

[Obzervi]

So, if it were true that in fact the First World Workers exploit those in the Third World, or at least contribute to and benefit from their exploitation, then shouldn't higher unemployment in the First World lead to decreased exploitation in the Third (higher wages, lower work time, more welfare, etc.)? I think such a connection does not exist. In fact, since you came talking about migration, why don't we talk about capital migration, or more precisely, jobs moving away from countries with a comparatively good situation for workers (First World) to countries without? If the Maoist Third Worldist theory were true, this should in fact lessen the exploitation of the Third World (a classic neoliberal argument by the way). Does it though? Does the Third World worker benefit from producing goods that are too expensive to profitably produce in the First World, often under horrible conditions with little pay, lack of even the most basic security, few to zero labor rights, etc.? Do the now unemployed First World workers benefit from the fact that their jobs are now done in a Third World sweatshop? I think the answer to both is pretty clear: Not really, no.

But of course, there is another explanation for First World workers being better off than Third World workers, and a rather trivial one. If we consider how wages are determined, we find there to be two parts, a fixed one, which is inevitably the cost necessary to reproduce labor force (eg. to keep the worker alive), and a variable one, largely influenced by past labor struggles and their achievements (including welfare benefits like healthcare, campaigns for higher wages, campaigns for lower work time, union tariffs, etc.). These vary from country to country - the first one because the cost to reproduce work force isn't the same in every country (different currencies, food prices, housing prices, taxes, etc.) and the second one because not every country (in fact not even every work place) has the labor rights, welfare programs, etc.

The reason that the Third World Worker is worse off seems fairly simple: The are less industrialized, often not at all and in fact often with to semi-feudal structures. Add to this the massive invasion of First World capital, often coupled with using political structures to actively suppress labor rights or union movements (most striking example being the SEZs and their sweatshops), and it becomes strikingly apparent that it is in fact not the First World workers who exploits the third world, but rather the economic and political situation in the Third World which accounts for their low standard of living.

This is supported and secured by First World capital, no doubt. But the First World Worker doesn't really benefit from it, even though it appears so, and he certainly has no say in it (what worker decides what his employer does at the work place, let alone in other countries?). There's absolutely no reason for capital to "bribe" First World Workers, either. After all, the maximization of profits is essential for capitalism, no? So why then should capital "bribe" First World workers? Of course we could say that when the First World worker fights a labor struggle, capital "bribes" the workers by giving in to their demands (partially) to secure it's supply of productive forces. We could say that this happens at the expense of the Third World, and there might be a point. But we could also say something entirely different: The Third World Worker "steals" jobs from the First World (and this certainly is observable, because capital goes wherever wages are lowest; to maximize profits), effectively giving capital the means to threat First World workers with job flight. Does that then mean that the Third World Worker collaborates with the capitalists in putting down First World labor struggles? Obviously not, because it's not a matter of collaboration, it's a matter of capital pursuing it's own interests.

Obviously you didn't read the statistics I posted on the previous page, the average First Worlders consumes hundreds of times more resources than the average Third Worlder in some countries. We are talking about RESOURCES, things natural to this earth which every human being has a right to his/her equal share. Nothing can justify this disparity.

[Obzervi]

Those resources are NOT being used by the first world worker, they arn't being given for they're benefit.





Do you drive a car?

[Widerstand]

Obviously you didn't read the statistics I posted on the previous page, the average First Worlders consumes hundreds of times more resources than the average Third Worlder in some countries. We are talking about RESOURCES, things natural to this earth which every human being has a right to his/her equal share. Nothing can justify this disparity.

I am not justifying anything. Maybe you didn't understand my post. Yes, the First World Worker, on average, has a higher standard of living than the Third World Worker, including access to more resources. Yes there is a disparity, and yes, dissolving these disparities may in some cases require reducing the amount of resources First World Workers get. All of these are true. None of these indicate anything of First World Workers being "bribed" or "class enemies", let alone prove such claims as that there are "proletarian nations" and "bourgeois nations" and that the main antagonism today is between these nations, eg. First vs Third World.

[RGacky3]

Anyone who benefits from Imperialism is an Imperialist.

Thats not the definition of Imperialism, I benefited from 911, cheaper plane tickets right after, does that make me a terrorist? Rediculous reasoning.


You have a richer and more comfortable life because some oil company is exploiting workers in Nigheria. You have a computer because some company assembles them in China paying the people a dollar a day. You have clothes from Walmart because they have 8 year olds in the Third world working 12 hours a day sewing them---I think you are VERY complicit in Imperialism.


Actually there is no connection, if there was no imperialism I'd have a better life, higher overall wages, more money going to stuff that benefits me and so on.

I think you are VERY ignorant about the way political economy works.


I imagine all coal mines look very similar once you're 1000 feet underground.


pay, conditions, and so on, don't be stupid.


You have a lot more faith human nature (yea, I know--no such thing) than I have. :)

It has nothing to do with human nature at all, its pure economics, mathematics.


You're justification of this disparity is similar to that of "pearl clutchers"; white feminists who deny that they benefit from a White Supremacist system on the backs of people of color. Its sickening that you would justify your ill deserved wealth which was extracted off the backs of the Third World.

I'm not justifying the disparity moron, I'm saying the problem is not the working class in the west, they arn't doing TOO well, the third world are too poor, and the ruling class too rich.

All my ill deserved wealth??? You hav'nt made ONE actualy economic argument, its just emotions, and you call yourself a "materialist," THE EXCESS VALUE OF EXPLOITATION OF THE THIRD WORLD DOES NOT RAISE LIVING STANDARDS IN THE WEST FOR WORKING PEOPLE, THERE IS NO CONNECTION.


the average First Worlders consumes hundreds of times more resources than the average Third Worlder in some countries. We are talking about RESOURCES, things natural to this earth which every human being has a right to his/her equal share. Nothing can justify this disparity.

Yes, but the vast majority of resources are used by corporations, also if those resources were NOT being used its not like the third world would just get to use them. NO ONE, is jutsifying the disparity, but somehow, your saying that first world workers have it TOO good and the wealth is going to them.

The world is productive enough to give everyone a western standard of living and higher, look at how much wealth is wasted on profit, the rich, and wasted projects that only benefit the rich, this wealth is not going to some imaginary American world worker that I guess has a pair of shoes (what an asshole).


Do you drive a car?

I do not, but cars are not the number one user of resrouces.

BTW, let me ask you something, I live in Norway, workers with the highest living standards probably in the world (due to a long history of strong labor and social-democratic governments), is that because Norway is super-imperialist???

[Obzervi]

I'm not justifying the disparity moron, I'm saying the problem is not the working class in the west, they arn't doing TOO well, the third world are too poor, and the ruling class too rich.

All my ill deserved wealth??? You hav'nt made ONE actualy economic argument, its just emotions, and you call yourself a "materialist," THE EXCESS VALUE OF EXPLOITATION OF THE THIRD WORLD DOES NOT RAISE LIVING STANDARDS IN THE WEST FOR WORKING PEOPLE, THERE IS NO CONNECTION.





Really? You don't benefit from lower prices on nearly everything produced in the third world?

[Widerstand]

Really? You don't benefit from lower prices on nearly everything produced in the third world?

Lower than what/where?

[Obzervi]

Lower than what/where?

Lower than their true value, because the exploited Third World workers were not paid as much as their labor produced. It is not only the capitalists, but also you who benefits from the low price of goods. This is only one factor in the exploitation process of the Third World by all First Worlders, I won't even go into resource consumption..

[Widerstand]

Lower than their true value, because the exploited Third World workers were not paid as much as their labor produced. It is not only the capitalists, but also you who benefits from the low price of goods. This is only one factor in the exploitation process of the Third World by all First Worlders, I won't even go into resource consumption..

Are the workers in the First World then paid as much as the their labor produced? Certainly not. Are First World workers the only ones who get to buy goods produced by the Third World? Nopeeeeee.

