Theories of class alliance: a scale of third worldism

[Thug Lessons]

Third worldism is, most basically, an explanation of imperialism's effects, both in the sphere of production and on popular political consciousness. Specifically, third worldists argue that international exploitation has muddled the class situation in the imperialist nations, such that "nations become almost like classes". While class conflict may, and almost certainly does, persist in first world countries, the growth of proletarian consciousness and socialist politics is stymied, if not outright crippled, by common national interest running across class lines. Central to this thesis is the idea that entire nations benefit from imperialism, not just their ruling classes, and that these benefits act as a check both on revolutionary and anti-imperialist tendencies.

Probably the first prominent communist to advocate any sort of theory that might be called third worldist was Lenin, in his Imperialism, but it wasn't until the late 20th century that organizations like MIM and MSH/LLCO would make third worldism the central tenet of their platform. These groups subscribe to a hardline third worldist view in which the vast majority of members of the imperialists nations, (which may or may not include certain oppressed populations, such as black people in America, depending which group you're talking about), lack a proletarian consciousness, and perhaps aren't even technically 'workers' at all. However, there are other theorists that incorporate more mild third worldist views into larger analyses. For example, in A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development, respected Marxist geographer, theorist and lecturer David Harvey examines what he terms 'regional class alliances':


Investments in the built environment effectively define regional spaces for the circulation of capital. Within these spaces, production, distribution, exchange and consumption, supply and demand (particularly for labor power), class struggle, culture and lifestyles hang together with an open system that nevertheless exhibits some kind of "structured coherence". Modes of consumption here become geographically differentiated according to concentrations of wealth and power (e.g. the immense concentration of wealth in Manhattan turns this into a very special market) and cultural differentiations can either be transformed or actively produced that generate niche markets. The differentiated world of consumer power and consumption preferences here enters into a major determinant of uneven geographical development. Regional consciousness and identities, even affective loyalties, may build within this region and, when it is overlain by some apparatus of governance and state power, the regional space can evolve into a territorial unit that operates as some kind of defined space of collective consumption and production as well as political action. The collectivity can consolidate itself by assuming responsibility for embedding all manner of infrastructure in the land (highway systems, port facilities, water and sewage systems, etc.) and setting up multiple institutional supports (education and healthcare) that define a particular way of relating to capital accumulation as well as the rest of the world.

A regional class alliance then typically emerges to establish a pattern of governance in which the stakes are fundamentally the economic health and well-being of the region rather than of the class. Landed capital (and developer capital) often takes the lead in "growth machine" politics but frequently finance capital is also heavily involved because of the heavy dependence of landed capital on the credit system. Here enters "growth machine politics", "urban entrepreneurialism" and "regional growth coalitions" and other structures of governance dedicated to improving the competitive strength of the region/territory vis-a-vis other regions/territories. Local bourgeoisies (small commercial enterprises, landowners, landlords) may offer popular support and frequently elements of the working class can be persuaded to join a local class alliance on the grounds that the welfare of the region will provide spillover benefits to them. The structure of local alliances is highly variable depending upon who takes the leadership role, what the project is and how it is articulated. Alliances can easily become exclusionary (e.g. anti-immigrant) as well as developmental and they can be fractured and conflict-ridden or comfortably hegemonic depending upon conditions. One of the great variables of uneven geographical development, therefore, is the nature and form of regional class alliances.

Harvey calls upon analysts to consider these regional class alliances as part of theory involving, among other things, "exploitative practices of capitalism backed by the political, military and geopolitical activities of the most powerful nation states engaging in imperialist, colonial or neo-colonial exploitation of territories and whole populations" as well as "the abilities of states or collections of states to extract surpluses from the rest of the world and reduce much of the world to a subservient division of labor convenient to the needs of hegemonic power(s)", but appears to break with hardline third worldists when he acknowledges the importance of how "There are of course always forces at work that undermine regionality as structured coherence. Class alliances can dissolve or shift". I would, based on these statements, classify Harvey as a third worldist, though not one of the MIM/MSH/Sakai variety, but I can't be entirely confident as his highly dialectical, post-modern perspective does not lend itself easily to classification and, quite frankly, sometimes leaves me rather confused.

Now, what I want to do here is contrast these views with those so often put forth by first world socialist activists and partisans, including those here. Their reaction to third worldism, especially of the MIM/MSH/Sakai variety, seem to be outright rejection. While essentially no one disagrees about the existence of imperialism on the left, many first world socialists seem to believe that it produces little effect on how workers in imperialist countries relate to capital or the development of their political consciousness. The suggestion that the material conditions of imperialism might push workers into a class alliance with their local bourgeoisie is seen as an anti-socialist attempt to replace class struggle with nationalism. I and other third worldists disagree, but that's not really the point I'm getting at here.

It seems that there are scales of third worldism. It's not an all or nothing deal. To try and clarify these competing views, I've developed a rough version of one of these scales to distinguish between possible viewpoints on the third worldist thesis. For full disclosure, I'll admit I was inspired here by the scale of atheism/theism presented by Dick R. R. Dawkins in The God Delusion, which if I recall correctly was actually borrowed from someone else. I don't have the book in front of me though, so I can't tell you who that was.


6: Absolute third worldism - As a result of imperialism, class is essentially unimportant in the first world. The overwhelming motivation for political action is to maintain the benefits of imperialism.

5: Strong third worldism - While class distinctions do exist in the first world and motivate political action, they are most often secondary to imperialist concerns.

4: Weak third worldism - Imperialism is the dominant political force in first world nations, but they remain rife with class contradictions.

3: Weak anti-third worldism - Imperialism has a strong effect on first world political consciousness, but class conflict is the dominant factor.

2: Strong anti-third worldism - While imperialism plays a role in political action in the first world, class conflict is far more important.

1: Absolute anti-third worldism - Imperialism play essentially no role in determining political consciousness in the first world.


Now, this scale is admittedly far from perfect. It's a simplification of a complex question, and is bound to leave some people's opinions out, (e.g., I'm not confident putting David Harvey at a particular spot on this scale). It's also framed in a present context and as such doesn't deal directly with changing class relations, but feel free to consider it from a forward-looking perspective if you feel that's more useful. Finally, it focuses entirely on the first world and ignores the third, but the third world anti-imperialism that third worldists advocate isn't so much in dispute.

