Titoist restricted, Stalinist not ?

[RightWinger]

I'm actually not getting this.. whats the difference ?

[Imposter Marxist]

Titoists economically differ a lot from 'Stalinism', in that they believe in a type of Market Socialism that the Praxis school ( I believe ) was known for. 'Stalinists' advocated for heavy industry and the elimination of the market via planning.

For more information, i'd read Tito's book on the matter, "Workers Self Management" and for a 'Stalinist' response, i'd read http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm, This book by Enver Hoxha.

I'd be worth noting that "Stalinism" doesn't really exist. It is mostly used as an insult rather than a political ideology. Marxist-Leninism is the term most 'stalinists' use.

[RightWinger]

I shall research the Praxis school, thank you

[RightWinger]

...however I still don't understand why Titoists are restricted.. their beliefs seem to fit the rev-left criteria (acceptable leftist beliefs)

[Sasha]

titoists are not resctricted for being titoists, but sadly, like many state-socialists from easter-europe, russia and the balkans they often expres very reactionairy viewpoints on topics like abortion, homosexuality and feminism.
any restricted titoists, like the many restricted stalinists btw, probably got restricted after expressing reactionary opinions like those.

only auto-restrictions on political tendency are for:
all rightwing tendencies
maoist 3th worldism
primitivism
social democracy
juche, baathism, polpottism and similar reactionary systems

[RightWinger]

What exactly does reactionary mean.. is it like, counter-revolutionary ?

And what exactly is maoist 3th worldism ?

[Nox]

If you don't even know the difference between Titoism and Marxism-Leninism, it's no surprise that you've been restricted.

[StoneFrog]

If you don't even know the difference between Titoism and Marxism-Leninism, it's no surprise that you've been restricted.

They both ended up the same :lol:

[RightWinger]

If you don't even know the difference between Titoism and Marxism-Leninism, it's no surprise that you've been restricted.

You didn't read my nickname, did you ? :rolleyes:

[Column No.4]

...however I still don't understand why Titoists are restricted.. their beliefs seem to fit the rev-left criteria (acceptable leftist beliefs)

Its because they arent up against the wall far left, theyre a couple steps closer to the centre.

[tir1944]

"Titoism" is just capitalism in disguise.

[Dumb]

titoists are not resctricted for being titoists, but sadly, like many state-socialists from easter-europe, russia and the balkans they often expres very reactionairy viewpoints on topics like abortion, homosexuality and feminism.
any restricted titoists, like the many restricted stalinists btw, probably got restricted after expressing reactionary opinions like those.

only auto-restrictions on political tendency are for:
all rightwing tendencies
maoist 3th worldism
primitivism
social democracy
juche, baathism, polpottism and similar reactionary systems

What's wrong with primitivism? Not that I'm one myself; I didn't even realize that was a tendency.

[tir1944]

What's wrong with Juche?:confused:

[Column No.4]

titoists are not resctricted for being titoists, but sadly, like many state-socialists from easter-europe, russia and the balkans they often expres very reactionairy viewpoints on topics like abortion, homosexuality and feminism.
any restricted titoists, like the many restricted stalinists btw, probably got restricted after expressing reactionary opinions like those.

only auto-restrictions on political tendency are for:
all rightwing tendencies
maoist 3th worldism
primitivism
social democracy
juche, baathism, polpottism and similar reactionary systems

Wow, primitivism?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

The answer is obvious; Titoists are squares whereas 'Stalinists' are not.

Tito < Hoxha.

[EvilRedGuy]

titoists are not resctricted for being titoists, but sadly, like many state-socialists from easter-europe, russia and the balkans they often expres very reactionairy viewpoints on topics like abortion, homosexuality and feminism.
any restricted titoists, like the many restricted stalinists btw, probably got restricted after expressing reactionary opinions like those.

only auto-restrictions on political tendency are for:
all rightwing tendencies
maoist 3th worldism
primitivism
social democracy
juche, baathism, polpottism and similar reactionary systems

Then why is "punisa" not restricted yet? Just save a thread from him.

[#FF0000]

What exactly does reactionary mean.. is it like, counter-revolutionary ?

And what exactly is maoist 3th worldism ?

Maoist Third Worldists basically see the division between the developed and developing world as the most important thing. Basically, they don't see first-world peoples as capable of carrying out a socialist revolution, because Maoist Third Worldists pretty much put them on the level of the bourgeoisie. Understand?


What's wrong with Juche?:confused:

Literally everything.

[#FF0000]

Its because they arent up against the wall far left, theyre a couple steps closer to the centre.

still cryin

[Per Levy]

What's wrong with Juche?:confused:

everything

darn it : #FF0000 beat me to it

[Tommy4ever]

What exactly does reactionary mean.. is it like, counter-revolutionary ?

And what exactly is maoist 3th worldism ?

The word reactionary essentially means one who stands in the way of social progress. Try to ignore its mass use here, some lefties (and I am often guilty myself) just love to throw around jargon like that for some reason.

Maoist Third Worldism is a tiny sect, with a tiny following in the West (although, funnily enough, not the Third World). It bases its belief system on a bastardisation of a few quotations from Mao mixed with leftist sounding phrases and general stupidity. It claims that the world is not divided into classes, but nations. Therefore the wealthy nations are clear opressors of the poorer nations. Therefore all citizens of the wealthy nations are opressors themselves and all citizens of poorer countries are the opressed. This would mean that the conditions of the workers in the West don't matter at all.

Its not only silly, its anti-working class, anti-Marxist and to be frank, an embarassment.

[Column No.4]

still cryin


Still lying.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What's wrong with primitivism? Not that I'm one myself; I didn't even realize that was a tendency.

Anti-development, at times opposition to technology and against continuing advances and supporting regression of development and either voluntary or forced population-decreasing schemes and generally rely on a false romanticism of a past similar to those that admire tribal groups for living in what they manage to construct as "harmony with nature".

[Column No.4]

Anti-development, at times opposition to technology and against continuing advances and supporting regression of development and either voluntary or forced population-decreasing schemes and generally rely on a false romanticism of a past similar to those that admire tribal groups for living in what they manage to construct as "harmony with nature".

Well i dont think it would be such a bad idea to return everyone to zero and let natural selection weed people out.

[DarkPast]

What's wrong with Juche?:confused:

Just for a start: national supremacism, state-endorsed racism, monarchism, homophobic laws...

[Smyg]

What's wrong with Juche?:confused:

:bored:


What's wrong with primitivism? Not that I'm one myself; I didn't even realize that was a tendency.

Primitivist anarchism. I'd say they're kicked out just because of the horrible logical fallacy (using the internet to promote primitivsm).

[Column No.4]

:bored:



Primitivist anarchism. I'd say they're kicked out just because of the horrible logical fallacy (using the internet to promote primitivsm).

Hows it any different from leftists thinking peaceful protest will promote change?

[Luís Henrique]

Maoist Third Worldism is a tiny sect, with a tiny following in the West (although, funnily enough, not the Third World).

This opposition between "the West" and the "Third World", as if many nations weren't both Western and Third World, on the other hand, is tantamount to ideological capitulation to capitalism, in that it excludes any failed or substandard cases of capitalism from the "successful West", and therefore equates capitalism with economic success.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Hows it any different from leftists thinking peaceful protest will promote change?
Can't see any similarity. The correct analogy would be people making violent protests against... violence.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Well i dont think it would be such a bad idea to return everyone to zero and let natural selection weed people out.

lol

[Column No.4]

Can't see any similarity. The correct analogy would be people making violent protests against... violence.

Luís Henrique

Isnt that what leftists do? The governments inflict violence upon the worker and in turn the worker inflicts violence upon the government to show that they wont be oppressed. Not saying that im opposed to violence as a means of liberation.

[Column No.4]

lol

Whats so funny about that? The righ always says the playing field is equal, which it isnt, why not return everyone to zero and let us all start over, chances are the rich starve. Unfortunately we cant do this.

[#FF0000]

Primitivists are given the boot because they're all about the mass death of billions of people so we can run around in the woods until someone figures out how to farm again.

