Conduct of Anglo-Saxons on this forum [Archive]

DoctorWasdarb

10th March 2018, 09:35

Not to defend Alan, but it is true that the way many American leftists treat race relations is quite anti-materialist. They treat race relations as if the struggle of white Americans and black and brown Americans were exactly the same, but it's not. It's a fact that black people and immigrants are much more exploited than white Americans, and on average, white Americans have a pretty comfortable standard of living compared to minorities in the United States or other countries in the rest of the world.

The contradiction between white and black people in the United States didn't fall from the sky. White people's ancestors settled this land by employing methods of genocide against indigenous people and slavery of black people. At the founding of the country, black people were *the* proletariat; the poorest white person was at best a petty bourgeois artisan or an indentured servant, soon to be freed and given a plot of (stolen) land where he could practice his acquired trade.

Of course things have changed since the 19th century. But not as much as one might think. During the industrialization of the country, black people were systematically pushed into unemployment or the worst paying jobs. White people were often paid much better than black people, creating a strong labor aristocracy, which led to the continued formation of an already existing trans-class white national alliance. This alliance is evident in the labor movement. Labor organizations from the 19th to the mid 20th century were incredibly exclusionary against black people. Indeed, often times there complaints centered around black people getting jobs that they wanted. Furthermore, all (or perhaps nearly all) factory foremen or managers were white. This fact further antagonized the contradiction between white and black people.

Today it is still true that black people are systematically super exploited compared to white people, who, on average, tend to have pretty comfortable lives. As I've shown, this contradiction doesn't fall from the sky. It's the result of centuries of oppression faced by black people. Given the colonial nature of this contradiction, I'd go as far as to say that the contradiction between middle-class, white America and black and brown and indigenous communities constitutes the fundamental contradiction of American society.

Jimmie Higgins

10th March 2018, 14:21

Just numerically, most poor people in the US are white. But poverty is also segregated which helps prevent common cause.

This is important for how contemporary racism works. The US has spent 40 years cutting the welfare state and building up the police state while the capitalists have reorganized labor - they couldn’t have pushed this without - specifically - anti-black racism that ideologically results in a victim-blaming mentality about poverty and oppression both within (black political leaders chastising the failures of black people) and without (both parties, national press chastising black people for having ‘bad culture’.)

Now we see the same anti-black propaganda used against white people in the rest-belt where the effects of destruction of communities by changing industry are blamed on poor whites with “cultures of dependence” or more bluntly, are just white trash, have bad values and want to do opiates.

Just in general, when we speak of contemporary racism in the US it’s important to focus on the specifics of recent history. For example, while immigrants or some other groups may face super-exploitation, black folks in the US today face systemic under-employment as if the surplus workforce needed by capitalism has been racialized. There is important historical context going back to slavery and continuity of course, but current conditions are more specific than a legacy of slavery. The black working class was largely created through war-time industry in cities. These jobs were automated and new automated factories were broken up and or moved to more rural or suburban facilities. The anti-civil-rights backlash combined with the desire of employers to reduce manufacturing jobs and ideologically condition US workers to expect and receive less at work and from the government. So rather than respond to massive urban male manufacturing unemployment with job programs or at least housing and welfare relief, the US dog whistled itself into a new post-civil rights regime of racism based on lack of jobs (50% black male youth unemployment in my town) and policing and incarceration - like warehousing surplus workforce.

By offering only stick and no carrot, US rulers have been able to increase the pressure on all workers. Without racism, the US rulers would be unable to divide the class enough to push decades of slow-burn austerity.

DoctorWasdarb

10th March 2018, 15:39

First off, I'm glad that you recognize the fact that black people are super-exploited in this nation. I'm used to arguing with right wingers, and this is a breath of fresh air.

However I take issue with what you said about white poverty. Perhaps numerically, white people make up a simple majority of the poor in the United States, due to the sheer numbers of white people. But we have to take into consideration other factors, such as the cost of living. In the Rust Belt, rural Appalachians, etc., the cost of living is significantly lower than it is in inner cities and other areas where black people constitute the majority. Poverty in white communities and black communities simply does not manifest itself in the same way; you can be below the poverty line in rural Virginia and still get by with relative ease compared to black communities.

Additionally, you mention the increased power to the police state. Who do you think are the victims of the police? The police aren't ravaging poor neighborhoods in rural Virginia, at least not to a statistically significant degree. They're in Baltimore, New York, Chicago, etc.

I notice that many Marxists struggle to see the national alliance built in the centers of capitalism. Notably in the United States, an alliance has been built between the ruling class and the "white proletariat". The alliance has served to mitigate local resistance to the imperialist system built by the ruling classes of imperialist nations. The standard of living of white Americans compared to the rest of the world is tremendously high. The only places in which we see even close to third world levels of poverty are in indigenous nations, immigrant communities (especially undocumented immigrants, for whom labor laws don't aren't enforceable), and certain black communities, like the high levels of unemployment and statistically lower wages we see in black communities.

In a sense, I recognize that I'm preaching to the choir. But I really think it's important that we identify the national alliance established between the ruling class and the white proletariat. It manifests itself notably through the dog whistling and the racialized reserve army of labor, which you acknowledged.

The acknowledgement or lack thereof of the this alliance is quite crucial in the shaping of our revolutionary theory. And of the many consequences, it would force us to acknowledge that liberation of black communities from imperialism is a qualitatively different form of liberation than any proposed form of socialism in white communities.

Jimmie Higgins

10th March 2018, 16:41

No, US racism is not an alliance of any workers and the ruling class.

If by alliance you mean support - well that doesn’t explain how racism exists because by and large, without a different viable option US workers either vote for capitalist parties or abstain out of understandable cynicism. So US workers of all races de-facto support all ruling class policies due to lack of an alternative. But I wouldn’t call that an alliance.

If you mean alliance in the sense of a labor aristocracy (a concept which I think flattens out the dynamics of labor - yes labor has been racist, it has also been anti-racist... it’s much more of an interesting story with a lot of struggle of black or Latino or Asian people in unions and sometimes against the racist labor leaders) then this also doesn’t make sense. Labor declined along with the rise of the racist backlash to the civil rights era. What aristocracy helps abolish itself. Alliances for a common goal usually don’t have one half of the alliance destroy the other larger half?

Instead we see public sector unions being one of the few places where large numbers of black (probably majority women) defending their class interests.

It’s not the 1960s any more when an argument that some US workers benefit from US racism and imperialism might have impressionistically resembled reality. “Guns and butter” is no longer a ruling class strategy and hasn’t been for at least 40 years. Racism by regular white people back then was to prevent black workers from entering the post-war boom (in jobs in new suburbs... both of which gave white ethnics entry into “whiteness”... ie full citizenship). Now it’s not competition over a rising tide, but inter-class competition on the way down. The more white workers help US racism, the more worse those white workers are in a material sense.

I don’t have much experience with rural poverty, I grew up in a working class white and Latino downwardly mobile suburb with a “white trash” reputation. But I’d imagine that while cost of living is cheaper, there’s no infrastructure to speak of - at least in cities there’s the bus and the remnants of social welfare. Not saying one is worse, just that I don’t think the comparison works - poverty and futurelessness is not easy for urban or rural people even if the specifics are different.

DoctorWasdarb

10th March 2018, 17:03

No, US racism is not an alliance of any workers and the ruling class.

If by alliance you mean support - well that doesn’t explain how racism exists because by and large, without a different viable option US workers either vote for capitalist parties or abstain out of understandable cynicism. So US workers of all races de-facto support all ruling class policies due to lack of an alternative. But I wouldn’t call that an alliance.

If you mean alliance in the sense of a labor aristocracy (a concept which I think flattens out the dynamics of labor - yes labor has been racist, it has also been anti-racist... it’s much more of an interesting story with a lot of struggle of black or Latino or Asian people in unions and sometimes against the racist labor leaders) then this also doesn’t make sense. Labor declined along with the rise of the racist backlash to the civil rights era. What aristocracy helps abolish itself. Alliances for a common goal usually don’t have one half of the alliance destroy the other larger half?

No, white labor has rarely been anti-racist. The book Settlers by J. Sakai develops this phenomenon quite well. The labor aristocracy of the United States exists because of surplus labor exploited through imperialism. The 80s-to-today has seen the emergence of a ferocious neo-liberalism. But in more precise terms, neo-liberalism hasn't broken down the welfare state that formerly propped up the labor aristocracy. Neo-liberalism has broken down the welfare state that was itself propped up by imperialist surplus. The labor aristocracy, blinded by their individualistic worldview (caused in part by their privilege), is calling for the welfare state, propped up by imperialist surplus, to be reinstated. Are white people falling into poverty? Not really. There may be a quantitative decrease in standard of living, but far from poverty. The average income, accounted for cost of living, is still several magnitudes higher than real poverty in the third world. Few in the white community ask where they'll find their next meal. The decrease in standard of living is from a less equitable distribution of imperialist surplus, what we're calling neo-liberalism.

White people time and time again have shown, not every one, but generally, that they are incapable of putting their global privilege into question. This has left them incapable of offering global solidarity to those who resist US imperialism, notably because they still profit from it, even though you claim they don't.

Jimmie Higgins

10th March 2018, 18:29

Well it does sound like you debate right-wingers a lot since you take many of their assumptions at face value. (“The US poor are better off than poor elsewhere” is a US libertarian talking point... both in their use and your use class is displaced by income).

How do US workers “profit” from imperialism or racism materially?

If I was working in Walmart and you told me this, wouldn’t I then think - well the US needs to bomb more countries so I can make rent next month.

Alan woods is a windbag

10th March 2018, 19:00

There's a lot of economic reductionism in this thread(something I might have been guilty of myself).

Rather than merely being all labour aristocrats who have a material interest in the maintenance of imperialism is it not also the case that whites(and I mean poor whites who can't be said to be the beneficiaries of the super-exploitation of the Global South) in America have feelings of affinity towards their 'own' ruling class due to shared ethno-cultural origins. This acts as a psychological barrier to their ever becoming revolutionary.

DoctorWasdarb

10th March 2018, 22:41

Well it does sound like you debate right-wingers a lot since you take many of their assumptions at face value. (“The US poor are better off than poor elsewhere” is a US libertarian talking point... both in their use and your use class is displaced by income).

It's not a talking point. It's an objective fact that the poor in the US are better off than the poor elsewhere. Around 50% of Africans make $2 per day. Even accounted for cost of living, Americans make far more than this.

How do US workers “profit” from imperialism or racism materially?

As I said, the standard of living in the US is much higher than it is elsewhere. The fact that the US is a consumer society is indicative of the higher standard of living. They don't produce what they consume. It's produced elsewhere, and consumed in the US. The high access to consumer goods is just on example. The low cost of these goods is another (the cost is low because of enhanced exploitation of the third world).

If I was working in Walmart and you told me this, wouldn’t I then think - well the US needs to bomb more countries so I can make rent next month.

Bombing oil producing countries increases the supply and thus lowers the cost on regular consumers like Americans. When the US bombs Libya, gas prices go down, and you can more easily pay your rent. It's not the thought process of a Walmart worker, but it's the reality.

There's a lot of economic reductionism in this thread(something I might have been guilty of myself).

Rather than merely being all labour aristocrats who have a material interest in the maintenance of imperialism is it not also the case that whites(and I mean poor whites who can't be said to be the beneficiaries of the super-exploitation of the Global South) in America have feelings of affinity towards their 'own' ruling class due to shared ethno-cultural origins. This acts as a psychological barrier to their ever becoming revolutionary.

Yes. The fact that white Americans "have feelings of affinity towards their 'own' ruling class due to shared ethno-cultural origins" is an observable social reality. It's a disservice to revolution to deny social reality just because it doesn't conform to dogmatic formulas. I attribute the source of this affinity to national privilege compared to other nations and local privilege compared to blacks, natives, and immigrants.

Jimmie Higgins

10th March 2018, 23:07

Gas prices get low? Lol, wow a Bush era Republican talking point. Or when liberals blamed the Iraq war on “America’s addiction to cars” rather than, you know the written plan for US imperialism at that time which was a “21st American century” which called for the US to take moves to ensure US dominance of rising competitors by controlling their access to fuel.

Low gas prices are hardly enough to reproduce a major “class” of people. Workers don’t stop having kids or going to work when gas prices go up, they just take on more personal debt.

If US workers benefit from imperialism, why has the standard of living and wages and even life-expectancy all declined through a time when the US greatly expanded its imperial power and profits? Maybe because of this concept of class where workers don’t actual benefit from the increased power of their exploiters, they just get stronger exploiters.

Importer country? Yes the US is part of an international capitalist system. It’s also the world’s largest manufacturer after China. I also live in California where much of the agricultural output is shipped to other countries. It is one of the essential consciousness issues within the US working class, but not too different from problems in any class in non-militant conditions.

Affinity for white rulers? Well at least this is something that might beat a resemblance to a “mental wage”. Yeah maybe some Americans have pride in seeing the US military as strong or some white people like seeing white faces in power, but this is at best a non-material comfort as fucked up as it is. It’s not a material basis for a new class that relies on imperialism and white supremacy. It’s more like regular old mixed consciousness like nationalistic workers in Turkey or other places.

Again your arguments bear no relevance to working class US experience today. The US after WWII saw a strike-wave and basically decided that unions and raising wages was ok since manufacturing was needed and expanding with Europe destroyed. That’s when your argument might have had passing relevance. US imperialism was expanding and strong US union burocracies pushed the liberal line that US power abroad meant jobs and stability at home. But this era has been gone for some time now and conditions for US workers are not the same, but resemble the capitalist norm of ratcheting up competition, expanding work hours, increasing the pace etc that existed anytime other than the two and a half decades after WWII.

DoctorWasdarb

10th March 2018, 23:29

El_Comandante

10th March 2018, 23:37

To deny the existence of the American labor aristocracy is quite counterproductive. Yes, life is difficult for some blue collar workers in rural Ohio, for example, but it's undeniable that they still benefit from US imperialism. American workers benefit from imperialism directly through the creation of the welfare state and liberal reforms made possible by the super-exploitation of the third-world, and indirectly through global hegemony. An American working for $30,000 a year still has welfare, likely a pension, and, without exception, a higher standard of living than any subsistence farmer in Nepal or coal miner in Venezuela. If Americans really were among the global poor, there would exist within their ranks a strong revolutionary movement to liberate themselves from capitalist oppression, but there isn't. The most revolutionary thing white Americans have ever accomplished is social democracy, and the IWW.

Here's some data to expand on global poverty, taking into account the cost of living in the third-world:

El_Comandante

10th March 2018, 23:38

Oops, it appears I can't post links yet. Look up the LLCO's article "Again on the High Cost of Living in the Third-World."

DoctorWasdarb

10th March 2018, 23:41

https://llco.org/the-high-cost-of-living-in-the-third-world/

Jimmie Higgins

11th March 2018, 17:13

Instead of responding to every one of your points, I would rather point out a flaw I find in your reasoning. Notably, I think you're throwing around the term "material" rather dogmatically. You've taken the completely correct idea that "material" is the primary determinant of one's consciousness, and transformed it into the incorrect, dogmatic, and paradoxically metaphysical idea that "material" is the only determinant of one's consciousness.

I wasn’t talking about ideas. I was asking how this theory operates in reality. Low gas prices and air conditioners were offered by the article. Ironically, these two examples are used by US conservatives to claim that social welfare should be cut and the US poor are just lazy and entitled: https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/story/2004/09/21/specter-poverty-in-america.amp.html

But class is not defined by wage-level - well it is for US liberals and conservatives, but not by Marxists or syndicalists. US workers are workers like anyone else because they have to sell their labor for a wage generally in order to live and sell their labor tomorrow. Having an air conditioner in an apartment complex not built to be thermally self-regulating without it ain’t exactly a sign that you can retire or make a living by having friends over to pay for time with your air conditioner.

Are you saying workers often buy into ruling class ideas? sure, that’s true everywhere and moreso in the absence of independent class movements.

Are you saying labor bureaucrats are reformist and support US foreign policy? Sure, that’s not controversial.

But I don’t think that’s what’s being argued here. Instead it’s being argued that US workers - or at least white US workers - are some sort different kind of laborer, incapable of developing revolutionary consciousness. Therefore, there would need to be a material explanation for the impossibility of radical action or thought.

For example, during colonial times to the 20th century, small farmers had a material interest in the subjugation and oppression of the indigenous population because they needed the “free” land generated by the forced removal of populations and then they needed US militias to defend that land from being retaken. So poor farmer rebellions would be anti-rich but also call in the US to send more troops to the frontier to keep the American Indians off the stolen land.

Conversely I know of no wildcat strikes by US workers where a demand was for more US invasions or trade deals in order to pay for healthcare or reduce the working hours.

Instead, the global ties of capital means that, for example, logistics and service workers and manufacture workers in the US or Mexico and assembly workers in China are all part of a linked production chain. This makes global solidarity and truly international labor action a possibility and a necessity for labor in the 21st century.

Again I think this labor aristocracy view developed by taking a superficial impression of the state of things after WWII when the US was fine with giving reforms to ensure labor peace as long as the US was the largest manufacturer and military imperial power. Since this snapshot no longer describes a “common sense” observation about American workers, this argument now relies on right-wing parallel arguments that being poor in the US is cushy.

Antiochus

12th March 2018, 03:35

It's not a talking point. It's an objective fact that the poor in the US are better off than the poor elsewhere. Around 50% of Africans make $2 per day. Even accounted for cost of living, Americans make far more than this.

Yeah, thanks captain obvious. But that, again, is not the basis for imperialism, it never has been and it never will be. Imperialism isn't simply an outgrowth of competition as Jim has stated, though it certainly is one emanation of it. First off, Imperialism, which we can define as the imposition of an economic and political will by one group over another, usually through force or implied force has existed since classes have existed. Meaning it has existed since the formation of the state; with clear imperialist projects as far back as Sargon of Akkad and even before.

There is a huge difference between "Capitalist" Imperialism and prior imperialism, by the way. 'Old' Imperialism (recorded since the pre-dynastic period in Egypt until the late 1400s) was essentially the same. Military force was applied with the goal of incorporating a parcel of territory into the political domain of the conqueror, the spoils were usually resources, namely land and everything in it, and slaves, which acted as a sort of fluid primitive capital, since it could be easily moved and utilized for different purposes (i.e sexual slavery, construction work, agricultural workers etc...). Capitalist imperialism was quite different because it is ultimately a competition for resources, but rather ACCESS to the resource, not necessarily 'controlling' it and a competition for markets. What I mean by that is that the US technically doesn't own any of the oil in Saudi Arabia, since Saudi Aramco is owned by the Saudi monarchy, but through imperialist machinations the US has access to Saudi investments (i.e Saudi oil profits are invested largely in the US) and it allows the US to threaten not simply its enemies, but more importantly, its allies.

As I said, the standard of living in the US is much higher than it is elsewhere. The fact that the US is a consumer society is indicative of the higher standard of living. They don't produce what they consume. It's produced elsewhere, and consumed in the US. The high access to consumer goods is just on example. The low cost of these goods is another (the cost is low because of enhanced exploitation of the third world).

Ummm, ok? But this is a pretty weak argument, by all standards. Norway never colonized any part of the world and yet its "living standards" and "cost of living" are much better than the third world, or the U.S for that matter. The same applies to South Korea. The same applies to China for that matter, if we are going to be frank.

Bombing oil producing countries increases the supply and thus lowers the cost on regular consumers like Americans. When the US bombs Libya, gas prices go down, and you can more easily pay your rent. It's not the thought process of a Walmart worker, but it's the reality.

Sorry, that is just bullshit. Oil prices are a substratum of the capitalist order itself, a very key one. But the notion that American capitalists "willfully" try to lower prices is patently absurd. Oil prices rose by an order of magnitude after the debacle in Iraq. Bombing oil producing countries, obviously, raises oil prices, not lowers it. The current glut in the oil market has nothing to do with Libya anyway.

Yes. The fact that white Americans "have feelings of affinity towards their 'own' ruling class due to shared ethno-cultural origins" is an observable social reality. It's a disservice to revolution to deny social reality just because it doesn't conform to dogmatic formulas

That is the basis of all false consciousness though. I suppose white people may very well 'feel pride' in the fact that Warren Buffet is white. But is this literally not the same as Black people feeling pride in Obama being black and thinking things are now better? False consciousness operates by telling people that the immaterial is what improves their lives and not the tangible material reality.

American workers do not benefit from imperialism; quite the opposite. Naturally I am not cavalier, the biggest losers when it comes to imperialism, all imperialism, are the people directly subjected to it. But how do Americans "benefit" from it? The Iraq War saw working class people die in the war, fighting in a military that has become one of the few recourses they have to a 'decent' life; rising deficits which will ultimately be paid for with lower wages, longer hours, cut benefits etc...; higher oil prices that ultimately disproportionately hit working class people anyway; a further alienation from political life that has meant lower democratic standards and thus lower political participation for them.

So again, what "benefits"? You could make a long-winded argument that the military industrial complex "provides jobs", but this is a canard, since it exists to drive capital from the public sphere to ever privatized profits anyway. Its a classic example of stealing from Jane so Peter can own a private jet.

DoctorWasdarb

12th March 2018, 07:59

CommunistOrganon

12th March 2018, 15:40

I feel like I get the whole point about imperialism, but:

1) OP's extensive use of the term 'anglo-saxon' and the conspiracies about them is ridiculous.

2) LLCO is probably an even bigger joke than Bob Avakian. Obscurantist, unintentionall orientalist, and unintentionally funny.

DoctorWasdarb

12th March 2018, 16:09

I don't know much about LLCO as an organization. But the information in the article is fair.

Jimmie Higgins

12th March 2018, 21:13

Imperialism is not the same thing as territorial expansion. The failure to make this distinction is a right-wing talking point. Imperialism isn't just the imposition of a political and economic system on another group of people. It's the pillage of their resources. In capitalism, resources flow from the peripheries into the centers. For example, the Spanish colonization of Latin America led to a huge influx of gold and silver into Spain.

Norway has benefitted from its proximity to the imperialist centers and from competition with the socialist bloc to achieve a high standard of living. For all intents and purposes, Scandinavia has been incorporated into the centers.

Of course there are other factors which influence gas prices, such as the Venezuelan nationalization of the largest oil reserves in the world.

The benefits are more than clear. We're having this chat on the internet. I don't know about you, but my computer wasn't built by a European. The minerals were harvested in Latin America and Africa, sent to Asia to pass through the industrial process, and shipped to the US in the form of a computer, at a price largely acceptable by an average American. Why aren't the Congolese, who harvested the cobalt or lithium, using computers? Because they're superexploited. They make a couple dollars a day. (Plus, they're often children...) Our extravagant rates of consumption are made possible by third world labor. I don't see how you don't see this.

You are arguing like i’m contesting the fact of imperialism, but I’m not. I’m contesting the claim that first-world workers materially benefit from or reproduce themselves based on the imperialism of their rulers.

Do Chinese workers benefit from the super-exploitation of internal migrants from other provinces? They are better off by a long shot and migrants don’t have the same political rights if they leave their provable. Maybe workers in China even hate or distrust migrants.

Do well paid workers in the US think service workers shouldn’t get higher wages... yes. Do the well paid workers benefit from the exploitation of service workers? No, it helps drive down all wages in the long run and a turn in the economy could make the well paid worker looking for a service job.

These are not small problems - racism and nationalism and elitism are big barriers. But it’s a battle for class-consciousness between different tiers in the workforce. It’s not a battle between exploiting and exploited workers.

Profits are up some 400% in the last few decades yet US wages have stagnated while social costs have been pushed onto the population. US workers are exploited just like workers elsewhere despite differences in the standard of living. Being poor in the US is vastly more difficult than being poor in most other big capitalist countries, but French workers are also still exploited.

Workers have no country - this is a truism that some M-L and others have forgotten.

This argument about US workers basically take US conservative positions that poverty doesn’t exist in the US - we all just live some cushy Dawson’s Creek TV kind of life - and then re-creates a kind of “American exceptionalism” but in the negative whereas the US center and right see it as a positive.

DoctorWasdarb

12th March 2018, 23:29

You're not denying the existence of imperialism, but your model doesn't account for the disproportionately high quality of life of Americans.

Chinese workers don't profit from the exploitation of migrants the same way Americans profit from the global system.

Workers have no country? That's not a truism. At best it's sophistry, and at worst it's an opportunistic call for third world workers not to detach themselves from imperialism.

In fact, my argument is not the revisionist one. Indeed, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the whole lot, they all held a similar position to mine.

“Exactly the same as they think about politics in general, the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no working class party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers merrily devour with them the fruits of the British colonial monopoly and of the British monopoly of the world market.” Engels

“The British working class is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. Of course, this is to a certain extent justifiable for a nation which is exploiting the whole world.” Engels

“The English bourgeoisie, for example, obtains larger revenues from the tens and hundreds of millions of the population of India and of her other colonies than from the English workers. In these conditions, a certain material and economic basis is created for infecting the proletariat of this or that country with colonial chauvinism.” Lenin

https://anticonquista.com/en/2018/03/10/eurocentric-leftists-the-real-revisionists/

Antiochus

13th March 2018, 03:06

Why don't we simply reply with the elephant in the room since everything else has simply gone unanswered?

Everything you stated is utterly irrelevant because you are adhere to a steaming pile of shit ideology called Juche. How about that? I am sure Marx and Lenin truly thought the future of Marxism was a monarchical dictatorship run by proto-fascist scum that regularly blurts out explicitly racist tirades about blood purity, lmao.

The fact these people aren't perma-banned as they used to before is, in a nutshell, the problem with this site.

DoctorWasdarb

13th March 2018, 08:01

CommunistOrganon

13th March 2018, 13:45

Have you ever read any works by the creators of Juche? I doubt it. I have my criticisms. Notably, I think it borders on idealism. I'm not an adherent, but I have sympathies with it because of the strong emphasis it places on national independence and self sufficiency, especially in politics, economics, and the military. I think national self sufficiency is a necessary attitude to take when struggling against imperialism. I don't know why that should get me banned.

And your slander of the DPRK takes on a strong orientalist form. To criticize its leadership and the mild cult of personality built around them is one thing. To call it a monarchical dictatorship is nonsense.

Juche abandons class struggle and class based politics as a whole. It hails stasis where it should argue for revolution. It rejects communism both in its theory and praxis. I would not call it proto-fascist or monarchical, but it is certainly nothing that should be supported. Juche is not a school of thought that should be treated as a theory within the workers' movement. It lies out of its boundaries. Korea should be liberated; from both imperialism and the Kim family.

Am I an orientalist, a book worshipper, an anglo-saxon, or a revisionist for saying that? :D

ckaihatsu

13th March 2018, 16:06

You are arguing like i’m contesting the fact of imperialism, but I’m not. I’m contesting the claim that first-world workers materially benefit from or reproduce themselves based on the imperialism of their rulers.

I think the contexts are being jumbled here -- the MTW contention looks to be in the realm of *consuming*, while conventional Marxism address the realm of *production*. So while all workers worldwide have the same class interest, it really looks like First-World workers have more *purchasing power* from the wages they get than Third-Worlders, due to the currency's much broader acceptance internationally than any given local currency:

My understanding is that, in capitalist economics, the relatively-more-'productive' (by pricing) *service sector* emerges in the most economically advanced countries, while *manufacturing* becomes passe / has-been, with plenty of Third World industrial proletarian workers vying for work positions, driving that kind of wages sharply downward (see China and Southeast Asia).

On the other hand, one could say that the overall local economy parallels wages, so if typical local wages are relatively lower, the cost of living is lower as well, and so it all evens-out regardless of geography.

But here's the point: The overall local economy of goods and services is *less developed* than in the advanced Western economies, so if a Third-World-worker wanted some higher-end, cutting-edge technological good or First-World-type specialty service -- to 'keep up' with the First-World 'Joneses' -- they would be *unable* to find it locally and would have to pay a large premium for it, probably for its importation from a First-World economy.

In this way their labor *is* being super-exploited because their local currency / economy / buying-power *sucks* in relation to the greater world economy, and in comparison to the goods and services available to the average *First-World* worker with *their* access to available, advanced goods and services, with their average wages.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/196812-Thoughts-on-Third-Worldism?p=2881485#post2881485

DoctorWasdarb

13th March 2018, 19:48

Can you cite some works by any of the Kims to justify your position? I've read several of their works on the subject, and at least in their words, they claim to defend the working classes and the oppressed masses. It certainly doesn't reject communism in its theory, even though it's often slandered for rejecting communism in its praxis, which I don't understand, either. What do you want them to do, go full statelessness when there's the United States occupying half of the country and trying to overthrow the government? That hardly seems wise.

I think the contexts are being jumbled here -- the MTW contention looks to be in the realm of *consuming*, while conventional Marxism address the realm of *production*. So while all workers worldwide have the same class interest, it really looks like First-World workers have more *purchasing power* from the wages they get than Third-Worlders, due to the currency's much broader acceptance internationally than any given local currency:

I don't think it's fair to say that Third-Worldism deviates from traditional Marxism, given the quotes I cited above, except in that it makes quotations like that into a more prominent position in the theory.