So, even with a few imperfections, I think this scale can offer some constructive insights into where people stand on the question of third worldism, and provide a decent starting point for a debate that's a little more useful than yelling about who the revisionist is. I'd rank myself at somewhere between 4 and 5, and MSH/LLCO as a 5 leaning towards a 6. Feel free to rank yourself. Or don't. It's up to you.

[Thug Lessons]

A few more thoughts:

It's been a while since I posted here. My views have grown and I'd like to say they're more informed than when I was last here, but overall they haven't changed that much. The only major difference, as I see it, is that I'm more willing to emphasize class differences within first world societies. That's a real thing, and I never denied that, but I don't want to come off sounding like I'm ignorant of the struggle between different groups within these societies or unsympathetic towards those struggles, even though my geopolitical view is that they're almost all net beneficiaries of imperialism. I might even go back on previous claims that first world workers were not usually exploited -- I believe that's almost always the case in the sense of whether they're producers or consumers of surplus value, but I'm not so eager to define exploitation in those narrow terms anymore.

Last time I started a thread on this topic, we, (i.e. primarily S. Artesian and myself), had a very good discussion of the third worldist theory of production. If that's what people want to talk about again I'm more than happy to, and I'm even more confident I can refute any of the criticisms people offer towards third worldism on that front, but it would also be great to look at the issue more broadly. Also, feel free to ask me any questions about the topic you might have. A couple people expressed interest last time and I sorta disappeared on them, and I'll apologize for that, but I'm committed to putting a better effort into it this time.


Finally, for the record, I am not an official member of any particular third worldist organization.

[danyboy27]

third worldism is an anti-working class ideology.

its only further divide the working class worldwide and create useless tension between worker of the first and third world.

we are all worker, and we are all exploited, the degree of exploitation dosnt really matter, what matter is our relation with the mean of production.

[Thug Lessons]

third worldism is an anti-working class ideology.

its only further divide the working class worldwide and create useless tension between worker of the first and third world.

we are all worker, and we are all exploited, the degree of exploitation dosnt really matter, what matter is our relation with the mean of production.

This gets repeated again and again every time this topic comes up, and it's just as worthless as it was the first time. It comes from people who apparently subscribe to a dogmatic and mechanistic view of class struggle in which the working class is always and necessarily locked in a death struggle with capital regardless of the international context. You might as well argue that anti-fascism during WWII was "an anti-working class ideology" because it "created useless tension between workers of the Allies and Axis".

[RGacky3]

You might as well argue that anti-fascism during WWII was "an anti-working class ideology" because it "created useless tension between workers of the Allies and Axis".

Nope, because fascism was bad for German/Italian and Spanish workers too.

[Thug Lessons]

Nope, because fascism was bad for German/Italian and Spanish workers too.

I wouldn't dispute the idea that capitalism is bad for first world workers in the sense that they'd be better off under a socialist system of production, (at least if only applied nationally or within the first world). But much like German and Italian workers during WWII, I'm also committed to the fight against their nations.

[danyboy27]

This gets repeated again and again every time this topic comes up, and it's just as worthless as it was the first time. It comes from people who apparently subscribe to a dogmatic and mechanistic view of class struggle in which the working class is always and necessarily locked in a death struggle with capital regardless of the international context. You might as well argue that anti-fascism during WWII was "an anti-working class ideology" because it "created useless tension between workers of the Allies and Axis".


its beccause its the case, we are locked in a death struggle with capitalism.

[Thug Lessons]

its beccause its the case, we are locked in a death struggle with capitalism.

No, we are locked in a struggle with capital over the homes, cars and consumer goods we own, as well as the advanced medical technology, world-class education, social safety nets and cheap food we have access to. That's a real struggle, and it doesn't take and idiot to see which side is in the right. However, to call it a 'death struggle' cheapens the term.

[danyboy27]

No, we are locked in a struggle with capital over the homes, cars and consumer goods we own, as well as the advanced medical technology, world-class education, social safety nets and cheap food we have access to. That's a real struggle, and it doesn't take and idiot to see which side is in the right. However, to call it a 'death struggle' cheapens the term.

go tell that to the 99er, go tell that to the people in the us who cannot offord medical care, go tell that to the million made homeless in the us for the recents year of the economic crisis.

our priviledges and safety net we worked our asses to the bone to protect are taken away by the corporation has we speak.

[Thug Lessons]

go tell that to the 99er, go tell that to the people in the us who cannot offord medical care, go tell that to the million made homeless in the us for the recents year of the economic crisis.

our priviledges and safety net we worked our asses to the bone to protect are taken away by the corporation has we speak.

Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say there's a real class struggle in the first world. However, a class struggle doesn't always translate into a viable revolutionary movement. The petty bourgeoisie squabbles with the big bourgeoisie, but they are not a revolutionary force in and of themselves. The medieval peasantry was engaged in a class struggle against the feudal landlords for centuries before the conditions were right for abolition of feudalism. Again, what you're advancing is a very simplistic, dogmatic view of class struggle that doesn't take the context into account.

[scarletghoul]

Would you not agree that there have been many big revolutionary movements in 'first world' countries ?

Also I don't really see how the world can just be divided into first world and third world anyway, especially by development or gdp or whatever. There are developed countries like Japan, South Korea, and Ireland which are under imperial occupation. There are prosperous and rich areas in third world countries, as well as severe poverty in first world countries. In most countries, there are 'first world' and 'third world' communities living side by side (Israel/Palestine being the most striking example).

[red cat]

One big difference between the first and third worlds is that the first world is the headquarter of the biggest imperialist capital. So, all militant struggles in the first world can be liquidated mainly through reforms, while the imperialist capital makes it up by exploiting the third world more. So, in the first phase of the world revolution, the first world movements will mainly tend to succumb to the lack of mass participation due to these reforms, while the third world movements will face mainly or only a military challenge from the ruling classes, and lead to revolutions in the colonies.