[#FF0000]

Whats so funny about that? The righ always says the playing field is equal, which it isnt, why not return everyone to zero and let us all start over, chances are the rich starve. Unfortunately we cant do this.

What's funny about it is that I thought most people got over that dumb kind of thinking in high school when they grew out of their tripp pants

[Smyg]

"Let natural selection weed people out" sounds a damn lot like social Darwinism to me.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

"Let natural selection weed people out" sounds a damn lot like social Darwinism to me.

I don't know what else it is. Figures No. 4 would be in favour of it, kind of explains some of this other thinking.

[Column No.4]

Primitivists are given the boot because they're all about the mass death of billions of people so we can run around in the woods until someone figures out how to farm again.

No theyre not. Its a simple return to basics.

[Column No.4]

What's funny about it is that I thought most people got over that dumb kind of thinking in high school when they grew out of their tripp pants

Any thought other than this sites status quo is dumb?

[Column No.4]

"Let natural selection weed people out" sounds a damn lot like social Darwinism to me.

Who cares what its called, its returning everyone to same starting point.

[Column No.4]

I don't know what else it is. Figures No. 4 would be in favour of it, kind of explains some of this other thinking.

Yeah, lets not bring the rich down to the level of the average worker.

[PhoenixAsh]

maoist 3rd worldism

Essentially the world is devided into three worlds:


The first world is made up by the imperialist countries: Think USA and RF
The second world is made up by capitalist countries that haven't quite managed to become true imperialists yet....think: most of continental Europe
The thirld world is made up of the poor, underdeveloped and (semii- or former colonial nations).

The first and second world proletarians are collaborators with the burgeoisie in the exploitation of the third world and as such are considered irrelevant for class struggle and have become parasites.

In fact the theory considers the only struggle currently existing to be the struggle of the third world against the other two. (!!!) NOT primarilly of the proletarians in the third world against the burgeoisie in the third world...but primarilly the third world against the other two.

Class analysis is extremely limited, if at all there, it defines class based on comparative (not indexed!!) income. So a second world factory worker who makes € 1200 a month....is considered to be burgeoisie compared to a factory worker in the third world who makes €200 a month.

Third worldism favors national liberation over communist revolution as its primary goal....and advocates 3rd world nations, regardles of economic structure, to work together on that basis.

This is the short version of it.


primitivism

indicates not the art movement but Anarcho-Primitivism. A concept which states that the development of agriculture and sedentary society created structures of straticication in society and opened the way for hierarchy and alienation. To rectify this the AP's propose to abandon all technology not directly related to survival and not only to abandon industrialisation but turn it back to the hunter-gatherer societies of pre-historic times...though horticulture may have a role and even permanent agriculture in some wings of primitivist thought.


juche

This is the official policy of the DPRK. It states that the nation should be totally self sufficient and that its policy should be centered around the leader who is a father figure and should be obeyed by the people (corporatism). The awareness of the people is created by education on the ideas, culture, history and strengths of the nation (nationalism) and its people. It is accompanied by total self reliance on everyting...including putting the millitary first since the nation must be able to defend itself. People should be molded in ideologically in Juche. They should totally and completely represent the will of the people (anti-induvidualism).

[PhoenixAsh]

No theyre not. Its a simple return to basics.

No. It is not.

It's a complete abandonment of what we know now and a return to the hunter gatherer societies without technology or science.

This has nothing to do with "basics".

[Column No.4]

No. It is not.

It's a complete abandonment of what we know now and a return to the hunter gatherer societies without technology or science.

This has nothing to do with "basics".

There are degrees of primitivism. I actually wouldnt mind going back to the hunter gatherer days, but im actually a pretty hardcore outdoorsmen.

[#FF0000]

No theyre not. Its a simple return to basics.

Getting rid of what primitivists want to get rid of means billions of people can't be fed and a lot of sick people can't get medicine.


Yeah, lets not bring the rich down to the level of the average worker. Nobody said anything about this. You said bring everyone to zero and let natural selection take over, which is stupid, because mainly you think that you wouldn't be weeded out.


There are degrees of primitivism. I actually wouldnt mind going back to the hunter gatherer days, but im actually a pretty hardcore outdoorsmen.

Anarcho-primitivists want a return to hunter-gathering. That is what that means. And being a hardcore outdoorsman doesn't change the fact that you can't support 6 billion people in a hunter-gatherer society. That is why we started to farm.

[PhoenixAsh]

There are degrees of primitivism. I actually wouldnt mind going back to the hunter gatherer days, but im actually a pretty hardcore outdoorsmen.

On your weekend?

[Column No.4]

Getting rid of what primitivists want to get rid of means billions of people can't be fed and a lot of sick people can't get medicine.

Eh, it liberates every single individual to do as they please.


Nobody said anything about this. You said bring everyone to zero and let natural selection take over, which is stupid, because mainly you think that you wouldn't be weeded out.

I most likely wouldnt be weeded out, however its not guaranteed. As i mentioned before, individual freedom from anyone and anything.



Anarcho-primitivists want a return to hunter-gathering. That is what that means. And being a hardcore outdoorsman doesn't change the fact that you can't support 6 billion people in a hunter-gatherer society. That is why we started to farm.

I never said we wouldnt farm, i simply said i dont recoil at the thought of primitivism. Plenty of early hunter gatherer societies farmed as well.

[Column No.4]

On your weekend?

No...

[La Comédie Noire]

Nobody said anything about this. You said bring everyone to zero and let natural selection take over, which is stupid, because mainly you think that you wouldn't be weeded out.

This is probably what I don't like the most about some primitivists, they always talk like they're going to be the ones on top of it and the collapse is going to be something that happens to other people.

[Nox]

What's wrong with primitivism? Not that I'm one myself; I didn't even realize that was a tendency.

Because it requires the death of ~95% of humanity.

[#FF0000]

Eh, it liberates every single individual to do as they please.

Yeah aside from the starving and dying slowly because pharmaceuticals aren't produced anymore.


I most likely wouldnt be weeded out, however its not guaranteed. As i mentioned before, individual freedom from anyone and anything.


Who has more freedom: dude who only has to worry about wages and bills, or dude who has to worry about finding enough roots to stay alive without being shot down by a ted nugent wannabe


I never said we wouldnt farm, i simply said i dont recoil at the thought of primitivism. Plenty of early hunter gatherer societies farmed as well.

No they didn't. That would make them agricultural, not hunter-gatherer.

[Column No.4]

This is probably what I don't like the most about some primitivists, they always talk like they're going to be the ones on top of it and the collapse is going to be something that happens to other people.

Things would change for everyone. I, however have spent enough time living off the land to make me confident enough to take it up full time. I never said i wouldnt help others in need or create settlements either.

[Sentinel]

"Let natural selection weed people out" sounds a damn lot like social Darwinism to me. Indeed, which is why that kind of primitivists are also referred to as eco-fascists. We mostly got the kind of anarcho-primitivists here that 'realise' mass deaths are going to happen as some kind of 'unfortunate collateral damage' if they get their way, though, which is one reason to why they only got restricted and not banned as per the guidelines. Don't ask me why..

In general, (at least public) denial over what they actually stand for is typical to this crowd. Most of them on Revleft denied being primitivists until the end and used other labels in order to be able to post freely here. But that is a thing of the past now, in any case -- luckily.

That guideline was written when ridiculous ideas like 'primitivism' still had more support amongst the confused post-coldwar left crowd (parts of the early 2000's anti-globalisation movement etc). That has pretty much died away as the serious, classwar left began to revive again, in the current period. I'd say that it's unnecessary to even mention those people specifically as it is.

We could just restrict or ban them as they show up, but tbh they aren't even worth mentioning anymore.

[Column No.4]

Yeah aside from the starving and dying slowly because pharmaceuticals aren't produced anymore.

So what youre on about is sickness and disease? You do know that the vast majority of health problems today are caused by the industrialized crap people are eating?


Who has more freedom: dude who only has to worry about wages and bills, or dude who has to worry about finding enough roots to stay alive without being shot down by a ted nugent wannabe.

