on maoism and labor aristocracy

[black magick hustla]

i have been wondering.

What is the motivates the maoist in the first world? According to them, workers in the first world are not exploited because they are paid the full price of their labor by subsidization from imperialism. If this is the case, then the first world maoist wouldnt be exploited.

Then, why is he a maoist? Is it for moral reasons? For self-lessness perhaps.

?

[Whitten]

Maybe he plans to become one of the "national-bourgeois"?

Or mayb efor moral reasons? I dont know

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 07:33 pm
i have been wandering.

What is the motivates the maoist in the first world? According to them, workers in the first world are not exploited because they are paid the full price of their labor by subsidization from imperialism. If this is the case, then the first world maoist wouldnt be exploited.

Then, why is he a maoist? Is it for moral reasons? For self-lessness perhaps.

?
No you misunderstood 'labor aristocracy'. Labor aristocracy basically means that a slave who is well fed, well housed (compared to third world workers), and content will not revolt or be revolutionary. Not all maoists agree with the Labor aristocracy idea, but many do. It doesn't mean that workers are less exploited, it just means that they are kept content with exploitation.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+November 26, 2006 05:33 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ November 26, 2006 05:33 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2006 07:33 pm
i have been wandering.

What is the motivates the maoist in the first world? According to them, workers in the first world are not exploited because they are paid the full price of their labor by subsidization from imperialism. If this is the case, then the first world maoist wouldnt be exploited.

Then, why is he a maoist? Is it for moral reasons? For self-lessness perhaps.

?
No you misunderstood 'labor aristocracy'. Labor aristocracy basically means that a slave who is well fed, well housed (compared to third world workers), and content will not revolt or be revolutionary. Not all maoists agree with the Labor aristocracy idea, but many do. It doesn't mean that workers are less exploited, it just means that they are kept content with exploitation. [/b]
Actually.

I remember Hiero saying that some first worlders do get the full value of their labour paid.

Maybe he is not being TRU MAOIST, but it just struck me as interesting.

Perhaps I have a wrong conception of maoism.

[Wanted Man]

There's obviously going to be differences between, say, RCP and MIM. Anyway, while some or all of certain maoist theories on the labour aristocracy are sound, it obviously doesn't mean that, say, all of America should become "one big Gulag" with all the opposing American workers in it, as a poster on MIM's forum, IRTR, once expounded upon(I don't think that's actual MIM policy, though I might be wrong).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 10:50 pm
There's obviously going to be differences between, say, RCP and MIM. Anyway, while some or all of certain maoist theories on the labour aristocracy are sound, it obviously doesn't mean that, say, all of America should become "one big Gulag" with all the opposing American workers in it, as a poster on MIM's forum, IRTR, once expounded upon(I don't think that's actual MIM policy, though I might be wrong).
Yeah MIM isn't very practical, plus their spelling makes me think they are one big joke. However, I do like their FAQ pieces.

[RNK]

"According to them, workers in the first world are not exploited"

What the hell are you talking about? What Maoists have YOU been talking to?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Yeah MIM isn't very practical, plus their spelling makes me think they are one big joke. However, I do like their FAQ pieces.
They have some very good analysis on lots of stuff. Although neither their spelling nor their conclusions are very appealing to me, they certainly have a lot of stuff that can't simply be cast away as "batshit insane".

[BobKKKindle$]

"According to them, workers in the first world are not exploited"

What the hell are you talking about? What Maoists have YOU been talking to?

This may not be true in the most technical sense, in that Surplus labour value still exists for first world workers and they are not payed the full exchange value of their labour, but it must be recognized that workers in the first would are able to enjoy greater access to commodities and higher living standards through the exploitation of workers in the third world. Workers in the first world are called the labour Aristocracy, because, despite not having ownership of the means of production, they do not revolt against their conditions because they enjoy high living standards.

[pastradamus]

The labour aristocracy idea is largely ignored in most part by western maoists. But I understand the general Idea. I believe it relates to a system of control used by imperialist states. The earlier example explained was that if you give a Slave Food, shelter, Clothing, finance etc.. then he is less likely to rebel, of course this is true. Its what most of the American population go through on a daily basis - When compared to a third world standard its a pretty big improvement.

But you take away his/her Civil rights, his/her family or some other moral mentality then he is likely to rebel. Its a good theory but swayed and attacked by the more liberal leftists.

All it really is overall - a realist look at economic/political liberties.

The statement made above "Workers in the first world are not exploited"- is a complete fallacy. Maoist pinciples come from marx,lenin and of course mao's own thinking. The fundamental Cause is that Workers are exploited everywhere by the bourgeois -FULL STOP-