I also think that if Marxism addresses the realm of production, Marxism (not as a philosophy but as a social movement) is becoming less and less relevant in the first world, as the economy becomes more and more governed by the tertiary sector. The proletariat is becoming much to small to overthrow capitalism, and I doubt that it can find allies in the petty bourgeois mental laborers which have taken the place of the former proletariat/labor aristocracy.

I do appreciate your recognition of the fact that first world laborers *do* have it pretty good comparatively, even if you don't come to the same conclusions. As I've said repeatedly here, denying reality to fit a metaphysical conception of what former economists predicted serves reaction.

Jimmie Higgins

14th March 2018, 01:05

You say this view rejects class... but does not deviate from Marxism?!

The view rejects basically all of the manifesto, but adheres to Marxism by highlighting some out of context quotes from what? Did you pull that (or re-quote from some article) from “the conditions of the English working class”... Engels first book? What’s the main point of that text: The industrial revolution built on British imperialism has made life worse for workers and deformed the class with internal hostilities. That seems to contradict a view that imperialism is a gift to workers in imperial centers.

I hadn’t read those quotes before, but I’ve read others where Marx or Engles expressed frustration with the passivity of groups of workers - but that frustration comes from low class-consciousness in a potentially revolutionary group of people. That’s a far cry from an analysis of the essential possibilities of a class.

As far as North Korean praxis: Defending the workers and oppressed is not Marxism. Self-emancipation is Marxism.

Antiochus

14th March 2018, 04:22

And your slander of the DPRK takes on a strong orientalist form. To criticize its leadership and the mild cult of personality built around them is one thing. To call it a monarchical dictatorship is nonsense.

I can't tell if you are serious. Mild cult of personality? Ronald Reagan or JFK have 'mild' cults of personality in the U.S. De Gaulle has a mild cult in France. In North Korea there is an entire fabricated mythology. Kim Jong Il's birthplace is literally made up, they claimed he was born not in the USSR during WW2 but born on top of Mt. Paektu, something so blatantly smacking of jingoism the only equivalent I can think of would be if Americans suddenly started claiming George Washington was born on top of an eagle's nest.

It is a monarchical dictatorship. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming it is a 'feudal state', or anything of the like, merely that the Kim dynasty passes power through males in a monarchical fashion.

but I have sympathies with it because of the strong emphasis it places on national independence and self sufficiency, especially in politics, economics, and the military. I

And this is why you aren't a communist. National independence? Self-sufficiency? Why are these important concepts? I mean, they are important as a MEANS to something, but for North Korea they are the END. Do you think, for example, that North Korea would ever abolish its borders (I mean, after Capitalism fell worldwide)? I seriously doubt it.

There is however something sinister in Juche, elucidated by the talk of "self-sufficiency". Historically the concept has played a key role in the outlook of numerous East Asian dynasties, especially those influenced by neo-Confucianism. The Ming Dynasty in China, the Joseon in Korea and the Tokugawa in Japan all more or less 'closed' themselves from the outside world to a great extent. This was before there was any meaningful European imperialism, so this can't be used as an excuse. In Japan this was forcibly ended in 1853 by the Americans and Japan subsequently began modernizing rapidly after the fall of the Tokugawa. The striking part lies in that Japan obviously conquered Korea in the 1890s and Japanese ideology from then on till the beginning of WW2 took on an increasingly ethnocentric, nationalist, autarkic look; mixed in with the official state ideology of Emperor worship, though the Emperor never possessed much power anyway. This is all very similar to Juche, and it isn't at all strange. Kim Il-Sung grew up during this period. Korea is probably even more susceptible to such an inward looking ideology because Korea, unlike Japan, has been humiliated and savaged by great powers several times. Very notably by Japan in the 1590s but also by China multiple times. Concepts like "self-sufficiency" resonate quite a bit because of this. It is also why Korea (this includes S.Korea) is one of the most racist places on earth in terms of the outlook of its population. Blood purity and 'race' matter quite a bit more than they do even in places like Europe.

It isn't strange then why when the DPRK went on a rant about Obama they felt it necessary to call him a mongrel half-breed and a black monkey. Naturally, its not like N.Korea 'could' be racist in the way the U.S is, there are no minorities to begin with, so its largely moot. Its just a disgusting regime anyway.

DoctorWasdarb

14th March 2018, 12:21

You say this view rejects class... but does not deviate from Marxism?!

It does deviate from orthodox Marxism on a few issues, but I never said class is one of them. Just the opposite.

The view rejects basically all of the manifesto, but adheres to Marxism by highlighting some out of context quotes from what? Did you pull that (or re-quote from some article) from “the conditions of the English working class”... Engels first book? What’s the main point of that text: The industrial revolution built on British imperialism has made life worse for workers and deformed the class with internal hostilities. That seems to contradict a view that imperialism is a gift to workers in imperial centers.

I hadn’t read those quotes before, but I’ve read others where Marx or Engles expressed frustration with the passivity of groups of workers - but that frustration comes from low class-consciousness in a potentially revolutionary group of people. That’s a far cry from an analysis of the essential possibilities of a class.

Third worldists for the most part don't claim to be Marxists. I don't identify with third worldism (mostly because it's not really a codified ideology, more a loose set of ideas), but I also don't identify with Marxism. He had some brilliant ideas, but his theory was insufficient in some areas and wrong in others.

I didn't share those quotes as an appeal to authority. I shared them for the sole reason that I wanted you to see that Third Worldism isn't some dangerous revisionism, but in fact has some legitimacy from the view of orthodox Marxism Leninism. The article I cited cites Engel's book "The Conditions of the English Working Class," although the Engels quotes I cited in this thread came from letters from Engels, one to Kautsky and the other to Marx.

As far as North Korean praxis: Defending the workers and oppressed is not Marxism. Self-emancipation is Marxism.

What I meant by "defend" is that Juche recognizes the existence of class struggle and sides with the working class, not that it seeks reformist measures against capitalism.

I can't tell if you are serious. Mild cult of personality? Ronald Reagan or JFK have 'mild' cults of personality in the U.S. De Gaulle has a mild cult in France. In North Korea there is an entire fabricated mythology. Kim Jong Il's birthplace is literally made up, they claimed he was born not in the USSR during WW2 but born on top of Mt. Paektu, something so blatantly smacking of jingoism the only equivalent I can think of would be if Americans suddenly started claiming George Washington was born on top of an eagle's nest.

It is a monarchical dictatorship. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming it is a 'feudal state', or anything of the like, merely that the Kim dynasty passes power through males in a monarchical fashion.

I use the term 'mild' not in comparison to western counterparts, but in comparison to the message the bourgeois media puts out about the DPRK. All those "news" stories of Kim Jong Il having a perfect golf score or Kim Il Sung never taking a shit, or about all north Korean males being forced to have the "Kim cut" are all fake, and easily debunked. There is a cult of personality around the Kim family, although it's far from the image portrayed by our bourgeois press.

As far as the "succession" is concerned, knowing what we do about the bourgeois press, I'm naturally skeptical of the idea that the son was picked by the father and that's that. The details are fuzzy, given the limited access to information we in the west have about the inner workings of the DPRK. My personal belief (and I use the term belief precisely, since I acknowledge that I'm making a small jump from the available information to this conclusion) is that the succession of one Kim by another is more related to the cult of personality around the family, and thus the WPK continuing to choose the sons as the following party chairmans, more than the idea that it's a true dynasty. There's a lot of problems with this, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be denounced as a quais-monarchical dictatorship. Such denunciations only aid and abet imperialist interests in the peninsula, which is the last thing I want to do.

And this is why you aren't a communist. National independence? Self-sufficiency? Why are these important concepts? I mean, they are important as a MEANS to something, but for North Korea they are the END. Do you think, for example, that North Korea would ever abolish its borders (I mean, after Capitalism fell worldwide)? I seriously doubt it.

I am a communist in that I use dialectical materialism as my primary medium of analysis and in that I believe the masses should overthrow the ruling class. I have many criticisms of orthodox Marxism. So what? The world has changed since the 19th century. I've read Juche works. Yes, self-sufficiency is a means to an end, not the end, according to the Juche theory. Do I think the DPRK would abolish its borders and just become full communist? I don't think this question is framed properly. It's borders exist because it needs to defend itself from imperialism. I think if we're getting close to full communism, the DPRK would certainly by that point have turned towards reaction, but not because of its self-sufficiency model, but because I think the state organization they've chosen is unsustainable in the long term. I have sympathies for Juche because of the emphasis they put on self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency and national independence are 100% necessary in the process of defeating imperialism.

There is however something sinister in Juche, elucidated by the talk of "self-sufficiency". Historically the concept has played a key role in the outlook of numerous East Asian dynasties, especially those influenced by neo-Confucianism. The Ming Dynasty in China, the Joseon in Korea and the Tokugawa in Japan all more or less 'closed' themselves from the outside world to a great extent. This was before there was any meaningful European imperialism, so this can't be used as an excuse. In Japan this was forcibly ended in 1853 by the Americans and Japan subsequently began modernizing rapidly after the fall of the Tokugawa. The striking part lies in that Japan obviously conquered Korea in the 1890s and Japanese ideology from then on till the beginning of WW2 took on an increasingly ethnocentric, nationalist, autarkic look; mixed in with the official state ideology of Emperor worship, though the Emperor never possessed much power anyway. This is all very similar to Juche, and it isn't at all strange. Kim Il-Sung grew up during this period. Korea is probably even more susceptible to such an inward looking ideology because Korea, unlike Japan, has been humiliated and savaged by great powers several times. Very notably by Japan in the 1590s but also by China multiple times. Concepts like "self-sufficiency" resonate quite a bit because of this. It is also why Korea (this includes S.Korea) is one of the most racist places on earth in terms of the outlook of its population. Blood purity and 'race' matter quite a bit more than they do even in places like Europe.

I don't think it's fair to compare the DPRK to pre-imperial Japan. I'm far from an expert in far-Eastern philosophy, far from it, but the class undertones are very different in the DPRK and in the Japanese Tokugawa. Furthermore, I don't sympathize with the Juche defense of self-sufficiency on a philosophical affinity for Confucianism. Perhaps Juche is influenced by Confucianism, which would be a valid criticism if this is the case. My sympathies derive from the fact that I believe self-sufficiency and breaking off from the global economic system is a necessary step in the struggle against imperialism. Whatever their reasons for promoting self-sufficiency are, my sympathies come from the fact that they are pursuing self-sufficiency. On a different note, I've considered the idea that the reason the DPRK hasn't restored capitalism (yet?) is because of this self-sufficiency. It's what makes this socialist country unique compared to the other socialist countries of the 20th century.

It isn't strange then why when the DPRK went on a rant about Obama they felt it necessary to call him a mongrel half-breed and a black monkey. Naturally, its not like N.Korea 'could' be racist in the way the U.S is, there are no minorities to begin with, so its largely moot. Its just a disgusting regime anyway.

As you said, anti-African racism comes from a particularly European context, so it's largely moot. Here's a quick video which adresses this issue. https://youtu.be/yP-ccJAoHNw

ckaihatsu

15th March 2018, 16:53

[I]’m contesting the claim that first-world workers materially benefit from or reproduce themselves based on the imperialism of their rulers.

I think the contexts are being jumbled here -- the MTW contention looks to be in the realm of *consuming*, while conventional Marxism address the realm of *production*. So while all workers worldwide have the same class interest, it really looks like First-World workers have more *purchasing power* from the wages they get than Third-Worlders, due to the currency's much broader acceptance internationally than any given local currency:

My understanding is that, in capitalist economics, the relatively-more-'productive' (by pricing) *service sector* emerges in the most economically advanced countries, while *manufacturing* becomes passe / has-been, with plenty of Third World industrial proletarian workers vying for work positions, driving that kind of wages sharply downward (see China and Southeast Asia).

On the other hand, one could say that the overall local economy parallels wages, so if typical local wages are relatively lower, the cost of living is lower as well, and so it all evens-out regardless of geography.

But here's the point: The overall local economy of goods and services is *less developed* than in the advanced Western economies, so if a Third-World-worker wanted some higher-end, cutting-edge technological good or First-World-type specialty service -- to 'keep up' with the First-World 'Joneses' -- they would be *unable* to find it locally and would have to pay a large premium for it, probably for its importation from a First-World economy.

In this way their labor *is* being super-exploited because their local currency / economy / buying-power *sucks* in relation to the greater world economy, and in comparison to the goods and services available to the average *First-World* worker with *their* access to available, advanced goods and services, with their average wages.

I don't think it's fair to say that Third-Worldism deviates from traditional Marxism, given the quotes I cited above, except in that it makes quotations like that into a more prominent position in the theory.

The quotes cited:

You're not denying the existence of imperialism, but your model doesn't account for the disproportionately high quality of life of Americans.

Chinese workers don't profit from the exploitation of migrants the same way Americans profit from the global system.

Workers have no country? That's not a truism. At best it's sophistry, and at worst it's an opportunistic call for third world workers not to detach themselves from imperialism.

In fact, my argument is not the revisionist one. Indeed, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the whole lot, they all held a similar position to mine.

“Exactly the same as they think about politics in general, the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no working class party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers merrily devour with them the fruits of the British colonial monopoly and of the British monopoly of the world market.” Engels

“The British working class is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. Of course, this is to a certain extent justifiable for a nation which is exploiting the whole world.” Engels

“The English bourgeoisie, for example, obtains larger revenues from the tens and hundreds of millions of the population of India and of her other colonies than from the English workers. In these conditions, a certain material and economic basis is created for infecting the proletariat of this or that country with colonial chauvinism.” Lenin

https://anticonquista.com/en/2018/03/10/eurocentric-leftists-the-real-revisionists/

---

Again:

I don't think it's fair to say that Third-Worldism deviates from traditional Marxism, given the quotes I cited above, except in that it makes quotations like that into a more prominent position in the theory.

[To J.H.] [Y]our model doesn't account for the disproportionately high quality of life of Americans.

I think *this* is the real issue, and I already noted that the objective schism between First-World and Third-World workers is in respective *purchasing power* -- but there are objectively identical interests on a working-*class* basis, in work and production.

I also think that if Marxism addresses the realm of production, Marxism (not as a philosophy but as a social movement) is becoming less and less relevant in the first world, as the economy becomes more and more governed by the tertiary sector.

What the hell is the 'tertiary sector' -- ??

The proletariat is becoming much to small to overthrow capitalism,

This statement of yours is factually incorrect -- the trend is in the *opposite* direction:

Reinventing America

FEB 16, 2014 @ 11:09 AM

The U.S. Middle Class Is Turning Proletarian

Joel Kotkin , CONTRIBUTOR
I cover demographic, social and economic trends around the world.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The biggest issue facing the American economy, and our political system, is the gradual descent of the middle class into proletarian status. This process, which has been going on intermittently since the 1970s, has worsened considerably over the past five years, and threatens to turn this century into one marked by downward mobility.