Im not even going to respond to this because its irrelevant.


No they didn't. That would make them agricultural, not hunter-gatherer.

The North American aboriginee was a hunter gatherer but was also known to farm.

[#FF0000]

So what youre on about is sickness and disease? You do know that the vast majority of health problems today are caused by the industrialized crap people are eating?

Getting rid of industry does not make diabetes go away in a person.




Im not even going to respond to this because its irrelevant.


It's entirely fucking relevant because you keep going on about freedom.

[Misanthrope]

What's wrong with primitivism? Not that I'm one myself; I didn't even realize that was a tendency.

It's anti-human. It is against human advancement as a collective which is inherently opposite to communist principles.

[Nox]

Primitivism will UNDOUBTEDLY cause the extinction of humanity, in two stages:

1.) 95% of humanity will die of Starvation

2.) Everyone else will eventually die, with no medicine/vaccinations for diseases, and nobody to combat future diseases.

What a fucking joke.

[Column No.4]

Getting rid of industry does not make diabetes go away in a person

Whats the number one cause of diabetes, crappy eating. I dont feel sorry for gluttons who are suffering the consequences of their actions.



It's entirely fucking relevant because you keep going on about freedom.

Not really.

[Column No.4]

Primitivism will UNDOUBTEDLY cause the extinction of humanity, in two stages:

1.) 95% of humanity will die of Starvation

2.) Everyone else will eventually die, with no medicine/vaccinations for diseases, and nobody to combat future diseases.

What a fucking joke.

Then tell my how these tribes in the jungles survive?

[Tim Cornelis]

Whats the number one cause of diabetes, crappy eating. I dont feel sorry for gluttons who are suffering the consequences of their actions.

There are countless of diseases not caused by modern society, that is, genetic diseases.

Primitivism is something for suburban kids who romanticize primitive lifestyle thinking of it as some Pocahontas film.

[Nox]

Then tell my how these tribes in the jungles survive?

Many have been wiped out by diseases/drought.

Of the ones that survive, they're just lucky that they haven't encountered any unfamiliar diseases yet.

[Column No.4]

There are countless of diseases not caused by modern society, that is, genetic diseases.

Primitivism is something for suburban kids who romanticize primitive lifestyle thinking of it as some Pocahontas film.

Im aware of that, however people are having to suffer those disease today due to a lack of healthcare coverage. I can tell you im neither a suburbanite, a kid nor do i romaticize primitive living, i just know it can be done.

[Tifosi]

Then tell my how these tribes in the jungles survive?

By living in small settlements shared by around 4 or 5 families on average.

The enviroment they life in limits the number of people that can life there. They also life short and extreamly hard lifes.

Of course they farm small peices of land using the process of shifting cultivation. This way of farming cannot support the worlds population as it stands today. If you tried to use it to support the worlds population you would have burnt down the entire rainforest years ago due to the soil quality of the rainforests of the world and how they get nutrients.

So, you would need to kill off around 95% of the worlds population to get down to that level.

Like you care about reality, your a troll...

[Tifosi]

Im aware of that, however people are having to suffer those disease today due to a lack of healthcare coverage. I can tell you im neither a suburbanite, a kid nor do i romaticize primitive living, i just know it can be done.

No, you didnt just say that then argue for Primitivism?

[Tim Cornelis]

Im aware of that, however people are having to suffer those disease today due to a lack of healthcare coverage. I can tell you im neither a suburbanite, a kid nor do i romaticize primitive living, i just know it can be done.

So your logic is: people with genetic diseases may not have health care coverage today, so having them die in a primitive society is in their benefit?

What will primitivism solve?

Eco destruction? Perhaps, but the most profound ecological destruction till this date occurred in primitive society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#History

[Column No.4]

By living in small settlements shared by around 4 or 5 families on average.

The enviroment they life in limits the number of people that can life there. They also life short and extreamly hard lifes.

Of course they farm small peices of land using the process of shifting cultivation. This way of farming cannot support the worlds population as it stands today. If you tried to use it to support the worlds population you would have burnt down the entire rainforest years ago due to the soil quality of the rainforests of the world and how they get nutrients.

So, you would need to kill off around 95% of the worlds population to get down to that level.

Like you care about reality, your a troll...

If everyone was in a four or five family settlement and each was utilizing the aformentioned skills it could be sustainable. People live hard lives now and god forbid people live within their means. A troll, even if i were a troll, better a troll than a fake.

[Column No.4]

So your logic is: people with genetic diseases may not have health care coverage today, so having them die in a primitive society is in their benefit?

What will primitivism solve?

Eco destruction? Perhaps, but the most profound ecological destruction till this date occurred in primitive society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#History

Im pointing out the little change industrialization has made in healthcare availability. Sure early societies did ecological damage, the Roman Empire drove the Egyptian Lion to extinction, however people are doing far worse damage on a now multi front.

[Per Levy]

Im aware of that, however people are having to suffer those disease today due to a lack of healthcare coverage.

so instead of having universal healthcare for everyone, for free, just get rid of it absoloutly and have fun watching the sick humans die like flys because there is no medicine anymore.


I can tell you im neither a suburbanite, a kid nor do i romaticize primitive living, i just know it can be done.

yeah a few can live that lifestyle while the rest is dead. well natural selection and stuff. but hey dont get to close to all the rotting corpses, you might catch a disease you cant treat with water and roots.

[Tim Cornelis]

If everyone was in a four or five family settlement and each was utilizing the aformentioned skills is could be sustainable. People live hard lives now and god forbid people live within their means. A troll, even if i were a troll, better a troll than a fake.


If everyone was in a four or five family settlement

Actually, we already do that. It's called families living under one roof. And since there are so many of us, life is concentrated into cities and towns. So in order for everyone to live in families or tribes of twenty in isolation we need to kill off say, 80 percent of the population.


People live hard lives now and god forbid people live within their means.

Live within their means? What does that even mean. Are you saying people did not starve in primitive "society"?

The population of Easter Island was struck by famine as a result of self-inflicted ecological destruction on a scale never before or afterwards seen.

[Tim Cornelis]

Im pointing out the little change industrialization has made in healthcare availability. Sure early societies did ecological damage, the Roman Empire drove the Egyptian Lion to extinction, however people are doing far worse damage on a now multi front.

And how is socialism not capable of fixing the ecological problems associated with the growth economy?

[Per Levy]

And how is socialism not capable of fixing the ecological problems associated with the growth economy?

oh please socialism, that is utopian talk. primitivism is the future, yeah.

[Column No.4]

Actually, we already do that. It's called families living under one roof. And since there are so many of us, life is concentrated into cities and towns. So in order for everyone to live in families or tribes of twenty in isolation we need to kill off say, 80 percent of the population.



Live within their means? What does that even mean. Are you saying people did not starve in primitive "society"?

The population of Easter Island was struck by famine as a result of self-inflicted ecological destruction on a scale never before or afterwards seen.

You mentioned those tribes only being able to have a certain amount of children due to their living conditions, unlike today where people have children they cant provide for.

[Tifosi]

If everyone was in a four or five family settlement and each was utilizing the aformentioned skills is could be sustainable.

With the number of people in the world today, no, it wouldn't.

It's sustainable in the Amazon for example due to the very low population denisty in that area. These small groups are spread out over millions of square miles. This means that the groups rarely come into contact with each other and explains why there is over 50 un-contacted tribes still in the Amazon Basin.

You should look up the process of slash and burn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn) which is used to get more nutrients into the soil. The tribes cut down a patch of forest and then burn it so the nutrients from the trees which where cut down are put into the soil in the form of ash. The soil is then farmed for 3 or 4 years before the tribe moves on due the soils poor quality. It's takes that patch over 50 years to grow back. Now image billions of people in their small groups doing that...

So again, yes, you would have to kill around 95% of the worlds population for your wildman dream.

[Per Levy]

You mentioned those tribes only being able to have a certain amount of children due to their living conditions, unlike today where people have children they cant provide for.

oh boy, allright tell me smart man, how would a primitive "society" handle pregnancy then? i mean there wont be condoms and other things like it. so babys will be born, so are the parents then supposed to kill the baby because they cant provide for it or leave it starving somewhere in the woods or eat it?

