The Third World and Revolutions?

[Comrade #138672]

I have two questions about the third world.

1. What kind of luxury would be lost when the distinction between the first, second, and third world diminishes?

2. How much probable is it that a revolution would occur in the third world first? Would a world-wide revolution start with third world revolutions? And what stops people from the third world from revolting together? Aren't they incredibly motivated to overthrow their "masters" who are exploiting them?

[JPSartre12]

I'm not sure how to answer your first question, but I'll try on your second :lol:

What strikes me as odd is the fact that "socialist" revolutions have occurred in agrarian societies - Russia, China, etc. They haven't happened from the class-conscious proletariat of the industrialized West rising up and overthrowing their bourgeois oppressors. I'd say that this is because a vanguard party attempted to surgically insert itself into the historical process and induce a revolution when the means of production weren't sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity.

But the Third World can't step into socialism mainly for the reason that they don't have economics dynamic and advanced enough that they can overcome scarcity - you can't try to establish a socialist utopia if you don't have enough abundant material to go around for everyone to share. They're still underdeveloped, relatively backwards (in comparison to the hyper-industrialized West, that is), and haven't stepped into cultural modernity. That being said, I'm not sure how probably a revolution is there in comparison to the West - sure, they can be motivated to overthrow their exploitative masters, but if they revolt, what are they revolting towards? It can't be socialism, if they haven't given birth to the productive powers of capitalism yet.

I would say that revolutions there are more likely to happen than here in the First World, though. Once they revolt, I think that they should institute some sort of temporary, democratic state capitalism to induce rapid industrialization. The sooner they have sophisticated industry, the sooner they can overcome scarcity; and the sooner they can overcome scarcity, the sooner they can try to implement socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have two questions about the third world.

1. What kind of luxury would be lost when the distinction between the first, second, and third world diminishes?

This is impossible to answer. In all likeliness, we will see the disappearance of conspicuous consumption, but beyond that we cannot answer how "luxury" (what is luxury anyway?) will disappear, if, how, and to what extent.


2. How much probable is it that a revolution would occur in the third world first? Would a world-wide revolution start with third world revolutions? And what stops people from the third world from revolting together? Aren't they incredibly motivated to overthrow their "masters" who are exploiting them?

I heard Die Nieuwe Zeit (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=13895) mentioned 'The Anatomy of Revolution', which may help one understand revolutions in general--I at least ordered the book.

To my knowledge, far-left parties are most popular in Southern Europe and India. But the various Communist Parties in India have, when elected, adopted pro-business policies. Perhaps isolation inhibited the implementation of a socialist programme, but they seem to have little revolutionary potential.

In South America, far-left parties tend to receive between 0,5-3% of the votes, but virtually all elected far-left parties are part of some centre-left coalition. In Africa, the only far-left party elected--to my knowledge which isn't extensive--is in Ghana, and has only one seat.

In this sense, one may blame the lack of a vanguard party in the offense that educates and agitates the workers rather than be in the retreat and join centre-left coalitions.

Why they are relatively unpopular in poor countries may be attributed to the idea that there is no alternative as under 'communism', they think, a state will exploit them instead. This disillusionment may compel them to accept their misery. In order to break their chains, they must do so with the thought of a brighter future ahead and the trackrecord of socialism in the twentieth century isn't particularly favourable to that.



But the Third World can't step into socialism mainly for the reason that they don't have economics dynamic and advanced enough that they can overcome scarcity - you can't try to establish a socialist utopia if you don't have enough abundant material to go around for everyone to share. They're still underdeveloped, relatively backwards (in comparison to the hyper-industrialized West, that is), and haven't stepped into cultural modernity

I don't know if that's true. There has been de-industrialisation in the West and even the most backward countries (save perhaps Bhutan) have far more industry than Russia did in 1917. Latin America seems to be the most fertile ground for revolution: much of it industrialised, much social inequality.

[theblackmask]

1. The distinction will not disappear or diminish. As long as capitalism (and arguably civilization) has existed, it has had the need to subjugate some areas for the resources to make others complacent. The difference between the worlds cannot diminish, only relocate itself.