The decline has less to do with the power of the “one percent” per se than with the drying up of opportunity amid what is seen on Wall Street and in the White House as a sustained recovery. Despite President Obama’s rhetorical devotion to reducing inequality, it has widened significantly under his watch. Not only did the income of the middle 60% of households drop between 2010 and 2012 while that of the top 20% rose, the income of the middle 60% declined by a greater percentage than the poorest quintile. The middle 60% of earners' share of the national pie has fallen from 53% in 1970 to 45% in 2012.

This group, what I call the yeoman class -- the small business owners, the suburban homeowners, the family farmers and skilled construction tradespeople -- is increasingly endangered. Once the dominant class in America, it is clearly shrinking: In the four decades since 1971 the share of the U.S. population earning between two-thirds and twice the national median income has dropped from 61% to 51%, according to Pew.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2014/02/16/the-u-s-middle-class-is-turning-proletarian/#511801f03625

---

and I doubt that [the proletariat] can find allies in the petty bourgeois mental laborers which have taken the place of the former proletariat/labor aristocracy.

Okay.

I do appreciate your recognition of the fact that first world laborers *do* have it pretty good comparatively, even if you don't come to the same conclusions.

What are *your* 'conclusions' here -- ?

As I've said repeatedly here, denying reality to fit a metaphysical conception of what former economists predicted serves reaction.

Agreed, and I hope you're not implying that *I* do this.

Antiochus

16th March 2018, 03:02

Do I think the DPRK would abolish its borders and just become full communist? I don't think this question is framed properly. It's borders exist because it needs to defend itself from imperialism. I think if we're getting close to full communism, the DPRK would certainly by that point have turned towards reaction, but not because of its self-sufficiency model, but because I think the state organization they've chosen is unsustainable in the long term.

You don't "turn towards reaction". The DPRK is a reactionary state that hinges on Korean ethnonationalism. Part of this isn't 'their fault'; they were, indeed, subjected to a brutal outside attack and have lived with the prospect of war. But so has Cuba, and Cuba has never adopted the ridiculously insular and repressive policies NK did.

Self-sufficiency and national independence are 100% necessary in the process of defeating imperialism.

Well, actually no. Not at all. Imperialism as a method of surplus extraction will exist so long as Capitalism exists. It will only ever be ended with the rise of proletariat power, nothing else.

All those "news" stories of Kim Jong Il having a perfect golf score or Kim Il Sung never taking a shit, or about all north Korean males being forced to have the "Kim cut" are all fake, and easily debunked. There is a cult of personality around the Kim family, although it's far from the image portrayed by our bourgeois press.

Its a highly secretive state and that makes it prone to propagandist 'news'; the same way the reclusive old man living in the mansion on top of a hill does. It doesn't negate the fact that for this to occur, there must actually be something pathologically wrong with said man.

Sorry, the Kim cult of personality is not organic. He was not born on top of a celestial mountain (in case you don't understand, the mythos of the Koreans is that their founder, Dangun, was also born on top of this mountain). The cult is massive, pervasive. Every school in North Korea has a room dedicated to the "study" of the Kims. Every household has a portrait of the Kims. There are god knows how many statues of them in the country. None of this is a 'mild' personality cult, but the active attempt at ancestor worship that is prevalent in Confucian societies throughout East Asia.

As far as the "succession" is concerned, knowing what we do about the bourgeois press, I'm naturally skeptical of the idea that the son was picked by the father and that's that. The details are fuzzy, given the limited access to information we in the west have about the inner workings of the DPRK. My personal belief (and I use the term belief precisely, since I acknowledge that I'm making a small jump from the available information to this conclusion) is that the succession of one Kim by another is more related to the cult of personality around the family, and thus the WPK continuing to choose the sons as the following party chairmans, more than the idea that it's a true dynasty.

Is that not the same thing? Why else would the 'WPK' elect a 29 year old with no military, diplomatic or political training if not for the fact that his father was the leader of the country? Don't get me wrong, like in all dictatorships, its not as if they wield 'absolute' power; all dictatorships have a degree of consensus among the ruling elite, and factional divisions are common.

There's a lot of problems with this, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be denounced as a quais-monarchical dictatorship. Such denunciations only aid and abet imperialist interests in the peninsula, which is the last thing I want to do.

Stating the reality of something does no such thing.

My sympathies derive from the fact that I believe self-sufficiency and breaking off from the global economic system is a necessary step in the struggle against imperialism.

This is such a petite-bourgeois concept. Communism could never be about "breaking off from the system" as if you are some edgy teen. Communism is the logical Aufheben
of democratic "Capitalism", not some antithetical force in opposition to it. Autarky is inherently reactionary, and is a common motif in many reactionary regimes.

On a different note, I've considered the idea that the reason the DPRK hasn't restored capitalism (yet?) is because of this self-sufficiency. It's what makes this socialist country unique compared to the other socialist countries of the 20th century.

Well, thats a multi-sided question. The DPRK is trying to "restore Capitalism" (if you can call it that) every time they try to reunite with the South. You would have to be a fool to think reunification could ever mean anything other than the economic control of the North by the South based on mathematics alone. South Korea's industrial output is like 80x North Korea's. The elite in the North simply want to ensure that they have a place in it. They don't want to end up like Saddam.

But as to why the DPRK is peculiar? Well, its a highly insular country. Like I said before, its policies in terms of the outside world are very similar to the Joseon Dynasty or any number of East Asian dynasties beginning with the Ming.

As you said, anti-African racism comes from a particularly European context, so it's largely moot. Here's a quick video which adresses this issue. https://youtu.be/yP-ccJAoHNw

You know, before you even posted that I knew it was that Jason Unruhe imbecile. I am 100% serious. That guy is the epitome of the opportunistic, 3rd Worldist white guy that uses "Marxism" as an identity the way schoolboys use bracelets.

His video is, almost all, total mental gymnastics. Monkeys are sly creatures in Korean culture? Mmmmk.... so why "Black monkey"? Is that just another coincidence? Maybe the DPRK meant "black" in the antiquated English way of saying 'evil'. The truth is, the DPRK has strains of sexism and ethnoracism because it is a reactionary, insular state. No amount of mental gymnastics will fix that. Women in the DPRK are forced to wear conservative, traditional clothing; so why is it so strange that they feel its effective to attack Park for being a "whore/prostitute"? Also, there are many other attacks like those. One of them they talk about how Obama is a mongrel and how ugly he is... so yeah. My question to you would be, if someone said these things in France, would you be as willing to give them the 'benefit of the doubt'?

DoctorWasdarb

16th March 2018, 22:55

I think *this* is the real issue, and I already noted that the objective schism between First-World and Third-World workers is in respective *purchasing power* -- but there are objectively identical interests on a working-*class* basis, in work and production.

More or less, yes. Except that there is little proletariat left in the first-world, aside from (generally) migrant workers and minorities.

What the hell is the 'tertiary sector' -- ??

Primary - agriculture
Secondary - industry
Tertiary - service.

Is this not common terminology in English? I could have sworn it was.

This statement of yours is factually incorrect -- the trend is in the *opposite* direction:

You're article makes the mistake of conflating pauperization with proleterianization. Yes, the middle class is disappearing. But the nature of the labor hasn't changed. It remains in the tertiary sector, as I've mentioned. The tertiary sector consists of mental labor, which at least in my view is not proletarian. We've discussed that at length elsewhere.

What are *your* 'conclusions' here -- ?

1) Socialist revolution isn't a realistic possibility in the first world in the present day. As communists living in the first world, our primary responsibility is to whatever we can to help the third world liberate itself. This goal consists of primarily, among other things, of opposing foreign intervention (violently if need be) and doing whatever we can dismantle institutions like the World Bank.

2) The primary goal for the third world, similarly, needs to be overthrowing imperialism, because it is what is preventing their development. The bourgeoisie has shown itself to be a largely comprador class, which requires a new nationalism. Unlike the bourgeois nationalism that ran its course throughout the 20th century and is dying out with the last elements, like in Syria, the third world needs a new, proletarian nationalism.

Agreed, and I hope you're not implying that *I* do this.[/QUOTE]

No, it's more Jimmy that I'm accusing of this.

DoctorWasdarb

16th March 2018, 23:16

You don't "turn towards reaction". The DPRK is a reactionary state that hinges on Korean ethnonationalism. Part of this isn't 'their fault'; they were, indeed, subjected to a brutal outside attack and have lived with the prospect of war. But so has Cuba, and Cuba has never adopted the ridiculously insular and repressive policies NK did.

Yes, one can start revolutionary and turn towards reaction.

Cuba has been turning towards capitalism for a couple decades now. The DPRK hasn't.

Well, actually no. Not at all. Imperialism as a method of surplus extraction will exist so long as Capitalism exists. It will only ever be ended with the rise of proletariat power, nothing else.

Yes, popular/proletarian power is necessary to end imperialism. I never said the opposite.

Its a highly secretive state and that makes it prone to propagandist 'news'; the same way the reclusive old man living in the mansion on top of a hill does. It doesn't negate the fact that for this to occur, there must actually be something pathologically wrong with said man.

Sorry, the Kim cult of personality is not organic. He was not born on top of a celestial mountain (in case you don't understand, the mythos of the Koreans is that their founder, Dangun, was also born on top of this mountain). The cult is massive, pervasive. Every school in North Korea has a room dedicated to the "study" of the Kims. Every household has a portrait of the Kims. There are god knows how many statues of them in the country. None of this is a 'mild' personality cult, but the active attempt at ancestor worship that is prevalent in Confucian societies throughout East Asia.

I didn't say the cult of personality was organic. I said it is exaggerated.

Is that not the same thing? Why else would the 'WPK' elect a 29 year old with no military, diplomatic or political training if not for the fact that his father was the leader of the country? Don't get me wrong, like in all dictatorships, its not as if they wield 'absolute' power; all dictatorships have a degree of consensus among the ruling elite, and factional divisions are common.

Prior to Kim Jong Il's death, Kim Jong Un was the Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea. With the Songun policy of military first, it seems like a very reasonable choice. And as I said, the choice was likely also influenced by the cult of personality around the family. Although my suspicion is that the next supreme leader won't be from the Kim family. At least, it would surprise me.

This is such a petite-bourgeois concept. Communism could never be about "breaking off from the system" as if you are some edgy teen. Communism is the logical Aufheben
[/COLOR]of democratic "Capitalism", not some antithetical force in opposition to it. Autarky is inherently reactionary, and is a common motif in many reactionary regimes.

There's nothing reactionary in developing one's nation outside of the yoke of imperialism.

Well, thats a multi-sided question. The DPRK is trying to "restore Capitalism" (if you can call it that) every time they try to reunite with the South. You would have to be a fool to think reunification could ever mean anything other than the economic control of the North by the South based on mathematics alone. South Korea's industrial output is like 80x North Korea's. The elite in the North simply want to ensure that they have a place in it. They don't want to end up like Saddam.

The DPRK wouldn't reunite just to be subjugated by the south. They'd do anything *but* that!

But as to why the DPRK is peculiar? Well, its a highly insular country. Like I said before, its policies in terms of the outside world are very similar to the Joseon Dynasty or any number of East Asian dynasties beginning with the Ming.

As I said, one of its main peculiarities is its independence.

You know, before you even posted that I knew it was that Jason Unruhe imbecile. I am 100% serious. That guy is the epitome of the opportunistic, 3rd Worldist white guy that uses "Marxism" as an identity the way schoolboys use bracelets.

His video is, almost all, total mental gymnastics. Monkeys are sly creatures in Korean culture? Mmmmk.... so why "Black monkey"? Is that just another coincidence? Maybe the DPRK meant "black" in the antiquated English way of saying 'evil'. The truth is, the DPRK has strains of sexism and ethnoracism because it is a reactionary, insular state. No amount of mental gymnastics will fix that. Women in the DPRK are forced to wear conservative, traditional clothing; so why is it so strange that they feel its effective to attack Park for being a "whore/prostitute"? Also, there are many other attacks like those. One of them they talk about how Obama is a mongrel and how ugly he is... so yeah. My question to you would be, if someone said these things in France, would you be as willing to give them the 'benefit of the doubt'?

I meant to mention before I posted the video that I'm not some fanboy of his. This is just one video of his that I found to be just, and cited it for this sole reason. I don't think he's an opportunist, that's ridiculous. But I find his politics to be far too simplistic and flat out immaterial and undialectical, but this isn't the place to develop that.

The DPRK has strong provisions for women's rights. Women hold a prominent place in the workplace, cultural life, and in the government. I'm not concerned about that comment. Focusing on the monkey comment, Unruhe is absolutely correct in saying that it's projection. It assumes that the rest of the world has the same prejudices we have. Korea never had slavery (except when the Japanese were enslaving the Koreans...). Korea never colonized Africa. They don't have the same history that we do, and we shouldn't project out history and prejudices onto them.

ckaihatsu

17th March 2018, 16:56

More or less, yes. Except that there is little proletariat left in the first-world, aside from (generally) migrant workers and minorities.

Primary - agriculture
Secondary - industry
Tertiary - service.

Is this not common terminology in English? I could have sworn it was.

Okay. No prob.

You're article makes the mistake of conflating pauperization with proleterianization. Yes, the middle class is disappearing. But the nature of the labor hasn't changed. It remains in the tertiary sector, as I've mentioned. The tertiary sector consists of mental labor, which at least in my view is not proletarian. We've discussed that at length elsewhere.

I recall your *mentioning* this, but, no, we haven't discussed it 'at length'.

How do you reconcile the service economy with your denial of the legitimacy of mental labor -- ? White-collar-type labor is either 'internal' to the business, as with management tasks, or else it is *productive* labor that's being exploited for surplus labor value.

[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://s6.postimg.org/nzhxfqy9d/11_Labor_Capital_Wages_Dividends.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/f4h3589gt/full/)

The point here is that proletarianization has been *increasing* worldwide, contrary to your contention that:

The proletariat is becoming much to small to overthrow capitalism,

---

1) Socialist revolution isn't a realistic possibility in the first world in the present day.

Pessimist / fatalist, huh? (grin)

As communists living in the first world, our primary responsibility is to whatever we can to help the third world liberate itself. This goal consists of primarily, among other things, of opposing foreign intervention (violently if need be) and doing whatever we can dismantle institutions like the World Bank.

Reformist much -- ? This liberal line invariably follows once you've given up on socialist revolution, as you have in point #1, above.

2) The primary goal for the third world, similarly, needs to be overthrowing imperialism, because it is what is preventing their development. The bourgeoisie has shown itself to be a largely comprador class, which requires a new nationalism. Unlike the bourgeois nationalism that ran its course throughout the 20th century and is dying out with the last elements, like in Syria, the third world needs a new, proletarian nationalism.

