Third World Economics

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

This type of economics does not add up to me for a number of reasons.

First of all, advocates of the theory claim that workers in places such as the US and Western Europe (the first world) are actually part of the bourgeoisie. They claim that first world workers are more similar to capitalists than they are to third world workers, and they do not believe these workers are exploited. This is utterly ridiculous when taking a look at the wealth disparity between capitalists and workers in the first world and the differences in their lifestyles. Plus, I highly doubt a homeless person or someone living in an inner city project housing area is more close to someone living in mansions than they are to a third world worker. Claiming that first world workers are non exploited means that they believe their labor is not being exploited for massive amounts of profit by someone who owns the means of production.

Another thing is that proponents of third world economics seem to think that first world workers would not want a communist revolution because it means that their standard of living would be extremely poor, and they even claim that it might even be poorer than current poor people are now in the first world. This makes no sense. Of course imperialism is taking resources, but these people act as if those stolen resources are being given to the people of first world nations. They are not given to the people, they are given to capitalists who own the means of production. The reason third world countries are in such terrible condition is because capitalists are taking their resources for themselves, not for the general benefit of their respective nations. Standard of living in the first world would not go down except for the wealthy, of course. But it's not as if there wouldn't be a comfortable standard of living, as models such as the Levitt model and Habitat for Humanity-style mass production of homes would be quite easy if workers mobilized to build them for free for all people.

So in reality, if there was a worldwide communist revolution, standard of living would go up for many people in the first world and would go down for those living with excess wealth, but not to the point of having an impoverished lifestyle. In the third world, nearly every single person's standard of living would skyrocket. It's not like there is some "uniform value" of standard of living that raises and lowers worldwide. If the third world turned around and began exploiting the first world's resources, only then would first world people be living in poverty. Third world people ARE disadvantaged because of imperialism, but that is because private companies own their natural resources. If their natural resources were publicly owned, they could become self sufficient and produce food to feed everyone easily.

So in short, first world workers are certainly exploited, just not as much as third world workers. And revolution would not require such low standards of living in first world countries, it will only bring standards up for third world countries.

Sorry for such a long post.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Bumping this once. If nobody comments this time, I admit my defeat lol.

[SonofRage]

I want to dig into this but won't have time until later. :-)

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[Venas Abiertas]

Lenin himself referred to the labor aristocracy:

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/960020_590239057680659_1504033336_n.jpg

The point is not that there are no poor and exploited people in the USA or other imperialist countries. There are many millions of them. The idea is that the majority of workers in those countries lead comfortable enough lives and believe that they are capable of ascending the economic ladder so that they see themselves as "invested" in the current system and will not rebel against it. In other words, they are not a revolutionary subject because they fear they have more to lose from a revolution than gain from it. WE know this is illusory. The important thing is that THEY believe it to be true.

Come to the Global South and see the difference between the living standards of a worker or of the vast sea of un- and underemployed here in the South, and that of the average worker in the Western "democracies." Almost no one except for the homeless in the richer countries lives at the level of the poor majorities in the Global South.

This situation could change in the future if the impoverishment of the workers continues in Western Europe and the USA, but at this moment there is much greater revolutionary potential outside the Western countries than within them.

[Venas Abiertas]

Let me add an excerpt from an article I just ran across:

According to Marx, exploitation comes from being paid a wage below the value of labor for the purpose of the private accumulation of capital. Essentially surplus value as it is classically understood.

No one should be surprised by this.

But what does this mean today as compared to 160 years ago when Capital was first drafted?

The Western left has actually drifted away from this understanding of exploitation or at least its scientific understanding. This is because many of the ‘workers’ in the First World not only perform unproductive labor, as it is termed, but are not even exploited. This is because many ‘workers’ in Amerika and Europe already receive wages above the value of their labor. This phenomena has created not only a labor aristocracy (the higher rungs of the working class), and a false consciousness, but a labor nobility. Meaning ‘workers’ who, by definition, are net-exploiters. Their lavish standard of living is quite literally built on the exploitation of the global proletariat. This difference in the price of labor power is what is called ‘imperialist rent’. Meaning these ‘workers’ within the imperialist nations are direct beneficiaries of capitalist exploitation and in fact may hold little material interest in an actual world socialist revolution.