2. Real revolutions don't happen in the third world because of the enormous power discrepancy. Anything that Capital can't co-opt into some sort of toothless national liberation struggle, it destroys. I'm sure if there ever were the threat of a genuine, coordinated people's movement in the third world, Capital would not hesitate to resort to genocide if it got out of control...they pretty much already have.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Check this out. The user DNZ has an interesting solution for third-world revolutions.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1008

[RedHammer]

I have two questions about the third world.

1. What kind of luxury would be lost when the distinction between the first, second, and third world diminishes? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here.


2. How much probable is it that a revolution would occur in the third world first? Would a world-wide revolution start with third world revolutions? And what stops people from the third world from revolting together? Aren't they incredibly motivated to overthrow their "masters" who are exploiting them?All past revolutions occurred in countries that had a very small or non-existent middle class. This is a curious fact.

The existence of a large middle class creates a situation where a large segment of the population has a vested interest in the continuation of capitalism. Of course, class as defined by Marx has to do with relation to the means of production, and not income; but the "middle class" today, although they are proletariat, enjoy a relatively high standard of living. Their existence is predicated on the continuation of the capitalist mode of production.

Most "First World" countries, if not all, have a large middle class. This cushions the upper class from the restless lower classes.

I believe revolutions have occurred in underdeveloped countries precisely because class divide is so stark, and so apparent; in all the countries which have experienced revolution, there were pretty much only two groups: rich and poor.

The problem with "Third World" revolutions is, as JPSartre12 pointed out, that they [the Third World] do not have a sufficiently developed economy that can overcome scarcity. They inevitably run into serious material problems.

The First World would have a much easier time implementing socialism; but the existence of a "middle class" and heavy anti-communist propaganda (thanks to the dictatorship of capital) diminishes class consciousness and halts revolutionary efforts.

The best that has ever been achieved is some form of collaborationism (e.g. social democracy). Still, this cannot last forever. Austerity measures in Greece and the rest of the EU are evidence enough that you cannot "balance out" capitalism. Class divisions will only become starker and starker as the world develops.

[Ocean Seal]

1. Luxury won't be lost because efficiency in production will be gained by great margins when we shift from a profit economy
2. No revolutions won't come to the third world first. Imperialism makes it impossible to sustain a revolution in the third world. That of course isn't meant to discourage third world revolutionaries, but for them to understand that socialist revolution will be hard to sustain given an imperialist invasion. There are of course manners in which this can be offset, although those usually lead to your standard national capitalist state.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The problem with "Third World" revolutions is, as JPSartre12 pointed out, that they [the Third World] do not have a sufficiently developed economy that can overcome scarcity. They inevitably run into serious material problems.

Even more important than this is the fact that in "third world" countries labor has not been "liberated" from the land as so can not develop into proletariats.

[Ocean Seal]

2. Real revolutions don't happen in the third world because of the enormous power discrepancy. Anything that Capital can't co-opt into some sort of toothless national liberation struggle, it destroys. I'm sure if there ever were the threat of a genuine, coordinated people's movement in the third world, Capital would not hesitate to resort to genocide if it got out of control...they pretty much already have.
I doubt that national liberation struggles are "toothless" as you claim. The idea that guys like Nasser and Ho Chi Minh don't pose threats to the international capitalists is pretty ridiculous. They aren't socialist, but that isn't being debated. Their damage to intentional capitalism is pretty evident.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Are China and India's economies industrialized enough for them to be considered advanced capitalist countries by Marxist standards? Obviously they have large rural populations and sectors of their economies reflect that, but they are also enormous countries with highly advanced sectors as well. Is it right to lump them in with the third world in this case?

[theblackmask]

I doubt that national liberation struggles are "toothless" as you claim. The idea that guys like Nasser and Ho Chi Minh don't pose threats to the international capitalists is pretty ridiculous. They aren't socialist, but that isn't being debated. Their damage to intentional capitalism is pretty evident.

We probably aren't going to agree on this, but I would consider both Nasser and Ho Chi Minh intentional capitalists. Just because you call yourself a socialist/communist doesn't make you one. Just because they may have aligned themselves with different strains of Capital does not change the fact that they never moved beyond the idea of an authoritarian state, and that a genuine movement against Capital was always out of the question.

[RedHammer]

Even more important than this is the fact that in "third world" countries labor has not been "liberated" from the land as so can not develop into proletariats.

That may be true, but history has shown us that you can achieve rapid industrialization (e.g. the Soviet Union).