And again, you keep saying "low price of goods", as if goods in the First World were cheaper than in the Third, yet to my knowledge they aren't.

[Obzervi]

Are the workers in the First World then paid as much as the their labor produced? Certainly not. Are First World workers the only ones who get to buy goods produced by the Third World? Nopeeeeee.



You are ignoring the point. Its irrational to consider a group both exploited and exploiters at the same time, especially when its concerned with economic realities. All that matters is net exploitation. The point is that First World workers benefit more from the exploitation of the Third World than the detriment they experience from their own wage extraction. Considering that their own wages have a boosted purchasing power due to exploitation of the Third World, they are already paid much more than they are worth. So truth be told there is no wage exploitation in the First World.

[scarletghoul]

Again, is Pine Ridge first world ?

[Obzervi]

Again, is Pine Ridge first world ?

Not to the same extent. They are oppressed indigenous people who share the same enemy as the rest of the Third World. They do benefit somewhat however from Third World exploitation merely due to their geographic location.

[Widerstand]

You are ignoring the point. Its irrational to consider a group both exploited and exploiters at the same time, especially when its concerned with economic realities.

I'm not sure if I would necessarily call it irrational, but it certainly is irrelevant because you still didn't prove that First World Workers are extracting surplus value from the Third World. At best, you argued that they benefit, through modes of consumption available to them, from the relatively higher exploitation of Third World. The two are not the same though.



All that matters is net exploitation. The point is that First World workers benefit more from the exploitation of the Third World than the detriment they experience from their own wage extraction. Considering that their own wages have a boosted purchasing power due to exploitation of the Third World, they are already paid much more than they are worth. So truth be told there is no wage exploitation in the First World.

How are the First World workers "paid more than they are worth?" How do you measure their worth? And how do you measure their exploitation? And how do their wages have a "boosted purchasing power", is what you are talking about a higher average living standard in the First World?

[Obzervi]

The problem is that many of you are trying to establish a very simplified model of the world. These are just a few of the ways in which the First World exploits the Third World. Another has been how economic development was intentionally stalled in the Third World intentionally by the First World. Economic development self-perpetuates, which has led to the situation of an ever-increasingly dependent Third World. The Third World will have to be compensated for this massive injustice.

[Widerstand]

The problem is that many of you are trying to establish a very simplified model of the world. These are just a few of the ways in which the First World exploits the Third World.

Regardless, can you answer my questions?


Another has been how economic development was intentionally stalled in the Third World intentionally by the First World. Economic development self-perpetuates, which has led to the situation of an ever-increasingly dependent Third World. The Third World will have to be compensated for this massive injustice.

No one is denying that development is being stalled. I just don't see how First World Workers are stalling it?

[Obzervi]

No one is denying that development is being stalled. I just don't see how First World Workers are stalling it?

No one is saying that First World Workers are actively and consciously engaged in exploiting the Third World, but the fact that they benefit from it and are complicit makes them the Enemy. They can become allies however by acknowledging it and working towards equality.

[Widerstand]

No one is saying that First World Workers are actively and consciously engaged in exploiting the Third World, but the fact that they benefit from it and are complicit makes them the Enemy. They can become allies however by acknowledging it and working towards equality.

And how exactly does this compliance look like? Is it just that they receive benefits?

[RGacky3]

Really? You don't benefit from lower prices on nearly everything produced in the third world?

Nope, not really, food and rent and power has gone up, so the extra stuff does'nt really matter, also wages have been stagnant for the last 40 years, plus the low prices on stuff really does'nt have much to do with third world labor, it has the do with the prices, the extra money is not going into savings for the first world (base in point look at car prices), its being pocketed the prices have to do with industrialization.

BTW, people also argue that the third world benefits due to the jobs they get (its a bullshit argument, but so is yours).


but the fact that they benefit from it and are complicit makes them the Enemy. They can become allies however by acknowledging it and working towards equality.

They don't benefit from it, there is no connection, if there was there would be a before and after, as for being complicit? What are they suppposed to do? THe third world I guess is also complicit.


The problem is that many of you are trying to establish a very simplified model of the world.

No thats what YOU are doing.

[Revolution starts with U]

You cannot be imperialist, no matter how much you benefit, if you are not involved in the process of putting imperialism into action. Yes, the developed world benefits from the exploitation of the thirld world. But those workers have minimal saying in anything, and are not the ones putting imperialism into action.
It's a shitty system, this capitalism. Pinning the developed workers agianst the underdeveloped/overexploited workers is not going to change that :rolleyes:


You are ignoring the point. Its irrational to consider a group both exploited and exploiters at the same time, especially when its concerned with economic realities.
Then why consider developed world workers exploiters? Are you denying they get exploited?


All that matters is net exploitation. The point is that First World workers benefit more from the exploitation of the Third World than the detriment they experience from their own wage extraction. Considering that their own wages have a boosted purchasing power due to exploitation of the Third World, they are already paid much more than they are worth. So truth be told there is no wage exploitation in the First World.

..... fuck off? You sound far more capitalist here than anything resembling socialism. Developed world workers are "paid far more than they are worth?" So.... 30k/yr is "far more than they are worth?" Developed world workers are exploited too. And they're also consumers in a capitalist society.
Why don't we try uniting the "workers of the world" instead of the "workers of some countries against others?"
Seriously dude...

[RGacky3]

Yes, the developed world benefits from the exploitation of the thirld world.

Never been shown any evidence that this is the case, never seen any connection.


..... fuck off? You sound far more capitalist here than anything resembling socialism. Developed world workers are "paid far more than they are worth?" So.... 30k/yr is "far more than they are worth?" Developed world workers are exploited too. And they're also consumers in a capitalist society.
Why don't we try uniting the "workers of the world" instead of the "workers of some countries against others?"
Seriously dude...

Thanks you.

[Blackscare]

Never been shown any evidence that this is the case, never seen any connection.


Are you fucking kidding me? So you're saying that every time you hear about shoe companies and car companies and cell phone companies, etc etc etc, moving offshore to China or the like, they're not doing it so that they can produce goods for less money, driving down the cost so that they can have more competitive prices on the market? You actually think that goods you buy today would be the same price if 3rd world workers were payed fairly? You don't think, just for a second, that some of the material goods that you own wouldn't be out of your price range if produced more fairly?



Are you literally crazy?





Private corporations fund resource wars in Africa so that they can buy rare earth metals for cell phones and other gadgets from warlords, as that would be far cheaper than dealing with unionized people working legally in a country with a stable government, let alone with nationalized resource extraction industry. If that were the case, the cost of cellphones would skyrocket, there would probably be no smartphone market. Hell, phones might even start to be built to last.

[Blackscare]

Also, not trying to say I support MTW, because I don't, but taking the exact opposite position and saying that first world workers don't benefit from price suppression in the 3rd world is equally insane.


Also, gacky, in relation to what you said about wage freezes and general cost of living. This is absolutely true, the goal of the capitalist class is to cede as little as possible to workers anywhere, regardless of location. However; there needs to be a giant consumption market somewhere. America's consuming is just as vital to the world economy as everyone else's production (at least within the logical framework of capitalism). So you have a twofold solution; you use credit (debt) to fuel consumption and you drive down production costs as much as possible to make items artificially cheap so that the working class here can afford to buy. It's also not "the extra stuff", it's pretty much everything you buy. We're not talking about a segment of items for sale that you don't really need being produced in the third world, we're talking about the majority of what we buy day to day.


You're absolutely right, we walk a tight-rope where people are constantly on the verge of not being able to sustain themselves in terms of rent, etc, but this is offset by relatively easy access to tons of consumer goods that can't be accessed elsewhere. If the prices rose for consumer goods, many people's economic lives would become totally unsustainable, therefor we currently benefit from price suppression.