[#FF0000]

Whats the number one cause of diabetes, crappy eating. I dont feel sorry for gluttons who are suffering the consequences of their actions.

lol because we all know how easy it is to get access to cheap and healthy food for the poorest in the USA





Not really.

Yes really. You said earlier: "Eh, it liberates every single individual to do as they please." and, "I most likely wouldnt be weeded out, however its not guaranteed. As i mentioned before, individual freedom from anyone and anything."

Then I point out that no, it doesn't mean freedom for anyone. And then you say it's irrelevant.

[Column No.4]

With the number of people in the world today, no, it wouldn't.

It's sustainable in the Amazon for example due to the very low population denisty in that area. These small groups are spread out over millions of square miles. This means that the groups rarely come into contact with each other and explains why there is over 50 un-contacted tribes still in the Amazon Basin.

You should look up the process of slash and burn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn) which is used to get more nutrients into the soil. The tribes cut down a patch of forest and then burn it so the nutrients from the trees which where cut down are put into the soil in the form of ash. The soil is then farmed for 3 or 4 years before the tribe moves on due the soils poor quality. It's takes that patch over 50 years to grow back. Now image billions of people in their small groups doing that...

So again, yes, you would have to kill around 95% of the worlds population for your wildman dream.

We farm now the same way we did centuries ago, just on a much larger scale, and we waste much more as well.

[#FF0000]

We farm now the same way we did centuries ago, just on a much larger scale, and we waste much more as well.

i wasn't aware we factory farmed centuries ago lol

[Column No.4]

oh boy, allright tell me smart man, how would a primitive "society" handle pregnancy then? i mean there wont be condoms and other things like it. so babys will be born, so are the parents then supposed to kill the baby because they cant provide for it or leave it starving somewhere in the woods or eat it?

Youve never gone without sex?

[Column No.4]

lol because we all know how easy it is to get access to cheap and healthy food for the poorest in the USA.

Its not that hard. Im not making much money and i live predominantly off of frozen chicken and microwavable veg and rice. The problem today is people have made a habit of eating fast food because theyre too lazy to cook.


Yes really. You said earlier: "Eh, it liberates every single individual to do as they please." and, "I most likely wouldnt be weeded out, however its not guaranteed. As i mentioned before, individual freedom from anyone and anything."

Then I point out that no, it doesn't mean freedom for anyone. And then you say it's irrelevant.

Why would it not mean freedom for everyone?

[Tim Cornelis]

You mentioned those tribes only being able to have a certain amount of children due to their living conditions, unlike today where people have children they cant provide for.

What? How is that even replying to what I said?


Its not that hard. Im not making much money and i live predominantly off of frozen chicken and microwavable veg and rice. The problem today is people have made a habit of eating fast food because theyre too lazy to cook.

Why would it not mean freedom for everyone?

Having to look for food for 12 hours a day doesn't sound like positive freedom to me.

[Per Levy]

Youve never gone without sex?

i'll overlook that your question here has nothing to do with my question towards you. but i wont overlook that you havnt awnser my question at all.

[Column No.4]

i wasn't aware we factory farmed centuries ago lol

We factory farm animals, we still utilize the same crop farming as we did centuries ago just on a much larger scale and with a bit of growth hormone. As i said before, we also waste a large portion of what we raise and grow.

[Column No.4]

What? How is that even replying to what I said?



Having to look for food for 12 hours a day doesn't sound like positive freedom to me.

Whats your definition of freedom?

[Column No.4]

i'll overlook that your question here has nothing to do with my question towards you. but i wont overlook that you havnt awnser my question at all.

If you cant see the correlation im not going to point it out for you.

[#FF0000]

Its not that hard. Im not making much money and i live predominantly off of frozen chicken and microwavable veg and rice. The problem today is people have made a habit of eating fast food because theyre too lazy to cook.

lol wrong, dummy. poorer areas in america have a huge issue with food deserts


Why would it not mean freedom for everyone?

Only if you consider focusing every moment on survival freedom, which is dumb..

[Tifosi]

We farm now the same way we did centuries ago, just on a much larger scale, and we waste much more as well.

You tell that to the 85 million or so people that stay in the Punjab region.

After they started using modern irrigation methods, new types of fertilizers and new improved crop varieties with produce higher higher yields and make 3 or 4 harvestes a year possible.

Not to mention all the modern farming equipment used today like combine harvesters, plows and tractors.

If you really think we farm in the same ways as we did 100 years ago then really are dumb.

[Per Levy]

If your cant see the correlation then im not going to point it out to you.

really? the question wasnt about if i can live without sex for a while, the question was and still is how your favorable society deals with children that cant be provided for(thanks to very limited recources) + that there wont be contraceptives anymore to have that under control. and that will happen. stop changing topics and awnser questions about your favourate society.

[Tim Cornelis]

Whats your definition of freedom?

1) The ability to control one's own life (negative freedom)
2) The ability to develop one's own potential (positive freedom)

Running around all day picking berries and hunting deer doesn't sound like positive freedom to me.

Maybe you should and go live with the Hazda people. You'll love it. Eating chicks for weeks straight. Then eating berries and some meat for weeks straight. Being hungry all the time (granted, not starving). No medical care for infected wounds. Deaths because of malaria and lack of treatment. Dying of child birth. Dying of poison. And 5% of deaths are caused by homicide.

[Column No.4]

lol wrong, dummy. poorer areas in america have a huge issue with food deserts.

Maybe if you have absolutely no money to buy food of any kind.




Only if you consider focusing every moment on survival freedom, which is dumb.

Youd have to hunt, gather and farm but you wouldnt be spending every moment on survival unless youre a complete idiot.

[Column No.4]

You tell that to the 85 million or so people that stay in the Punjab region.

After they started using modern irrigation methods, new types of fertilizers and new improved crop varieties with produce higher higher yields and make 3 or 4 harvestes a year possible.

Not to mention all the modern farming equipment used today like combine harvesters, plows and tractors.

If you really think we farm in the same ways as we did 100 years ago then really are dumb.

Did i not point out the technological advancements that have made the same method easier?

[Commissar Rykov]

Why are people still arguing with this dipshit troll? It is beyond obvious he is some 14 dipfuck who jerkoffs to Rambo movies thinking he is some kind of badass.

[Column No.4]

really? the question wasnt about if i can live without sex for a while, the question was and still is how your favorable society deals with children that cant be provided for(thanks to very limited recources) + that there wont be contraceptives anymore to have that under control. and that will happen. stop changing topics and awnser questions about your favourate society.

You reproduce to sustain the survival of the people, if you dont need to reproduce then you dont fornicate.

[Tim Cornelis]

Youd have to hunt, gather and farm but you wouldnt be spending every moment on survival unless youre a complete idiot.

Hunting and gathering doesn't work like it does in video games like Red Dead Redemption, braw. It takes time, hours.

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU5013.jpg

Oh look at these guys, feasting of honey they found after hours of searching. Yummy.

[#FF0000]

Maybe if you have absolutely no money to buy food of any kind.

No. The problem with food deserts is that there is literally nowhere to buy healthy, fresh food. Urban areas are the worst with this, the problem being actual supermarkets are so far off that it might as well be an all-day trip to get there.


Youd have to hunt, gather and farm but you wouldnt be spending every moment on survival unless youre a complete idiot.oh neat so I could spend my free time playing video ga

oh wait

well i guess i could always read a book fresh off the pre

oh wait

[Misanthrope]

Primitivism will UNDOUBTEDLY cause the extinction of humanity, in two stages:

1.) 95% of humanity will die of Starvation

2.) Everyone else will eventually die, with no medicine/vaccinations for diseases, and nobody to combat future diseases.

What a fucking joke.

or genocide, y'know some primitivists advocate that.

[Column No.4]

1) The ability to control one's own life (negative freedom)
2) The ability to develop one's own potential (positive freedom)

Running around all day picking berries and hunting deer doesn't sound like positive freedom to me.