Why the emphasis on *nationalism* -- ? (Maybe you can elaborate on your M-L ideology here.)

DoctorWasdarb

17th March 2018, 23:33

I recall your *mentioning* this, but, no, we haven't discussed it 'at length'.

How do you reconcile the service economy with your denial of the legitimacy of mental labor -- ? White-collar-type labor is either 'internal' to the business, as with management tasks, or else it is *productive* labor that's being exploited for surplus labor value.

[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Not all tertiary/mental labor is illegitimate. In business/administration, yes, better that the labor be done by those implicated in the administration (workers running their own factories, etc. etc.). But teachers and doctors perform socially necessary labor even if it is "unproductive" in a certain sense of the word. I don't really understand your question, though, so I don't know if this answers it.

The point here is that proletarianization has been *increasing* worldwide, contrary to your contention that:

My comment was pertaining to the first world, not globally.

Pessimist / fatalist, huh? (grin)

I'd just say realist. The material conditions don't exist for revolution.

Reformist much -- ? This liberal line invariably follows once you've given up on socialist revolution, as you have in point #1, above.

Categorize it however you'd like. I don't think reformist or liberal are adequate definitions of what I've proposed. What I've proposed isn't a long term goal. It's what the left needs to be focusing on in the present day, until the fall of imperialism, which will create the appropriate material conditions for revolution.

Why the emphasis on *nationalism* -- ? (Maybe you can elaborate on your M-L ideology here.)

I emphasize nationalism because I view it as a necessary step to take in breaking out of imperialism.

I'm not M-L, because I believe the 20th century has shown the insufficiencies in the ideology. In general I disagree with it and Marxism on one major point, in that I find that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism is the contradiction between imperialist centers and peripheries. For that reason I find that M-L is insufficiently nationalist. Socialism in One Country is fine and all, but its perspective is still on global communist revolution. For me, the conditions for global communist revolution don't exist yet. My primary goal is dismantling imperialism. M-L doesn't really seek to do that. My other criticisms are those that I've outlined in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat, in that I find a professional vanguard to be inherently incapable of leading revolution all the way to the end, and that I find that the model of state organization reflects the same incapability.

The solution however is not bourgeois nationalism that we saw in the 20th century as the primary model of non-M-L model of anti-imperialism. The national bourgeoisie is far too comprador to be trusted with revolutionary leadership against imperialism. Popular nationalism combines the best elements of the aforementioned models. It incorporates the mass leadership we see in M-L with the nationalist model of anti-imperialism we see in the latter, which creates a synthetic model which is uniquely capable of developing a country in a progressive manner. (I don't really propose this model for the first world because imperialist nationalism is pretty much just imperialism. However, if the first world wants to stop being internationalist (that is, imperialist in this case), I wouldn't say no, haha)

Jimmie Higgins

18th March 2018, 19:46

I'd just say realist. The material conditions don't exist for revolution.

What are the material conditions, in your view?

ckaihatsu

18th March 2018, 20:41

Not all tertiary/mental labor is illegitimate. In business/administration, yes, better that the labor be done by those implicated in the administration (workers running their own factories, etc. etc.). But teachers and doctors perform socially necessary labor even if it is "unproductive" in a certain sense of the word. I don't really understand your question, though, so I don't know if this answers it.

No, it's fine -- you're on-topic.

I myself would put teachers and doctors in the 'necessary for the reproduction of labor' category ('productive labor'), though I readily agree that it's a gray-area, too, since one could probably get along fine in the world as it is without being serviced by either, arguably.

From past discussions I've found that analyzing objective work-role positions is also dependent on *perspective*, as in whether we're treating the role in the context of capital / business-ownership, or from the standpoint of labor. For example, there may be an empirical need for office-cleaning labor -- in the context of the business entity such a task is 'unproductive labor', and is taken out of surplus labor value. Nonetheless the office-cleaning worker is doing labor and is being paid a wage, regardless:

[I] can't help but think that even in the latter case there is a *commodity* being produced, that of 'office-cleaning', at least at the very circumscribed extent of higher-administration-office-cleaning. (And I'm saying this *empirically*, not politically.)

Note that cleaning labor is still being exploited, the cleaning workers are being paid a wage, and the surplus value of their labor is being expropriated by their boss.

As before in this thread I think you're glossing over the differentiation between the function of *capital* regarding 'unproductivity', and the function of *labor* regarding 'unproductivity'.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/193843-The-self-employed-and-surplus-value?p=2849610#post2849610

Also:

[I]'m only talking about the necessity of *shiny shoes*, for business, which is on par with the necessity of *capitalist persons* themselves, for business. (See the quoted part of a past post of yours, above.)

We *could* generalize 'shiny shoes' to the larger, overall consumption on the part of capitalists (from new, incoming surplus value), and ask the same question of 'fixed-capital-or-operating-costs' for *all* of it. (In other words from the point of view of capital itself it would rather not have to make outlays for *infrastructure* for commodity production, which adds into the M-C-M' cycle, any more than it wants the costs of capitalist-person *consumption* expenses.)

So I'm *not* arguing that 'shiny shoes' -- consumed by capitalists -- is 'productive', I'm simply saying that it's a gray-area as to whether 'shiny shoes' is indispensable to production, or not. (Could the production of shoes, for example, be accomplished *without* the expense of shiny shoes for capitalists -- ? Maybe, but *is* it done that way, or do we find that shiny shoes *are* an expense, for the sake of production, no matter *what* the particular factory happens to produce -- ?)

Since we happen to find shiny shoes in *every* business and factory that is involved with production maybe 'shiny shoes' is as important to production as the walls of a factory.

---

My comment was pertaining to the first world, not globally.

Yeah, I realize that now. Maybe restate your point on all of this -- ?

I'd just say realist. The material conditions don't exist for revolution.

Oh -- *currently*, sure, otherwise there'd be a revolution right now. But I don't think this is saying much. Things can change seemingly overnight.

---

Reformist much -- ? This liberal line invariably follows once you've given up on socialist revolution, as you have in point #1, above.

Categorize it however you'd like. I don't think reformist or liberal are adequate definitions of what I've proposed. What I've proposed isn't a long term goal. It's what the left needs to be focusing on in the present day, until the fall of imperialism, which will create the appropriate material conditions for revolution.

What *have* you proposed?

I emphasize nationalism because I view it as a necessary step to take in breaking out of imperialism.

I'm not M-L, because I believe the 20th century has shown the insufficiencies in the ideology. In general I disagree with it and Marxism on one major point, in that I find that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism is the contradiction between imperialist centers and peripheries. For that reason I find that M-L is insufficiently nationalist. Socialism in One Country is fine and all, but its perspective is still on global communist revolution.

Why the focus on *national* (presumably national-liberation) struggles as a priority -- ? It strikes me as being decidedly too stagist.

And, no, SIOC does *not* have any consideration for the global communist revolution, as far as I know.

For me, the conditions for global communist revolution don't exist yet.

Well, the world's proletariat is larger than at any other time in history, and is also a larger percentage of the global population. We now have advanced electronic communications, and the Internet.

Objectively / empirically I'd say the only thing missing is the *subjective* factor, or mass workers consciousness.

My primary goal is dismantling imperialism. M-L doesn't really seek to do that. My other criticisms are those that I've outlined in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat, in that I find a professional vanguard to be inherently incapable of leading revolution all the way to the end, and that I find that the model of state organization reflects the same incapability.

These are serious contentions -- you may want to elaborate more on your reasoning behind such statements.

I don't think that a workers movement would 'dismantle' imperialism, as in disassembling certain specific social state machinery and not others. Sure, in the process of seizing the state the present-day foreign policy would be 'withered-away', since workers don't have an interest in repressing other workers internationally, but I'd say that's about it.

Imperialism would be 'dismantled' along with all other functional features of the state and capitalism -- the way you phrase it it sounds almost *reformist*.

The solution however is not bourgeois nationalism that we saw in the 20th century as the primary model of non-M-L model of anti-imperialism. The national bourgeoisie is far too comprador to be trusted with revolutionary leadership against imperialism.

Good, good to hear.

Popular nationalism combines the best elements of the aforementioned models. It incorporates the mass leadership we see in M-L with the nationalist model of anti-imperialism we see in the latter, which creates a synthetic model which is uniquely capable of developing a country in a progressive manner.

Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?

(I don't really propose this model for the first world because imperialist nationalism is pretty much just imperialism. However, if the first world wants to stop being internationalist (that is, imperialist in this case), I wouldn't say no, haha)

Yup. Check this out:

Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://s6.postimg.org/eeeic5c6p/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/full/)

DoctorWasdarb

18th March 2018, 22:59

What are the material conditions, in your view?

The material conditions for revolution in the first world require the end of imperialism before socialism can even be a possibility.

No, it's fine -- you're on-topic.

I myself would put teachers and doctors in the 'necessary for the reproduction of labor' category ('productive labor'), though I readily agree that it's a gray-area, too, since one could probably get along fine in the world as it is without being serviced by either, arguably.

From past discussions I've found that analyzing objective work-role positions is also dependent on *perspective*, as in whether we're treating the role in the context of capital / business-ownership, or from the standpoint of labor. For example, there may be an empirical need for office-cleaning labor -- in the context of the business entity such a task is 'unproductive labor', and is taken out of surplus labor value. Nonetheless the office-cleaning worker is doing labor and is being paid a wage, regardless:

[I]'m only talking about the necessity of *shiny shoes*, for business, which is on par with the necessity of *capitalist persons* themselves, for business. (See the quoted part of a past post of yours, above.)

We *could* generalize 'shiny shoes' to the larger, overall consumption on the part of capitalists (from new, incoming surplus value), and ask the same question of 'fixed-capital-or-operating-costs' for *all* of it. (In other words from the point of view of capital itself it would rather not have to make outlays for *infrastructure* for commodity production, which adds into the M-C-M' cycle, any more than it wants the costs of capitalist-person *consumption* expenses.)

So I'm *not* arguing that 'shiny shoes' -- consumed by capitalists -- is 'productive', I'm simply saying that it's a gray-area as to whether 'shiny shoes' is indispensable to production, or not. (Could the production of shoes, for example, be accomplished *without* the expense of shiny shoes for capitalists -- ? Maybe, but *is* it done that way, or do we find that shiny shoes *are* an expense, for the sake of production, no matter *what* the particular factory happens to produce -- ?)

Since we happen to find shiny shoes in *every* business and factory that is involved with production maybe 'shiny shoes' is as important to production as the walls of a factory.

I have trouble agreeing with everything you've said here. The janitor, the restaurant table waiter, the cashier, etc., these are all tertiary jobs, of course. Perhaps not the cashier in the long term, but for now, all these professions are socially necessary, even though they don't produce anything. The tertiary sector has grown enormous over the past few decades. In the first world, most people don't work in industry, yet they consume industrially produced goods. Wherefrom? Third world-produced goods. The proletariat has been outsourced, one could say. Yes, these tertiary laborers are oppressed. But is it fair to consider them exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, since they don't *produce* anything? I lean towards no (which brings me to the conclusion that the first world population in imperialist centers is largely parasitic, but that's a different story for a different time).

Yeah, I realize that now. Maybe restate your point on all of this -- ?

My point is explained just above.

Oh -- *currently*, sure, otherwise there'd be a revolution right now. But I don't think this is saying much. Things can change seemingly overnight.

Yeah, but I believe that the conditions which would lead to a possibility for revolution in the first world require an end to imperialism. Call it stagist if you'd like, but I don't believe revolution will happen here while the population continues to indulge itself in parasitic consumption.

What *have* you proposed?

I proposed that in the first world, since the population is largely privileged, even parasitic, and that revolution isn't a feasible goal, anti-imperialists in the first world have the obligation to do whatever we can to dismantle imperialism. In the first place, a very basic goal would be the dismantling of American military might abroad. While American military hegemony exists, national liberation is a near impossibility. Conscious first worlders can play a very active and very important role in this regard. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say everything I want to on this subject while remaining within the rules I agreed to when signing up, so I won't say much more on this point.

Why the focus on *national* (presumably national-liberation) struggles as a priority -- ? It strikes me as being decidedly too stagist.

I don't think it's particularly stagist. As we've learned from the lessons of the 20th century, *popular* nationalism is the only way the third world will dismantle imperialism at its core. The transition from popular nationalism/mass-led state capitalism (I refer you again to On New Democracy by Mao) to socialism is relatively smooth and not stagist.

And, no, SIOC does *not* have any consideration for the global communist revolution, as far as I know.

This is a misrepresentation of the Stalinist line. I developed this more in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, the world's proletariat is larger than at any other time in history, and is also a larger percentage of the global population. We now have advanced electronic communications, and the Internet.

Objectively / empirically I'd say the only thing missing is the *subjective* factor, or mass workers consciousness.

Sure. But there are precise material reasons that the mass worker consciousness doesn't exist, as I mentioned above.

These are serious contentions -- you may want to elaborate more on your reasoning behind such statements.

M-L is insufficient in dismantling imperialism for the precise reason that it doesn't make it it's primary goal, as it needs to be. The failure to do so was, in my view, one of the several causes of its failure.

I don't think that a workers movement would 'dismantle' imperialism, as in disassembling certain specific social state machinery and not others. Sure, in the process of seizing the state the present-day foreign policy would be 'withered-away', since workers don't have an interest in repressing other workers internationally, but I'd say that's about it.

Imperialism would be 'dismantled' along with all other functional features of the state and capitalism -- the way you phrase it it sounds almost *reformist*.

I'm sorry, but this is complete Euro-chauvinism.

Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?

Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.

Jimmie Higgins

19th March 2018, 15:23

The material conditions for revolution in the first world require the end of imperialism before socialism can even be a possibility.
No, not what they require: what are those conditions according to you?

Also, if American imperial system was broken... the US would still be imperialist, just a looser one that would need to find it’s place in the new order. The UK didn’t stop being imperialist — it just doesn’t lead it anymore.

In the first world, most people don't work in industry, yet they consume industrially produced goods. Wherefrom?on average, workers in the US spend up to 30% of their wages on consumer goods (25% of that on groceries not including household products like cleaning supplies, etc).

Industrial jobs have declined, but not US industry - this is a common misconception in the US that’s used by the right. US industry has restructured, building new facilities (often in “right to work” states) with increased automation. For example, the docks in San Francisco were the heart of working class life here - employing 100s of workers - but logistics moved to Oakland where new cranes were built. One well paid crane operator now brings more value than 100s of low paid longshoremen at an overall lower labor cost. US shipping hasn’t declined - it facilitates billions and billions of dollars in trade, but the workforce has gone from thousands to hundreds while Bay Area tech companies invest in self-driving trucks to lower labor cost even more.