[danyboy27]

Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say there's a real class struggle in the first world. However, a class struggle doesn't always translate into a viable revolutionary movement. The petty bourgeoisie squabbles with the big bourgeoisie, but they are not a revolutionary force in and of themselves. The medieval peasantry was engaged in a class struggle against the feudal landlords for centuries before the conditions were right for abolition of feudalism. Again, what you're advancing is a very simplistic, dogmatic view of class struggle that doesn't take the context into account.

hey its not like all the third world countries worldwide have a geniune revolutionary movement rocking the boat.

if it was the case, you would have a point.

[HEAD ICE]

You might as well argue that anti-fascism during WWII was "an anti-working class ideology" because it "created useless tension between workers of the Allies and Axis".

Anti-fascism during WWII was an anti-working class ideology because it lined up workers to be slaughtered in defense of bourgeois democracy, which was erroneously considered less vicious than fascism and better for the development of socialism.

Real anti-fascism is anti-capitalism which rejects all forms of capitalist domination equally. Fascism burned Jews while "progressive" bourgeois democracy melted the Japanese.

[ComradeMan]

Anti-fascism during WWII was an anti-working class ideology because it lined up workers to be slaughtered in defense of bourgeois democracy, which was erroneously considered less vicious than fascism and better for the development of socialism.

Real anti-fascism is anti-capitalism which rejects all forms of capitalist domination equally. Fascism burned Jews while "progressive" bourgeois democracy melted the Japanese.

So what was the alternative in the face of the Nazi onslaught? It's a bit more complicated than that- although I do hear what you are saying too. Don't forget that fascism and Nazism were violently anti-communist and thus anti-working-class so any lack of resistance to them would have been even more anti-working class.

[HEAD ICE]

So what was the alternative in the face of the Nazi onslaught? It's a bit more complicated than that- although I do hear what you are saying too. Don't forget that fascism and Nazism were violently anti-communist and thus anti-working-class so any lack of resistance to them would have been even more anti-working class.

Lenin gave the best alternative, it is the duty of revolutionaries to turn imperialist wars into Civil Wars. Even Trotsky, who supported the USSR in World War II, did so on his (mistaken) belief that the USSR was a workers' state. Not in defense of democracy vs fascism.

Fausto Atti gave a good example with his work amongst the Italian partisans. He advocated resistance on a class line, that the Nazi's and the USA are neither more progressive or more barbaric than the other. His success lead to his assassination by Togliatti.

[ComradeMan]

Lenin gave the best alternative, it is the duty of revolutionaries to turn imperialist wars into Civil Wars. Even Trotsky, who supported the USSR in World War II, did so on his (mistaken) belief that the USSR was a workers' state. Not in defense of democracy vs fascism.

Fausto Atti gave a good example with his work amongst the Italian partisans. He advocated resistance on a class line, that the Nazi's and the USA are neither more progressive or more barbaric than the other. His success lead to his assassination by Togliatti.

Yeah- Lenin wasn't around in 1939 with the fury of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi warmachine on him. Fausto Atti... yes, but the Italian case was different to the French, British and Polish cases as well because of the internal nature of the conflict. Leges silent piae inter arma et buccinas.


Had Lenin's theory been applied in 1940 in the UK, a civil war, then the Nazis would have probably invaded, won, and game over.

[HEAD ICE]

Yeah- Lenin wasn't around in 1939 with the fury of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi warmachine on him. Fausto Atti... yes, but the Italian case was different to the French, British and Polish cases as well because of the internal nature of the conflict.

Had Lenin's theory been applied in 1940 in the UK, a civil war, then the Nazis would have probably invaded, won, and game over.

Lenin also wasn't around for Dresden, the fire bombing of Tokyo, and the melting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Nazi's were not an abberration of capitalism.

[Kalifornia]

Thirdworldism is basically saying anyone who is better off than those starving to death is benefitting from their starving to death.

However third worldists who only say that revolution is more likely to happen in the third world are comrades, but the crazy offshoot who talkkk likkke thiss are fucking unscientific morons.

[ComradeMan]

Lenin also wasn't around for Dresden, the fire bombing of Tokyo, and the melting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Nazi's were not an abberration of capitalism.

No he wasn't, and no one is defending that either. But the alternatives to resistance as was to the Nazis and fascists would have gifted them victory. Wars don't exactly always bring out the nicest in people...

[HEAD ICE]

No he wasn't, and no one is defending that either. But the alternatives to resistance as was to the Nazis and fascists would have gifted them victory. Wars don't exactly always bring out the nicest in people...

Victory for the Nazis and fascists would have been absolutely horrible. Just like how the victory of Allies was absolutely horrible for the working class.

[ComradeMan]

Victory for the Nazis and fascists would have been absolutely horrible. Just like how the victory of Allies was absolutely horrible for the working class.

Yeah and the problem is there was no workable alternative. But I think I slightly prefer the victory of the latter than the former and I am not going to forget the sacrifices made by a lot of working class people in achieving at least that. It's easy for us to talk now judging from history books, it was another thing no doubt when you woke up one morning in Warsaw, or Amsterdam or Paris with the Wehrmacht and the SS marching up the road.

[Palingenisis]

Now, what I want to do here is contrast these views with those so often put forth by first world socialist activists and partisans, including those here. Their reaction to third worldism, especially of the MIM/MSH/Sakai variety, seem to be outright rejection. .

I have a lot of time for J. Sakai and the valuable work that he or she was done and I dont think that he or she belongs with MIM and MSH because while they deny the revolutionary subjectivity of the white nation working class in the USA based on its alliance with white supremacy they dont deny its exploitation.

[danyboy27]

Its also verry funny that nobody mention how fascism was able to take root in europe. if it wasnt from the crisis that the war reparation created, fascism would have been an isolated phenomenon known only in Italy.

[HEAD ICE]

Your argument is based on lesser-evilism. The thing is the left mostly threw themselves to one side of an imperialist conflict. It is important to look in hindsight to see what happened, what went wrong, and how to prevent it. Not only WWII but the Spanish Civil War as well.

Your argument doesn't base fascism within capitalism but outside of it. Fascism is a type of organization of capital that rises due to material influences. WWII proved that bourgeois democracy is no better at bringing forth socialism, and that democracy is no less barbaric or vicious than fascism.

[ComradeMan]

Its also verry funny that nobody mention how fascism was able to take root in europe. if it wasnt from the crisis that the war reparation created, fascism would have been an isolated phenomenon known only in Italy.

I'm not so sure- I think they are the inevitabilities of history- but hypothesising along the lines of cause and effect would take us back to blame the first guy who discovered fire or something... ;) The moment was the moment.

[Revolution starts with U]

I just don't get 3rd worldists. First that's like being an advocate for native american rights and calling yourself an "indianist."
But beyond the semantics, it seems they are unwavering and violent, almost to a person.
"the 3rd world is more oppressed and as such is the true working class."
"1st world workers are not as oppressed, true. But they have fought for everything they have. There's no need to cause unnecessary seperation between the workers of the world."
"No fuck you. I'll kill you."
^ That's what these "debates" usually turn into.

[#FF0000]

Yeah and the problem is there was no workable alternative.

I want to point out real quick that this is the reasoning for people supporting groups like Hamas, or in certain cases, the Taliban.

[danyboy27]

Yeah and the problem is there was no workable alternative. But I think I slightly prefer the victory of the latter than the former and I am not going to forget the sacrifices made by a lot of working class people in achieving at least that.

yes there was plenty of alternatives. The fascist ruled germany and italy with the explicit consent of the former conservatives who where in power at the time. Dont forget mussolini was disposed from his power by the king at the end of the war, and that it is the king and his buddy that allowed him to be in power in the first place, and its von papen who decided to appoint hitler, he took the decision with the approval from the conservatives has well. The conservatives didnt disapeared from germany after the night of the long knive, they always had the leverage to do something about it, they had the influence, they could have stopped it.

but they decided they wouldnt do such thing beccause the alternative to hitler and mussolini was far worse. they didnt wanted to see socialist or communist governement.


It's easy for us to talk now judging from history books, it was another thing no doubt when you woke up one morning in Warsaw, or Amsterdam or Paris with the Wehrmacht and the SS marching up the road.

Such thing wouldnt have happened. Fascist never had the intention to export their ideology, and has a matter of fact, one of the biggest threat fo fascist movement in the whole europe was nazi germany. At numerous occasion they allowed fascist movement to be litteraly destroy by more conventional authoritarian regime, Romania for exemple slaughtered the archangel league with the explicit authorisation from hitler, and most of germany pupper regime wasnt fascist. Even with multiples friendly authoritan regime, the german governement wasnt able to control everything, the structure was highly instable. Not mentionning the stupid decision of attacking the soviet union.

[Thug Lessons]

There's lots to respond to here, and I'm glad to see I'm getting a response from a wider range of posters than the last time we did this. I'll try to get to everything but forgive me if I skip you for whatever reason.


Would you not agree that there have been many big revolutionary movements in 'first world' countries ?

Well, there are several terms here that are highly open to interpretation, namely 'many', 'big', 'revolutionary' and 'first world'. But as a whole, yes, there definitely have been and are movements that represented the working class in first world countries. However, there are two difference I see between these movements and working class movements as a whole, both in aims and results. I'd say on average the first world socialists have been less revolutionary and less successful than the third world socialists, and this has become more and more the case over time. I think you'd have to be a little kooky to think the working class has much of a chance of flexing their muscle in the US at this point, let alone carrying out a successful revolution, and sadly I'd have to say the same even of the Greek, Spanish and Italian working class as well. However, as we've seen, this is most definitely not the case in Tunisia and Egypt.


Also I don't really see how the world can just be divided into first world and third world anyway, especially by development or gdp or whatever. There are developed countries like Japan, South Korea, and Ireland which are under imperial occupation. There are prosperous and rich areas in third world countries, as well as severe poverty in first world countries. In most countries, there are 'first world' and 'third world' communities living side by side (Israel/Palestine being the most striking example).

I don't see any problem with dividing the world into rich and poor countries. There's a real difference between somewhere where most of the population lives on less than $2 a day and a country where almost everyone lives in a household earning tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I also don't see a problem with believing that rich countries tend to exploit poor countries, and to be honest I'm a little mystified as to why a socialist would claim otherwise. Do you really think internally colonized populations, uneven prosperity and so on somehow make economic imperialism irrelevant?

Anyway, I'm reminded here of when white socialists, (the ISO in particular comes to mind), talk about how race doesn't really matter because everything is a class issue, and there are rich and poor members of every race, and so on. I think it's a really useless and frankly offensive view, and kind of lazy thinking that tends to homogenize the experience of the oppressed and ignores the different experiences and struggles that the worst off in contemporary society have, all in the name of unity. Well, unity is all nice and good, I agree, but it has to be founded on the facts, and I don't think you'll get anywhere ignoring them and saying all oppression and exploitation are equal and we should ignore any apparent differences. The experiences of a white middle-class worker, a black day laborer and an Indian sweatshop worker are all very different, and we need to take this into account both to formulate a working theory of contemporary capitalism and to find effective solutions to fight it, and that's what most of my original post is looking towards.

[Thug Lessons]

One big difference between the first and third worlds is that the first world is the headquarter of the biggest imperialist capital. So, all militant struggles in the first world can be liquidated mainly through reforms, while the imperialist capital makes it up by exploiting the third world more. So, in the first phase of the world revolution, the first world movements will mainly tend to succumb to the lack of mass participation due to these reforms, while the third world movements will face mainly or only a military challenge from the ruling classes, and lead to revolutions in the colonies.

That's more or less my view as well. This is exactly what happened to working-class movements across the first world in the 1930s and 40s. The CPUSA was very active in the Depression-era labor movement and was by and large tolerated by the government for a long time, and led some very successful struggles for unionization and working-class politics, but this was undermined by the reforms offered through the New Deal and the rising wealth of the nation more generally. When it eventually did come to suppress them as a result of Cold War politics, they were essentially pushovers. There was no mass violent struggle, or even a huge judicial response as there was in the Red Scare following WWI. J Sakai gives a great overview of this in Settlers, which is freely available here (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/10/28/17790131.php), contrasted with the brutal crackdown on Puerto Rican nationalists during the same timeframe.