Maybe you should and go live with the Hazda people. You'll love it. Eating chicks for weeks straight. Then eating berries and some meat for weeks straight. Being hungry all the time (granted, not starving). No medical care for infected wounds. Deaths because of malaria and lack of treatment. Dying of child birth. Dying of poison. And 5% of deaths are caused by homicide.

You people really do want liberation from work as a whole. You do know there are other ways to treat ailments other than modernized medicine?

[Per Levy]

Maybe if you have absolutely no money to buy food of any kind.

well there are over 40 million people in the usa alone who need foodstamps in order to survive and not to starve.


Youd have to hunt, gather and farm but you wouldnt be spending every moment on survival unless youre a complete idiot.

you dont have to be an "idiot" for that, a bit of bad luck will do the same, a drought that destroys the harvest, no animals to hunt, not close to rivers and lakes that have fishes and so on and you're running around for food all day. and yes being occupied with only your survival doesnt equal freedom.

[Column No.4]

Why are people still arguing with this dipshit troll? It is beyond obvious he is some 14 dipfuck who jerkoffs to Rambo movies thinking he is some kind of badass.

I missed your insults and personal attacks.

[Column No.4]

Hunting and gathering doesn't work like it does in video games like Red Dead Redemption, braw. It takes time, hours.

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU5013.jpg

Oh look at these guys, feasting of honey they found after hours of searching. Yummy.

Yes, because i actually think hunting and gathering is like a video game. I know what its like, its work.

[Per Levy]

Why are people still arguing with this dipshit troll? It is beyond obvious he is some 14 dipfuck who jerkoffs to Rambo movies thinking he is some kind of badass.

i dont have much better things do right now, even though i should start my workout soon. ah well, its kinda funny though.

[Tifosi]

Did i not point out the technological advancements that have made the same method easier?

So you admit now that over the last 100 years farming has chanced immensely?

Clearly, using a sickle to cut wheat and using a combine harvester to cut wheat are two different methods of farming.

It's seems to me that you see a carrot growing in the ground and go "ah, we still grow carrots in the ground and not on cliff faces, so therefore farming hasn't changed in a 1000 years".

:closedeyes:

[Column No.4]

well there are over 40 million people in the usa alone who need foodstamps in order to survive and not to starve.

Im aware of that, however we were discussing healthy eating on a low budget.




you dont have to be an "idiot" for that, a bit of bad luck will do the same, a drought that destroys the harvest, no animals to hunt, not close to rivers and lakes that have fishes and so on and you're running around for food all day. and yes being occupied with only your survival doesnt equal freedom.

People suffer from droughts and whatnot now, nature does play a part in survival. How is being preoccupied with survival any worse than being preoccupied with working like a Hebrew slave for a crap wage that doesnt pay for anything?

[Column No.4]

So you admit now that over the last 100 years farming has chanced immensely?

Clearly, using a sickle to cut wheat and using a combine harvester to cut wheat are two different methods of farming.

It's seems to me that you see a carrot growing in the ground and go "ah, we still grow carrots in the ground and not on cliff faces, so therefore farming hasn't changed in a 1000 years".

:closedeyes:

What i was referencing to is the rotating plots. Even with those technological advances there are many types of crops that still have to be planted, maintained and harvested by hand.

[Tim Cornelis]

You people really do want liberation from work as a whole. You do know there are other ways to treat ailments other than modernized medicine?


You do know there are other ways to treat ailments other than modernized medicine?

Witch doctors I presume you mean.


You people really do want liberation from work as a whole.

Reducing the working day to six hours at first, four hours in the future, yes. You want to extent the working day to twelve hours with the benefits of eating barely enough honey, chicks, birds, meat, and being hungry too often.

[Obs]

Boy I sure do love being able to drink water from my tap. It beats the hell out of shitting myself to death after drinking from a murky river. Oh and penicillin. I fucking love penicillin. Taking penicillin is more fun than dying slowly.

[Tim Cornelis]

People suffer from droughts and whatnot now, nature does play a part in survival. How is being preoccupied with survival any worse than being preoccupied with working like a Hebrew slave for a crap wage that doesnt pay for anything?

You need to remember that WE ARE NOT CAPITALISTS!

You are giving us a false dichotomy: capitalism, wage slavery, ecological destruction or primitivism.

[PhoenixAsh]

And now we have reached the logical limits of the Anarchic primitist notions of freedom.

Since we can't have children we can't support being in hunter gatherer societies...we naturally restrict sexual behaviour. Which is enforced how exactly? Since the notion is freedom... people are pretty much allowed what to do. So when they want to have sex they will...and when that results in children they will either let them starve and abandon them OR...here is an idea....try to sustain them. In other words...they will find ways to make food supplies...that means settling. That means discovering animal husbandry, agriculture, irrgation, construction etc. And that means social stratification, division of labour and coercion etc. etc. And that means pretty much your primi society will stop being primi all too soon.

So...in order to prevent that, you need to stop people from settling and having children...which means force...which means authority. Which means coercion.

Wauw.

[Obs]

You need to remember that WE ARE NOT CAPITALISTS!

You are giving us a false dichotomy: capitalism, wage slavery, ecological destruction or primitivism.
don'tcha know we can literally only go backwards from here

[Tifosi]

What i was referencing to is the rotating plots. Even with those technological advances there are many types of crops that still have to be planted, maintained and harvested by hand.

OK, what crops have to be planted, maintained and harvested exclusively by hand?

Of course I have seen crops being picked by hand today in the UK. Often tho, they are grown in a large polytunnels and use fertilizers .

[Column No.4]

With doctors I presume you mean.

Actually more in the way of things other than conventional medications.


Reducing the working day to six hours at first, four hours in the future, yes. You want to extent the working day to twelve hours with the benefits of eating barely enough honey, chicks, birds, meat, and being hungry too often.

To reference another thread how would you reduce the working day to six and eventually four hours if youre giving people the option to work? What im getting from you people is the argument that people would have to work too hard and those who dont possess the skills would die.

[Column No.4]

Boy I sure do love being able to drink water from my tap. It beats the hell out of shitting myself to death after drinking from a murky river. Oh and penicillin. I fucking love penicillin. Taking penicillin is more fun than dying slowly.

Well ive spotted one person whos lacking in basic survival skills.

[Sentinel]

Ok, I've been sanctioned by the highest instance of the politburo of the central committee to ban this troll now. I'm referring to Column #4.

Bye. :lol:

[Obs]

To reference another thread how would you reduce the working day to six and eventually four hours if youre giving people the option to work? What im getting from you people is the argument that people would have to work too hard and those who dont possess the skills would die.
The same way we went from having to spend every waking moment trying not to die, to working 8 hours and just doing whatever the rest of the day.

[Luís Henrique]

maoist 3rd worldism

Essentially the world is devided into three worlds:


The first world is made up by the imperialist countries: Think USA and RF
The second world is made up by capitalist countries that haven't quite managed to become true imperialists yet....think: most of continental Europe
The thirld world is made up of the poor, underdeveloped and (semii- or former colonial nations).

I don't know if "Maoist third worldists" think like that, but, if they do, they weren't paying attention when Chairman Mao spoke (which, or course, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone). To Mao, the "second world" was nothing like "capitalist countries that haven't quite managed to become true imperialists yet"; it was the Soviet Union and its satellites - or the "social imperialist" camp, to use Maoist terminology.

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

I don't know if "Maoist third worldists" think like that, but, if they do, they weren't paying attention when Chairman Mao spoke (which, or course, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone). To Mao, the "second world" was nothing like "capitalist countries that haven't quite managed to become true imperialists yet"; it was the Soviet Union and its satellites - or the "social imperialist" camp, to use Maoist terminology.

Luís HenriqueI guess the idiots have re-evaluated that term since then. They have done a lot of re-evaluation in any case. I'm not sure how much of their so called theory is actual maoism and how much these 90's-00's internet revolutionary morons made up by themselves -- personally I don't care of course, but anyway.

Not that it matters that much of course as its shit either way, but the theories about there not being a working class in the west etc constitute a pure scab line, horrendous to all marxists, of course.