The "Third World" isn't ready for socialism, but that doesn't mean they can't have revolutions geared towards getting them ready for socialism. Still, the "First World" is much more adequately developed to establish socialism.


Are China and India's economies industrialized enough for them to be considered advanced capitalist countries by Marxist standards? Obviously they have large rural populations and sectors of their economies reflect that, but they are also enormous countries with highly advanced sectors as well. Is it right to lump them in with the third world in this case?

It is true that China and India have a growing proletariat class, and they are industrializing. But, especially in India, much of the population live as peasants in areas that are totally undeveloped. This will present a challenge to any socialist revolution.

The Naxalites, though, are an interesting bunch. They adopt Maoist principles in their revolutionary efforts. I do hope they succeed.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

That may be true, but history has shown us that you can achieve rapid industrialization (e.g. the Soviet Union).

The "Third World" isn't ready for socialism, but that doesn't mean they can't have revolutions geared towards getting them ready for socialism. Still, the "First World" is much more adequately developed to establish socialism.

What needs to happen in the third world is socialist revolutionaries need to link up with other vanguard socialist movements, organizations, parties, etc. in the first world and evoke revolution. As Mike Macnair says, it is the best chance for a successful socialist revolution in the third world. Also, DNZ's Third-World Caesarean Socialism, with it's dictatorship of the national/pan-national petit-bourgeoisie, is an interesting and unorthodox approach that could yield some positive results.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think the naxalites represent a revolutionary force. They have their ideologues but the majority of their support comes from peasants just trying to protect themselves and their land. They'll likely reach a point where they feel secure enough to disarm long before they feel the need to overthrow the Indian state and confront capital.

[RedHammer]

I don't think the Naxalites represent a revolutionary force. They have their ideologues but the majority of their support comes from peasants just trying to protect themselves and their land. They'll likely reach a point where they feel secure enough to disarm long before they feel the need to overthrow the Indian state and confront capital.

I disagree. I do consider them a revolutionary force; the problem is, though, that because they do draw most of their support from the peasants, they may go the same route as the Chinese Revolution.

They've been at it for decades and there has been a resurgence of resistance. I don't think they'll stop anytime soon.

The best case scenario is having a partnership between the Naxalites and the other revolutionary parties that would grow as India continues along capitalist development.

[Tim Cornelis]

Here is so far what I got from so-called "Third World Ceasarism."

First, it is heavily indebted to the economic determinist idea that social classes need to operate within narrowly defined parameters of class struggle: bourgeoisie makes bourgeois revolution; proletarians make proletarian revolution; and the peasants are incapable of proletarian revolution. The reality is not as black-and-white as some make it out to be. For example, it appears that the American bourgeoisie was overwhelmingly loyal to the crown, rather than the bourgeois revolution. Incidentally, the feudal aristocracy remains powerful while we should expect them not to be at all should the economic determinists have been correct.


George Comninel's book on the French Revolution makes clear that the primary actors against the crown were elements of the court itself, not the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, the American revolution can only be called a social revolution in a highly qualified sense. Staughton Lynd's study of class dynamics of New York state in the American revolution make a convincing case that the colonial bourgeoisie resisted social transformation.

http://www.marxmail.org/archives/june98/bourgeois_rev.htm

So the idea to which "Third World Ceasarism" is indebted to is flawed. There is no reason to assume that peasants cannot be equal participants in a socialist revolution.

Second, "Third World Ceasarism" is based on a four party-block managed democracy akin to Indonesia, Angola, or North Korea. Is mentioning this alone enough to discredit the idea? Apparently not. While all three of these closest examples of what is proposed here were (abysmal) failures, its advocates borrow its name (managed democracy from Indonesia) so they must be aware of its failure.

Like in North Korea, they advocate various parties:


There would be a right-wing populist party (economically left-wing) called "The Party of Order", a left-wing populist party called "The Party of Liberty", and a centrist party to stand between the two.

Party of Liberty = Korean Social Democratic Party (petite-bourgeois)
Party of Order = Chondoist Chongu Party

Or maybe it's more like Angola. With the MPLA being the proletarian party, UNITA the populist, and National Liberation Front of Angola the centrist party. Look how well that alliance turned out, eh? But maybe it just needed more cult worship.


A proletariat party would exist outside of this and act as a opposition group that would also help harass "liberal opposition" protesters, etc.

