The Annoying Politics of the so-called Bourgeois Internationalist Left

[the Left™]

Hai. Let me introduce myself a second. I usually give brief one-liners and lolzor comment on this website because my lack of intellectualism and enlightenment is somewhat recognizable in this sea of contemporary scholars. So in an attempt to actually posit something useful, have substantive discussion, and actually articulate a functioning cerebral cortex, I have offered to you the community of Rev Left, a blistering expose on the internationalist liberal menace that makes me want to drop kick a kitten.

Ok. So. I am a young, bored, college-educated( :S) asshole who plays videogames and makes fun of conseratives, cappies, cultural hegemony etc. But I have a friend who majored in "International Relations". He is doing humanitarian work in the Sudan at the moment. That's really great I'm really happy for him I wish him luck in all his endeavors. HOWEVER, he is a product of a fucking annoying pseudo-third worldist ohemgee #1stworldproblems mentality that drives me batshit fucking insane.

Today i was talking to him about OWS and what it meant for the future of democratic institutions, elections, American politics, and social progress. He tells me that while we have a thin veneer of equality and democracy in this country, we should accept it for what it is because there are more pressing issues in the third world. He goes on to argue something along the lines of my politics being focused on irrelevant issues of workers rights, gay and lesbian rights, policy advocacy etc because he feels like building a better Sudan is just the ultimate trump card. My entire fucking political existence would be better utilized in Uganda or something, because there aren't even any issues in contemporary capitalist society-- just utopian fantasies.

What sort of left is this that is hyper-fixated on the issues of the developing world and basically just says "your domestic politics aren't even useful". Amirite?or am i a wrong/stalinist/omgban?

:D

wrong forum maybe idk where this might go

[Black_Rose]

Today i was talking to him about OWS and what it meant for the future of democratic institutions, elections, American politics, and social progress. He tells me that while we have a thin veneer of equality and democracy in this country, we should accept it for what it is because there are more pressing issues in the third world. He goes on to argue something along the lines of my politics being focused on irrelevant issues of workers rights, gay and lesbian rights, policy advocacy etc because he feels like building a better Sudan is just the ultimate trump card. My entire fucking political existence would be better utilized in Uganda or something, because there aren't even any issues in contemporary capitalist society-- just utopian fantasies.

What sort of left is this that is hyper-fixated on the issues of the developing world and basically just says "your domestic politics aren't even useful". Amirite?or am i a wrong/stalinist/omgban?

:D
Does the person in question help out the residents of African countries? If he doesn't, you shouldn't take his criticism seriously.

Edit: God, I have poor reading comprehension. I didn't see the part about him doing work in Sudan.

---
But this is your battle... to facilitate the spread of revolutionary memes in Western capitalist countries, to give hope for a revolution, to ultimately decapitate the head of neoliberalism.

As Mao said: You fight yours, I fight mine!

[dodger]

Like the way you express yourself ICAN... Reading between the lines sounds like your pal is totally absorbed in the work he is doing in Sudan, In short, can't see the broader picture. He/she will see soon enough Sudan has been in the US gun sights for a number of years. The corporate dream of a world without borders, just wont go away.

[Chambered Word]

Does the person in question help out the residents of African countries? If he doesn't, you shouldn't take his criticism seriously.

That's irrelevant.


As Mao said: You fight yours, I fight mine!

I don't think you can say this, because capitalism all over the world functions together and the fate of one nation's workers affects the workers in another nation.

To the OP, your friend is forgetting that there are indeed very pressing issues in the First World which he is overlooking and that the fate of the struggle of the working classes here is tied up with the fate of the struggle everywhere else, including the Third World.

People are being made homeless all the time in the US or working for dirt poor wages, especially immigrants. Racism against blacks still exists in many forms (lower wages, police brutality, hate crimes etc) and the rich have profited from the recession while the poorest income earners become even poorer. The latter is occurring all over the world, not just in the US. I could go on all day about the problems we face in the First World - for example, here in Australia the native Aboriginal people are imprisoned at rates 24 times higher than blacks were in apartheid South Africa and there are Aboriginal communities that live in Third World conditions themselves, dying of diseases which are completely preventable in Australia. However it should be obvious to anybody who can look past their white liberal guilt for five seconds and takes a glance around them that there are problems in the First World that go beyond some middle class twit dropping his iPhone into a toilet.