[Edit]:

Had to respond to this bit:


plus the low prices on stuff really does'nt have much to do with third world labor, it has the do with the prices,

So prices are low because.... the prices are low? What? This is like the most basic shit ever, you cut cost as much as possible so that you can lower your costs and out compete your rivals. More people buy your shit if it costs less. So, if you lower the costs to you (the company), you can then afford to lower the price you charge customers, attracting more customers, netting you more money in the long run than if you had charged more. Nobody ever suggested that companies are lowering cost for americans out of the kindness of their hearts.

[RGacky3]

Are you fucking kidding me? So you're saying that every time you hear about shoe companies and car companies and cell phone companies, etc etc etc, moving offshore to China or the like, they're not doing it so that they can produce goods for less money, driving down the cost so that they can have more competitive prices on the market? You actually think that goods you buy today would be the same price if 3rd world workers were payed fairly? You don't think, just for a second, that some of the material goods that you own wouldn't be out of your price range if produced more fairly?



If they were paid fairly, yeah, same price, but the company would have less profits and thus less stock price and thus less investments, plus more profits AND more executive compensation, we don't see the savings, never have, consumer products hav'nt REALLY gone down due to labor (some have due to technology).


Private corporations fund resource wars in Africa so that they can buy rare earth metals for cell phones and other gadgets from warlords, as that would be far cheaper than dealing with unionized people working legally in a country with a stable government, let alone with nationalized resource extraction industry. If that were the case, the cost of cellphones would skyrocket, there would probably be no smartphone market. Hell, phones might even start to be built to last.

Nope, but profits would go way down as would executive compensation. Most of these companies rae competing more for investment than they are for market share.


America's consuming is just as vital to the world economy as everyone else's production (at least within the logical framework of capitalism). So you have a twofold solution; you use credit (debt) to fuel consumption and you drive down production costs as much as possible to make items artificially cheap so that the working class here can afford to buy.

Well, the solution over the last 20 years has been credit, and now you have a serious demand side problem for capitalists economists in the US, in prats of europe with strong labor and unions you don't have that problem so much, but that has NOTHING to do with imperialism.


It's also not "the extra stuff", it's pretty much everything you buy. We're not talking about a segment of items for sale that you don't really need being produced in the third world, we're talking about the majority of what we buy day to day.


That stuff, basic cost of living, has not gone down at all.


You're absolutely right, we walk a tight-rope where people are constantly on the verge of not being able to sustain themselves in terms of rent, etc, but this is offset by relatively easy access to tons of consumer goods that can't be accessed elsewhere. If the prices rose for consumer goods, many people's economic lives would become totally unsustainable, therefor we currently benefit from price suppression.


Except its MUCH more complicated than that, price suppression generally does not happen for basic needs, also you have to look at the Marco economic situation, currency differences and the such. But I'll tell you this much the working class in the US and Europe HAVE NOT BENEFITED AT ALL from imperialism, if they did, there would be a clear before and after effect.


What? This is like the most basic shit ever, you cut cost as much as possible so that you can lower your costs and out compete your rivals.

Most of those cost cuts DO NOT go to lowering prices, most of American car manufactures have cut costs, have car prices gone down? Nope, but executive pay has gone up and profits have also gone up (btw, they've also suffered from the demand problem)


Nobody ever suggested that companies are lowering cost for americans out of the kindness of their hearts.

Of coarse not, but to suggest that Americans benefit from imperialism, overall, is juts ignoring the facts.

BTW, America is turning into a third world country.

The only relatively stable first world economies now are in western europe, which are that way due to strong labor and unions and social-democratic governments over decades.

[Hiero]

Never been shown any evidence that this is the case, never seen any connection.



I very much doubt you have ever looked at the opposing arguement for that evidence.

Revleft is not a benchmark for study, it is a discussion board. It is very hard to actually prove something, which requires long time study and a futher understand from multiple sources. Revleft as a theoritical site is only a plce to discuss what you have read elswhere. People still have to take the initiative to look at the original sources. Look up dependency theory and unequal exchange by economists. Then come back when you have dealt with the material.

[RGacky3]

I very much doubt you have ever looked at the opposing arguement for that evidence.


I've read some stuff from them before, theres never been a logical connection made.

But I will look that stuff up, but so far, hav'nt heard anything logical defending the third worldist theory.

[Widerstand]

Are you fucking kidding me? So you're saying that every time you hear about shoe companies and car companies and cell phone companies, etc etc etc, moving offshore to China or the like, they're not doing it so that they can produce goods for less money, driving down the cost so that they can have more competitive prices on the market? You actually think that goods you buy today would be the same price if 3rd world workers were payed fairly? You don't think, just for a second, that some of the material goods that you own wouldn't be out of your price range if produced more fairly?



Are you literally crazy?





Private corporations fund resource wars in Africa so that they can buy rare earth metals for cell phones and other gadgets from warlords, as that would be far cheaper than dealing with unionized people working legally in a country with a stable government, let alone with nationalized resource extraction industry. If that were the case, the cost of cellphones would skyrocket, there would probably be no smartphone market. Hell, phones might even start to be built to last.

Bullshit. Sure price competition can be a motivator for reducing production costs. In most cases however (and in pretty much all examples you mentioned), it isn't.

The reason companies lower production costs, the main reason, is the very old and very trivial motive of profit maximization. Many products produced in the Third World are sold at far higher prices than their production costs (this is especially true for high profile brands). Prices for these products wouldn't "skyrocket" if the wages increased, but the companies' profit would drastically decrease.

[Hiero]

I've read some stuff from them before, theres never been a logical connection made.

But I will look that stuff up, but so far, hav'nt heard anything logical defending the third worldist theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_exchange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arghiri_Emmanuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Amin

That is a start and then follow the bibliography through Ebay or Amazon.

I don't know what you mean by a logical connection. These are just theories that are done by people who crunch numbers. At first some of Marx's stuff looks quite illogical, such as conception of wages in relation to commodity production. It is along going over the work and looking it used in multiple circumstances that it appers logical. Only through engagement with the sources can one start to understand the paradigm and the sub fields of that paradigm.

Honestly, revleft's quality is fairly low in this regards. There are a few well read people in their field, the rest are just guessing from elementary readings. I have not invested time in economics, so I can not say coherently on the topic. However with the limited effort I have made I at least know that there was a great interest in seeing if their was a connection between the living standards of the 1st world and the rate of expliotation. If I took a significant amount of time in that field I could make a statement that it is one or the other.

[RGacky3]

The unequal exchange theory I've read about, and believe it or not I agree with it, what I don't agree with is that there is a connection between that "economic imperialism" and the higher living standards for workers in the first world, THAT connection has never been made to me logically.

Over hte last 40 years American wages have stagnated, yet purchasing power has dropped, about 4 fold, the American worker is in the crapper, yet American Imperialism really took off after WW2, why has'nt the American worker seen the benefits? What About Europe? Why has'nt the Chineese worker gotten the benefits?

Now obviously the third world worker has it much worse, but the reason for that has to do with many things related to Capitalism, one, the first world Capitalist can exploit there much easier without public accountability, the countries are poorer and thus need more investment and government loans (which leave vulnurable), the local Capitalsits are taking a cut along with the first world Capitalists.

But none of that extra money is going to the first world worker, there is NO connection.

Take the example of Guatemala, the government, that the US government overthrew was enacting almost the exact same reforms that european social-democracies enacted, yet, they were not allowed to do it, it got destroyed.

From the page of Arghiri, heres one thing I have a problem with


Since neither the wage- nor the consumption levels of the well-off countries could be internationally equalised - upwards for both ecological reasons and because it would eat up all profits, and downwards for political reasons in the same rich countries - unequal exchange was the necessary consequence, in a sense saving the capitalist economy from itself.

See the problem there is he's not making a distinction between the first world worker and the first world Capitalist, the first world worker is not using all the resources, it is absolutely possible for everyone to have a home, enough food for 3 or 4 meals a day, clean water and so on, most first world workers are not that far above that, its the Capitalists, the wasteful endevours, such as militaries, cost cutting industry and so on that is not sustainable.

Plus look at the profits they are HUGE, so is executive compensation, but keep in mind that they will go to the third world to make profits BIGGER, not because western living standards cannot make a profit, they can, but because they are nessesitated to get the bigest profit possible.