I'm not so informed about the British situation, but from what I know Attlee's social democracy and nationalization efforts had a very similar effect on the revolutionary left in Britain, and while they're certainly more active than their American counterparts they play a very minor role in politics, (both electoral and mass), today.


I want to point out real quick that this is the reasoning for people supporting groups like Hamas, or in certain cases, the Taliban.

How could you not support Hamas against the brutal aggression and repression enacted by Israel? The Palestinians have a right to choose their own government without outside interference, even if it isn't the one I'd prefer, though to be honest it's quite clear to me that Hamas is a much better option than Fatah. Right before this whole Tunisia/Egypt thing hit and overshadowed it, Al-Jazeera released a Wikileaks-style collection of secret documents from the Fatah-led PA that outline just how closely Fatah has been working and collaborating with Israel to the detriment of its own people. I have my disagreements with Hamas as well, but I support their fight against Israel and their genuine national-liberation outlook, even if I'd prefer a PFLP government myself.

[Thug Lessons]

Your argument is based on lesser-evilism. The thing is the left mostly threw themselves to one side of an imperialist conflict. It is important to look in hindsight to see what happened, what went wrong, and how to prevent it. Not only WWII but the Spanish Civil War as well.

For me at least, that's quite true. I would much prefer the lesser evil of democratic capitalism to the horror-show of fascist capitalism, and to be honest you come across as a real fanatic by arguing otherwise. You're claiming that since both sides did bad things during the war they're equally bad without considering questions of scope or long-term consequences at all. The Allied bombings of Dresden and various Japanese cities are in no way comparable to the death camps, systematic war crimes and brutal oppression perpetrated by the German and Japanese forces during the course of the war, and I'm quite sure just about everyone on earth would have preferred the moribund Western colonialism that came about as a result of an Allied victory to the far more vicious expanding colonialism that would have resulted from an Axis victory.

I mean, do you hold the same opinion with regards to today's politics? Do you think it doesn't matter one bit whether the US is led by Barack Obama or militarist, expansionist, racist, anti-democratic fascists? Again I think this is a really fanatical view, way more out there than most of the stuff you'd read on MSH, but it's also a side question that doesn't have much relation to the topic at hand.

[ComradeMan]

yes there was plenty of alternatives. The fascist ruled germany and italy with the explicit consent of the former conservatives who where in power at the time. Dont forget mussolini was disposed from his power by the king at the end of the war, and that it is the king and his buddy that allowed him to be in power in the first place, and its von papen who decided to appoint hitler, he took the decision with the approval from the conservatives has well..

Actually it was Mussolini's only council that dismissed him and the king of Italy was the ceremonial part if you like.


Such thing wouldnt have happened. Fascist never had the intention to export their ideology, and has a matter of fact, one of the biggest threat fo fascist movement in the whole europe was nazi germany. .

What about the Italian "Empire" in Africa and the irredentist politics of Mussolini?


But at the end of the day it does not change what happened in material terms.

[bricolage]

Fausto Atti gave a good example with his work amongst the Italian partisans. He advocated resistance on a class line, that the Nazi's and the USA are neither more progressive or more barbaric than the other. His success lead to his assassination by Togliatti.
This sounds interesting, do you have any more information on it?

[scarletghoul]

Well, there are several terms here that are highly open to interpretation, namely 'many', 'big', 'revolutionary' and 'first world'. But as a whole, yes, there definitely have been and are movements that represented the working class in first world countries. However, there are two difference I see between these movements and working class movements as a whole, both in aims and results. I'd say on average the first world socialists have been less revolutionary and less successful than the third world socialists, and this has become more and more the case over time. I think you'd have to be a little kooky to think the working class has much of a chance of flexing their muscle in the US at this point, let alone carrying out a successful revolution, and sadly I'd have to say the same even of the Greek, Spanish and Italian working class as well. However, as we've seen, this is most definitely not the case in Tunisia and Egypt.You mention 'aims and results'; what are the aims and results in Tunisia and Egypt ? Not socialism, thats for sure. We are likely to see bourgeois democracy appear in these countries, at least for a little bit. The uprisings are great but they are not yet revolutionary socialist, so thats not a good example to use.

Of course, in general revolutions are more common in the third world, but to conclude that there cant be a first world revolution from that is just silly.

Why do third worldists keep going on about how the US working class isnt revolutionary, as if that will never change and applies to every 'first world' country. There are many 'third world' countries that have no chance of socialist revolution any time soon, its really a stupid and short sighted point

Interesting that you mention the Greeks. Why do you think there is no chance of revolution there ? They are certainly ahead of even most 'third world' countries in terms of a revolutionary working class

I don't see any problem with dividing the world into rich and poor countries. There's a real difference between somewhere where most of the population lives on less than $2 a day and a country where almost everyone lives in a household earning tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I also don't see a problem with believing that rich countries tend to exploit poor countries, and to be honest I'm a little mystified as to why a socialist would claim otherwise. Do you really think internally colonized populations, uneven prosperity and so on somehow make economic imperialism irrelevant?

Anyway, I'm reminded here of when white socialists, (the ISO in particular comes to mind), talk about how race doesn't really matter because everything is a class issue, and there are rich and poor members of every race, and so on. I think it's a really useless and frankly offensive view, and kind of lazy thinking that tends to homogenize the experience of the oppressed and ignores the different experiences and struggles that the worst off in contemporary society have, all in the name of unity. Well, unity is all nice and good, I agree, but it has to be founded on the facts, and I don't think you'll get anywhere ignoring them and saying all oppression and exploitation are equal and we should ignore any apparent differences. The experiences of a white middle-class worker, a black day laborer and an Indian sweatshop worker are all very different, and we need to take this into account both to formulate a working theory of contemporary capitalism and to find effective solutions to fight it, and that's what most of my original post is looking towards.
These entire 2 paragraphs are straw man bullshit. No one is arguing that people don't generally live better in the first world than the third world (though there are areas in both countries where thats not the case); my point is that the working class in the first world is perfectly capable of revolutionary struggle, and there are many examples to prove that.