Much like ZANU-PF militas harass pro-democracy protesters in Zimbabwe.


Eventually, the TWCS state would lose it's progressive character. When this happens, when the proletariat make up a majority of the population, the proletariat are faced with 2 main options. Either the proletariat could make a revolution to overthrow the now reactionary state or the proletariat could hope to make a constitutional overhaul with massive proletariat support (violent protests, etc.).

And we end up with something like India or Angola. Fantastic.

Essentially, "Thirld World Ceasarism" combines the worst elements of all kinds of historical experiments from Indonesia (ended with the killing of 500,000-1,000,000 communists who formerly were one of the three power blocks), India (reverted from state-capitalism back to private capitalism, no socialist revolution as of yet), North Korea (personality cult accompanied by an overall inhumane regime), harassment of dissidents (loads of examples, let's stick with ZANU-PF). And all for some more industry, which is not even a guarantee: India adopted a state-capitalist five-year central plan inspired by the USSR to boost industrialisation, it failed as only 14% of India's population is employed in industry today (services 34%).

We are talking about people's lives here, not some Age of Empire avatars--pixels on a screen--you need to use, exploit, break down, kill and oppress to advance your narrow and shallow goal: progress for the sake of progress. Because that's what you advocate, shallowly defined progress, nothing more.

This whole idea is ridiculous from the very onset. Fortunately, it will never materialise. Honestly, even its name sounds like middle class, mental masturbation (nevermind the content!)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I disagree. I do consider them a revolutionary force; the problem is, though, that because they do draw most of their support from the peasants, they may go the same route as the Chinese Revolution.

They've been at it for decades and there has been a resurgence of resistance. I don't think they'll stop anytime soon.

The best case scenario is having a partnership between the Naxalites and the other revolutionary parties that would grow as India continues along capitalist development.

A successful naxalite revolution would only end up looking like Nepal, what good would that be? In any case I've seen little to suggest growing support for them in the urban centers and state's operations against them are getting more intense. I doubt the state can beat them as you have said they've been fighting different incarnations them for decades, but as dedicated as their cadres might be the peasants are looking out for themselves. They aren't interested in state power or socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here is so far what I got from so-called "Third World Ceasarism."

First, it is heavily indebted to the economic determinist idea that social classes need to operate within narrowly defined parameters of class struggle: bourgeoisie makes bourgeois revolution; proletarians make proletarian revolution; and the peasants are incapable of proletarian revolution.

WTF? Contempt for the peasantry says that peasants are incapable not just of proletarian revolution, but of revolution period. What I am saying is that the socioeconomically patriotic elements urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World are quite capable of a thoroughly petit-bourgeois revolution, and that they are actually in a better position than the proletariat to launch any progressive political revolution in the here and now.


http://www.marxmail.org/archives/june98/bourgeois_rev.htm

So the idea to which "Third World Ceasarism" is indebted to is flawed. There is no reason to assume that peasants cannot be equal participants in a socialist revolution.

Again, WTF? I am saying that peasants and urban petit-bourgeois radicals should take the lead in a "socialist revolution" in the Third World.


Second, "Third World Ceasarism" is based on a four party-block managed democracy akin to Indonesia, Angola, or North Korea. Is mentioning this alone enough to discredit the idea? Apparently not. While all three of these closest examples of what is proposed here were (abysmal) failures, its advocates borrow its name (managed democracy from Indonesia) so they must be aware of its failure.

Not at all, Tim. The managed multi-party system is actually derived from Putin's Russia, from a sort of "Left Putinism." That's hardly a institutional failure. Moreover, unlike the above, there's actually electoral competition between the two main parties.


Like in North Korea, they advocate various parties:


There would be a right-wing populist party (economically left-wing) called "The Party of Order", a left-wing populist party called "The Party of Liberty", and a centrist party to stand between the two.

Party of Liberty = Korean Social Democratic Party (petite-bourgeois)
Party of Order = Chondoist Chongu Party

Assume for a moment that both United Russia and Just Russia actually had anti-bourgeois and "socialistic" policies economically. The "Party of Order" would be the hypothetical United Russia (or the Belaya Rus in neighbouring Belarus), and the "Party of Liberty" would be the hypothetical Just Russia. The Left Front would be one of the left formations within the managed democracy.