[Revolution starts with U]

Plus look at the profits they are HUGE, so is executive compensation, but keep in mind that they will go to the third world to make profits BIGGER, not because western living standards cannot make a profit, they can, but because they are nessesitated to get the bigest profit possible.


Everyone forgets that part...

[Bud Struggle]

Everyone forgets that part...

To a guy in Africa trying to feed and house and clothe a family on $300 a year a unionized auto worker in America making $45,000 a year looks like someone making a huge compensation.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya I kno... and that has to do with what? You, as a business owner, are far more likely to want to hire those africans at $300 than you are that american at 45k... not because you won't profit w the american, but because you will profit more with the african.

[Bud Struggle]

Ya I kno... and that has to do with what? You, as a business owner, are far more likely to want to hire those africans at $300 than you are that american at 45k... not because you won't profit w the american, but because you will profit more with the african.

Well it seems I can't get my hands on those Africans for $300 so I have to pay $45,000 to the UAW member. And in order to pay them that high wage (and still make a profit) I have to really put the screws to the Third World.

In profiting off of the riches of the Third World the Proletarian and the Bourgeois are indeed Brothers. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

So, american workers should have even lower wages, so the 3rd world can get slightly higher wages (maybe $400/yr after a few years).... so that you can still shit in gold toilets? When will it be time to lower the capitalist's wages? That way we can just raise everyone else's.

[Bud Struggle]

So, american workers should have even lower wages, so the 3rd world can get slightly higher wages (maybe $400/yr after a few years).... so that you can still shit in gold toilets? When will it be time to lower the capitalist's wages? That way we can just raise everyone else's.

I'm not saying that Capitalists don't profit off of the Third world, they do. All I'm saying is that First World Proletarians profit off of the Third world, too.

After the Revolution all workers (and that means everyone in the world) should have the same standard of living. For the Third world that means their standard will go up and for the First world (both the Boutgeois and the Proletariat)it means that their standard will go down.

A leveling off. Nothing wrong with that, it's only fair.

(And the toilets are hand carved granite not gold. :) )

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree.

[RGacky3]

And in order to pay them that high wage (and still make a profit) I have to really put the screws to the Third World.


If you looked at profit numbers ... no you don't, you'll still make a profit paying good wages, also obviously they don't include executive compensation in that equasion, clearly.

Wait a minute, are you saying that if American workers were paid less capitalist would VOLUNTARILY pay Africans more???

The fact is making a profit is not ok, you have to maximize profits ALL THE TIME, btw, your juts making an argument against capitalism.

I'm amazed how little Capitalists know about Capitalism


All I'm saying is that First World Proletarians profit off of the Third world, too.

After the Revolution all workers (and that means everyone in the world) should have the same standard of living. For the Third world that means their standard will go up and for the First world (both the Boutgeois and the Proletariat)it means that their standard will go down.

A leveling off. Nothing wrong with that, it's only fair.


No proof of that, not even evidence of that, no connection made, never. Again, out of your ass, see at least some third worldists have actual arguments, you have none.

[Bud Struggle]

If you looked at profit numbers ... no you don't, you'll still make a profit paying good wages, also obviously they don't include executive compensation in that equasion, clearly.

Wait a minute, are you saying that if American workers were paid less capitalist would VOLUNTARILY pay Africans more???

The fact is making a profit is not ok, you have to maximize profits ALL THE TIME, btw, your juts making an argument against capitalism.

I'm amazed how little Capitalists know about Capitalism. I didn't say any of that. What are you talking about?



No proof of that, not even evidence of that, no connection made, never. Again, out of your ass, see at least some third worldists have actual arguments, you have none. No proof that wages won't go down for EVERYBODY in the world either. The only proof would be if we tried Communism on a worldwide scale. And that's not to likely to happen soon, or maybe you have a poll from Low Rider Magazine that says it will. :D

[RGacky3]

I didn't say any of that. What are you talking about?


You said

"in order to pay them that high wage (and still make a profit) I have to really put the screws to the Third World."

Which implies that the screws would NOT be put to the third world if the first world workers were not doing well.


No proof that wages won't go down for EVERYBODY in the world either. The only proof would be if we tried Communism on a worldwide scale. And that's not to likely to happen soon, or maybe you have a poll from Low Rider Magazine that says it will. :D

The evidence is economics, world wide the gap between the rich and the poor is raising, at the same time that gap is raising in the first world.

THe evidence btw, is many things, actaul production capability, world GDP, and so on.

This is what economists do.

As far as your last comment, I don't think someone who never posts any evidence has a hard time being snippy about that.

[bailey_187]

Were the Putlov factory workers exploiters?

[Bud Struggle]

You said

"in order to pay them that high wage (and still make a profit) I have to really put the screws to the Third World."

Which implies that the screws would NOT be put to the third world if the first world workers were not doing well. I didn't say that and I didn't imply that.




The evidence is economics, world wide the gap between the rich and the poor is raising, at the same time that gap is raising in the first world.

THe evidence btw, is many things, actaul production capability, world GDP, and so on.

This is what economists do.OK, then YOU show me the evidence that the wealth of the world's rich capitalists would bring the Third world up to First world standards.


As far as your last comment, I don't think someone who never posts any evidence has a hard time being snippy about that.

You are the one that suggested the US was going Socialist on the basis of ONE question in a nonscientific fluff poll in Vanity Fair Magazine. I Think that's funny.

A

[RGacky3]

I didn't say that and I didn't imply that.


If I misunderstood you I appologise, what were you implying?


OK, then YOU show me the evidence that the wealth of the world's rich capitalists would bring the Third world up to First world standards.


Right now we produce enough food to provide for everyone many times over. When it comes to production the capabilities are huge, right now, in the US for example, billions upon billions are spent on military equipment, which improves no ones lives, imagen all that capability spent on people. Imagen if you took all the production spent on weapons, moving resources around for profit, new cars every year (so as to keep profits coming in) and other Capitalistic waste, and spent it socially in a sustainable way.

keep in mind most of the world is Capitalist and tosn of the production is done in a wasteful way (its more profitable for a car company to come out with a new model every year rather than making a sustainable car)

Also all the worlds millionaires put together own 50 trillion dollars (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/04/01/worlds-millionaires-have-50-trillion/) in wealth (by now probably around 75 or 80 million), keep in mind, this is dollar amount, also keep in mind that these are the people that manipulate the market to their favor (making it worse for everyone else)

Also keep in mind that in the first world cost of living is artificially inflated (by the markets), so if you take all these factors in, its a pretty easy conclusion.


You are the one that suggested the US was going Socialist on the basis of ONE question in a nonscientific fluff poll in Vanity Fair Magazine. I Think that's funny.


I suggested that the US was progressive (as they always were) based on many different polls.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I actually quite like their stuff about Lin Biao and how revisionism came to dominate in China. Now don't get me wrong, no way am I promoting their politics, I just like their more nuanced look at the victory of revisionism in China as opposed to the usual "China was socialist, then Mao died and Deng couped the Gang of Four, then China wasn't socialist" analysis. I guess my stance is that what they say on it is good, it's just unfortunate that they're the ones saying it.

[synthesis]

Well it seems I can't get my hands on those Africans for $300 so I have to pay $45,000 to the UAW member. And in order to pay them that high wage (and still make a profit) I have to really put the screws to the Third World.

In profiting off of the riches of the Third World the Proletarian and the Bourgeois are indeed Brothers. :)

I think this is an important point. At the moment, my problem with the "Third-Worldists" is not really with their analyses so much as their conclusions.

[#FF0000]

Rez'n this thread to post an awesome thing (http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/a-response-to-nick-brown-and-the-euro-amerikan-settler-radicalism-maoism-third-worldism/). It's a bit of a read.