[PhoenixAsh]

[/LIST]
I don't know if "Maoist third worldists" think like that, but, if they do, they weren't paying attention when Chairman Mao spoke (which, or course, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone). To Mao, the "second world" was nothing like "capitalist countries that haven't quite managed to become true imperialists yet"; it was the Soviet Union and its satellites - or the "social imperialist" camp, to use Maoist terminology.

Luís Henrique

The USSR was definately in the first world according to Mao. The second world were mostly the European nations, Canada and Japan which allied themselves with the first world. (Mao made the distinction based on developmental stage, income...and the amount of atomic bombs in an interview once). In fact Mao/CPC considered the USSR to be far worse than the US in its socio imperialist aspirations since it was considered to be the stronger one.

What you are refering to is the western notion of the three worlds.

[Luís Henrique]

I, however have spent enough time living off the land to make me confident enough to take it up full time.

With a gun, I suppose?

Where would you get a new gun when the old breaks? Where would you get gunpowder? You do realise those things are manufactured, not farmed or hunted down, don't you?

Or would you be comfortable with a primitive bow and arrows (no, not cute composite bows, which require extensive specialised artisanship)? Would you know how to make them out of wood and flint - without steel, or even bronze tools?

Heck, reactionarism is one thing; idiocy is unforgivable.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

I guess the idiots have re-evaluated that term since then. They have done a lot of re-evaluation in any case. I'm not sure how much of their so called theory is actual maoism and how much these 90's-00's internet revolutionary morons made up by themselves -- personally I don't care of course, but anyway.

Well I am sure they have. But the original theory in 1974 as set forth by Mao, adopted by the CPC and explained by Deng Xiaoping before the UN includes the USSR and US in the first world. Europe, Canada and Japan...the rest of the world (including China) was considered to be the third world.

Here is a link to the Chinese governments internet page: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ziliao/3602/3604/t18008.htm

And here is Dengs speech from 1974 (see spoilers for full text andhighlights)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1974/04/10.htm

I highlighted some interesting details :)
In red the part where he calls the USSR especially vicious.


Mr. President,


The special session of the United Nations General Assembly on the problems of raw materials and development is successfully convened on the proposals of President Houari Boumediene of the Council of Revolution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Algeria and with the support of the great majority of the countries of the world. This is the first time in the 29 years since the founding of the United Nations that a session is held specially to discuss the important question of opposing imperialist exploitation and plunder and effecting a change in international economic relations. This reflects that profound changes have taken place in the international situation.



The Chinese Government extends its warm congratulations on the convocation of this session and hopes that it will make a positive contribution to strengthening the unity of the developing countries, safeguarding their national economic rights and interests and promoting the struggle of all peoples against imperialism, and particularly against hegemonism.


At present, the international situation is most favourable to the developing countries and the peoples of the world. More and more, the old order based on colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism is being undermined and shaken to its foundations. International relations are changing drastically. The whole world is in turbulence and unrest. The situation is one of “great disorder under heaven,” as we Chinese put it. This “disorder” is a manifestation of the sharpening of all the basic contradictions in the contemporary world. It is accelerating the disintegration and decline of the decadent reactionary forces and stimulating the awakening and growth of the new emerging forces of the people.


In this situation of “great disorder under heaven,” all the political forces in the world have undergone drastic division and realignment through prolonged trials of strength and struggle. A large number of Asian, African and Latin American countries have achieved independence one after another and they are playing an ever greater role in international affairs. As a result of the emergence of social-imperialism, the socialist camp which existed for a time after World War II is no longer in existence. Owing to the law of the uneven development of capitalism, the Western imperialist bloc, too, is disintegrating. Judging from the changes in international relations, the world today actually consists of three parts, or three worlds, that are both interconnected and in contradiction to one another. The United States and the Soviet Union make up the First World. The developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other regions make up the Third World. The developed countries between the two make up the Second World.


The two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, are vainly seeking world hegemony. Each in its own way attempts to bring the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America under its control and, at the same time, to bully the developed countries that are not their match in strength.


The two superpowers are the biggest international exploiters and oppressors of today. They are the source of a new world war. They both possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. They carry on a keenly contested arms race, station massive forces abroad and set up military bases everywhere, threatening the independence and security of all nations. They both keep subjecting other countries to their control, subversion, interference or aggression. They both exploit other countries economically, plundering their wealth and grabbing their resources. In bullying others, the superpower which flaunts the label of socialism is especially vicious. It has dispatched its armed forces to occupy its “ally” Czechoslovakia and instigated the war to dismember Pakistan. It does not honour its words and is perfidious; it is self-seeking and unscrupulous.


The case of the developed countries in between the superpowers and the developing countries is a complicated one. Some of them still retain colonialist relations of one form or another with Third World countries, and a country like Portugal even continues with its barbarous colonial rule. An end must be put to this state of affairs. At the same time, all these developed countries are in varying degrees controlled, threatened or bullied by the one superpower or the other. Some of them have in fact been reduced by a superpower to the position of dependencies under the signboard of its so-called “family.” In varying degrees, all these countries have the desire of shaking off superpower enslavement or control and safeguarding their national independence and the integrity of their sovereignty.


The numerous developing countries have long suffered from colonialist and imperialist oppression and exploitation. They have won political independence, yet all of them still face the historic task of clearing out the remnant forces of colonialism, developing the national economy and consolidating national independence. These countries cover vast territories, encompass a large population and abound in natural resources. Having suffered the heaviest oppression, they have the strongest desire to oppose oppression and seek liberation and development. In the struggle for national liberation and independence, they have demonstrated immense power and continually won splendid victories. They constitute a revolutionary motive force propelling the wheel of world history and are the main force combating colonialism, imperialism, and particularly the superpowers.
Since the two superpowers are contending for world hegemony, the contradiction between them is irreconcilable; one either overpowers the other, or is overpowered. Their compromise and collusion can only be partial, temporary and relative, while their contention is all-embracing, permanent and absolute. In the final analysis, the so-called “balanced reduction of forces” and “strategic arms limitation” are nothing but empty talk, for in fact there is no “balance,” nor can there possibly be “limitation.” They may reach certain agreements, but their agreements are only a facade and a deception. At bottom, they are aiming at greater and fiercer contention. The contention between the superpowers extends over the entire globe.