But since US workers make the chips or equipment that make consumer goods possible to manufacture elsewhere suggests international links between workers are far more potentially powerful than the consumption of average US workers.

The US is the 2nd largest manufacturer and 1st in the value of manufactured goods - mostly because the US doesn’t produce consumer goods - it produces factory equipment and tech and farm equipment. Most US exports are not consumer goods but US workers still produce huge profits for our masters.

Third world-produced goods. The proletariat has been outsourced, one could say. Really just more investment outside the US and rearrangement of some production as US business scrambled to increase profitability after the declines of the 1970s.

Yes, these tertiary laborers are oppressed. But is it fair to consider them exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, since they don't *produce* anything? I lean towards no (which brings me to the conclusion that the first world population in imperialist centers is largely parasitic, but that's a different story for a different time).yes, they produce profits and value. You are mistaking power in the economy (logistics - the #1 occupation for US workers and manufacturing are more economically central to capital, but restaurants and shops are still profiting from low-wage service workers. Amazon wouldn’t be trying to automate these very jobs if the point of that labor is just for imperialists to do a solid for US workers.

I proposed that in the first world, since the population is largely privileged, even parasitic, and that revolution isn't a feasible goal, anti-imperialists in the first world have the obligation to do whatever we can to dismantle imperialism. In the first place, a very basic goal would be the dismantling of American military might abroad. While American military hegemony exists, national liberation is a near impossibility. Conscious first worlders can play a very active and very important role in this regard. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say everything I want to on this subject while remaining within the rules I agreed to when signing up, so I won't say much more on this point.if US workers materially benifit from imperialism, what does “consciousness” mean here? They would, instead, need to just feel a moral obligation since their class interest is in preserving imperialism according to this view.

Frankly I don’t think you answered what the material conditions are because your terms and concepts are shadows and vapor, that do not reflect a reality where US workers must keep working to reproduce themselves, US profits and production is still dominant in world trade (despite relative decline after China in total output), and US and international workers are more linked now than at any time in history due to international production divisions of labor.

ckaihatsu

19th March 2018, 16:33

The material conditions for revolution in the first world require the end of imperialism before socialism can even be a possibility.

I have trouble agreeing with everything you've said here. The janitor, the restaurant table waiter, the cashier, etc., these are all tertiary jobs, of course. Perhaps not the cashier in the long term, but for now, all these professions are socially necessary, even though they don't produce anything. The tertiary sector has grown enormous over the past few decades. In the first world, most people don't work in industry, yet they consume industrially produced goods. Wherefrom? Third world-produced goods. The proletariat has been outsourced, one could say. Yes, these tertiary laborers are oppressed.

But is it fair to consider them exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, since they don't *produce* anything? I lean towards no (which brings me to the conclusion that the first world population in imperialist centers is largely parasitic, but that's a different story for a different time).

I'm sorry, DW, but this is an *ignorant* view -- *of course* service-sector workers produce value, like that of conveying the product to the customer, it's just that such labor is intangible and tends to be internal-business-sided in its logistics. Service laborers are still *workers* because they get paid their wages and their surplus labor value is appropriated / expropriated by the boss.

This parallels the point I made in my previous post about 'office-cleaning labor' -- and the laborer is often victimized with this mentality that conflates the *work role* with the *worker*. The work role of providing a service could easily be called *unnecessary* in logistical terms since all the customer would really need is an Automat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat") or vending machine, but capital ownership ultimately signs-off on the service-culture paradigm (as for providing food and drinks in a retail setting), which is then the de-facto societal norm of 'customer service'.

This doesn't mean that the *laborer* themselves is somehow *inadequate* or is pulling-a-fast-one on the customer -- that's just how business is set up under capitalism. We're *all* stuck in this particular social machinery for the time being.

By conflating the duties of the service-sector work role with the actual worker providing the service, there's implicitly a *moralistic* line being made, as though the exploited service-sector worker is somehow proactively determining business policy and imposing such on the customer. I myself have heard the street term 'hustle' used inappropriately on a regular basis -- in the sense of where an individual is providing a micro-business service, and maybe even also a product -- and is implicitly denigrated as 'hustling' ('cheating') the customer when in fact the transactions are all identical in economic function to that of any other, 'legitimate', business.

Note:

• there exists no neutral definition of productive and unproductive labour; what is productive from the point of view of one social class may not be productive from the point of view of another.

• from the point of view of the capitalist class, labour is productive, if it increases the value of (private) capital or results in (private) capital accumulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_and_unproductive_labour#Marx's_critique

---

Yeah, but I believe that the conditions which would lead to a possibility for revolution in the first world require an end to imperialism. Call it stagist if you'd like, but I don't believe revolution will happen here while the population continues to indulge itself in parasitic consumption.

Okay, well, that's within your own latitude of discretion and opinion-making -- I *will* continue to call it 'stagist' because it's too prescriptive and rigid, concerning matters of revolutionary strategy.

I proposed that in the first world, since the population is largely privileged, even parasitic, and that revolution isn't a feasible goal, anti-imperialists in the first world have the obligation to do whatever we can to dismantle imperialism. In the first place, a very basic goal would be the dismantling of American military might abroad. While American military hegemony exists, national liberation is a near impossibility. Conscious first worlders can play a very active and very important role in this regard. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say everything I want to on this subject while remaining within the rules I agreed to when signing up, so I won't say much more on this point.

Okay, understood, and I do consider your line here to be valid, for whatever that's worth.

I don't think it's particularly stagist. As we've learned from the lessons of the 20th century, *popular* nationalism is the only way the third world will dismantle imperialism at its core. The transition from popular nationalism/mass-led state capitalism (I refer you again to On New Democracy by Mao) to socialism is relatively smooth and not stagist.

Okay, acknowledged.

---

And, no, SIOC does *not* have any consideration for the global communist revolution, as far as I know.

This is a misrepresentation of the Stalinist line. I developed this more in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Would you please provide a brief description here of any conceivable transition from various nationally-liberated struggles to a solidly *international* proletarian movement against bourgeois rule?

Sure. But there are precise material reasons that the mass worker consciousness doesn't exist, as I mentioned above.

Consumer-mindset buy-offs -- particularly through credit -- I gather -- ?

M-L is insufficient in dismantling imperialism for the precise reason that it doesn't make it it's primary goal, as it needs to be. The failure to do so was, in my view, one of the several causes of its failure.

Hmmm, okay, noted -- you may want to expound on this a little more.

---

I don't think that a workers movement would 'dismantle' imperialism, as in disassembling certain specific social state machinery and not others. Sure, in the process of seizing the state the present-day foreign policy would be 'withered-away', since workers don't have an interest in repressing other workers internationally, but I'd say that's about it.

Imperialism would be 'dismantled' along with all other functional features of the state and capitalism -- the way you phrase it it sounds almost *reformist*.

I'm sorry, but this is complete Euro-chauvinism.

I really don't see how -- you may want to provide your reasoning here. I think my point remains valid.

Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.

Understood. It's under your own discretion as to what you may want to provide here. I'm always glad to hear encapsulations, and am always willing to learn of perspectives that I haven't previously encountered before.

DoctorWasdarb

19th March 2018, 21:17

No, not what they require: what are those conditions according to you?

Also, if American imperial system was broken... the US would still be imperialist, just a looser one that would need to find it’s place in the new order. The UK didn’t stop being imperialist — it just doesn’t lead it anymore.

But if US imperialism were sufficiently dismantled (something English imperialism has not been, hence why it's still an imperialist power), through the breaking off of nations from the imperialist world to create their own world, the US population would be forced to restart its industry instead of consuming parasitically from the third world.

on average, workers in the US spend up to 30% of their wages on consumer goods (25% of that on groceries not including household products like cleaning supplies, etc).

That's my point...

Industrial jobs have declined, but not US industry - this is a common misconception in the US that’s used by the right. US industry has restructured, building new facilities (often in “right to work” states) with increased automation. For example, the docks in San Francisco were the heart of working class life here - employing 100s of workers - but logistics moved to Oakland where new cranes were built. One well paid crane operator now brings more value than 100s of low paid longshoremen at an overall lower labor cost. US shipping hasn’t declined - it facilitates billions and billions of dollars in trade, but the workforce has gone from thousands to hundreds while Bay Area tech companies invest in self-driving trucks to lower labor cost even more.

But since US workers make the chips or equipment that make consumer goods possible to manufacture elsewhere suggests international links between workers are far more potentially powerful than the consumption of average US workers.

The US is the 2nd largest manufacturer and 1st in the value of manufactured goods - mostly because the US doesn’t produce consumer goods - it produces factory equipment and tech and farm equipment. Most US exports are not consumer goods but US workers still produce huge profits for our masters.

Really just more investment outside the US and rearrangement of some production as US business scrambled to increase profitability after the declines of the 1970s.

I said that the majority of the US population does not work in industry. I didn't say that the US has no industry. The fact that the majority of the US works neither in the primary nor secondary sector is a sign of the increasing parasitism of the US population. (And just because it's important, the majority of people who do actually work in industry or agriculture are migrant workers or minorities, not as an absolutism, but it's the general trend.)

yes, they produce profits and value. You are mistaking power in the economy (logistics - the #1 occupation for US workers and manufacturing are more economically central to capital, but restaurants and shops are still profiting from low-wage service workers. Amazon wouldn’t be trying to automate these very jobs if the point of that labor is just for imperialists to do a solid for US workers.

I'm well aware of the social necessity of the labor undertaken in the service sector. I've tried to be very clear about that. But the relations between capitalism and service workers is not the same as the relations between capitalism and industrial workers. According to Engels, the proletariat is a uniquely revolutionary class: 'In like manner, production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the production from individual to social products. The yarn, the cloth, the metal articles that now come out of the factory were the joint product of many workers, through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready. No one person could say of them: "I made that; this is my product."' Service workers are called service workers precisely because they don't produce anything, but perform services.

if US workers materially benifit from imperialism, what does “consciousness” mean here? They would, instead, need to just feel a moral obligation since their class interest is in preserving imperialism according to this view.

More or less, yes. They need to be conscious of the moral atrocity that is imperialism and the necessity in overthrowing it.

Frankly I don’t think you answered what the material conditions are because your terms and concepts are shadows and vapor, that do not reflect a reality where US workers must keep working to reproduce themselves, US profits and production is still dominant in world trade (despite relative decline after China in total output), and US and international workers are more linked now than at any time in history due to international production divisions of labor.

I'm very clear. The material conditions that could lead to revolution in the US requires the end of the parasitic nature of the majority of the inhabitants of the first world, which won't happen unless third world nations break away from the imperialist system.

DoctorWasdarb

19th March 2018, 22:07

I'm sorry, DW, but this is an *ignorant* view -- *of course* service-sector workers produce value, like that of conveying the product to the customer, it's just that such labor is intangible and tends to be internal-business-sided in its logistics. Service laborers are still *workers* because they get paid their wages and their surplus labor value is appropriated / expropriated by the boss.

This parallels the point I made in my previous post about 'office-cleaning labor' -- and the laborer is often victimized with this mentality that conflates the *work role* with the *worker*. The work role of providing a service could easily be called *unnecessary* in logistical terms since all the customer would really need is an Automat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat") or vending machine, but capital ownership ultimately signs-off on the service-culture paradigm (as for providing food and drinks in a retail setting), which is then the de-facto societal norm of 'customer service'.

This doesn't mean that the *laborer* themselves is somehow *inadequate* or is pulling-a-fast-one on the customer -- that's just how business is set up under capitalism. We're *all* stuck in this particular social machinery for the time being.

By conflating the duties of the service-sector work role with the actual worker providing the service, there's implicitly a *moralistic* line being made, as though the exploited service-sector worker is somehow proactively determining business policy and imposing such on the customer. I myself have heard the street term 'hustle' used inappropriately on a regular basis -- in the sense of where an individual is providing a micro-business service, and maybe even also a product -- and is implicitly denigrated as 'hustling' ('cheating') the customer when in fact the transactions are all identical in economic function to that of any other, 'legitimate', business.

Note:

I'm aware of the complexities of retail worker - customer relations. I don't mean to suggest that the retail workers are pulling a fast one on industrial workers as a general rule (looking within a nation and not in the context of imperialism).

That doesn't change the fact that the relations between service workers and capitalism and between industrial workers and capitalism are very different. The industrial workers are visibly exploited. Imagine that there's a chair factory, and there are ten workers, and they collectively produce ten chairs an hour, just to keep numbers simple. If a chair is worth ten dollars, we could say that collectively, the workers produced 100 dollars per hour. If the workers are paid five dollars an hour, 50 dollars has been extracted from the workers. The exploitation is measurable. This is not the case within the service sector. If a service worker is paid ten dollars an hour, it's because the boss thinks that this service is worth more to the company than the wage paid, but there isn't a measurable exploitation.

Okay, understood, and I do consider your line here to be valid, for whatever that's worth.

Well, thanks

Would you please provide a brief description here of any conceivable transition from various nationally-liberated struggles to a solidly *international* proletarian movement against bourgeois rule?

As I've outlined briefly, the national liberation struggle *is* against bourgeois rule. There's no need to transition to fighting against bourgeois rule, because the struggles are one and the same thing. Internationalism comes when the nationally liberated nations have comrades. But no nation should be dependent on another. Once national socialisms (not Nazis, but I don't find a better description) exist virtually over the globe, or even in various regions, can we consider internationalism. But a variety of national alliances (think Soviet *Union*) can lead to internationalism. But I emphasize, reiterate that I don't *believe* we should pursue internationalism prematurely; not until the material conditions allow it.

Hmmm, okay, noted -- you may want to expound on this a little more.

As you may have mentioned in the other thread, the Soviet Union was looking to hedge out its place in the global economy, a global economy which was capitalist and imperialist. It would have been better for the Soviet Union to pursue a more national economy. They were right to support other revolutionaries, like in Spain, and to engage in economic activity with other revolutionaries, but the desire to hedge out a role in the global imperialist system was a big mistake.

I really don't see how -- you may want to provide your reasoning here. I think my point remains valid.

You don't want revolution in the imperialist centers to actively struggle against imperialism; you're content to see it slowly wither away as capitalist relations wither away. The end of imperialism is *essential* to the revolution. As I've mentioned, in my view, imperialism constitutes the fundamental contradiction of capitalism.

Understood. It's under your own discretion as to what you may want to provide here. I'm always glad to hear encapsulations, and am always willing to learn of perspectives that I haven't previously encountered before.