Nine days ago People of Color Organize! (http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/), the other internet project I work with, posted an interview with one “Nick Brown,” an activist with the so-called Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement, a Maoist-Third Worldist organization in the United States and Canada. Eight days ago I posted a response to Brown’s interview as the one and only public comment on the thread. So far no M-TWist has come forward to try and refute me and my criticisms of their thought and actions.
I am posting my comments here, with a few elaborations and additions to make it closer to a full article in length. You can check out the original interview here (http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/activism/1209/#comment-6296). Also check out the flawed, if interesting, debate between Monkey Smashes Heaven, one of the leading M-TWist websites, and the Hoxhist American Party of Labor here (http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/debating-maoism-third-worldism-the-american-party-of-labor-vs-monkey-smashes-heavan/).

all face far better conditions and life prospects than someone born a Third World peasant or in a megaslum. – Brown on New Afrikans, Asians and Natives in Turtle Island
To begin, these kinds of comments from Maoist-Third Worldists always make me chuckle a bit, because the crackers who make them (I say crackers because ALL of the M-TWists I have met and spoken with over time, as well as those known to me through my comrades, have been privileged, urban living members of the white nation), have obviously never spent much time on the myriad of reservations/reserves that dot the landscape of occupied Turtle Island. It’s completely non-materialist and fundamentally liberal in its analysis.


To see the ridiculous nature of these kinds of claims one only needs to take a quick walk around somewhere like the Lakota reservation at Pine Ridge, which People of Color Organize! recently helped raise relief funds for, where the life expectancy is lower than anywhere else in the Amerikas, except Haiti, where unemployment regularly exceeds 90%, where 97% live below the poverty line (that’s a rate worse than Zambia, Sierra Leone, Haiti and even the Gaza Strip). Or the Navajo rez, where many people continue to live in hooghans (traditional dirt and wood dwellings for the uninitiated), and many, many more have no electricity, heating or running water, and are forced to make due with radioactive run off for their bath and drinking water. One take a tour around the communities of Ute Mountain Ute, Tohono O’odham (Papago), Pima, Yaqui, Cherokee, Choctaw and Creek of Oklahoma, Apache, other Lakota such as the Brule’, and my own people, the Menominee and see the same thing over and over again. The simple, MATERIALIST fact that Maoist-Third Worldists do not want to confront is that Indian reserves are often places where general conditions are much of the time WORSE than those in many countries considered part of the Third World. There’s a reason why indigenous communities are often referred to as the Euro-Amerikan settler nation’s internal Third World, or in a more global context, the Fourth World.


This of course says nothing of the conditions in the modern urban ghetto and barrio, which imprison so many of our black and red sisters and brothers, or the rural New Afrkian communities of the south. Pure and simple this kind of politics is an excuse to not confront the reality of colonialism and imperialism IN Turtle Island.


This moves right into my next criticism of Brown and his ilk.


In the interview POCO tosses out the question that M-TWists base their analysis of class on income and the international income ladder much more than anything else related to material conditions. Brown conveniently side-steps this question and gives a non-answer, failing to really defend Maoism-Third Worldism against this challenge. This is because when one really digs into the political economy of Maoism-Third Worldism the fact that they do rely on liberal explanations of class based on an income ladder becomes quite clear.


Looking back to my original point. Sure the average Indian or New Afrikan in Turtle Island in theory may have a greater income than many people in the Third World, but using this to imply greater privilege lacks any conception of the RELATIVE nature of material conditions. And this is the core problem with just such a liberal analysis.


Many Middle Eastern folk like those who live in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the UAE, and Lebanon, as well as Caribbeans (and I grew up in the Caribbean) in Trinidad, Barbados, the Bahamas, Antigua, and Latin Amerikans in Chile and Argentina, as well as many other Third World peoples have incomes and standards of living comparable, if not at times actually higher than some peoples considered part of the First World, yet where’s the call by the Maoist-Third Worldists for Global People’s War against those countries? Ultimately they fail this challenge because there kind of analysis substitutes a Marxist-materialist analysis of class with a liberal-bourgeois one.
On the broader point of nationally and racially oppressed people in Turtle Island, I must say that it has been interesting over the years to watch this trend (which began with the Maoist Internationalist Movement) as it has taken the analysis of J. Sakai and related thinkers (which more or less reflects my own thought, but with which I have some differences) and twisted it into one that is slowly moving in the direction of also writing off non-whites and internally oppressed nations in Turtle Island as also being non-proletarian oppressor nations. From talking to my own comrades who interact on a regular basis with those from the M-TW trend, I know that many of them, including the interviewee, personally hold the position that New Afrikans, Asians, and indigenous nations possess no proletariat, just like Sakai’s settlers. As I noted at the very beginning, this analysis is one that comes from some of the whitest “revolutionaries” I have ever encountered.


This coupled with their lack of involvement in “economist/reformist issues” such as housing, especially when there is a dire need amongst those people living in Third World conditions in Turtle Island for exactly just such things (I wonder how many of these mostly white, urban living radicals live in houses which are crumbling and infested with black mold, have to clean themselves with water filled with uranium run off etc.) reveals my core issue with the whole M-TW trend.
For me, in many ways Maoism-Third Worldism is quite similar to those anarchists, autonomists and post-leftists of the mid-1990s who became completely infatuated with the Zapatista struggle in Chiapas after 1994. As I have come to see it, both anarchist/autonomist Zapatista infatuation and Maoism-Third Worldism are rooted in the non-revolutionary politics of petty bourgeois romanticism of struggles “over there,” lead by “others” in the purest sense of the word. It’s a politics that can best be summed up as “ok guys, we don’t have much work to do because those people over there are going to do all the heavy lifting.”


Brown and others may talk about organizing First Worlders against their own class interest, but the truth of their politics is exposed in their actual thought and actions. At its core their politics it is based on an attitude of “sit back, relax and wait for the armies of poor darkies to come and impose the revolution from on top.” I think it’s worth comparing their thought and work with that of the Uhuru Movement, which, while viewing whites as a labor aristocracy, does see it as vitally important to organize amongst whites and bring them over to the revolutionary cause. This is why, I believe, the M-TWists are moving towards an analysis that also tosses to the wind racially and nationally oppressed people in Turtle Island, because if actually oppressed people do exist here on this continent, then they should be working to help organize them them, which goes against the essentially cheer leading from afar nature of their politics.


However, speaking of their cheer leading from afar, in practice they haven’t even been that good at doing that. For them the Palestinians aren’t Third Worldist enough, the Maoists of India, the Philippines, Peru, and Nepal are revisionist, etc. etc. Because no actual Third World revolutionary formation takes up the analysis of this mostly First Worldist, mostly Euro-Amerikan movement, their no people’s wars and national liberation struggles are not good enough for them. Frankly it’s hard to buy the calls of Euro-Amerikans to “raise the banner of Third World people’s war” when they sit around and point fingers at actual Third World movement, like the Sendero, the CPI(Maoist), and the New People’s Army, calling them “armed revisionists.” It’s like the Avakianists and their ridiculous new synthesis.


In the end Maoist-Third Worldism is the politics of white kids who want to seem really radical, but who do not want to commit to real revolutionary organizing amongst the oppressed of Turtle Island. So while the privileged urbanite settlers of the RAIM, the Leading Light Communist Organization and others continue to sit back and proselytize the gospel of Maoist-Third Worldism to actually oppressed people in the Third World, and in their own back yard, I’ll continue to work towards making actual revolution.



In the Spirit of Total Resistance—Smash Capitalism!
Long Live the Class Warrior!

[Bud Struggle]

because the crackers who make them (I say crackers because ALL of the M-TWists I have met and spoken with over time, as well as those known to me through my comrades, have been privileged, urban living members of the white nation),

The guy who wrote that piece would end up in OI in a heartbeat if he posted on RevLeft. :)

[#FF0000]

The guy who wrote that piece would end up in OI in a heartbeat if he posted on RevLeft. :)

No he wouldn't.

Well he might. I don't know if he's a communist or not.

[Bud Struggle]

The main issue with this Third Worldism is that it puts YOU the First world worker in a similar position as the Bourgeoisoie. And that makes you VERY VERY uncomfortable.