A proletariat party would exist outside of this and act as a opposition group that would also help harass "liberal opposition" protesters, etc.
Much like ZANU-PF militias that harass pro-democracy protesters in Zimbabwe.

No, I'm looking more at Nashi's direction, but one that supports anti-bourgeois and "socialistic" policies economically. Or, if one looks at neighbouring Belarus, there's the Communist Party of Belarus and the Belarusian Socialist Sporting Party. There is, of course, the Communist Party of Venezuela to consider, relative to the presidency, but unfortunately it wasn't at the vanguard of shutting down RCTV for its role in the failed anti-Chavez coup in 2002.


And we end up with something like India or Angola. Fantastic.

No, that later situation is more similar to some combination of the German Revolution and the 2007 constitutional referendum in Venezuela.


We are talking about people's lives here, not some Age of Empire avatars--pixels on a screen--you need to use, exploit, break down, kill and oppress to advance your narrow and shallow goal: progress for the sake of progress. Because that's what you advocate, shallowly defined progress, nothing more.

This whole idea is ridiculous from the very onset. Fortunately, it will never materialise.

Then the proletariat in the Third World would have no chance in hell of pursuing non-bourgeois but state-capitalist development, would it? :glare:

[Just look at Soviet Hungary's civil war with the peasantry that led to the downfall of that brief regime.]

[islandmilitia]

What strikes me as odd is the fact that "socialist" revolutions have occurred in agrarian societies - Russia, China, etc.

It's pretty inaccurate to describe these societies as "agrarian". Say that they exhibited the conditions of combined and uneven development where cities existed within and alongside an impoverished rural hinterland, sure, but recognize the fact that in the 1920s and 30s, by population, Shanghai was one of the largest cities in the world, and was regarded (in guidebooks that were produced in the English language for the benefit of Western visitors and expatriates - I've seen these sources, and they are very interesting for what they suggest about attitudes towards Shanghai and the role of Shanghai as a cultural symbol) as a dynamic metropolis on the same level as New York and London.

In any case, you shouldn't be surprised that revolutions have taken place outside of the imperialist core. It only makes sense to speak of core and periphery or First World and Third World when we live in an imperialist world-system which exists as an integrated economic unit founded on relations of exploitation and dominance between countries. Those relations, in their various dimensions and forms, produce differing political and social conditions, and it is the conditions of the Third World that are most suitable for revolution, because the effect of imperialist penetration in these countries is to produce powerful sets of contradictions, at the same time as a section of the working class in the imperialist core is co-opted and bought off through the proceeds of imperialism. Trotsky was particularly sensitive to these dynamics, as he observed in the 1900s that investment from the main imperialist powers in industrial development in Russia had resulted in Russia having some of the most advanced forms of industrial technology, without having to go through a gradual process of moving from, say, small workshop production, to modern industry, which had been the historic course of industrial development in other countries, and that these advanced industrial plants brought huge bodies of workers together in the same factory space, workers who were often drawn directly from the countryside. It is processes like this that Trotsky describes through his concept of combined and uneven development, combined referring to the intersection of underdevelopment and the cutting edge of capitalist modernity, and uneven referring to different conditions obtaining in different countries because of the different positions they occupy under the imperialist world-system. If it is indeed the case that revolutions can only be successful if they take place in the imperialist cores then we have reason to be pessimistic about the feasibility of ever building socialism because it is precisely outside of these countries, in the Third World, that the real political possibility of revolution exists.


I'd say that this is because a vanguard party attempted to surgically insert itself into the historical process and induce a revolution when the means of production weren't sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity.

The implicit assumption here is that it would only have been right for a vanguard party to "insert" itself once these countries had reached a higher level of development. But the real flaw here is the belief that "catching up" is actually possible for most countries in the Third World. It is not, because the entire dynamic of imperialism entails these countries being kept in a position of relative impoverishment in order for the countries of the First World to be able to maintain their more privileged and powerful positions. This is evidenced by the fact that when countries have been able to develop after the core capitalist states it has only been under highly specific sets of historical conditions which are in no way generalizable to the Third World as a whole, such as the fact that they were part of the US anti-communist umbrella and were therefore the recipients of large quantitates of aid and were allowed to construct protectionist barriers against foreign competition when other countries were not (as in the case of Taiwan or South Korea) or the fact that they went through social revolutions which enabled countries to "de-link" themselves from the imperialist world-system and pursue radical development projects (as in the case of China and others). So if First-Worldists like you say that revolution only becomes feasible or legitimate when a Third World country reaches a certain stage in a developmental scheme derived from a Western historical experience, that day will never come, and revolution will never obtain your stamp of legitimacy, because "catching up" is not a general possibility in the world we inhabit.