I think the most important point is that the struggles of workers in developed Western countries are important to emancipating the workers of the Third World as well. The entire world is fundamentally divided by classes, and as we've seen recently workers in one part of the world can not only in part inspire other workers to struggle, but it is necessary for the working classes of the world to cooperate with eachother in order to organize against capitalism on an international basis. This is necessary because capitalism is a global system.


The corporate dream of a world without borders, just wont go away.

This 'corporate dream' has already been realized because capital goes wherever it likes. However, arbitrary political borders still very much exist in that different nations still control their own resources and geographical areas for capital, and labor's movement is restricted by the whims of capital and the state.

[Belleraphone]

Does he reject capitalism? If he does, it's certainly an interesting point of view. The working class in the third world is certainly more fucked over than the working class of the first world. I wouldn't say he's "bourgeois" and has no interest in helping the working class, he just has a different means of doing it. But we have to remember that the first world basically dominates the third world, if a leftist revolution occurred in Columbia, the USA might intervene, we're not going to expect Iran to subvert the left-wing American revolution.

Obviously saying that workers rights and gay marriage in the first world is useless is wrong, but again I don't' think he's a threat to the working class nor is he being bourgeois or unintentionally reactionary. Also, what exactly is he doing in Sudan to help the people there? Is he doing charity or is he taking political action? If it's the second then that just confirms what I said earlier, but if it's the first he should be praised for helping the people there, but let it be known that he won't change anything in the long term.

But like I said earlrier, I think you're in the right for putting the priority in the western countries. A truly left France is a much more powerful tool for the international revolution than a leftist Sudan.

[the Left™]

Does he reject capitalism? If he does, it's certainly an interesting point of view. The working class in the third world is certainly more fucked over than the working class of the first world. I wouldn't say he's "bourgeois" and has no interest in helping the working class, he just has a different means of doing it. But we have to remember that the first world basically dominates the third world, if a leftist revolution occurred in Columbia, the USA might intervene, we're not going to expect Iran to subvert the left-wing American revolution.

Obviously saying that workers rights and gay marriage in the first world is useless is wrong, but again I don't' think he's a threat to the working class nor is he being bourgeois or unintentionally reactionary. Also, what exactly is he doing in Sudan to help the people there? Is he doing charity or is he taking political action? If it's the second then that just confirms what I said earlier, but if it's the first he should be praised for helping the people there, but let it be known that he won't change anything in the long term.

But like I said earlrier, I think you're in the right for putting the priority in the western countries. A truly left France is a much more powerful tool for the international revolution than a leftist Sudan.


Hes some third-way capitalism with a human face type person. Think microfinance as being the "Answer"

[Black_Rose]

if a leftist revolution occurred in Columbia, he USA might intervene

They done it at Kent State, so they'll probably do it at Columbia . :rolleyes:

[Veovis]

I can relate to exactly what you described. I was originally like your friend - International studies minor in school - got fed the whole gamut of bourgeois ideas regarding the alleviation of poverty in the developing world. Hell - at one time I thought that "micro-loans" were the key to curing poverty!

Then I started reading about Marxism and all that stuff flew out the window. Now I'll never get a job in the field that I trained it because I'm operating on a whole different paradigm now.

[Veovis]

They done it at Kent State, so they'll probably do it at Columbia . :rolleyes:

Desnarkified translation: Colombia is spelt with two O's. ;)

[Le Socialiste]

His focus on issues that plague the "third world," while admirable, don't take into consideration the impact most policies and decisions made by states in the "first world" have on the former - the direct consequences of which make themselves felt throughout societies facing neo-colonialism, "first world" exploitation, lack of basic resources, and impoverishment. If he truly understood or supported the basic fundamentals of internationalism, he'd realize that - by and large - the ruination of "third world" conditions are more or less linked to those actions taken by "first world" nations, making the call for international solidarity all the more important. The answer to capitalism's constant exploitation of social and material conditions lies in the need for a unity that transcends states and borders, linking workers the world over in common struggle. One cannot hope to "fix" the issues contributing to this problem in the "third world" without a basic understanding of capitalism's role and the realization that internationalism is the link which binds the working-class in its fight against it. Rejecting capitalism as the problem and the role "first world" countries play in it can only lead to "solutions" that seek to alleviate the pain without taking a much needed look at the source.