Now, upon hearing this, many people, even socialists, may get offended. No one here is implying that those in the First World do not “work hard”. For the most part First Worlder’s take pride and effort in their work. The question is not one of effort, it is the question of contradiction. The contradiction between the core and periphery nations. That the price of labor power with identical productivity is significantly lower in the periphery than in the core. As we know, profit is made not at exchange, but during the labor process. Meaning that if one group of workers are receiving more, others are receiving less. This is a contradiction that socialist revolution would solve in the most proletarian of ways: by compensating labor to a wage conceived under a common plan.

http://anti-imperialism.com/2013/07/08/why-i-became-a-maoist-third-worldist/

I repeat, this obviously does not apply to the many millions of truly impoverished workers in richer countries, but we can't deny that the labor aristocracy is real and has had a damaging impact on both the labor union movement and on politics in general, by voting for Reagans, Thatchers, Berlusconis, etc. against the interests of those workers who don't have it so well off.

[Venas Abiertas]

In the same article I quoted above, the author also responds to charges of "anti-white racism" sometimes made against those who hold the Third Worldist position:

First, the perceived ‘anti-White’ analysis of M-TW is not some racial supremacy garbage but a factual understanding of how Whiteness functions socially and the ‘White proletariat’ are privileged above international non-’whites’(see this for more information). It is factual, not racist, to point out that ‘white’ families have as much as ten times the net worth of Black families in Amerika. It is correct, not biased, to point out that ‘whites’ comprise a vast majority of the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois in Amerika. These claims of racism are reactionary defensive mechanisms based on a false conscious; ignoring material conditions, class struggle, and accepting a completely bourgeois identity rather than realizing a proletarian solidarity. The real racism comes from trying to make Amerikan ‘whites’ into the exploited masses; creating an entirely false racial identity and class character.
Second, there is no chauvinism in M-TW. There is chauvinism in suggesting that a select minority of the worlds populace should live lavishly while the rest of the world anguishes. The opulent life-style of the Amerikan consumerist cannot be safely replicated internationally. Suggesting that the worlds resources serve the use-values of the world’s toiling masses is not chauvinism but actual socialism. The idea that some First World college students are the center of revolutionary potential while half the world lives on 2 USD a day is complete and utter nonsense. To accept this bourgeois individualism means rejecting proletarian internationalism.

He makes a good point here that although the resources of this planet are sufficient to provide everyone on it with a decent life, they are not enough to sustain the kind of wasteful consumption practiced by the "middle classes" in capitalist countries. Everyone does not "need" to have a wide-screen plasma TV and there is no "right" to own your own car.

[SonofRage]

I find the argument really compelling but I've never "checked the math" so to speak. Any refutation I've seen in the past seems to not take on the substance of the argument.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[Aurorus Ruber]

This may sound silly, but what kind of political activity exactly do third-worldists recommend people conduct in the first world? Would they oppose struggles for higher wages and so forth by first world workers because those benefits come from the exploitation of people in the third world?

[SonofRage]

MIM (Prisons) (http://prisoncensorship.info) does organizing among prisoners, which they see as being part of a lumpen class that isn't bought off as part of the labor aristocracy.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This may sound silly, but what kind of political activity exactly do third-worldists recommend people conduct in the first world? Would they oppose struggles for higher wages and so forth by first world workers because those benefits come from the exploitation of people in the third world?

Though plausibly not Third Worldist proper, I know organizations with a similar analysis of imperialism have often advocated white people organizing other white people along anti-racist lines and in solidarity with third/majority world, racialized, and indigenous peoples' struggles. I think this was basically the "line" of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, for example.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Though plausibly not Third Worldist proper, I know organizations with a similar analysis of imperialism have often advocated white people organizing other white people along anti-racist lines and in solidarity with third/majority world, racialized, and indigenous peoples' struggles. I think this was basically the "line" of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, for example.

Meaning white people on the Left should focus on challenging the institutions and attitudes of racism, issues like deportation, police brutality, and the massive imprisonment of people of color. And they should also advocate for the struggles that oppressed people are waging, oppose police and military intervention against those struggles, and so forth.

Where would they stand on economic policies affecting white workers, like unions fighting for wage increases or programs for dealing with unemployment? Would they argue that white left wingers should oppose wage increases and other benefits for white workers?