you can't try to establish a socialist utopia if you don't have enough abundant material to go around for everyone to share

Right, communism depends on material abundance, because material scarcity requires regimented forms of distribution and creates the basis for a new class system. But material abundance (and therefore the conditions for communism) is not possible within any individual country, including the countries of the First World, precisely because the world is an imperialist world-system that is marked by intensive interdependence between countries, as shown by the fact that although the First World may have, say, an advanced transport infrastructure, the majority if its manufactured goods and foodstuffs are imported from the Third World, and are distributed through that infrastructure, whilst the economies of the First World itself are, in employment terms, orientated towards services, especially in marketing and finance, which are sectors that are highly specific to capitalism and probably would not have much meaning or usefulness under a different social system. From that standpoint, and contrary to your description of the First World as "hyper-industrialized", it is actually worth considering what it means to speak of the First World as the most developed or most advanced countries, because whilst the First World is equivalent to the imperialist core, insofar as the First World still exercises geopolitical and military dominance, the process of de-industrialization and financialization we have seen over the past three decades might suggest that it is actually the countries outside of the First World that are now more materially abundant in terms of productive capacity, because the Third World has become the locus for the production of actual tangible goods, even whilst that production is currently carried out in order to meet the demands of First World consumers. Following that line of argument, it would actually be a revolution in the First World that would most immediately suffer intense material scarcity, because the First World has lost much of the productive capacity to meet basic human needs.

Actually, this question deserves to be made explicit: on what grounds do the First-Worldists of this thread say that the First World is "hyper-industrialized", more material abundant, more ready for socialism, etc. given the experience of de-industrialization, financialization, and the Third World emerging as the primary locus of material production?


haven't stepped into cultural modernity

This is the crassest form of racism and orientalism, it repeats all the colonial discourses about the Third World being "backward" and "mired in tradition" because they haven't followed the path of a Western-specific conception of modernity. Third World societies actually embodied many of the social and political features subsequently identified with modernity even before those countries were subject to imperialism, China's extensive nonhereditary bureaucracy being the classic case in point. The experience of Maoism in China represents in many ways an alternative model of modernity that combines a sense of the new with a rejection of the hyper-individualist modernity that has characterized the historical experience of the West.

[Positivist]

I have two questions about the third world.

1. What kind of luxury would be lost when the distinction between the first, second, and third world diminishes?

2. How much probable is it that a revolution would occur in the third world first? Would a world-wide revolution start with third world revolutions? And what stops people from the third world from revolting together? Aren't they incredibly motivated to overthrow their "masters" who are exploiting them?

1. Very little considering that the distribution of wealth is so skewed toward such a small minority today that redistributing it will serve to prevent major declines as the result of the end of imperialism. Oh and the second world was the Soviet union and its satellites so...

2. It is more probable that revolution will occur in the third world because conditions are so poor but at the same time less probable due to the violent repression of workers by the imperialists and their lackeys.

[Ocean Seal]

We probably aren't going to agree on this, but I would consider both Nasser and Ho Chi Minh intentional capitalists. Just because you call yourself a socialist/communist doesn't make you one. Just because they may have aligned themselves with different strains of Capital does not change the fact that they never moved beyond the idea of an authoritarian state, and that a genuine movement against Capital was always out of the question.
Again I would call them both capitalists so we agree there, but I am saying that they did pose quite a threat to international capitalism simply by supporting different strains of capital (i.e.:nationalist capital, Eastern bloc capital, etc.). This kind of destabilization of hegemony for the west certainly was considered a threat.