What you're doing is subordinating the historical and contemporary reality of revolutionary class struggle in Ireland, Greece, France, Black America, etc etc to cia world factbook statistics and some idea someone thought of.

I would like to hear your take on Ireland. Why do thousands of people engage in armed struggle against the state in a 'first world' country ?

[RGacky3]

I got some questions Ms. Thirdworldist.

Most of the third world is'nt up in revolution, is that because they've been bought off too?

Much of the first world has unions many of which are violently opposed to by the first world Capitalist ... But why is that? since first world workers are not exploited?

Since first world workers are not exploited, how is it that first world companies make profits?

Also in the United States the top 1% control 40% of the wealth, and the bottom 90% control less than 20%, I take it that 20% is from the third world right?

Also if the Capitalits are juts GIVING away wealth to the first world working class, why do they also fight so hard to take away benefits and wages?

Also If in the third world the workers organize and fight for better conditions and less poverty, does that automatically mean that they also become exploiters???

Also why is it that countries like norway have the best off working class and yet do not have much economic imperialism? Whereas countires like the US have tons of economic imperialism but have the worst off working class (in the first world)?

Also if workers were net benefacors in imperialism should'nt you see a sharp rise in living standards the more eocnomic imperialism happened? WHere is that happening?

Also could it be that there are more worker uprisings in third world countries, because there are MORE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES? and those third world countries have a MUCH less advanced Capitalist system? (meaning the capitalits have less total control of the economy)?

Also, are YOU not an exploiter?

I've got more questions, but go ahead and take care of those first.

[Thug Lessons]

I have a lot of time for J. Sakai and the valuable work that he or she was done and I dont think that he or she belongs with MIM and MSH because while they deny the revolutionary subjectivity of the white nation working class in the USA based on its alliance with white supremacy they dont deny its exploitation.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. MSH talks non-stop about how the white working class, and all Americans generally, are not exploited but rather exploiters. I haven't read nearly as much MIM literature, but they seem to advocate something very similar.


You mention 'aims and results'; what are the aims and results in Tunisia and Egypt ? Not socialism, thats for sure. We are likely to see bourgeois democracy appear in these countries, at least for a little bit. The uprisings are great but they are not yet revolutionary socialist, so thats not a good example to use.

Yes, that's quite true, and the uprisings in the Middle East today are not revolutionary socialism in any meaningful sense. They are, however, manifestations of a class struggle that has reached the boiling point, intimately connected with imperialism, capitalism and Zionism. I'd compare what's happening over there to the European revolutions of 1848, and while I don't know the ultimate consequences will be I'm sure they'll be detrimental to the interests of global capital in a greater or lesser degree.


Interesting that you mention the Greeks. Why do you think there is no chance of revolution there ? They are certainly ahead of even most 'third world' countries in terms of a revolutionary working class

I can't be sure, but I don't see much of a future for the Greek dissidents. It seems more like a sustained, active but low-level struggle of particular disaffected groups, like the youth, the worst-hit by the government's austerity measures, and so on, than a struggle with mass appeal. And besides, there are definite things the government could do, like reversing the austerity measures, that would cut the feet out from under the protest organizers. My intuition is that the results of this will be either greater resignation to the neoliberal regime or a restoration of social democracy rather than a socialist revolution. I mean, it's not totally impossible, and I can't predict the future, but that's what seems most likely from what I've seen so far.


These entire 2 paragraphs are straw man bullshit. No one is arguing that people don't generally live better in the first world than the third world (though there are areas in both countries where thats not the case); my point is that the working class in the first world is perfectly capable of revolutionary struggle, and there are many examples to prove that.

What you're doing is subordinating the historical and contemporary reality of revolutionary class struggle in Ireland, Greece, France, Black America, etc etc to cia world factbook statistics and some idea someone thought of.

No, it's got nothing to do with 'strawmanning', that's not what a straw man argument is, and I wish internet people would stop throwing that term around like it's some sort of excuse to avoid listening to what someone's saying. I think it's very telling that people who normally are quite accepting of criticisms of white privilege, male privilege, heteronormativity, etc. are suddenly immure when someone raises the question of whether the citizens of imperialist nations might have some form of privilege as well. That's a real thing, and it's more than just a historical accident or a result of class struggle in days gone by. It's a relationship of privilege and oppression, in which wealth is transferred from oppressed nations to imperialist nations. This isn't even a controversial idea when we're talking about the first world bourgeoisie, and it's still not controversial for most of the left when applied to the general population except for a small minority of revolutionary socialists who offer up self-serving criticisms in a misguided attempt to defend the validity and prospects of their struggle.

Now more to the point, no one is arguing that imperialism and the transfer of wealth from the third world to the first makes revolution in the imperialist nations totally impossible, even MSH. However, the fact remains that there has never been a successful revolution in an imperialist nations, and the explanation of this offered by third worldists is the best I've heard so far. And, as MSH consistently brings up, even if a revolution were to occur in the US, or France, or Greece, there's little reason to believe it would move to address global inequality at the expense of its own citizens, (and, in fact, we should doubt how much it really represents national working-class interests if did).


I would like to hear your take on Ireland. Why do thousands of people engage in armed struggle against the state in a 'first world' country ?

I certainly support the anti-colonial struggle in Ireland, as does MSH, but a few thousand armed militants don't mean much in a nation of millions. The IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, are unpopular with the Irish masses both in the Republic and Northern Ireland, the vast majority of which would rather concentrate on how best to improve their country under capitalism than national liberation. And, again, even if we did see an end of colonialism in Ireland, it wouldn't do much to address imperialist exploitation globally, including how it benefits the Irish people. I view the situation in a similar way to the original US revolution - it's simultaneously a national liberation movement and an expression of inter-imperialist competition.

[Thug Lessons]

I got some questions Ms. Thirdworldist.

Most of the third world is'nt up in revolution, is that because they've been bought off too?

Not usually, but there is no single explanation for why revolutionary action or the lack thereof arises, and any analysis of such is incomplete without considering how petty-bourgeois politics has co-opted working class politics. This was true of Britain back when it had a sizable proletarian mass when Lenin first wrote about it in the early 20th century and it's true of every nation, first world and third world, today.