Roughly (and again, Mao says it better) the national bourgeoisie, because of its comprador, opportunistic nature, cannot be permitted to hold state power or be permitted to organize politically. However, economically, the bourgeoisie still serves a progressive role in the development of forces of production in economically backwards nations. Essentially, a nation would be led by a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, while the economy would be defined more by a state capitalism. As the productive forces become increasingly developed, the People's democratic republic seizes the enterprises and incorporates it into the state enterprises. (Industrialization in China didn't go according to planned, for a variety of reasons, but the model of revolutionary transition from popular nationalism to national and international socialism is nevertheless valid.) Here's a quote from Samir Amin, translated from French by yours truly: "The anti-imperialist/anti-feudal/popular and democratic (and not bourgeois democratic) revolution associates diverse classes and social, ideological, and cultural forces. It cannot be a revolution of the proletariat. Incidentally, the proletariat is hardly but embryonic and weak in all of the societies of the modern peripheries, up until today. The revolution must equally be a revolution by the majority of the peasants, oppressed and exploited. It must be from the important segments of the educated middle classes which express themselves as the revolutionary intelligentsia. It can neutralize (without removing) the political intervention of the local [i.e. national] bourgeoisie, which is engaged in slowing down [lit. putting the breaks on] the movement towards socialism. The revolution can even encourage the bourgeoisie in question from its natural comprador behavior to take national positions."

And here's the document from Mao, from which Amin is inspired but not dogmatic adherent.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

ckaihatsu

20th March 2018, 17:38

I'm aware of the complexities of retail worker - customer relations. I don't mean to suggest that the retail workers are pulling a fast one on industrial workers as a general rule (looking within a nation and not in the context of imperialism).

That doesn't change the fact that the relations between service workers and capitalism and between industrial workers and capitalism are very different. The industrial workers are visibly exploited. Imagine that there's a chair factory, and there are ten workers, and they collectively produce ten chairs an hour, just to keep numbers simple. If a chair is worth ten dollars, we could say that collectively, the workers produced 100 dollars per hour. If the workers are paid five dollars an hour, 50 dollars has been extracted from the workers. The exploitation is measurable.

This is not the case within the service sector. If a service worker is paid ten dollars an hour, it's because the boss thinks that this service is worth more to the company than the wage paid, but there isn't a measurable exploitation.

This is *bullshit* because the company *benefits* from that service and sells the final product -- possibly a service itself -- at a *profitable gain* compared to what it pays the worker in wages (consider the entertainment industry). *Of course* there's exploitation of *all* types of labor, blue-collar, white-collar, and pink-collar.

[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://s6.postimg.org/nzhxfqy9d/11_Labor_Capital_Wages_Dividends.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/f4h3589gt/full/)

---

As I've outlined briefly, the national liberation struggle *is* against bourgeois rule. There's no need to transition to fighting against bourgeois rule, because the struggles are one and the same thing. Internationalism comes when the nationally liberated nations have comrades. But no nation should be dependent on another. Once national socialisms (not Nazis, but I don't find a better description) exist virtually over the globe, or even in various regions, can we consider internationalism. But a variety of national alliances (think Soviet *Union*) can lead to internationalism. But I emphasize, reiterate that I don't *believe* we should pursue internationalism prematurely; not until the material conditions allow it.

No disagreement here, though I myself wouldn't rule-out potential 'internationalizing' opportunities if they arose. (Why not have an international alliance within an entire industry, for example, perhaps that of energy or transportation workers -- ?)

---

M-L is insufficient in dismantling imperialism for the precise reason that it doesn't make it it's primary goal, as it needs to be. The failure to do so was, in my view, one of the several causes of its failure.

Hmmm, okay, noted -- you may want to expound on this a little more.

As you may have mentioned in the other thread, the Soviet Union was looking to hedge out its place in the global economy, a global economy which was capitalist and imperialist. It would have been better for the Soviet Union to pursue a more national economy. They were right to support other revolutionaries, like in Spain, and to engage in economic activity with other revolutionaries, but the desire to hedge out a role in the global imperialist system was a big mistake.

Okay, so the USSR's *aims* were off, particularly in not being proactively anti-imperialist.

---

I'm sorry, but this is complete Euro-chauvinism.

I really don't see how -- you may want to provide your reasoning here. I think my point remains valid.

You don't want revolution in the imperialist centers to actively struggle against imperialism; you're content to see it slowly wither away as capitalist relations wither away. The end of imperialism is *essential* to the revolution. As I've mentioned, in my view, imperialism constitutes the fundamental contradiction of capitalism.

Okay, thanks for the clarification -- it's a good point, being proactively countered to bourgeois imperialism.

On the flipside we haven't seen the fully-expressed potential of communistic social relations -- perhaps it would cause an *avalanche* of mass participation, to the point where conventional currency-based exchanges *do* just fall-away as being uncompetitive with the new paradigm of collectivism and focus on use-values. Just thinking out loud....

Roughly (and again, Mao says it better) the national bourgeoisie, because of its comprador, opportunistic nature, cannot be permitted to hold state power or be permitted to organize politically. However, economically, the bourgeoisie still serves a progressive role in the development of forces of production in economically backwards nations. Essentially, a nation would be led by a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, while the economy would be defined more by a state capitalism. As the productive forces become increasingly developed, the People's democratic republic seizes the enterprises and incorporates it into the state enterprises. (Industrialization in China didn't go according to planned, for a variety of reasons, but the model of revolutionary transition from popular nationalism to national and international socialism is nevertheless valid.) Here's a quote from Samir Amin, translated from French by yours truly: "The anti-imperialist/anti-feudal/popular and democratic (and not bourgeois democratic) revolution associates diverse classes and social, ideological, and cultural forces. It cannot be a revolution of the proletariat. Incidentally, the proletariat is hardly but embryonic and weak in all of the societies of the modern peripheries, up until today. The revolution must equally be a revolution by the majority of the peasants, oppressed and exploited. It must be from the important segments of the educated middle classes which express themselves as the revolutionary intelligentsia. It can neutralize (without removing) the political intervention of the local [i.e. national] bourgeoisie, which is engaged in slowing down [lit. putting the breaks on] the movement towards socialism. The revolution can even encourage the bourgeoisie in question from its natural comprador behavior to take national positions."

And here's the document from Mao, from which Amin is inspired but not dogmatic adherent.

See, I just see this kind of thinking over materials as being *backward* because the world has already created major capacities of material production in the past several decades. We're not in the fucking 1930s anymore, and we do *not* need to be dependent on a bourgeois-reliant, stagist mentality. *Of course* international ties of solidarity are possible, immediately, and more-advanced countries can pull-up lesser-developed countries in the course of internationalist proletarian revolution.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

Tim Redd

21st March 2018, 15:39

Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?

Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.

The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.

ckaihatsu

21st March 2018, 15:55

TR, you got the tags wrong -- the first quote you included is from *me*, at post #40:

Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?

And the second quote is from DoctorWasdarb, at post #41:

Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.

The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.

I don't think that this 'phase-ist' approach / strategy is valid, though -- what would be the group-*internal* dynamics and functions for those who are sweeping away the (national)-internal bourgeois elements -- ? Certainly those who are active in this de-colonization movement would have to either be collectively self-sustaining, or would have to be receiving material support from a broader population. At that point there would then be group-internal dynamics, *in parallel* to what's being done externally, to usurp bourgeois rule.

DoctorWasdarb

24th March 2018, 15:55

This is *bullshit* because the company *benefits* from that service and sells the final product -- possibly a service itself -- at a *profitable gain* compared to what it pays the worker in wages (consider the entertainment industry). *Of course* there's exploitation of *all* types of labor, blue-collar, white-collar, and pink-collar.

When I was in high school I worked at a supermarket in the evenings. My job was to pull the items from the back of the shelf to the front, so that customers could reach it more easily. I didn't produce anything. The store didn't sell my service. I was paid ten bucks an hour, minimum wage. I for one do not think my job was worth ten bucks an hour, however, what I was doing was necessary to the internal functioning of the store. The relations are simply different than factory workers who create commodities and are paid specific wages compared to the market value of their commodities. The exploitation is visible. The goods arrive at the store because of the exploitation of farm workers (often undocumented immigrants). The store purchases the goods from the revenue it makes from selling. This money is paid in turn to the workers of the factory. In the case of a store, it's the consumers who bring the capital to the store, and the store managers distribute the capital as they see fit (accounting for various labor legislation, of course). The floor workers of the store don't have the same relations as a factory or farm worker. The cycle is the opposite for the latter. They produce the wealth. I didn't produce any wealth in the store, even though my labor was necessary to the everyday functioning of the store.

And in a society in which the vast majority of the people work in the tertiary sector, oftentimes simply pushing money or papers around, the result is that the majority of exchanges that happen in such a society are based on exploited labor. Thus, the floor workers at the store, despite being *oppressed* by the store managers, are not exploited, but in fact, paid by exploited labor.

Again, that is not to say that in socialist society we wouldn't have service workers - on the contrary. But a) we can't have an entire society built on such an economy, and b) in such a society where service workers make up the majority, the majority are thus not exploited and are incapable of carrying out socialist revolution, not until the fundamental international division of labor is put into question, where Africa provides all the resources for first world consumption.

No disagreement here, though I myself wouldn't rule-out potential 'internationalizing' opportunities if they arose. (Why not have an international alliance within an entire industry, for example, perhaps that of energy or transportation workers -- ?)

It's up to the workers of whatever country. If they have a comrade nation which would like to engage in economic cooperation in a certain sector, they may, but if they find it would lead to an exploitation of one by the other, that's there choice, and without more information, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with their choice.

Okay, thanks for the clarification -- it's a good point, being proactively countered to bourgeois imperialism.

I appreciate your admission.

On the flipside we haven't seen the fully-expressed potential of communistic social relations -- perhaps it would cause an *avalanche* of mass participation, to the point where conventional currency-based exchanges *do* just fall-away as being uncompetitive with the new paradigm of collectivism and focus on use-values. Just thinking out loud....

Again, it'd be ideal, but I'd be damned if it ever happened. It's idealistic. I wouldn't say no if it happened, but I have little faith in the spontaneity of mass revolt. There needs to be some kind of coherent ideological backbone.

See, I just see this kind of thinking over materials as being *backward* because the world has already created major capacities of material production in the past several decades. We're not in the fucking 1930s anymore, and we do *not* need to be dependent on a bourgeois-reliant, stagist mentality. *Of course* international ties of solidarity are possible, immediately, and more-advanced countries can pull-up lesser-developed countries in the course of internationalist proletarian revolution.

The logic of capitalism that has led to unequal development has not been resolved, despite the progress of the productive forces over the past decade. The productive forces have progressed, but the relations between the centers and the peripheries have changed little comparatively, in that the former continues to engage in super exploitation of the latter. Of course we've seen the change from direct colonial to indirect neo-colonial rule, but the relations remain largely the same.

I don't think that this 'phase-ist' approach / strategy is valid, though -- what would be the group-*internal* dynamics and functions for those who are sweeping away the (national)-internal bourgeois elements -- ? Certainly those who are active in this de-colonization movement would have to either be collectively self-sustaining, or would have to be receiving material support from a broader population. At that point there would then be group-internal dynamics, *in parallel* to what's being done externally, to usurp bourgeois rule.

I don't think this is far off. Full national liberation (in light of the limitations of the decolonization struggle and the non-aligned movement) requires engaging the masses. The limitations of the former have been shown by its failure to truly incorporate the masses into the decolonization process.

Jimmie Higgins

24th March 2018, 16:43

ckaihatsu

24th March 2018, 16:58

When I was in high school I worked at a supermarket in the evenings. My job was to pull the items from the back of the shelf to the front, so that customers could reach it more easily. I didn't produce anything. The store didn't sell my service. I was paid ten bucks an hour, minimum wage. I for one do not think my job was worth ten bucks an hour, however, what I was doing was necessary to the internal functioning of the store. The relations are simply different than factory workers who create commodities and are paid specific wages compared to the market value of their commodities. The exploitation is visible. The goods arrive at the store because of the exploitation of farm workers (often undocumented immigrants). The store purchases the goods from the revenue it makes from selling. This money is paid in turn to the workers of the factory. In the case of a store, it's the consumers who bring the capital to the store, and the store managers distribute the capital as they see fit (accounting for various labor legislation, of course). The floor workers of the store don't have the same relations as a factory or farm worker. The cycle is the opposite for the latter. They produce the wealth. I didn't produce any wealth in the store, even though my labor was necessary to the everyday functioning of the store.

Would you compare this blue-collar (factory worker) (productive labor) - white-collar (store clerk) (unproductive labor) schism to the traditional 'field slave - house slave' schism -- ?

And in a society in which the vast majority of the people work in the tertiary sector, oftentimes simply pushing money or papers around, the result is that the majority of exchanges that happen in such a society are based on exploited labor. Thus, the floor workers at the store, despite being *oppressed* by the store managers, are not exploited, but in fact, paid by exploited labor.

If there's no exploitation going on with the wages of the store clerks then are they getting a suitably-proportionate split of the store's *revenue*, based on the work and labor hours that they put in -- ?

Again, that is not to say that in socialist society we wouldn't have service workers - on the contrary. But a) we can't have an entire society built on such an economy, and b) in such a society where service workers make up the majority, the majority are thus not exploited and are incapable of carrying out socialist revolution, not until the fundamental international division of labor is put into question, where Africa provides all the resources for first world consumption.

I think this is an *overreach* of the MTW 'superexploitation' theory -- as I've noted previously, I think the manifestation of this valid dynamic can best be seen in the realm of *consumption*. (Post #40.)

---

No disagreement here, though I myself wouldn't rule-out potential 'internationalizing' opportunities if they arose. (Why not have an international alliance within an entire industry, for example, perhaps that of energy or transportation workers -- ?)

It's up to the workers of whatever country. If they have a comrade nation which would like to engage in economic cooperation in a certain sector, they may, but if they find it would lead to an exploitation of one by the other, that's there choice, and without more information, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with their choice.

What the hell is a 'comrade nation' -- ? You're purposely *constraining* the latitude of a potential labor internationalism, for the sake of your particular political ideology.

---

Okay, thanks for the clarification -- it's a good point, being proactively countered to bourgeois imperialism.

I appreciate your admission.

It's not an 'admission' -- it's an *agreement*. (I'm not your political *enemy*, as you seem to be implying with your particular phrasing.)

---

On the flipside we haven't seen the fully-expressed potential of communistic social relations -- perhaps it would cause an *avalanche* of mass participation, to the point where conventional currency-based exchanges *do* just fall-away as being uncompetitive with the new paradigm of collectivism and focus on use-values. Just thinking out loud....

Again, it'd be ideal, but I'd be damned if it ever happened. It's idealistic. I wouldn't say no if it happened, but I have little faith in the spontaneity of mass revolt. There needs to be some kind of coherent ideological backbone.

Here's from the other thread:

[D]uring the transition period the Proletarian state consciously and purposefully creates an adversarial system of two independent economic sectors with two dialectically opposing modes of production: capitalist and communist.

