Poverty in the Third World

[Positivist]

Hey everyone, just wanted to check in and see if anyone has any good sources or papers on how the poverty of third world countries is intimately connected to the affluence of first world countries. I have been researching underdevelopment lately, and the most common diagnosis which I have found as to why people of these countries suffer is because capitalism has not fully blossomed in them yet. I'm looking for some well sourced documents which employ statistical and empirical information to support the Marxist thesis that "bourgeois" or "post-industrial" societies are dependent on the existence of impoverished proletarian nations. And please avoid any jabs on third-worldism, I'm not a third-worldist and absolutely acknowledge the existence of a suffering proletariat in the advanced capitalist world, I am just looking for information on the even more destitute elemtent of the working class. Thank you.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It might be tangentially related, but I wrote this article applying Lenin's theory of imperialism to the current Senegalese fishing crisis

[Beeth]

Poverty in the third world is due to feudalism rather than capitalism. Capitalism is not fully developed in the third world for it to have any effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case

The feudal culture in India, for example, is very strong, which is why most people rationalize acts of violence and bullying, sometimes even blaming the victim. This doesn't happen in advanced, capitalist societies. Reducing everything to imperialism isn't right. The Taliban were reactionary even before imperialist intervention.

[commieathighnoon]

There are no 'feudal' countries in 2013. The fact that the development of the capitalist mode of production occurs unevenly and according to varying 'depth' over time and across the geography of the world does not mean that the 'developing' world is 'feudal' or partially 'pre-capitalist' in any serious way. Generally whenever you hear people going on about "feudal" structures in the 20th (much less the 21st) c., you're hearing a closeted appeal to the Popular Front and some attempt to roll back the political relevance of the working-class and the struggle for world-communism, in favor of siding with the 'progressive'/'patriotic' 'national' bourgeoisie which aims at 'national' 'development.' This is just an attempt to subordinate workers in developing countries to the national interest, and specifically for subsidizing industrial capitalists.

[commieathighnoon]

The hysteria over the Delhi rape case is quite illustrative. Just look at the Stubbenville, OH case literally occurring at the same time. The West is hardly immune to blaming rape victims.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are no 'feudal' countries in 2013. The fact that the development of the capitalist mode of production occurs unevenly and according to varying 'depth' over time and across the geography of the world does not mean that the 'developing' world is 'feudal' or partially 'pre-capitalist' in any serious way. Generally whenever you hear people going on about "feudal" structures in the 20th (much less the 21st) c., you're hearing a closeted appeal to the Popular Front and some attempt to roll back the political relevance of the working-class and the struggle for world-communism, in favor of siding with the 'progressive'/'patriotic' 'national' bourgeoisie which aims at 'national' 'development.' This is just an attempt to subordinate workers in developing countries to the national interest, and specifically for subsidizing industrial capitalists.

There is a third progressive alternative for proletarian demographic minorities, though. :confused: