The West as the Bourgeoisie of the World

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

I wanted to discuss a Third Worldist tendency to write off the West as the "bourgeoisie of the world."

To many, the natural ideology of the labor aristocracy is social-democracy, and social-democracy is the means by which the imperialist rent is shared with a wider and wider section of the working class of the center.

This First World generalized labor aristocracy thereby becomes almost entirely non-exploited in net terms, according to Marx's theory of value, because the value of the surplus value produced by them is (more than) compensated for in the process of distribution through world trade. That is to say, the imperialist and neo-imperialist unequal exchange between the First World and the Third constitutes such a vast transfer of surplus value in the sphere of distribution that it permits, through social-democracy, an almost total compensation for the domestic exploitation of the First World working class.

However, all this just seems like endless finger pointing and saying, "We are more exploited than you!" While third world workers experience oppression of a far different scale than the workers of the first world, this attitude just seems to create more class division and opens an attitude of "oppression olympics" to see just who is the most exploited worker in the world.

Thoughts?

[Per Levy]

However, all this just seems like endless finger pointing and saying, "We are more exploited than you!"

well, the overwhelming majority of third worldists are of course living in the first world, often have a middle class backround(see maoist rebel news) and also often arnt workers. so third worldists cant claim to be more exploited than workers in the west anyway.

edit: i could say more about third worldists but i had discussions with those on here far to often and i just dont care.

[Ravn]

well, the overwhelming majority of third worldists are of course living in the first world, often have a middle class backround(see maoist rebel news) and also often arnt workers. so third worldists cant claim to be more exploited than workers in the west anyway.

edit: i could say more about third worldists but i had discussions with those on here far to often and i just dont care.
It's irrelevant if most 3rd worldlists are 1st worlders. & nobody has to play the Olympics game over who is the most exploited since it's already an established fact. Isn't the real problem the notion that revolution in the 1st world is virtually impossible because the working class in the 1st world is bought off (& so have no incentive to overthrow the capitalists)?

But workers in any world under the thumb of capitalists are exploited.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The majority of the worlds industrial production takes place in the first (or what is effectively not-really-third world, places like Mexico or Malaysia, places that are not quite your Sierra Leone but likewise not yet at the very top) world. But this division of "worlds" never made the slightest bit of sense. It is almost arbitrary. First World is Euromerica, and Second World the Soviet Union, and the rest, that's the third world... the logic is lacking.

But an important thing to note is that industry in the "first" world does not really extract the majority of the "profit" (in the abstract sense) from the "third" world. It extracts these profits from its own working class; the same does the ruling class of the "third world" nations; the domestic bourgeois makes the money exporting the ore that goes to steel works in South Korea where the bourgeois makes money on the labour of their working class in enriching and improving and making steel out of the ore and coal, etc.

In many ways, the third world has a lot less "exploitation" (if, for the sake of argument, we accept this buffoonish notion that exploitation can be somehow quantified and measured in this manner), because a much larger percentage of their population engage in subsistent farming and haphazard day labour to simply get enough to eat and live on. In this state, you cannot generate surplus value.

Nor do I believe that capitalism needs the third world to be impoverished. It is so, because this preceeded modern industrial capitalism, and this was convenient, but it is not something that is absolutely necessary. Capitalism is infinitely adaptable. Has not capitalism given more scraps to the people of Nigeria with the new oil extraction? Now the bourgie press will celebrate! Inflation has resulted in less people living on under 2 dollars per day. Global prosperity around the corner. If it needs to be done, it will be done; have you not noticed how eagerly capitalism can embrace environmentalism? Of course it won't take the necessary steps, but it will merge everything with itself. Capitalism could completely emancipate women - if it had to do so to survive.

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

My main objection with this sentiment is the idea that somehow because the imperialist powers exploit the non-imperialist powers it somehow negates the oppression of the working class of the "First World."

While one could argue the proletarian of the First world is a member of the labor aristocracy, I find it highly objectionable that because of imperialist exploitation, the entire worker's struggle in the West is disregarded and is considered "compensated" by imperialist exploitation.

Characterizing the entire west as bourgeoisie seems to oversimplify the debate.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

well, the overwhelming majority of third worldists are of course living in the first world, often have a middle class backround(see maoist rebel news) and also often arnt workers. so third worldists cant claim to be more exploited than workers in the west anyway.

edit: i could say more about third worldists but i had discussions with those on here far to often and i just dont care.

in fact most of the self-proclaimed left in the third world is third worldist. just look at the rhetoric of any given "bolivarian" or peronist head of state. most "leftists" here cant distinguish a nationalist anti-imperialist policy from a pro-worker policy. it is in fact tricky at times

[consuming negativity]

what do middle class yuppies in the first world and workers in the third world have in common with each other? they aren't the group of first world working/underclass persons being (stupidly) called bourgeois. it is telling of how far removed from our reality the middle class has become when they are in agreement with people who live thousands of miles away from us despite living in the same towns and cities.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nor do I believe that capitalism needs the third world to be impoverished. It is so, because this preceeded modern industrial capitalism, and this was convenient, but it is not something that is absolutely necessary. Capitalism is infinitely adaptable. Has not capitalism given more scraps to the people of Nigeria with the new oil extraction? Now the bourgie press will celebrate! Inflation has resulted in less people living on under 2 dollars per day. Global prosperity around the corner. If it needs to be done, it will be done; have you not noticed how eagerly capitalism can embrace environmentalism? Of course it won't take the necessary steps, but it will merge everything with itself. Capitalism could completely emancipate women - if it had to do so to survive.

this is an interesting point and i agree. and ill add that presently capital is not in a position where it needs to concede anything. itll continue finding more profitable and more precarious conditions in which to exploit labour, which feeds third worldism and hinders international class awareness

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Capitalism could completely emancipate women - if it had to do so to survive.

I agree with your post for the most part, but have some strong reservations about that last statement. Given how contemporary capitalist industry relies on cheap and devalued labour of women; women generally making up the lowest paid and most vulnerable sections of the proletariat, I have a hard time imagining capitalism eliminating the particular oppression of women (or patriarchy). I´m not saying they are necessarily destined for such a role within a stratified proletariat; but capitalism probably can't function without a "super-exploited" and more brutally oppressed section of the working class, a role generally also played by immigrant workers in "well- off" capitalist countries. On the whole, globally, women fill the lowest paid and least secure jobs within the system, and I think such division is necessary to the function of capitalism, it can't afford to have it otherwise.

[tuwix]

This First World generalized labor aristocracy thereby becomes almost entirely non-exploited in net terms, according to Marx's theory of value, because the value of the surplus value produced by them is (more than) compensated for in the process of distribution through world trade.

If workers weren't exploited, the business would collapse. The most important rule of capitalism is to maximize a profit. If there is no exploitation, there is no profit for capitalist. And workers don't exploit. They are given a product list with prices. But they're created by capitalists. Working class isn't responsible for exploitation done created by bourgeoisie in any circumstances.

[Illegalitarian]

The Third Worldist idea is that the first world bourgeois is "bought off" and thus "not revolutionary" because thanks to neoliberalism, profits from the exploited third world give businesses based in the first world enough money to afford their workers a lot more money than the third world proles make, along with making first world governments rich enough to afford their people the benefits of mass social spending, etc.

While there is a degree of truth there (prices in the developed world are generally cheap due to the exploitation of underdeveloped labor, and is also the same reason businesses pay domestic workers more money in the developed world), this implication supposes that third world proles are more revolutionary than those in the third world, despite the great lack of revolutionary movements in either part of the world.

The working class cannot be "bought off". This is a very liberal notion, that class = wealth and the more wealthy a working class person is, the less they're connected to their relationship to the means of production, somehow.


I disagree with the notion that the majority of developed world profits don't come from the exploited underdeveloped world (that's just not true) as well as the assertion that the underdeveloped world is intentionally kept underdeveloped by those capable of seeing it built up to a degree for the explicit purpose of extracting greater amounts of surplus value from these people, but the MTW position is nonsense based on a liberal understanding of class.

[The Intransigent Faction]

But an important thing to note is that industry in the "first" world does not really extract the majority of the "profit" (in the abstract sense) from the "third" world. It extracts these profits from its own working class; the same does the ruling class of the "third world" nations; the domestic bourgeois makes the money exporting the ore that goes to steel works in South Korea where the bourgeois makes money on the labour of their working class in enriching and improving and making steel out of the ore and coal, etc.

So, take the case of the Bangladeshi garment factory. Who made those clothes, and who made the most profit from this? Who profits from Nestle's or Adidas' use of child labour? I understand that a domestic bourgeoisie does, too, but is it not true that multinational corporations profit immensely through outsourcing? Can one reject 'third-worldism' and still recognize a "race to the bottom" as companies outsource to places with lower wages and worse working conditions? Of course, a company which outsources certain jobs is not employing western workers in those jobs, leaving them to find other jobs or else be unemployed. More importantly, workers in Bangladesh and the United States are both exploited by capitalists one way or another, so that's not to say that those workers somehow "benefit" from extreme exploitation of the "third world".

These aforementioned large companies obviously have large western workforces as well (Walmart, for instance), which they obviously also exploit. Even if, in the aggregate, a multinational corporation extracts more surplus value on its doorstep than it does overseas, does that corporation not extract more from a typical worker in Bangladesh, where wages and working conditions are worse, than it does from a typical worker in Canada?

Granted there's more subsistence farming in "developing countries", it still would seem a little crazy to suggest western workers are "more exploited", in terms of surplus value extracted from a given worker in a given hour, than workers outside of the west (which just to clarify, I know, isn't what you were suggesting).

I'm not meaning this as criticism. I'm just...confused by the notion that these companies aren't extracting more profits from places to which they outsource production, as the obvious point of relocating production to place x would be that place x has especially cheap labour.

Small businesses, of course, will tend to extract their surplus value from the domestic working class, though they may use/consume products produced cheaply overseas.

Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted something. Better to say it and be corrected.

[Illegalitarian]

^ This is what I was trying to say too, but I think that Taka was saying that if one wanted to take the foolish position, one could argue that the subsistence farms of the third world, who provide for themselves, are less exploited than the average developed world worker, so as to demonstrate the need for a concrete definition of exploitation instead of just throwing words around as liberals so do love to do.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I disagree with the notion that the majority of developed world profits don't come from the exploited underdeveloped world (that's just not true) as well as the assertion that the underdeveloped world is intentionally kept underdeveloped by those capable of seeing it built up to a degree for the explicit purpose of extracting greater amounts of surplus value from these people, but the MTW position is nonsense based on a liberal understanding of class.

what, then, is your theory as to why third world countries are underdevloped?

[RyeN]

In regards to life suffering under oppression, 1st 2nd or 3rd there is only one world, and all the unique ways of suffering all over the world contribute to our stimuli to grow. Society is globally connected to one another through simple sense organ perceptions working with our technology. Pain and suffering can be sensed on a global scale, and is transmitted to our consciousness that much more intensely, to make it all the more real. Have we suffered enough, does anyone else feel that the time is nigh. we have everything we need right here

[Comrade #138672]

I would say that the Third World proletariat and peasantry are indeed super-exploited, due to imperialism. However, to say that the First World proletariat is relatively "non-exploited", is just wrong, and sounds a lot like capitalist apologetics to me.

Also, it is just as absurd to claim that the First World proletariat is somehow "more exploited". That is a very dangerous road to take.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Let's be clear about this. Anyone who is a "third worldist" (self-proclaimed or otherwise) is completely divorced from reality and can be written off as not being worth anyone's time. Perhaps 10 years ago it could have still been thought of as not entirely ridiculous (though back then I would have been arguing that it was still just as stupid as today), but today it's simply inexcusable. There is no such thing as a "first" and "third" world. There is no such thing as an "imperialist" and "imperialized" bourgeoisie, country or proletariat. The conflict of capital along national borders hasn't been a primary conflict in decades, and even moreso today. What does one call a multinational corporation that is incorporated in Estonia, headquartered in California, producing products in India and selling to Europe? How is this a "European" or "American" company? What about a company headquartered in India, doing business in India, incorporated in the US? How does this company fit into the mold of third worldism?



I agree with your post for the most part, but have some strong reservations about that last statement. Given how contemporary capitalist industry relies on cheap and devalued labour of women; women generally making up the lowest paid and most vulnerable sections of the proletariat, I have a hard time imagining capitalism eliminating the particular oppression of women (or patriarchy). I´m not saying they are necessarily destined for such a role within a stratified proletariat; but capitalism probably can't function without a "super-exploited" and more brutally oppressed section of the working class, a role generally also played by immigrant workers in "well- off" capitalist countries. On the whole, globally, women fill the lowest paid and least secure jobs within the system, and I think such division is necessary to the function of capitalism, it can't afford to have it otherwise.

What is a "super-expoited" class/section? Why can't capitalism function without it?


So, take the case of the Bangladeshi garment factory. Who made those clothes, and who made the most profit from this? Who profits from Nestle's or Adidas' use of child labour? I understand that a domestic bourgeoisie does, too, but is it not true that multinational corporations profit immensely through outsourcing? Can one reject 'third-worldism' and still recognize a "race to the bottom" as companies outsource to places with lower wages and worse working conditions? Of course, a company which outsources certain jobs is not employing western workers in those jobs, leaving them to find other jobs or else be unemployed. More importantly, workers in Bangladesh and the United States are both exploited by capitalists one way or another, so that's not to say that those workers somehow "benefit" from extreme exploitation of the "third world".

These aforementioned large companies obviously have large western workforces as well (Walmart, for instance), which they obviously also exploit. Even if, in the aggregate, a multinational corporation extracts more surplus value on its doorstep than it does overseas, does that corporation not extract more from a typical worker in Bangladesh, where wages and working conditions are worse, than it does from a typical worker in Canada?

Granted there's more subsistence farming in "developing countries", it still would seem a little crazy to suggest western workers are "more exploited", in terms of surplus value extracted from a given worker in a given hour, than workers outside of the west (which just to clarify, I know, isn't what you were suggesting).

I'm not meaning this as criticism. I'm just...confused by the notion that these companies aren't extracting more profits from places to which they outsource production, as the obvious point of relocating production to place x would be that place x has especially cheap labour.

Small businesses, of course, will tend to extract their surplus value from the domestic working class, though they may use/consume products produced cheaply overseas.

Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted something. Better to say it and be corrected.



I would say that the Third World proletariat and peasantry are indeed super-exploited, due to imperialism. However, to say that the First World proletariat is relatively "non-exploited", is just wrong, and sounds a lot like capitalist apologetics to me.

Also, it is just as absurd to claim that the First World proletariat is somehow "more exploited". That is a very dangerous road to take.

To respond to both quotes, I don't really think it makes much sense to say that, for example, Bangladeshi workers are "super-exploited". The degree of extraction of surplus value is simply a quantitative measure, it's not a qualitative descriptor of capitalism. The fact that companies can extract more surplus due to wage arbitrage doesn't really mean that the Bangladeshi workers are "worse off" than American workers. They're both exploited in a meaningful sense, so what is the point of making the difference?

Further, merely focusing on the exploitation of the direct producers is misleading given that much of the cost involved in, say, clothing production isn't in the production of the clothing itself but rather in the large amount of overhead required to implement a massive distribution and retail system. Given that a shirt is produced for 10 cents, and sold for a dollar, the amount of surplus isn't fully extracted from the direct producer, but rather the remaining 90 cents also comes from the exploitation associated with bringing that product through the distribution chain to the point of sale. Retail workers make up a portion of this exploitation, as do truckers, warehouse workers, dock workers and so on. So the 90 cents doesn't come simply from the "super-exploitation" of the direct producers but from the entire distribution chain. In that sense, it's somewhat absurd to claim that the Bangladeshi workers are "super" exploited when the retail workers are exploited as well, and that the degree of exploitation might differ but is incidental to the fundamental workings of the system.

The reason that people agree with the "superexploitation" notion is that it is a simple one to agree with - workers in a Bangladeshi garment factory make 10 cents per shirt that is sold for a dollar (or ten, or twenty), look at the superexploitation! What isn't so easy to see is the extraction of surplus across the entire distribution chain, which is something that doesn't fit into a one-sentence soundbite as easily.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

it looks to me as though youre denying imperialism altogether, which raises a lot of questions...
how, then, would you qualify the vastly unequal, coercive and violent relations between international capital and the third world? and the wars waged by nato in the mid east and africa? i agree that the tendency to draw attention towards Western states is naive seeing as theyre generally a means thru which capital exerts its power. the role of the third world, or however you choose to call it, is still analogous to that of colonies however. local ruling classes are more often than not mere puppets of the international cartels that dictate economic, trade and public policy. not in opposition but in association with third world capitalist classes, of course.

[Prof. Oblivion]

it looks to me as though youre denying imperialism altogether, which raises a lot of questions...

I suppose I am. I think that the entire notion of "imperialism" as a stage of capitalism was very underdeveloped even when it was put forward more than 100 years ago, and that any attempt at clarifying such a theory really was inadequate at best. At worst, it has misled and hobbled the development of Marxian theory for the past century.


how, then, would you qualify the vastly unequal, coercive and violent relations between international capital and the third world?

What is "international capital" anyways? What does that even mean? And if it is so international, why is it being placed in conflict with the "third world" as if it does not exist there? The entire theory is a gross simplification of a complex system of relationships, and this is a great example of that.


and the wars waged by nato in the mid east and africa?

I don't really think it's reasonable or possible to generalize about "the wars" in this manner.


i agree that the tendency to draw attention towards Western states is naive seeing as theyre generally a means thru which capital exerts its power.

Another problem of this idea is that states are reduced to a "means". The state is not a weapon or tool of capital.


Another fundamental the role of the third world, or however you choose to call it, is still analogous to that of colonies however. local ruling classes are more often than not mere puppets of the international cartels that dictate economic, trade and public policy. not in opposition but in association with third world capitalist classes, of course.

This is a very big oversimplification. Making an analogy to "colonies" says nothing. Nor does creating a concept as nebulous as the "third world" (or however you choose to call it). To claim that "local ruling classes are puppets" in a manner that is completely divorced from specific circumstances simply doesn't make any sense. What is a "local ruling class"? Is the multinational I discussed that is headquartered and doing business in India part of a "local" ruling class? If so, how is this multinational a "mere puppet"? Finally, how can one "dictate policy...in association" with one another, when the two terms are directly in contradistinction to one another (one cannot dictate to another with whom they are working in association).

[Illegalitarian]

what, then, is your theory as to why third world countries are underdevloped?

I meant that I reject the notion that it *isn't* intentionally kept underdeveloped. :o

[Terror]

what, then, is your theory as to why third world countries are underdevloped?

They're underdeveloped in a capitalistic context, but not necessarily in a historical/material one. They've had different material and historical conditions compared to countries in what you call the "First World", conditions which didn't result in them developing industrialism and capitalism before or at the same time as mainly Northern European countries.

[TC]

It is essentialistic non-sense to say that third world workers are purely exploited, whereas first world workers are labor aristocrats who are purely exploiting.

Nearly everyone both benefits from exploitation while being exploited themselves. Pure categories don't exist in the real world and clear taxonomies of class are reductionistic and inaccurate. Third worldism is reductionistic but so is western workerism posing as socialism that equates some culturally defined working class status with moral purity some culturally defined bourgeois status with moral impurity. So does western identity politics of intersectionality that insists that someone who ticks more boxes is always more oppressed than someone who ticks fewer boxes.

We should be concerned with general equality, with leveling of status, power and wealth, with breaking down all hierarchies. We should not be concerned with advancing one section of society due to its magic psudo-scientific qualities for its own sake, whichever section that is.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

bill,
you didnt answer my questions. what do you make of the vast systems of political and economic control exerted by the West that so often culminate in wars? is it just a coincidence that the neoliberal agenda has been instituted globally? these are just the more visible pieces of evidence. any deeper look will reveal massively assymetrical relations between global capital and poor countries. it's not to say that there exists some sort of opposition between first and third world ruling classes. or that we should support one against the other as a means of opposing imperialism. i know some self proclaimed leftists think this way and id like to make it clear that this is not my position at all. its a matter of understanding how contemporary capitalism works. intl capital, to clarify, is that which is capable of establishing and profiting from international trade and chains of production. the bourgeoisie of the third world is a mere accessory in this arrangement. a small handful of exceptions in gigantic countries like india and china are exceptions and nothing more. likely to become more frequent perhaps. but as it is they cant compete and consequently cannot exert the same power that hegemonic, international capital does

[Prof. Oblivion]

bill,
you didnt answer my questions.

I did answer your questions, but I will answer them again for you here.


what do you make of the vast systems of political and economic control exerted by the West that so often culminate in wars?

This question is fundamentally flawed and unanswerable because of it for two main reasons. First, "The West" is an undefined and nebulous concept. Second, the "vast systems of political and economic control" aren't defined, nor are they able to be generalized into such a phrase as "vast systems of political and economic control".


is it just a coincidence that the neoliberal agenda has been instituted globally?

This question is unanswerable because it posits a dichotomy between "coincidence" and "non-coincidence", the latter implying a conspiracy (this implication is supported by calling neoliberalism an "agenda"). I don't think it is either a coincidence or a conspiracy that capitalism develops in the way that it does. Further, the concept of a "neoliberal agenda" isn't defined.


these are just the more visible pieces of evidence. any deeper look will reveal massively assymetrical relations between global capital and poor countries.

This statement is fundamentally flawed because it defines "global capital" and "poor countries" as distinct entities. Again, this is a false distinction; global capital exists globally, including in "third world countries". Further, the notion of a "poor country" doesn't really make much sense given that national wealth isn't really measurable without further elucidation, and even then has not much context with regards to this discussion.


intl capital, to clarify, is that which is capable of establishing and profiting from international trade and chains of production. the bourgeoisie of the third world is a mere accessory in this arrangement.

Aside from getting into why historically this is incorrect (because it doesn't really matter), if you defined it in this way, then almost all capital is international. Even small companies with less than 50 employees, operating in the middle of some small town in the midwest, are actively sourcing from China and probably selling both domestically and internationally. Even small firms in India are probably sourcing from Bangladesh and selling across the border. This of course defies the notion of "global capital" as this monolithic powerful force in the world, but it does come closer to the truth.

As for the latter statement about "the bourgeoisie of the third world [being] a mere accessory" that doesn't make much sense. First off, you have a problem right from the beginning in establishing what the "third world bourgeoisie" even is.

I'm again repeating myself here, but perhaps you could tell us where for example Tata Group stands: "global capital" or "local bourgeoisie"? Headquartered in Mumbai, with a market cap of $141 billion as of July, with 58% of sales abroad. Is this part of "global capital" or "third world bourgeoisie"?

Or how about Avago Technologies Ltd. which has joint headquarters in San Jose, CA and Singapore?


a small handful of exceptions in gigantic countries like india and china are exceptions and nothing more. likely to become more frequent perhaps. but as it is they cant compete and consequently cannot exert the same power that hegemonic, international capital does

Really? I mean we can look at historic financials on these companies, many of which are doing quite well, because they're publicly traded, and show that isn't the case.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

What is a "super-expoited" class/section? Why can't capitalism function without it?



By "super-exploited" I just meant a section of the class who is more ruthlessly exploited than others. Capitalism needs this to keep down and drive down the price of labour power, this is especially necessary when capital is affected by a falling rate of profit.

[Dodo]

I would not call myself a third-worldist being a Marxist from a developing, semi-periphery country, but there is a lot of truth in that. In fact more so in the globalizing world economy.
That is not to prioritize anti-imperialism or "nationalist economies" but as Harvey puts it, capital simply "moves" its problems around. And the harsh exploitation in Europe up to WWII has simply been moved to the developing world. (it makes it easier to understand the roles of IFIs and UN that way too, because capitalism is globally connected)
I am not sure about "most of the production is done in the first world" because sine the 80s, west went to a path of de-industrialization and further service-oriented economy.
The industrial production have shifted to "developing" countries with cheap and crowded labor....east asia to be precise, and many of those countries now themselves have developed rapidly.

Capitalism is not to be understood in a national context with local bourgeouisie and proleteriat. It is a global phenomena. I would not say European workers are labor aristocracy not being exploited...but there are degrees everywhere, sector to sector, region to region.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I would not call myself a third-worldist being a Marxist from a developing, semi-periphery country, but there is a lot of truth in that. In fact more so in the globalizing world economy.
That is not to prioritize anti-imperialism or "nationalist economies" but as Harvey puts it, capital simply "moves" its problems around. And the harsh exploitation in Europe up to WWII has simply been moved to the developing world. (it makes it easier to understand the roles of IFIs and UN that way too, because capitalism is globally connected)
I am not sure about "most of the production is done in the first world" because sine the 80s, west went to a path of de-industrialization and further service-oriented economy.
The industrial production have shifted to "developing" countries with cheap and crowded labor....east asia to be precise, and many of those countries now themselves have developed rapidly.

Capitalism is not to be understood in a national context with local bourgeouisie and proleteriat. It is a global phenomena. I would not say European workers are labor aristocracy not being exploited...but there are degrees everywhere, sector to sector, region to region.

I find this post generally agreeable, but I do think there's an important element of reality that is missing: production doesn't just "shift" to developing countries. This arrangement of capital tends to be backed by massive military force, and countless object-lessons about what will happen to people who attempt to act outside of the imperialists' playbook. See: Haiti.

I also think there's a distinction to be drawn between pointing to the existence of a significant labour aristocracy (composed primarily of white men in the "first world"), and saying workers in the first world "aren't exploited". The former doesn't imply the latter - it simply acknowledges the blindingly obvious truth that there are sectors of ostensible "workers" in the first world who enjoy significant class mobility (i.e. workers today, petit bourgeois 'entrepreneurs' tomorrow), who enjoy significantly higher standards of living than the old slogan "nothing to lose but their chains" suggests, who enjoy the benefits of long-term political compromise with capital made consciously through their organizations (the business unions and social-democratic parties), etc. These three facts are pretty indisputable - common sense even - to anyone looking at the world without ideological blinders (go ask a unionized pipefitter if he'd rather be sewing Nikes!). The trick is to draw the necessary (and less "common sense") conclusions from these facts - not to deny them!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

bill, i dont care to continue this discussion because youre coming accross as intentionally obtuse and im not willing to walk you through every idea

it's fairly self evident that certain sectors of capital wield considerable and unilateral power over the economic and political course of foreign countries. more so than local ruling classes. regardless of whether their interests coincide or not. not all bourgeoisies are equal in power. i find it troubling that the cursory and circumstancial economic growth of east asia and india is being used by leftists to deny imperialism altogether.

[Prof. Oblivion]

bill, i dont care to continue this discussion because youre coming accross as intentionally obtuse and im not willing to walk you through every idea

it's fairly self evident that certain sectors of capital wield considerable and unilateral power over the economic and political course of foreign countries. more so than local ruling classes. regardless of whether their interests coincide or not. not all bourgeoisies are equal in power. i find it troubling that the cursory and circumstancial economic growth of east asia and india is being used by leftists to deny imperialism altogether.

I'm not being obtuse, though, I'm pointing out the fundamental problems with the theory. For example, the entire notion of "certain sectors of capital wield[ing]...unilateral power over the...course of foreign countries...more so than the local ruling classes" is a notion that just is, frankly, silly nowadays. The notion that the "local bourgeoisie" (however you choose define it) is somehow a "puppet" of "Western powers" is again a notion that doesn't make any sense, certainly not in today's world. The problem is that in order to recognize the vast international power that, say, the Indian bourgeoisie has, is to place a knife through the heart of the notion of imperialism, and many leftists are too attached to their ideology to allow that to happen. So they live in the past and cling to woefully inadequate theories that have little basis in how the economy and politics work today.

To clarify, I'm trying to get you to actually discuss some of these issues. What does it mean when you say "the West" for example? Can you give us an example of a sector of capital that has "wield[ed or wields] unilateral power over the...course of foreign countries...more so than the local ruling classes"? And as an aside, of course, define what "local ruling classes" even means?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i have cited examples: every war led by nato or the united states.
the various ecnomic sanctions imposed by the eu and washington against iran, russia, et al.
the recent toppling of the governments of honduras and paraguay. the attempts to topple and destabilize the gov'ts of bolivia and venezuela.
the war on drugs in south america.
these are extreme examples. much softer means of coercion are used routinely in virtually every "third world" country, especially the ones with regimes that are more friendly with the West, of course

surely intl capital is more decentralized now than it was a hundred years ago, but it still is to a great extent. and just because some indian companies operate on an intl level, doesnt mean that the indian bourgeoisie as a whole is independent from foreign markets and investments

[Prof. Oblivion]

i have cited examples: every war led by nato or the united states.
the various ecnomic sanctions imposed by the eu and washington against iran, russia, et al.
the recent toppling of the governments of honduras and paraguay. the attempts to topple and destabilize the gov'ts of bolivia and venezuela.
the war on drugs in south america.
these are extreme examples. much softer means of coercion are used routinely in virtually every "third world" country, especially the ones with regimes that are more friendly with the West, of course

But now you're conflating states with "sectors of capital". I didn't ask about states, I asked about sectors of capital. A state isn't the bourgeoisie.

You said "it's fairly self evident that certain sectors of capital wield considerable and unilateral power over the economic and political course of foreign countries."


surely intl capital is more decentralized now than it was a hundred years ago, but it still is to a great extent. and just because some indian companies operate on an intl level, doesnt mean that the indian bourgeoisie as a whole is independent from foreign markets and investments

My entire point is that nobody is "independent from foreign markets and investments" and that nearly all capital is "international capital".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the "dependence" of international capital on third world labour markets and resources is nothing at all like the actual dependence of third world economies on international capital. for starters, third world markets were created by intl capital and depend on said investments. a good contemporary example perhaps is the mining and oil industries in africa.

intl capital is also distinct in that it's capable of mobilizing actions by the state. we all know the reasons behind us and eu foreign policies

[Prof. Oblivion]

the "dependence" of international capital on third world labour markets and resources is nothing at all like the actual dependence of third world economies on international capital. for starters, third world markets were created by intl capital and depend on said investments. a good contemporary example perhaps is the mining and oil industries in africa.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, can you please elaborate?


intl capital is also distinct in that it's capable of mobilizing actions by the state.

Again, what does "international capital" mean? Further, why do you think that this entity is capable of "mobilizing actions by the state"? Finally, this is a different assertion than claiming that "certain sections of capital wield unilateral power over the economic and political course of foreign countries".