The Communist sector (commune) is created exclusively on a VOLUNTARY basis from those who are willing to consciously apply the Communist production relations of the lower phase in practice. Inside the commune, proletarians cease to be proletarians because of the existence of self-management and the lack of a wage labour in the commune, there is a germ of classless society. The Proletarian state DOES NOT FORCE anyone into the Communist sector. For those proletarians who are not ready for Communist production relations, it is proposed to remain in the state-capitalist or private sector of the economy (in the private sector, a Union is mandatory).

Human freedom is a fundamental point in Communist ideology. Freedom is above all freedom of choice. In the Proletarian state, proletarians (like all other levels/classes in society) are offered a free choice to join the Communist sector of the economy or to remain in the private or state-capitalist sector of the economy. If the Communist sector, implying a classless society, becomes more attractive to proletarians, the labor force will flow from the capitalist sector to the Communist. The commune will gradually grow to the size of the whole society, thus taking away labor resources from the private and state-capitalist sector. The Proletarian state will gradually wither away.

This is the dialectical transformation of capitalist society into Communist society, transformation of the one into the other.

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/200222-%E2%80%9CRevolutionary-dictatorship-of-proletariat%E2%80%9D?p=2890944#post2890944

---

See, I just see this kind of thinking over materials as being *backward* because the world has already created major capacities of material production in the past several decades. We're not in the fucking 1930s anymore, and we do *not* need to be dependent on a bourgeois-reliant, stagist mentality. *Of course* international ties of solidarity are possible, immediately, and more-advanced countries can pull-up lesser-developed countries in the course of internationalist proletarian revolution.

The logic of capitalism that has led to unequal development has not been resolved, despite the progress of the productive forces over the past decade. The productive forces have progressed, but the relations between the centers and the peripheries have changed little comparatively, in that the former continues to engage in super exploitation of the latter. Of course we've seen the change from direct colonial to indirect neo-colonial rule, but the relations remain largely the same.

Yup.

---

Popular nationalism combines the best elements of the aforementioned models. It incorporates the mass leadership we see in M-L with the nationalist model of anti-imperialism we see in the latter, which creates a synthetic model which is uniquely capable of developing a country in a progressive manner.

Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?

Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.

The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.

I don't think that this 'phase-ist' approach / strategy is valid, though -- what would be the group-*internal* dynamics and functions for those who are sweeping away the (national)-internal bourgeois elements -- ? Certainly those who are active in this de-colonization movement would have to either be collectively self-sustaining, or would have to be receiving material support from a broader population. At that point there would then be group-internal dynamics, *in parallel* to what's being done externally, to usurp bourgeois rule.

I don't think this is far off. Full national liberation (in light of the limitations of the decolonization struggle and the non-aligned movement) requires engaging the masses. The limitations of the former have been shown by its failure to truly incorporate the masses into the decolonization process.

Both you, DW, and TR, are not addressing my point that workers-state *internal* matters would inevitably exist throughout any and all conceivable 'stages', or 'phases'. TR makes it seem as though there would *be* no revolutionary-internal concerns or dynamics in the initial phase since all political activity would be oriented *outward*, to defeating colonial and neocolonial rule.

In other words, both conceivable 'phases' would have both internal *and* external aspects, regardless.

DoctorWasdarb

24th March 2018, 22:14

Yes your job was part of the chain of production. Most factories today have been sub-divided so even a factory does not create a finished commodity. At any rate, to realize exchange value, there must be the workers who extract raw materials, workers who then develop these materials, workers who then manufacture parts, assembly workers, logistics workers, shop workers etc. All these workers may work for different companies and work hundreds of miles away from each-other, but capital binds their fates.

Capitalism does not bind their fate. Some work in the imperialist centers, and others in the peripheries, and their fates are different as a result.

You are confusing relative power within a chain of production with production itself.

These differences and the division of production into small functions is just part of the reason that a revolutionary class movement is required for socialism. The last US general strike was in my town. It began with women working retail in a department store, spread to local trolly drivers, then commercial drivers then dockworkers etc.

The relative weak position of say Walmart workers would push a militant workers movement to practical solidarity with striking logistics workers and manufacturing workers in the US south or China or wherever else.

Of course solidarity can be built between all oppressed segments of society. That's not my point. My point is that the tertiarization of the first world leads to a qualitative change in the relation between the masses of the first world and production.

Would you compare this blue-collar (factory worker) (productive labor) - white-collar (store clerk) (unproductive labor) schism to the traditional 'field slave - house slave' schism -- ?

It's similar. The difference is that I go a step further and acknowledge the international division of labor here, in that the vast majority of the first world have become "house slaves" and the vast majority of the third world "field slaves." The fact that the former rarely interacts with the latter has an influence on their consciousness.

If there's no exploitation going on with the wages of the store clerks then are they getting a suitably-proportionate split of the store's *revenue*, based on the work and labor hours that they put in -- ?

Their "share" of the revenue is disproportionate to their need, hence why I think it's appropriate to speak of an oppression, although no one in the store is producing anything.

I think this is an *overreach* of the MTW 'superexploitation' theory -- as I've noted previously, I think the manifestation of this valid dynamic can best be seen in the realm of *consumption*. (Post #40.)

The fact that the first world has undergone major tertiarization leads to a change in their nature. It was formerly undeniably labor aristocratic, but now it's become truly parasitic, because of the international division of labor. The store example isn't the same in the third world, because it constitutes one segment of the oppressed masses. (I'd even say exploited, because all of society is exploited by imperialism, even though I don't think the term is appropriate for the store in the first world.) Almost all of first world society exists through purchasing (and redistributing in wages) wealth stolen from the third world.

What the hell is a 'comrade nation' -- ? You're purposely *constraining* the latitude of a potential labor internationalism, for the sake of your particular political ideology.

It's not just a nation with the same ideology. Here I am referring to two nations which are seeking independence from imperialism, and they provide each other aid - economic, military, etc. - in order to help break imperialism. But not all third world nations are like this. Saudi Arabia, for example. I wouldn't trust Saudi aid for a minute.

It's not an 'admission' -- it's an *agreement*. (I'm not your political *enemy*, as you seem to be implying with your particular phrasing.)

You're not a political enemy, but we have competing ideologies.

Here's from the other thread:

But the transition won't happen on a solely voluntary basis. The consciousness of the people needs to be changed, which needs to be a primary goal of the revolution. And we can't push this change in consciousness too quickly. This is one of the problems that the Chinese discovered during the Great Leap Forward. We need to guide this change organically.

Both you, DW, and TR, are not addressing my point that workers-state *internal* matters would inevitably exist throughout any and all conceivable 'stages', or 'phases'. TR makes it seem as though there would *be* no revolutionary-internal concerns or dynamics in the initial phase since all political activity would be oriented *outward*, to defeating colonial and neocolonial rule.

In other words, both conceivable 'phases' would have both internal *and* external aspects, regardless.

I agree that there are internal and external aspects in all phases of the revolution. I don't get your criticism of my view.

Jimmie Higgins

25th March 2018, 08:05

Capitalism does not bind their fate. Some work in the imperialist centers, and others in the peripheries, and their fates are different as a result.

so in order to survive, one group of workers must sell their time in return for wages while the other must, what..?

Conditions for workers always vary, through time, location, industry, specific oppression, etc. But how is the class dynamic different for each?

My point is that the tertiarization of the first world leads to a qualitative change in the relation between the masses of the first world and production.[/COLOR]what is that qualitative change in practical terms? What does the jargon mean in real terms? us workers would be unable to stop shipping, electricity, the internet, roads, agriculture... the flow of capital?

It's not just a nation with the same ideology.how does a nation have an ideology? Do nations have wills and minds of their own?

Obscured in this anthropomorphic abstraction must be class divisions. Who, concretely in actual societies, are the agents of what you talk about.

Nations don’t do anything, people do things. So what people and for what reasons?

But the transition won't happen on a solely voluntary basis. The consciousness of the people needs to be changed, which needs to be a primary goal of the revolution. And we can't push this change in consciousness too quickly. This is one of the problems that the Chinese discovered during the Great Leap Forward. We need to guide this change organically. who is “we” and who are the masses? What consciousness? Changed how?

ckaihatsu

25th March 2018, 16:52

It's similar. The difference is that I go a step further and acknowledge the international division of labor here, in that the vast majority of the first world have become "house slaves" and the vast majority of the third world "field slaves." The fact that the former rarely interacts with the latter has an influence on their consciousness.

Okay, so then you *agree*. I think it's a valid analogy, too.

Their "share" of the revenue is disproportionate to their need, hence why I think it's appropriate to speak of an oppression, although no one in the store is producing anything.

You really don't think that the service sector does any kind of labor that's necessary to capitalism's commodity-production -- ? I'll again agree that such 'pink-collar' work tends to be more internal to the business itself, but it *is* still commodity-production because the service workers are systematically robbed of their labor value, by capital. (Again consider the example of the entertainment industry -- do theater-goers really receive nothing by attending an evening event -- ?)

The fact that the first world has undergone major tertiarization leads to a change in their nature. It was formerly undeniably labor aristocratic, but now it's become truly parasitic, because of the international division of labor. The store example isn't the same in the third world, because it constitutes one segment of the oppressed masses. (I'd even say exploited, because all of society is exploited by imperialism, even though I don't think the term is appropriate for the store in the first world.) Almost all of first world society exists through purchasing (and redistributing in wages) wealth stolen from the third world.

The *problem* with this interpretation is that it's diverging from the actual-material reality -- both First World and Third World workers, in *any* sector, *are* exploited, and we see it clearly in the business-revenue-versus-wage-payments comparison, scaled up or down for any given geographic-local economy.

Your insistence on your center-periphery paradigm makes it into an a-material, *solely social* designation, that ignores real economic *exploitation* that happens *everywhere*, regardless of geography. You're purporting *too much* of a schism within the working class, based on this center-periphery model, and you're ignoring labor value theory.

It's not just a nation with the same ideology. Here I am referring to two nations which are seeking independence from imperialism, and they provide each other aid - economic, military, etc. - in order to help break imperialism. But not all third world nations are like this. Saudi Arabia, for example. I wouldn't trust Saudi aid for a minute.

Okay, this is fine, and valid -- we see it all the time in history whenever some country wants to go off of petrodollars as the currency for their economy: Iraq, Libya, and now Venezuela, etc.

You're not a political enemy, but we have competing ideologies.

The Meanings of Spatial Relationships

http://s6.postimg.org/vlnoz4dpt/130927_Meanings_of_Spatial_Relationships_aoi_xcf.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/rciywyagd/full/)

---

But the transition won't happen on a solely voluntary basis. The consciousness of the people needs to be changed, which needs to be a primary goal of the revolution. And we can't push this change in consciousness too quickly. This is one of the problems that the Chinese discovered during the Great Leap Forward. We need to guide this change organically.

Note how the stock market has recently been stagnating, and slipping -- that's a major empirical factor that can do wonders for people's consciousness. (!)

---

The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.

[...]

I agree that there are internal and external aspects in all phases of the revolution. I don't get your criticism of my view.

I'm saying that TR's 'stages' is somewhat spurious since both 'phases' will have to have both internal and external components. It's a relatively minor point, but this particular delineation feels rather contrived as a result.

DoctorWasdarb

25th March 2018, 21:16

You really don't think that the service sector does any kind of labor that's necessary to capitalism's commodity-production -- ? I'll again agree that such 'pink-collar' work tends to be more internal to the business itself, but it *is* still commodity-production because the service workers are systematically robbed of their labor value, by capital. (Again consider the example of the entertainment industry -- do theater-goers really receive nothing by attending an evening event -- ?)

I'll emphasize the fact that I mentioned before, that yes, their labor is socially necessary. That is, we can't and shouldn't ignore the service sector, and indeed, in the third world, these workers are oppressed by imperialism, as all of society is. And as I mentioned, in the first world, this labor becomes uniquely unnecessary, because when the vast majority of society is based on such labor, coupled with a proportionately high standard of living, it becomes more parasitic off of the third world than anything else.

The *problem* with this interpretation is that it's diverging from the actual-material reality -- both First World and Third World workers, in *any* sector, *are* exploited, and we see it clearly in the business-revenue-versus-wage-payments comparison, scaled up or down for any given geographic-local economy.

Your insistence on your center-periphery paradigm makes it into an a-material, *solely social* designation, that ignores real economic *exploitation* that happens *everywhere*, regardless of geography. You're purporting *too much* of a schism within the working class, based on this center-periphery model, and you're ignoring labor value theory.

I think you're ignoring the strong reality of this schism. A cross-class national alliance has been built between the workers and the bourgeoisie of the first world. Do you not see it? You won't get anywhere with your first world revolution until you dismantle it.

In the third world, such an alliance has not been constructed, and can't be constructed with the bourgeoisie at the head, as has been shown by the 20th century. But because of the national alliances built in the first world which have led to more of a global national divide than a cross-class international divide and because of the primary position imperialism plays in the lives of the inhabitants of the third world, and the necessity of developing the country on an independent basis from imperialism, I have proposed national alliances, headed by the exploited masses, as the most revolutionary solution for the third world.

Okay, this is fine, and valid -- we see it all the time in history whenever some country wants to go off of petrodollars as the currency for their economy: Iraq, Libya, and now Venezuela, etc.

Just before the illegitimate, anti-democratic NATO invasion of Libya, Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi's plans for an African dinar based on gold had resurfaced, and, although I'd need to recheck my sources, I heard private emails around Clinton revealed that this was a big deal in the state department at the time. Since Africa is rich with mineral wealth, it would have provided real opportunities for Africa to move beyond imperialism. It also would have been a huge step forward for pan-African internationalism. (I call myself a nationalist, but I use this term loosely, because I'm a huge supporter of African unity, Latin American unity, etc. Just not unity with imperialist countries.)

The Meanings of Spatial Relationships

At least for me, I'd place our disagreements more on the far left of your diagram than in the center. They certainly aren't opposed, and I don't think they're really complementary either, at least not in the sense that I don't think it's that our views each cover the other's blind spots. But I also don't think that our views are pretty much the same, with mild disagreements. I think the fact that I put anti-imperialism in the primary position of the struggle and my opposition to Euro-internationalism puts our views more on the far left. Those differences are pretty consequential, I find.

I'm saying that TR's 'stages' is somewhat spurious since both 'phases' will have to have both internal and external components. It's a relatively minor point, but this particular delineation feels rather contrived as a result.

Gotcha. I can agree. I don't think such a stagist division of first outward than inward is beneficial. We need to be focused on both internal and external relations at all times. (Nevertheless, I find that the internal relations are more complementary to the external in that the relations with imperialism influence the internal relations greatly, and you can't fully examine the external without reorganizing the internal, hence my support for *popular* nationalism.)