[RGacky3]

The main issue with this Third Worldism is that it puts YOU the First world worker in a similar position as the Bourgeoisoie. And that makes you VERY VERY uncomfortable.


Thats not the issue at all, the issue is it the economics of it don't add up at all.

But you don't understand the economics of it at all, your only going along with it because it somehow boosts your narrative.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i haven't read this entire thread, but i think something should be said in defense of nationalism of the oppressed. ive never considered myself a third worldist or a maoist but i think that the first/third world dichotomy continues to bear significance and that the struggle against capitalism necessarily entails a struggle against international capital as a force of exploitation and oppression of specific groups in distinct ways. of course im not implying that the national ruling classes of the developing world are our allies. they are very much so in partnership with the first world bourgeoisie, which is precisely my point.
as for first world feminism, i think Angela Davis put it very well. i cant be arsed to find an exceprt but the point is that anglo-american feminism shouldnt be imposed upon women of different cultural and political circumstances where those "first world" concepts are foreign and detached from the actual interests of those women. behind such endeavors like american feminists freeing the women of africa and the mideast from gender oppression or other such nonsense rooted in the idea that the West is politically advanced and superior lies a bigoted and oppressive agenda of national chauvinism and of course imperialism. the idea that western gender politics should be imposed upon other cultures necessarily involves support for imperialist intervention as far as i can see.

[red cat]

The original Leninist and Maoist components of third worldism are correct, but what groups like the MSH claim is mostly absurd and reactionary in nature. If the whole of the first world working class is reactionary then how do we explain the anti-war and black liberation movements of the 60s ?

[Struggle]

Dismissing 'Maoism Third Worldism' because of comments made by an individual would be wrong. Sure, there are parts of 'Maoism-Third Worldism' I disagree with, but they also have good points.

The notion that revolutions will not occur in advanced Capitalist countries because its not in the material interests of the vast majority of people, seems quite accurate. Although these so-called 'parasites', indeed currently are enemies of revolution, are thus because of false consciousness. With that said, it's very hard to educate tens of millions of people into the fundamentals of Marxism, especially when they're standards of living will decrease precisely because of Marxist society.

Personally, and this may sound arrogant but is not intended to be, many Leftists in Britain have got it wrong, and is not just specific to ‘Maoist-Third Worldists’. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves thinking each one of us is perfect and has all the correct ideas. I have taken the liberty to study and understand Maoism-Third Worldism objectively. It isn’t a theory which takes only 2 hours to fully understand. I came out of it supporting some ideas, but disagreeing with other ideas. All Communists have something to offer the movement, let’s not just dismiss all ideas held by ‘Maoist-Third Worldists’ merely because of some comments you disagree with.

And before I’m cast aside of being a ‘Maoist-Third Worldist’, I feel its important to make a point of saying, I am a non-doctrine Communist.

[Crimson Commissar]

The problem with Maoism in general, not just MTWism, is that they put far too much emphasis on anti-imperialist struggle rather than class struggle. I often see Maoists making points about US imperialism and the oppression of the third world, but very rarely do I ever see them call for the liberation of the working class, only for the defeat of the US. This is third world chauvinism and completely disregards the fact that oppression will still exist even when imperialism is gone. An entirely seperate anti-imperialist movement is unnecessary, as imperialism will cease to exist under socialist rule.

[red cat]

The problem with Maoism in general, not just MTWism, is that they put far too much emphasis on anti-imperialist struggle rather than class struggle. I often see Maoists making points about US imperialism and the oppression of the third world, but very rarely do I ever see them call for the liberation of the working class, only for the defeat of the US. This is third world chauvinism and completely disregards the fact that oppression will still exist even when imperialism is gone. An entirely seperate anti-imperialist movement is unnecessary, as imperialism will cease to exist under socialist rule.

Since most of the military offensives against Maoists today is directly or indirectly controlled by US imperialism, this is quite expected. How is this third world chauvinism ? Empty slogans calling for the liberation of the working class will not contribute a bit towards its actual liberation. The slogans related to the proletariat seizing power are raised wherever they are useful.

[RGacky3]

The notion that revolutions will not occur in advanced Capitalist countries because its not in the material interests of the vast majority of people, seems quite accurate. '

Some of the biggest uprisings and workers strikes have been in second and first world countries.

First world workers have if better than third world workers yeah, but they also have much more to gain.


is that they put far too much emphasis on anti-imperialist struggle rather than class struggle.

Which they don't realize is a result of class struggle, its part of it.

But the main problem with third worldism is the concept that first world workers are net benefactors in the economy, because they are doing btter than the third world, which is absurd. If one guy has the flu and another guy has cancer they are both still sick.

[Revolution starts with U]

The main issue with this Third Worldism is that it puts YOU the First world worker in a similar position as the Bourgeoisoie. And that makes you VERY VERY uncomfortable.

This is what I mean Bud.. you're never going to be honest with anyone else, until you start being honest with yourself.
How you could not see that most of us (everyone but Gack) were saying "yes the developed world worker benefits from exploitation.... but 3rd worldism is BS" is beyond me. Oh wait.. no it's not. You want to feel justified living in your bourgie utopia (like your comments about how happy americans are) so you couldn't you have to lie to yourself. The worst part is, I'm sure you don't think that's what you're doing.

This above all, to thine own self be true.

[Palingenisis]

The original Leninist and Maoist components of third worldism are correct, but what groups like the MSH claim is mostly absurd and reactionary in nature. If the whole of the first world working class is reactionary then how do we explain the anti-war and black liberation movements of the 60s ?

The hot autumn, movement of 77 and the years of lead in Italy are very good examples as well. The winter of discontent in England might be another.

[scarletghoul]

The problem with Maoism in general, not just MTWism, is that they put far too much emphasis on anti-imperialist struggle rather than class struggle. I often see Maoists making points about US imperialism and the oppression of the third world, but very rarely do I ever see them call for the liberation of the working class, only for the defeat of the US. This is third world chauvinism and completely disregards the fact that oppression will still exist even when imperialism is gone. An entirely seperate anti-imperialist movement is unnecessary, as imperialism will cease to exist under socialist rule.Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. Therefore the fight against imperialism is class struggle. In fact places like Korea, Afghanistan, etc, are the front lines of the struggle right now. If you have a problem with this then I suggest you take it up with Lenin.

[scarletghoul]

The hot autumn, movement of 77 and the years of lead in Italy are very good examples as well. The winter of discontent in England might be another.There are many more examples.. Even the war in the 6 counties could be an example, considering the whole of western Europe is 'first world' to these MTWists.

[Palingenisis]

No he wouldn't.

Well he might. I don't know if he's a communist or not.

I think its pretty clear that he is some type of revolutionary socialist. Id go along with a lot of what he says. And LLCO/MSH call other people crackers so I dont see why calling them crackers back is such a big deal.

[#FF0000]

The main issue with this Third Worldism is that it puts YOU the First world worker in a similar position as the Bourgeoisoie. And that makes you VERY VERY uncomfortable.

Being white puts me in a similar position as the Bourgeoisie, some would say. That analysis doesn't make me uncomfortable.

[RGacky3]

Its projection, Buds arguments are knee jerk emotional reactions so he assumes everyone else's must be the same, rather than actual thought out analysis.

[Bud Struggle]

Its projection, Buds arguments are knee jerk emotional reactions so he assumes everyone else's must be the same, rather than actual thought out analysis.

Hey, there is ONE of me and fifty of you here. I do make some blanket assumptions but I can't taylor every response to each and every slightly divergent point view on this place.

[Bud Struggle]

Being white puts me in a similar position as the Bourgeoisie, some would say. That analysis doesn't make me uncomfortable.

You have no choice being white--you do have a choice in participating iin the Bourgeois exploitation of the Third world. I have no personal problem with you doing that--but in a lot of ways you are part of the problem.

[RGacky3]

I do make some blanket assumptions but I can't taylor every response to each and every slightly divergent point view on this place.