Strategically, Europe is the focus of their contention, where they are in constant tense confrontation. They are intensifying their rivalry in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Every day, they talk about disarmament but are actually engaged in arms expansion. Every day, they talk about “detente” but are actually creating tension. Wherever they contend, turbulence occurs. So long as imperialism and social-imperialism exist, there definitely will be no tranquillity in the world, nor will there be “lasting peace.” Either they will fight each other, or the people will rise in revolution. It is as Chairman Mao Tsetung has said: The danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today.
The two superpowers have created their own antithesis. Acting in the way of the big bullying the small, the strong domineering over the weak and the rich oppressing the poor, they have aroused strong resistance among the Third World and the people of the whole world. The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America have been winning new victories in their struggles against colonialism, imperialism, and particularly hegemonism. The Indo-chinese peoples are continuing to press forward in their struggles against U.S. imperialist aggression and for national liberation. In the 4th Middle East war, the people of the Arab countries and Palestine broke through the control of the two superpowers and the state of “no war, no peace” and won a tremendous victory over the Israeli aggressors. The African people’s struggles against imperialism, colonialism and racial discrimination are developing in depth. The Republic of Guinea-Bissau was born in glory amidst the flames of armed struggle. The armed struggles and mass movements carried out by the peoples of Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Azania against Portuguese colonial rule and white racism in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia are surging ahead vigorously. The struggle to defend sea rights initiated by Latin American countries has grown into a worldwide struggle against the maritime hegemony of the two superpowers. The 10th Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, the 4th Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries, the Arab Summit Conference and the Islamic Summit Conference successively voiced strong condemnation against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, hegemonism, Zionism and racism, demonstrating the developing countries’ firm will and determination to strengthen their unity and support one another in their common struggle against the hated enemies. The struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American countries and people, advancing wave upon wave, have exposed the essential weakness of imperialism, and particularly the superpowers, which are outwardly strong but inwardly feeble, and dealt heavy blows at their wild ambitions to dominate the world.
The hegemonism and power politics of the two superpowers have also aroused strong dissatisfaction among the developed countries of the Second World. The struggles of these countries against superpower control, interference, intimidation, exploitation and shifting of economic crises are growing day by day. Their struggles also have a significant impact on the development of the international situation.
Innumerable facts show that all views that overestimate the strength of the two hegemonic powers and underestimate the strength of the people are groundless. It is not the one or two superpowers that are really powerful; the really powerful are the Third World and the people of all countries uniting together and daring to fight and daring to win. Since numerous Third World countries and people were able to achieve political independence through protracted struggle, certainly they will also be able, on this basis, to bring about through sustained struggle a thorough change in the international economic relations which are based on inequality, control and exploitation and thus create essential conditions for the independent development of their national economy by strengthening their unity and allying themselves with other countries subjected to superpower bullying as well as with the people of the whole world, including the people of the United States and the Soviet Union.
Mr. President,
The essence of the problems of raw materials and development is the struggle of the developing countries to defend their state sovereignty, develop their national economy and combat imperialist, and particularly superpower, plunder and control. This is a very important aspect of the current struggle of the Third World countries and people against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism.
As we all know, in the last few centuries colonialism and imperialism unscrupulously enslaved and plundered the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Exploiting the cheap labour power of the local people and their rich natural resources and imposing a lopsided and single-product economy, they extorted superprofits by grabbing low-priced farm and mineral products, dumping their industrial goods, strangling national industries and carrying on an exchange of unequal values. The richness of the developed countries and the poverty of the developing countries are the result of the colonialist and imperialist policy of plunder.
In many Asian, African and Latin American countries that have won political independence, the economic lifelines are still controlled by colonialism and imperialism in varying degrees, and the old economic structure has not changed fundamentally. The imperialists, and particularly the superpowers, have adopted neo-colonialist methods to continue and intensify their exploitation and plunder of the developing countries. They export capital to the developing countries and build there a “state within a state” by means of such international monopoly organizations as “trans-national corporations” to carry out economic plunder and political interference. Taking advantage of their monopoly position in international markets, they reap fabulous profits by raising the export prices of their own products and forcing down those of raw materials from the developing countries. Moreover, with the deepening of the political and economic crises of capitalism and the sharpening of their mutual competition, they are further intensifying their plunder of the developing countries by shifting the economic and monetary crises on to the latter.
It must be pointed out that the superpower which styles itself a socialist country is by no means less proficient at neo-colonialist economic plunder. Under the name of so-called “economic co-operation” and “international division of labour,” it uses high-handed measures to extort superprofits in its “family.” In profiting at others’ expense, it has gone to lengths rarely seen even in the case of other imperialist countries. The “joint enterprises” it runs in some countries under the signboard of “aid” and “support” are in essence copies of “trans- national corporations.” Its usual practice is to tag a high price on out-moded equipment and sub-standard weapons and exchange them for strategic raw materials and farm produce of the developing countries. Selling arms and ammunition in a big way, it has become an international merchant of death. It often takes advantage of others’ difficulties to press for the repayment of debts. In the recent Middle East war, it bought Arab oil at a low price with the large amount of foreign exchange it had earned by peddling munitions, and then sold it at a high price, making staggering profits in the twinkling of an eye. Moreover, it preaches the theory of “limited sovereignty,” alleges that the resources of developing countries are international property, and even asserts that “the sovereignty over the natural resources is depending to a great extent upon the capability of utilizing these resources by the industry of the developing countries.” These are out-and-out imperialist fallacies. They are even more undisguised than the so-called “inter-dependence” advertised by the other superpower, which actually means retaining the exploitative relationship. A socialist country that is true to its name ought to follow the principle of internationalism, sincerely render support and assistance to oppressed countries and nations and help them develop their national economy. But this superpower is doing exactly the opposite. This is additional proof that it is socialism in words and imperialism in deeds.
Plunder and exploitation by colonialism, imperialism, and particularly by the superpowers, are making the poor countries poorer and the rich countries richer, further widening the gap between the two. Imperialism is the greatest obstacle to the liberation of the developing countries and to their progress. It is entirely right and proper for the developing countries to terminate imperialist economic monopoly and plunder, sweep away these obstacles and take all necessary measures to protect their economic resources and other rights and interests.
The doings of imperialism, and particularly the superpowers, can in no way check the triumphant advance of the developing countries along the road of economic liberation. In the recent Middle East war, the Arab countries, united as one, used oil as a weapon with which they dealt a telling blow at Zionism and its supporters. They did well, and rightly too. This was a pioneering action taken by developing countries in their struggle against imperialism. It greatly heightened the fighting spirit of the people of the Third World and deflated the arrogance of imperialism. It broke through the international economic monopoly long maintained by imperialism and fully demonstrated the might of a united struggle waged by developing countries. If imperialist monopolies can gang up to manipulate the markets at will, to the great detriment of the vital interests of the developing countries, why can’t developing countries unite to break imperialist monopoly and defend their own economic rights and interests? The oil battle has broadened people’s vision. What was done in the oil battle should and can be done in the case of other raw materials.
It must be pointed out further that the significance of the developing countries’ struggle to defend their natural resources is by no means confined to the economic field. In order to carry out arms expansion and war preparations and to contend for world hegemony, the superpowers are bound to plunder rapaciously the resources of the Third World. Control and protection of their own resources by the developing countries are essential, not only for the consolidation of their political independence and the development of their national economy, but also for combating superpower arms expansion and war preparations and stopping the superpowers from launching wars of aggression.
Mr. President,
We maintain that the safeguarding of political independence is the first prerequisite for a Third World country to develop its economy. In achieving political independence, the people of a country have only taken the first step, and they must proceed to consolidate this independence, for there still exist remnant forces of colonialism at home and there is still the danger of subversion and aggression by imperialism and hegemonism. The consolidation of political independence is necessarily a process of repeated struggles. In the final analysis, political independence and economic independence are inseparable. Without political independence, it is impossible to achieve economic independence; without economic independence, a country’s independence is incomplete and insecure.
The developing countries have great potentials for developing their economy independently. As long as a country makes unremitting efforts in the light of its own specific features and conditions and advances along the road of independence and self-reliance, it is fully possible for it to attain gradually a high level of development never reached by previous generations in the modernization of its industry and agriculture. The ideas of pessimism and helplessness spread by imperialism in connection with the question of the development of developing countries are all unfounded and are being disseminated with ulterior motives.
By self-reliance we mean that a country should mainly rely on the strength and wisdom of its own people, control its own economic lifelines, make full use of its own resources, strive hard to increase food production and develop its national economy step by step and in a planned way. The policy of independence and self-reliance in no way means that it should be divorced from the actual conditions of a country; instead, it requires that distinction must be made between different circumstances, and that each country should work out its own way of practising self-reliance in the light of its specific conditions. At the present stage, a developing country that wants to develop its national economy must first of all keep its natural resources in its own hands and gradually shake off the control of foreign capital. In many developing countries, the production of raw materials accounts for a considerable proportion of the national economy. If they can take in their own hands the production, use, sale, storage and transport of raw materials and sell them at reasonable prices on the basis of equitable trade relations in exchange for a greater amount of goods needed for the growth of their industrial and agricultural production, they will then be able to resolve step by step the difficulties they are facing and pave the way for an early emergence from poverty and backwardness.
Self-reliance in no way means “self-seclusion” and rejection of foreign aid. We have always considered it beneficial and necessary for the development of the national economy that countries should carry on economic and technical exchanges on the basis of respect for state sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, and the exchange of needed goods to make up for each other’s deficiencies.
Here we wish to emphasize the special importance of economic co-operation among the developing countries. The Third World countries shared a common lot in the past and now face the common tasks of opposing colonialism, neo-colonialism and great-power hegemonism, developing the national economy and building their respective countries. We have every reason to unite more closely, and no reason to become estranged from one another. The imperialists, and particularly the superpowers, are taking advantage of temporary differences among us developing countries to sow dissension and disrupt unity so as to continue their manipulation, control and plunder. We must maintain full vigilance. Differences among us developing countries can very well be resolved, and should be resolved, through consultations among the parties concerned. We are glad that, on the question of oil, the developing countries concerned are making active efforts and seeking appropriate ways to find a reasonable solution. We, the developing countries, should not only support one another politically but also help each other economically. Our co-operation is a co-operation based on true equality and has broad prospects.
Mr. President,
The Third World countries strongly demand that the present extremely unequal international economic relations be changed, and they have made many rational proposals of reform. The Chinese Government and people warmly endorse and firmly support all just propositions made by Third World countries.
We hold that in both political and economic relations, countries should base themselves on the Five Principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. We are opposed to the establishment of hegemony and spheres of influence by any country in any part of the world in violation of these principles.
We hold that the affairs of each country should be managed by its own people. The people of the developing countries have the right to choose and decide on their own social and economic systems. We support the permanent sovereignty of the developing countries over their own natural resources as well as their exercise of it. We support the actions of the developing countries to bring all foreign capital, and particularly “trans-national corporations,” under their control and management, up to and including nationalization. We support the position of the developing countries for the development of their national economy through “individual and collective self-reliance.”
We hold that all countries, big or small, rich or poor, should be equal, and that international economic affairs should be jointly managed by all the countries of the world instead of being monopolized by the one or two superpowers. We support the full right of the developing countries, which comprise the great majority of the world’s population, to take part in all decision-making on international trade, monetary, shipping and other matters.
We hold that international trade should be based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and the exchange of needed goods. We support the urgent demand of the developing countries to improve trade terms for their raw materials, primary products and semi-manufactured and manufactured goods, to expand their market and to fix equitable and favourable prices. We support the developing countries in establishing various organizations of raw material exporting countries for a united struggle against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism.
We hold that economic aid to the developing countries must strictly respect the sovereignty of the recipient countries and must not be accompanied by any political or military conditions and the extortion of any special privileges or excessive profits. Loans to the developing countries should be interest-free or low-interest and allow for delayed repayment of capital and interest, or even reduction and cancellation of debts in case of necessity. We are opposed to the exploitation of developing countries by usury or blackmail in the name of aid.
We hold that technology transferred to the developing countries must be practical, efficient, economical and convenient for use. The experts and other personnel dispatched to the recipient countries have the obligation to pass on conscientiously technical know-how to the people there and to respect the laws and national customs of the countries concerned. They must not make special demands or ask for special amenities, let alone engage in illegal activities.