[The_Red_Spark]

Here is so far what I got from so-called "Third World Ceasarism."
The reality is not as black-and-white as some make it out to be. For example, it appears that the American bourgeoisie was overwhelmingly loyal to the crown, rather than the bourgeois revolution.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Is it due to something you have read? If so, can you tell me where? It is my understanding that most of those who are called our 'founding fathers' here in the USA were in fact bourgeois or petite-bourgeois which is why the taxation issue was so pivotal in their stance against the crown. For instance George Washington was a bourgeois whiskey manufacturer and trader among many other valuable commodities that were manufactured by his estate. I forget the exact percentage of the industry that he actually owned(in North American colonies) but I heard it was more than half of that in the colonies.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/04/george-washingtons-new-whiskey-founding-father-of-american-distilling-is-back/

This made me look at the taxes applied to whiskey, made in the post revolutionary period, as a legal and methodical approach to ending competition by small independent producers of whiskey who also sought to use it as a form of currency. The basis of the new legal system was based on the equality of the bourgeoisie not the common man. It is important to note that this tax developed under GW's presidency but was extremely unpopular among the average citizen at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion


I may be wrong in my assessment but I do believe that the American Revolution was a through and through bourgeois revolution that was aided and abetted by the peasantry. It was a way to establish equality for the property owning class against the crown and nobility. It took away the last remaining vestiges protecting feudalistic control and advantage over the bourgeois elements that had developed here in the colonies. The lack of fully developed capitalist mode of production shouldn't be a point that is held against this position because the industrial revolution was rapidly making great strides in the colonies even though they were not in a state of advanced economic development in comparison to England.

The break with the crown allowed a tremendous and very rapid concentration of capital in America that formed the very basis of our economic development and lead to our present position as the super-fortress and main bastion of Imperialist Capitalism. This is what lead Kautsky to proclaim, 'In no other country than America is there so much basis for speaking of the dictatorship of capital'.

In other nations there was a need to not only overthrow a ruling class based on feudalism, but a continued battle against the remaining power, though diminished and waning, of the remaining elements of feudalism that resided within these societies. At times the feudal elements were merged into the parliamentary system as it was done in Great Britain. This was totally absent in the colonies and this presented a different set of dynamics with a far different outcome.

[Comrade #138672]

Sorry. My first question was about "first" and "second" world countries that can't keep their standard of living without exploiting the "third" world. So what would our standard of living be like without the (hidden) exploitation of the "third" world?

Everywhere revolutions seem to be prevented either by isolation (in space or socially) or by a huge middle class adjusted to the "luxurous" life of living on leftovers from the upper class parasites.

[ind_com]

I have two questions about the third world.

1. What kind of luxury would be lost when the distinction between the first, second, and third world diminishes?

When the third world frees itself from imperialism, the condition of the first and second worlds will become somewhat like the pre-revolution third world itself. Government benefits to the unemployed, affordable good nutrition, health-facilities, bourgeois political rights and a somewhat secure life will become things of the past. Death due to starvation will become common, pavements will be crowded with the resting homeless, protests or gatherings will be frequently shot at by the police, the spotless streets and well-maintained neighbourhoods will turn into puddles and wrecks, robberies will become regular and open etc etc.


2. How much probable is it that a revolution would occur in the third world first? Would a world-wide revolution start with third world revolutions?

A revolution can happen only with the victory of the working classes in a class war. This requires for the socio-economic conditions to worsen to such an extent, that the working classes opt for a direct military conflict rather than being economically exploited. This can happen only when the economic exploitation is at a stage when the chances of survival even in a military conflict are more than when exploited economically.

It is known that such levels of exploitation of the majority of the population exist only in the third world. Imperialism as a world system consists broadly of two types of countries. There are countries that act as bases of colossal blocs of capital, and there are countries that act as markets and sources of raw materials for these blocs of capital. These economically peripheral regions are what is called the third world. Hence, as long as the third world remains under the grasp of imperialism, it is strategically beneficial for imperialism to keep exploitation comparatively much lower in its bases rather than in the third world. Therefore, prior to the revolutionary emancipation of the third world, the material conditions for class war can only exist in the third world, and hence a world-wide revolution can start only from the third world.

To address a point raised by some, material abundance is not a pre-condition for revolution. As seen above, it in fact delays the initiation of class war. Material abundance can be considered only post-revolution as a parameter for consolidation of socialism.


And what stops people from the third world from revolting together? Aren't they incredibly motivated to overthrow their "masters" who are exploiting them?

Both objective and subjective conditions. The third world is not a single region with identical conditions everywhere. Moreover, in some regions the revolutionary movements are more developed than others. These movements have to handle both primary and secondary social contradictions very efficiently in order to spread throughout such a huge geographical area. This takes time, and hence it is not possible for the third world to revolt together.