But you can try and back up your arugments with something, evidence, logic anything, but you don't, thats my beef.

[Bud Struggle]

But you can try and back up your arugments with something, evidence, logic anything, but you don't, thats my beef.

Sorry I don't read many trendy fashion magazines. :D

[RGacky3]

Sorry I don't read many trendy fashion magazines. :D

That sort of response, is all anyone really needs to know about you in the context of this forum.

Your a clown.

[Bud Struggle]

That sort of response, is all anyone really needs to know about you in the context of this forum.

Your a clown.
:D

[ComradeMan]

Sorry I don't read many trendy fashion magazines. :D

That was quite funny... I must admit... Vanity Fair by any chance?

[#FF0000]

You have no choice being white--you do have a choice in participating iin the Bourgeois exploitation of the Third world. I have no personal problem with you doing that--but in a lot of ways you are part of the problem.

How so?

[Bud Struggle]

How so?

You can't change you color--and admittedly there is an advantage (though there shouldn't be) to being white. On the other hand--taking advantage of third world is something that you can gout out of your way to consciously avoid--much like being a vegan avoids animal products. It won't of course be perfect--but you can at least try.

[RGacky3]

On the other hand--taking advantage of third world is something that you can gout out of your way to consciously avoid

How do WE take advantage of the third world, and how is that conscious?

[Bud Struggle]

How do WE take advantage of the third world, and how is that conscious?

Who makes your clothes? Your computer? Child labor?

[#FF0000]

You can't change you color--and admittedly there is an advantage (though there shouldn't be) to being white. On the other hand--taking advantage of third world is something that you can gout out of your way to consciously avoid--much like being a vegan avoids animal products. It won't of course be perfect--but you can at least try.

Yeah but the problem is as systematic as the racism that gives me privilege for my skin.

But I know what you're talking about. I buy my clothes at all the cheap places that have my size which generally means I'm gonna be taking advantage of third world labor, but I really can't get expensive clothes. :mellow:

I buy videogame systems and consumer electronics secondhand, tho.

But regardless none of this really makes a difference, and it's literally impossible to boycott everything that exploits third world labor. I figure it's better to do what I can to advocate and push towards a socialist world anyway, because as clear as the inequalities between people, between first and third world, between the genders, between races, we aren't really equipped to solve these problems in Capitalism. I wouldn't say that classism is more damaging than racism or sexism or whatever, but I would say that we can't solve the problems of racism, sexism and global poverty and exploitation in any meaningful way until capitalism is gone.

[RGacky3]

Who makes your clothes? Your computer? Child labor?

Yeah, but thats taken with stagnant wages, first world lay offs, relyance on credit and so on.

Also the net profit from all of that does not actually benefit the first world worker, which is why profits grow exponentionally during imperialism, if the workers were getting benefit, it would not grow exponentially because the workers benefit would also grow, but it does'nt.

So no, if you look at the economics of it, the first world worker is not really a net benfactor of imperialism.

[Lt. Ferret]

so once again you guys are too lazy to even take minimal steps to fix the problem.


go look at the punk subculture, most of them can easily stop buying third world products, or grow their own food, or make their own clothes.

you're just bourgeoisie with a massive guilt complex, nothing more.

[#FF0000]

so once again you guys are too lazy to even take minimal steps to fix the problem.


go look at the punk subculture, most of them can easily stop buying third world products, or grow their own food, or make their own clothes.

you're just bourgeoisie with a massive guilt complex, nothing more.

I think doing something remotely useful is probably a better idea than being a silly baby. but no yeah seriously i am totally sure that one day everyone in the first world will see the light and turn to diy.

this nonsense.

[Lt. Ferret]

yes im supposed to take you seriously when you claim you dont have the power to buy products from the first world or stop buying certain products at all.


fucking incredible.

[ComradeMan]

yes im supposed to take you seriously when you claim you dont have the power to buy products from the first world or stop buying certain products at all.


fucking incredible.

Yeah, like when I suggested not buying certain products and avoiding things as best possible, such as fast food and/or products produced by large multi-nationals....

Some people here, it seems, preach hardline ideological purity, whilst sitting round eating their double cheeseburgers, drinking their cokes and playing war games on the computer whilst listening to "reactionary" rap...:laugh:

[scarletghoul]

Boycotting, unless on a mass scale, is a stupid petty-bourgeois tactic that does not make any difference at all, except for making you feel good about yourself. It's like Fair Trade, giving to charity, or 'organic' food. It just makes people smug about themselves while not solving any problem. It can be successful when masses of people do it at once, but that is very rare throughout history. Usually it is impotent

This is the same reason I'm not a vegan. If avoiding animal products would help end animal cruelty and the meat industry then I'd probably do it, but it doesn't.

Its actually very easy to make a minor lifestyle adjustment that has no effect on the world; what's more difficult is to challenge the system at the core where this injustice originates

[Bud Struggle]

so once again you guys are too lazy to even take minimal steps to fix the problem.


go look at the punk subculture, most of them can easily stop buying third world products, or grow their own food, or make their own clothes.

you're just bourgeoisie with a massive guilt complex, nothing more.

And this is why Revolutions happen in places like Tunisia and Egypt and other parts of the Third world--and the Tea Party and David Cameron happnes in the First world.

[#FF0000]

yes im supposed to take you seriously when you claim you dont have the power to buy products from the first world or stop buying certain products at all.


fucking incredible. What's the use though. Seriously what does it affect?


Yeah, like when I suggested not buying certain products and avoiding things as best possible, such as fast food and/or products produced by large multi-nationals....

Some people here, it seems, preach hardline ideological purity, whilst sitting round eating their double cheeseburgers, drinking their cokes and playing war games on the computer whilst listening to "reactionary" rap...:laugh: You don't need to be an ascetic to be a communist.


And this is why Revolutions happen in places like Tunisia and Egypt and other parts of the Third world--and the Tea Party and David Cameron happnes in the First world. http://www.crystaltest.com/nina/images/city_cairo_night_skyline.jpg

I just want to point out that places like this are what you're talking about when you talk about a lot of the time when you talk about the "Third World". They buy things, you know.

Also the Third World has groups like The Muslim Brotherhood, the Janjaweed...etc. so I don't really understand your point.

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.crystaltest.com/nina/images/city_cairo_night_skyline.jpg

I just want to point out that places like this are what you're talking about when you talk about a lot of the time when you talk about the "Third World". They buy things, you know.

Also the Third World has groups like The Muslim Brotherhood, the Janjaweed...etc. so I don't really understand your point.

Well Best Mod--you seem to be making a pretty good point that Capitalism is doing a pretty good job in making the Third World a pretty advanced place.

I defer to your point.

[scarletghoul]

Well Best Mod--you seem to be making a pretty good point that Capitalism is doing a pretty good job in making the Third World a pretty advanced place.

I defer to your point.
His point rather is that there are advanced consumer societies and poverty-ridden shitholes in every country, be it 'third world' or 'first world'.

As a counterpoint, here are some images of everyday life in the USA
http://sites.google.com/site/missybabygirl/pine_ridge_aaron_huey21-large.jpghttp://endoftheamericandream.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/American-Cities-And-States-Are-Flat-Broke.jpghttp://www.habitants.org/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/usa_cities_deal_with_a_surge_in_shanty_towns/461838-1-eng-GB/usa_cities_deal_with_a_surge_in_shanty_towns.jpght tp://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvz7SNa5g04ry_6PHcWSaMYkqpdFZlm TDqnBnHqQiWY3tMr6UWIQ&t=1http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcUIgJVrHRTIaP1b9W2XNn2rDF8K-0G-RG4y_xgbPRYQJch_ZCqw&t=1

[Bud Struggle]

^^I can't disagree with that. BUT don't you think that Leftists in the First world should make some sort of an effort to support Workers in the Third world as much as they can?

I guess my problem here is I don't sense any solidarity among the Proletariats in differnt places. And I see the Third world making all of the gains and the people that SHOULD be making gains--the industrialized world--not doing so well.