[The Idler]

Third-worldism seems to be being used in a totally inaccurate context in this discussion. Please try to use accurate terms. Check Wikipedia for definitions before you use them. According to Wikipedia
"Third-worldism is a tendency within left-wing political thought to regard the division between developed countries, and developing countries or "Third World" nations against the background of primary political importance. Third-worldism tends to offer support to Third World nations and national liberation movements against Western nations or their proxies."
The RCG who have been accused of being third-worldist, used to run work holidays to Cuba, perhaps the friend is doing something like Che did in Angola.

[Ocean Seal]

Hai. Let me introduce myself a second. I usually give brief one-liners and lolzor comment on this website because my lack of intellectualism and enlightenment is somewhat recognizable in this sea of contemporary scholars. So in an attempt to actually posit something useful, have substantive discussion, and actually articulate a functioning cerebral cortex, I have offered to you the community of Rev Left, a blistering expose on the internationalist liberal menace that makes me want to drop kick a kitten.

Ok. So. I am a young, bored, college-educated( :S) asshole who plays videogames and makes fun of conseratives, cappies, cultural hegemony etc. But I have a friend who majored in "International Relations". He is doing humanitarian work in the Sudan at the moment. That's really great I'm really happy for him I wish him luck in all his endeavors. HOWEVER, he is a product of a fucking annoying pseudo-third worldist ohemgee #1stworldproblems mentality that drives me batshit fucking insane.

Today i was talking to him about OWS and what it meant for the future of democratic institutions, elections, American politics, and social progress. He tells me that while we have a thin veneer of equality and democracy in this country, we should accept it for what it is because there are more pressing issues in the third world. He goes on to argue something along the lines of my politics being focused on irrelevant issues of workers rights, gay and lesbian rights, policy advocacy etc because he feels like building a better Sudan is just the ultimate trump card. My entire fucking political existence would be better utilized in Uganda or something, because there aren't even any issues in contemporary capitalist society-- just utopian fantasies.

What sort of left is this that is hyper-fixated on the issues of the developing world and basically just says "your domestic politics aren't even useful". Amirite?or am i a wrong/stalinist/omgban?

:D

wrong forum maybe idk where this might go

Honestly, he sounds like a rather wealthy student. A trust-fund 1st worldist... You should tell him to join LLCO :laugh:, he'd fit right in.

[ColonelCossack]

It's laudable, but it does fucking irritate me sometimes.

My aunt and uncle are just like that... they go around adopting third world kids with less than 10 fingers, then go around screaming "TIBET WILL BE FREE!". Again, laudable, but a) That's quite naive b) There are bigger problems and c) There are more effective ways of spending your time and resources.

[the Left™]

Third-worldism seems to be being used in a totally inaccurate context in this discussion. Please try to use accurate terms. Check Wikipedia for definitions before you use them. According to Wikipedia
The RCG who have been accused of being third-worldist, used to run work holidays to Cuba, perhaps the friend is doing something like Che did in Angola.


Yea ok sorry Mr. moderator i didnt mean to misuse a term that i wasnt using correctly. I dont literally mean like maoist third worldism or whatever i just meant it loosely in the context of being associated with the third world :s

[The Idler]

I'm not a mod, but the topic title of "the so-called bourgeois internationalist left" is misleading too. Rarely have I heard anyone called both "bourgeois and internationalist", unless you are trying to compare Third-Worldist Maoism with Bourgeois attitudes to the third-world in which case you might be onto something.

Also, shouting "Tibet will be free" is supporting the Tibetan ruling-class against the Chinese ruling-class which isn't laudable whichever side you take. Is this bourgeois internationalist "Free Tibet" the mirror image of Maoist third-worldism?

[Fawkes]

But we have to remember that the first world basically dominates the third world

No, we have to remember that capitalists dominate workers.

[Connolly Was There1916]

I am only 16 years old, and this thread has made me realise that i have been taken in to some degree by, as Veovis says "the bourgeois ideas regarding the alleviation of poverty in the third world." I totally agree with the point that i think a lot of you make in this thread, which is that the only way to fully put an end to the horrendous suffering that occurs in the third world, would be for revolutions to occur in the likes of America. Because due to the vast influence that they have already obtained and sustained, the new system would have the power to promote egalitarianism and freedom across all corners of the globe. It is obviously a superb thing to do to go to the likes of Sudan and help the deprived and suffering people, but due to the current unjust distribution of wealth in the world, poverty can not be truly eradicated until the Leftist struggle is won.