Much of the first world has unions many of which are violently opposed to by the first world Capitalist ... But why is that? since first world workers are not exploited?Unions aren't necessarily opposed to capitalism, and in fact most cases the end of capitalism isn't their goal. The jobs of union members depend on the company they work for, so most of the time unions work towards better relations between workers and bosses rather than throwing the bosses out completely.


Since first world workers are not exploited, how is it that first world companies make profits?The capture of surplus value from productive industry. You might as well ask how investment banks make profits despite the fact investment bankers are not exploited.


Also in the United States the top 1% control 40% of the wealth, and the bottom 90% control less than 20%, I take it that 20% is from the third world right?Not entirely, but in part yes.


Also if the Capitalits are juts GIVING away wealth to the first world working class, why do they also fight so hard to take away benefits and wages?Because capitalists will always work towards concentrating as much wealth in their own hands as possible. The difference between a struggle over wealth in the first world and one in the third world, though, is that when first world workers demand higher wages there is much money wealth to distribute than in third world nations, so employers can afford to give greater concessions while still maintaining their position.


Also If in the third world the workers organize and fight for better conditions and less poverty, does that automatically mean that they also become exploiters???No. Even if you had absolute equality in a country like India, everyone would still be very poor.


Also why is it that countries like norway have the best off working class and yet do not have much economic imperialism? Whereas countires like the US have tons of economic imperialism but have the worst off working class (in the first world)?The strength of labor organizations and a broad political commitment to social democracy are the important factor here, not economic imperialism. Also, Norway has a huge oil industry that allows it to provide a strong welfare state for its citizens, much like Saudi Arabia. They still engage in a great deal of economic imperialism though, at least in the terms of international trade that MSH focuses on so much.


Also if workers were net benefacors in imperialism should'nt you see a sharp rise in living standards the more eocnomic imperialism happened? WHere is that happening?No, because there is not some sort of Committee for the Distribution of Imperialist Super-Profits that ensures every sector of society benefits equally from imperialism. Only worker action in first world countries can ensure that.


Also could it be that there are more worker uprisings in third world countries, because there are MORE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES? and those third world countries have a MUCH less advanced Capitalist system? (meaning the capitalits have less total control of the economy)?Revolutions don't just happen by random chance. The necessary conditions for revolution arise as a result of material economic factors, and so far those conditions have only arisen in third world countries. If part, or even the whole of that is because of less capitalist control over the economy, well, then that's just another argument in favor of third worldism.


Also, are YOU not an exploiter?You are. :tt2:


I've got more questions, but go ahead and take care of those first.Don't bother, because if it's more of this I won't respond. I'm fine clearing up genuine confusion or answering well-developed criticisms of it, like those offered by some posters in this thread as well as S. Artesian in the previous one I started, but I don't believe for a minute that you're being sincere here. If you just want to bury me in an avalanche of half-formed throwaway jabs then I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

[RGacky3]

Not usually, but there is no single explanation for why revolutionary action or the lack thereof arises, and any analysis of such is incomplete without considering how petty-bourgeois politics has co-opted working class politics. This was true of Britain back when it had a sizable proletarian mass when Lenin first wrote about it in the early 20th century and it's true of every nation, first world and third world, today.


Exactly, which is why the fact that there is'nt a major revolution right now in the first world is'nt a valid argument for third worldism, I'm glad we agree.


Unions aren't necessarily opposed to capitalism, and in fact most cases the end of capitalism isn't their goal. The jobs of union members depend on the company they work for, so most of the time unions work towards better relations between workers and bosses rather than throwing the bosses out completely.


Actually most unions work toward getting benefits from their workers, which means a loss on the bottom line from the boss, so although your right, they may not look for systemic reform, they are fighting against exploitation.

However, if workers actually made MORE than what the produced, unions would be pointless would'nt they?


The capture of surplus value from productive industry. You might as well ask how investment banks make profits despite the fact investment bankers are not exploited.


Except there are many industries in the first world, infact most, that have nothing to do with the surplus value of the third world. Investment banks make profits by speculating on capital, not on production of anything, its an entirely different economic animal.

Industry in the first world, i.e. productive industry, makes profits many times, independant of the third world.


No. Even if you had absolute equality in a country like India, everyone would still be very poor.


Your measuring that (I assume), in doller values, which is subject to market manipulation and so on, if you had absolute equality in a country like india AND a democratic economy and production I think people would be doing pretty ok.

Also if a working class movement grew in India they would be pulling more of the profits back home, i.e. from multinationals into the hands of the workers (that create those profits), which would mean higher actual national wealth.


Because capitalists will always work towards concentrating as much wealth in their own hands as possible. The difference between a struggle over wealth in the first world and one in the third world, though, is that when first world workers demand higher wages there is much money wealth to distribute than in third world nations, so employers can afford to give greater concessions while still maintaining their position.


Ok, so how is it that you know that what workers have demanded in the first world is beyond first world production, and that Capitalists are actually giving them MORE, i.e. extra from the third world?

Also third-worldists say first world workers are "bribed" or not exploited. US worker productivity since the 80s has almost tripled yet their wages hav'nt gone up a bit, but ..... they still arn't exploited???

WHeres the bribing taking place?

Also in the third world, many of the Capitalists ARE multinationals who CAN afford creater concessions, and local Capitalists CAN afford greater concessoins (those countries generally have GIANT wealth inequality gaps). But multinationals are less willing to grant concessions to the third world, simply because a third world revolt hurts their bottom line a LOT less than a first world revolt.


Not entirely, but in part yes.


Ok, you REALLY belive that, that the tiny sliver of the pie that workers get in the US is from the first world, and they don't actually produce any of that pie. Your telling us you really believe that?


The strength of labor organizations and a broad political commitment to social democracy are the important factor here, not economic imperialism. Also, Norway has a huge oil industry that allows it to provide a strong welfare state for its citizens, much like Saudi Arabia. They still engage in a great deal of economic imperialism though, at least in the terms of international trade that MSH focuses on so much.