(Also, I've been to Cairo--and it's far more shithole than First World city--no offense intended to any Egyptians.)

[#FF0000]

^^I can't disagree with that. BUT don't you think that Leftists in the First world should make some sort of an effort to support Workers in the Third world as much as they can?

They do. But, what sort of thing are you talking about when you talk about support?


I guess my problem here is I don't sense any solidarity among the Proletariats in differnt places. And I see the Third world making all of the gains and the people that SHOULD be making gains--the industrialized world--not doing so well.

What about the Gaza flotilla? What about the protests all around the world in support of the Egyptians right now?


(Also, I've been to Cairo--and it's far more shithole than First World city--no offense intended to any Egyptians.)

Every Egyptian I know says p. much the same thing.

[RGacky3]

^^I can't disagree with that. BUT don't you think that Leftists in the First world should make some sort of an effort to support Workers in the Third world as much as they can?

I guess my problem here is I don't sense any solidarity among the Proletariats in differnt places. And I see the Third world making all of the gains and the people that SHOULD be making gains--the industrialized world--not doing so well.



The first world left are the ONLY ONES in the first world supporting third world struggles.


YOu don't sense any solidarity because your not part of the radical left anywhere.

YOu see the third world making gains (well not really that much), but your not paying attention to the first world gains.

[RGacky3]

And this is why Revolutions happen in places like Tunisia and Egypt and other parts of the Third world--and the Tea Party and David Cameron happnes in the First world.

Your forgeting many many things that happen in the first world, huge strikes and riots in europe, anti-forclosure movements in the US, and strikes in the US (that the media ignores because the US media is propeganda.), your forgetting a bunch of stuff Bud because it does'nt fit your narrative.


go look at the punk subculture, most of them can easily stop buying third world products, or grow their own food, or make their own clothes.


And a whole lot they changed huh.

[Lt. Ferret]

so what do you DO?

you dont support boycotts to alter the flow of goods in the current system.


youre obviously not in a state of violent insurrection.

what the fuck do you do and why shouldnt i dismiss all of this as just armchair general garbage?

[RGacky3]

you dont support boycotts to alter the flow of goods in the current system.


Sometimes I do when it makes sense and will make a difference.


what the fuck do you do and why shouldnt i dismiss all of this as just armchair general garbage?

I really could'nt give a rats ass wither you dismiss us or not, because you don't know what any of us do, and your not really a person that commands respect so your judgement does'nt really matter.

The fact is leftists are the only ones trying to make the world a better place, be it in their workplaces, their communities, or through solidairty with third world movements.

[#FF0000]

so what do you DO?

you dont support boycotts to alter the flow of goods in the current system.

This is literally useless unless it is on a large scale.


youre obviously not in a state of violent insurrection.Because it isn't useful at this point.

[Bud Struggle]

Your forgeting many many things that happen in the first world, huge strikes and riots in europe, anti-forclosure movements in the US, and strikes in the US (that the media ignores because the US media is propeganda.), your forgetting a bunch of stuff Bud because it does'nt fit your narrative. And a whole lot they changed huh.


And a whole lot they changed huh.

[RGacky3]

But then again Lt. Ferret IS part of the US army, so maybe he does'nt fully understand the difference between useful and pointless.

[RGacky3]

And a whole lot they changed huh.


Actually ... It did.

[#FF0000]

And a whole lot they changed huh.

That's what people get for trying I guess?

[Ele'ill]

Why spend years of effort organizing and putting to motion a boycott against a company when if successful- and if the company collapses and just goes away- will do nothing but give way to the next competitor and new competitors under them. What a waste of time. That's like cutting your hair with tweezers.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually ... It did.

The French strikers lost. Nothing happened with the strikes in Greece. What were you speaking of?

[Lt. Ferret]

But then again Lt. Ferret IS part of the US army, so maybe he does'nt fully understand the difference between useful and pointless.


lollin hard at this retard post. :thumbup1: keep attacking my character. youre useless, its obvious, you do nothing, you do not further revolution, you are not a revolutionary, you are a bourgeoisie:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: liberal with a guilt complex

[Ele'ill]

Nothing happened with the strikes in Greece.

As a capitalist surely you can respect gaining momentum- through failing, learning, adjusting and in this case all of that and ultimately further radicalization. In 2008 the country ran out of tear gas- you say 'yeah but it did nothing' I say 'yes but it was something'

[Bud Struggle]

Why spend years of effort organizing and putting to motion a boycott against a company when if successful- and if the company collapses and just goes away- will do nothing but give way to the next competitor and new competitors under them. What a waste of time. That's like cutting your hair with tweezers.

If I believed what you believe: I wouldn't give up. EVER.

I personally believe in the American dream--and I never gave up there. And I got it. If you really believe in something and want it to happen--never give up and inch. (My personal advice.:rolleyes:)

[Bud Struggle]

lollin hard at this retard post. :thumbup1: keep attacking my character. youre useless, its obvious, you do nothing, you do not further revolution, you are not a revolutionary, you are a bourgeoisie:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: liberal with a guilt complex

Attacking character is all he does these days. :(

[Ele'ill]

lollin hard at this retard post.

This is not a formal warning it's a suggestion for you and others so you idiots don't get infracted- don't do that again.

[RGacky3]

lollin hard at this retard post. :thumbup1: keep attacking my character. youre useless, its obvious, you do nothing, you do not further revolution, you are not a revolutionary, you are a bourgeoisie:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: liberal with a guilt complex

.... Are you drunk?


If I believed what you believe: I wouldn't give up. EVER.


And we dont.


I personally believe in the American dream--and I never gave up there. And I got it. If you really believe in something and want it to happen--never give up and inch. (My personal advice.:rolleyes:)

when your done stroking yourself you can get back to the discussion.

[#FF0000]

If I believed what you believe: I wouldn't give up. EVER.

But we aren't. We just aren't going to do things that don't work.

[Ele'ill]

If I believed what you believe: I wouldn't give up. EVER.

I personally believe in the American dream--and I never gave up there. And I got it. If you really believe in something and want it to happen--never give up and inch. (My personal advice.:rolleyes:)

I appreciate the several posts from you lately that are nice but what you posted here doesn't serve as a rebuttal in any way at all.

[scarletghoul]

I personally believe in the American dream--and I never gave up there. And I got it. If you really believe in something and want it to happen--never give up and inch. (My personal advice.:rolleyes:)
:crying: so... so... beautiful.. your wisdom has inspired me so much bud struggle, i almost want to start accumulating surplus capital created by underpaid immigrant workers, such has the beauty of your vision affected me

[Lt. Ferret]

cant hear you eating steak for breakfast then going to vegas recreationally.

[scarletghoul]

I put this in OI so some third worldists could respond. That appears to have been a mistake as this has become a useless stupid discussion with bud struggle and some military gobshite

[Lt. Ferret]

how come id get an infraction for saying retard but calling me a gobshite is okay?

[#FF0000]

how come id get an infraction for saying retard but calling me a gobshite is okay?

Because gobshite is an insult and "retard" is a discriminatory word.

[Bud Struggle]

I appreciate the several posts from you lately that are nice but what you posted here doesn't serve as a rebuttal in any way at all.

I just believe you tactics are mistaken. That's all.

[#FF0000]

I just believe you tactics are mistaken. That's all.

Fair 'nuff. I think the impasse here is that we don't think it's fair to call us hypocrites because we're using tactics that you don't think are best.

[Lt. Ferret]

you dont have ANY tactics.

[RGacky3]

Leave the tactics to the people that brought you womans sufferage, and end of child labor, 8 hour workdays, weekends, collective bargening, womans rights, gay rights, civil rights, social security, a minimum wage, free speach, freedom of assembally, the people who got us out of vietnam and Iraq, the people that liberated most of the countries in the world that have been liberated, and so on and so forth.

[Ele'ill]

you dont have ANY tactics.

lol how absurd.