Mr. President,


China is a socialist country, and a developing country as well. China belongs to the Third World. Consistently following Chairman Mao’s teachings, the Chinese Government and people firmly support all oppressed peoples and oppressed nations in their struggle to win or defend national independence, develop the national economy and oppose colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism. This is our bounden internationalist duty. China is not a superpower, nor will she ever seek to be one. What is a superpower? A superpower is an imperialist country which everywhere subjects other countries to its aggression, interference, control, subversion or plunder and strives for world hegemony. If capitalism is restored in a big socialist country, it will inevitably become a superpower. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which has been carried out in China in recent years, and the campaign of criticizing Lin Piao and Confucius now under way throughout China, are both aimed at preventing capitalist restoration and ensuring that socialist China will never change her colour and will always stand by the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations. If one day China should change her colour and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.


Mr. President,


History develops in struggle, and the world advances amidst turbulence. The imperialists, and the superpowers in particular, are beset with troubles and are on the decline. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution



— this is the irresistible trend of history. We are convinced that, so long as the Third World countries and people strengthen their unity, ally themselves with all forces that can be allied with and persist in a protracted struggle, they are sure to win continuous new victories.





Not that it matters that much of course as its shit either way, but the theories about there not being a working class in the west etc constitute a pure scab line, horrendous to all marxists, of course.

Agreed.

[Luís Henrique]

The USSR was definately in the first world according to Mao. The second world were mostly the European nations, Canada and Japan which allied themselves with the first world. (Mao made the distinction based on developmental stage, income...and the amount of atomic bombs in an interview once). In fact Mao/CPC considered the USSR to be far worse than the US in its socio imperialist aspirations since it was considered to be the stronger one.

What you are refering to is the western notion of the three worlds.

I stand corrected... and my respect for Mao sinks a little bit more.

Luís Henrique

[DarkPast]

juche

This is the official policy of the DPRK. It states that the nation should be totally self sufficient and that its policy should be centered around the leader who is a father figure and should be obeyed by the people (corporatism). The awareness of the people is created by education on the ideas, culture, history and strengths of the nation (nationalism) and its people. It is accompanied by total self reliance on everyting...including putting the millitary first since the nation must be able to defend itself. People should be molded in ideologically in Juche. They should totally and completely represent the will of the people (anti-induvidualism).

That sounds a lot like fascism.

[NGNM85]

You do know there are other ways to treat ailments other than modernized medicine?

Sure, especially if you aren't particularly interested in living. If you have cancer, and you don't want to die, you don't go to an acupuncturist, or eat St. John's wort; you get chemotherapy. 'Modernized medicine' is the only game in town.

[#FF0000]

That sounds a lot like fascism.

No. Juche doesn't call for a corporate state and Fascism loves the shit out of the Heroic Individual.

[Smyg]

Sure, especially if you aren't particularly interested in living. If you have cancer, and you don't want to die, you don't go to an acupuncturist, or eat St. John's wort; you get chemotherapy. 'Modernized medicine' is the only game in town.

Herbs, man. Herbs. Apparently they cure everything. :rolleyes:

[Nox]

Well ive spotted one person whos lacking in basic survival skills.

Despite what you might think, the world isn't one giant fucking episode of Bear Grylls.

[CommieTroll]

There are degrees of primitivism. I actually wouldnt mind going back to the hunter gatherer days, but im actually a pretty hardcore outdoorsmen.

Awwwww that's cute, you took Fight Club to heart......

[PhoenixAsh]

Herbs, man. Herbs. Apparently they cure everything. :rolleyes:


only if there is a fucking H in them...



reference:
@0:49 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IzDbNFDdP4

[RightWinger]

Maoist Third Worldists basically see the division between the developed and developing world as the most important thing. Basically, they don't see first-world peoples as capable of carrying out a socialist revolution, because Maoist Third Worldists pretty much put them on the level of the bourgeoisie. Understand?



Literally everything.

yeah.. but i don't find that to be so controversial as for example polpotism

[RightWinger]

lol

It seems on revleft, one liners are a popular way of getting reps

[#FF0000]

yeah.. but i don't find that to be so controversial as for example polpotism

I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually supports Pol Pot. They're even rarer than Juche psychotics.



It seems on revleft, one liners are a popular way of getting reps

Ha, sure, but to be fair, I think my actual substantial posts got me more rep in this thread.

[OhYesIdid]

Plenty of early hunter gatherer societies farmed as well.

Quote of the day :laugh:

[Susurrus]

The only time primitivism might be advisable is in case of zombie apocalypse. Even then, survivalism is probably better.

[eric922]

That's it I'm convinced. Let's all embrace Primitivism and work on completely undoing all the progress we've made throughout human history, until some people get sick of it and start farming and then the whole cycle will start over again, and 10,000 years from now the human race will be in the same state it is now and people will still be enslaved by capital.

Seriously, Primitiveism has to be the most reactionary ideology ever, I swear even monarchists aren't that bad.

[RightWinger]

titoists are not resctricted for being titoists, but sadly, like many state-socialists from easter-europe, russia and the balkans they often expres very reactionairy viewpoints on topics like abortion, homosexuality and feminism.


that's very true.. myself being form the Balkans I can fully agree on that.. any ideas why it is so ? whenever there is a gay pride in Belgrade its like a war zone there

[RightWinger]

also, I have to agree on the anti-primitivist thingy.. it may sound romantic but its not better for mankind, just for some individuals.