I'd say thats THE factor. (btw having a huge oil industry is'nt the main issue, many countries have natural resourses).

Ther international trade is not economic imperialism perse, they arn't taking over countries, they do have a strong trade position yes, but thats not the same as economic imperialism, and you can't pretend that THAT first world countries working class is doing well due to economic imperialism.


No, because there is not some sort of Committee for the Distribution of Imperialist Super-Profits that ensures every sector of society benefits equally from imperialism. Only worker action in first world countries can ensure that.


I thought third worldists thought first world workers were bribed???

Also give me some numerical hard evidence that first world workers are not exploited and actually get a piece of the super-profits, so far its all been theory.

But if there is no such corrolation, could it be that the actual corrolation between living standards is a strong working class? rather than imperialism?


The necessary conditions for revolution arise as a result of material economic factors, and so far those conditions have only arisen in third world countries. If part, or even the whole of that is because of less capitalist control over the economy, well, then that's just another argument in favor of third worldism.


My beef with third worldism is'nt that they thing revolutoin is more likely in the third world (I think so too), its that they think first world workers are imperialists, exploiters and are not exploited, which is absurd.


You are. :tt2:


I asked if you are, according to your theory, or if not why not?

BTW, these are genuine questions, I'm not just making cheap jabs, these issues have never been answered by third worldists.

One more question, and I'll just stick to that, where is the historicaly corrolation? between living standards and imperialism? Also where is the numerical evidence, or some sort of evidence that first world workers are not exploited? Rather than juts theory. Because there is a corrolation between imperialism and the wealth of the Capitalits and corporations, but non between worker living standards.

Actually just ONE more, don't first world workers also suffer from imperialism? outsourcing? competing with near slave labor? The mobility of Capital as opposed to labor can really hurt unions too, also even though some goods get cheaper, most of the actual good that workers need are kept inflated in their countries (food and housing for example), so imperialism does'nt actually benefit them at all.

This is all sincere, I'm not just making jabs, its a debate.

[danyboy27]

Actually it was Mussolini's only council that dismissed him and the king of Italy was the ceremonial part if you like.
.
I seriously doubt the king and his buddies has nothing to do with that at all.





What about the Italian "Empire" in Africa and the irredentist politics of Mussolini?

It was expensionism, just like german expansionism on ukraine. that dosnt mean they intended to create a russian fascist movement, all they wanted was expanding their border, not creating more fascist regimes, they wanted to prevail, social Darwinism.

[Thug Lessons]

I'm sorry Gacky, there's no way I'm going line-by-line with you on massive posts, especially when I say things like "well yes part of the US working class's wealth comes from imperialism" and you respond with "oh really? the working class doesn't produce a single dime? give me a break." It's like you're not even reading I write. Boil it down to a few concise paragraphs and I'll give it a shot.

[Apoi_Viitor]

What is the Third Worldist opinion on Khmer Rouge?

[Thug Lessons]

What is the Third Worldist opinion on Khmer Rouge?

I have no idea what MSH thinks, but personally I can't find a single good thing about them and they were supported by both the US and China so, well,

[scarletghoul]

I certainly support the anti-colonial struggle in Ireland, as does MSH, but a few thousand armed militants don't mean much in a nation of millions. The IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, are unpopular with the Irish masses both in the Republic and Northern Ireland, the vast majority of which would rather concentrate on how best to improve their country under capitalism than national liberation. And, again, even if we did see an end of colonialism in Ireland, it wouldn't do much to address imperialist exploitation globally, including how it benefits the Irish people. I view the situation in a similar way to the original US revolution - it's simultaneously a national liberation movement and an expression of inter-imperialist competition.
The population of the six counties is under 2 million. I don't know how many people are active volunteers, probably just a few hundred at most right now as the main groups have stopped, but just over a decade ago there were thousands, and the IRA enjoyed huge support (they would have been destroyed otherwise)

Why do you say Sinn Fein are unpopular ? They got more votes than any other party in northern ireland last election. We shall see how well they do in the forthcoming southern election, i suspect quite well.. Though theyre not engaged in armed struggle anymore, it still shows that most irish people support independence rather than comprador-bourgeois politics. The active smaller IRA groups have considerable support also

Anyway I agree that 'national liberation' alone would not help ireland or the world, as do most irish socialists; that's why we advocate a 32 county socialist republic, not capitalist. But doesnt the same apply to any country trying to get independence, there is always a bourgeoisie who will side with international capital against the workers. how is ireland, a 'first world' country, any different

[red cat]

I can't be sure, but I don't see much of a future for the Greek dissidents. It seems more like a sustained, active but low-level struggle of particular disaffected groups, like the youth, the worst-hit by the government's austerity measures, and so on, than a struggle with mass appeal. And besides, there are definite things the government could do, like reversing the austerity measures, that would cut the feet out from under the protest organizers. My intuition is that the results of this will be either greater resignation to the neoliberal regime or a restoration of social democracy rather than a socialist revolution. I mean, it's not totally impossible, and I can't predict the future, but that's what seems most likely from what I've seen so far.


All capitalist countries other than the USA fall into the second world category. Inside the second world itself there are countries that Maoists characterize as "weakly dependent on imperialism". This can range from countries having a very small share in imperialism to those whose work force is chiefly exploited by foreign capital, while relations of production remain capitalist. Many countries of central and east Europe such as Greece, Croatia etc. are of this type and can witness massive intensification of class struggle in the near future.

[RGacky3]

Ok let me juts boil down my points.

"However, if workers actually made MORE than what the produced, unions would be pointless would'nt they?"

In other worlds any worker action, I understand they are not revolutoinary, but they are trying to take more of the wealth produced by the workers back right? This is especially true in actual productive manufactering or service industries.

Also for your theory to be true, there should be a corrolation, where is that corrolation? In other words some specific evidence.

Also

"don't first world workers also suffer from imperialism? outsourcing? competing with near slave labor? The mobility of Capital as opposed to labor can really hurt unions too, also even though some goods get cheaper, most of the actual good that workers need are kept inflated in their countries (food and housing for example), so imperialism does'nt actually benefit them at all."