Comrades

[Inviction]

I see the youth of my generation discrediting Communism and Marxism because (1) they believe the regimes of Stalin and others to have been truly Communistic and (2) they, who live in America, think that capitalism must be great because it has made all of America, generally, so wealthy. Well, I propose a new explanation--the class struggle, which used to be intranational, has now become international. What I mean is, 100 years ago nations like France were proletariat versus bourgeoisie. Now, the French proletariat, metaphorically, is located on the savannahs of Africa, the rice fields of Indochina, the deserts of the Middle East.

The rise of Western capitalist democracies has (1) made their citizens, economically sufficient, blind to political failings on the global scale and (2) made them unaware of the class struggle going on overseas. Just because no class struggle exists in America doesn't mean no class struggle exists. Just because the picture-perfect suburbia of the land from sea to shining sea has a car in every garage, a chicken in every pot, and a roof over every head doesn't mean that Communism is discredited by capitalism. I tell you, if the Third-World proletariat did not exist, the First-World bourgeoisie would not exist, just like if 100 years ago the proletariat of the nations of the West did not exist, their bourgeoisie would not exist, either.

Thus, for labor to emancipate itself and for the oppressed to rise up, revolution must turn beyond our neighborhood, past the driveways and stop signs of quietude. The lawnmower revolutionary and coupon-cutter radical is absorbed by the surrounding vanities of capitalism, and his or her spirit is diminished. No; the new revolution will not be in the West, but in the East, the South, the places where death preys and famine plunders. Once the revolutionary proletariat and peasants of the Third World are organized as a power, then things can truly begin to change on an international scale, not the reactionary "socialism in one country" policy of Stalin, but a global movement as Trotsky envisioned, as Lenin envisioned, as Marx and Engels envisioned.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Inviction+--> (Inviction)Just because no class struggle exists in America doesn't mean no class struggle exists. [/b]

How can class struggle NOT exist in a capitalist society?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Well, I propose a new explanation--the class struggle, which used to be intranational, has now become international.

What do you mean by this? International 'class struggle' is not a new phenomenon, colonialism/imperialism preceded the recent shift towards third-world based industrial production (which i think) you are talking about.

Nor is primary production the only arena of 'class struggle', unless you're saying class struggle is 'impossible' in the increasingly service-based economies of the core countries? No does participation in this sphere of the economy form the soele definition of who is part of the proletariat.


Inviction

What I mean is, 100 years ago nations like France were proletariat versus bourgeoisie. Now, the French proletariat, metaphorically, is located on the savannahs of Africa, the rice fields of Indochina, the deserts of the Middle East.

France has no national proletariat? It is a country of capitalists?

[Prairie Fire]

You're not exactly putting forward a new idea, and it's not even Trotskyist in nature.

Mao called it the "theory of three worlds."

While there are much wise analysis in this theory, Hoxha debunked a lot of it.
Read "Imperialism and Revolution" by Hoxha, as he discusses a lot of problems with this line of thinking.

Marx said "Workers of all countries unite." This way of thinking, allthough there is some truth to it, basically negates all working class struggles in the developed and imperialist countries.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by RavenBlade
Marx said "Workers of all countries unite." This way of thinking, allthough there is some truth to it, basically negates all working class struggles in the developed and imperialist countries.

Exactly.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am fully in agreement with the original poster and I think subsequent posters have failed to adequately consider the nature of Capitalism today.


Marx said "Workers of all countries unite." This way of thinking, allthough there is some truth to it, basically negates all working class struggles in the developed and imperialist countries.


How can class struggle NOT exist in a capitalist society

When Marx provided his analysis of Capitalism, the Proletariat as a class was confined to a small series of Countries that today are known as 'developed' - Only these countries had reached the Capitalist mode of production. The Vast majority of Countries still operated under Feudal Systems were Class Struggle took place between the Peasantry and the Landowners.

In the 20th Century, the Nature of Capitalist Class Struggle underwent a dynamic change from something that occurred within countries - betwen French Capitalists and French Proletarians - to an international phenomenon. Although the 'Proletariat' (Ie those that sell their labour power in exchange for access to commodities) in 'Developed' Countries are still subject to many of the expolitative features of Capitalism - Alienation from their product and labour, Extraction of Surplus labour Value - They are themselves members of an exploiting class because they enjoy a lifestyle of privelage based upon the labour of others, not unlike the Capitalists themselves. The Others of which I speak are the Workers and Peasants of 'developing countries' that do not posess international finance Capital, and it is they who are subject to the most acute exploitation under Monder Capitalism. This is an important feature of modern - ie not that which marx observed- Capitalism that you have not taken note of.

I am not saying that Class Struggle/Exploitaiton does not exist within advanced Countries of is important - but International inter-world Class struggle is of greater importance for me. I think this quote covers my views on this subject;


Chairman Mao - Thus, forced by imperialism to do so, more than 90 per cent of the people of the world are rising or will rise in struggle against it. Yet, imperialism is still alive, still running amuck in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the West imperialism is still oppressing the people at home. This situation must change. It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism.

[Prairie Fire]

Yes, I am familiar with Mao. As you may have noticed, I pointed out that it was he who developed this theory.

Still, I think that what I said is fair: This way of thinking negates all class struggle in the developed world.

Persynally, I have always felt that the theory of three worlds was akin to the catholic concept of "Original Sin": If you are born in an imperialist country, even if you are fresh out of the whomb, you are an imperialist. From this way of thinking, class background is completely subverted to where you were born and raised.

Now, a persyn like me, who is a die-hard communist, always organizing for revolution, is an imperialist/labour aristocrat, because I was born in the first world, and therefore profit indirectly from my countrys imperialism abroad. Now, a persyn who is a pimp in Thailand, by this way of thinking, is therefore more revolutionary then me, because he had the good fortune of being born in an un-developed country. You see where I'm going with this?

By this way of thinking, a Third world dictator can be revolutionary, and a first world communist can be reactionary. Technically, Augusto Pinochet was born in the third world, and the first world profited much off of his endeavours. Does this make him proletarian? Meanwhile, Marx was born in Germany, a developed imperial power. Therefore, by this way of thinking, Marx was a bourgeosie labour -aristocrat. :D

The issue is a matter of CLASS. There are proletarians and Bourgeosie in EVERY COUNTRY. Now, in some countries the proletariat live better than others, and in some countries the national bourgeosie is subservient to a foreign bourgeosie, but the principal stays the same: This is not a war between the developed world and neo-colonies; This is a war between the Bourgeosie and the proletariat.

Now, I'm not going to completely write off the theory of three worlds, because yes,
the workers of the first world do profit from the endeavours of the workers of the thrid world. Still, what do you want us to do about? Feel guilty all of the time, and go to confession to repent our sins to a poster of Chairman Mao, and hope that in the after life we will be born in the glorious third world?

Or, we could work to overthrow the imperialist system that is oppressing the third world FROM THE INSIDE.

The issue is CLASS, not Nationality.

[Inviction]

How can class struggle NOT exist in a capitalist society?

Look at America and the West today--they've got stable economies, high GDP's, high standards of living, and they are democratic republics. Now, wouldn't you agree that these conditions have, in a sense, domesticated most of the denizens of the West? The lower classes of Europe and America no longer believe in revolution because of the benefits of their systems--stable living, unions to compromise with the capitalists, etc. In short, they think that Communism doesn't work.

What I'm merely stating is that things aren't as they seem. Instead of focusing on one nation at a time, one should look at the world at a whole. One might say, "The United States has worked out finely as a capitalist nation, so capitalism must be the best choice." This is, indeed, the mentality of most Westerners, don't you think? However, for every benefit of capitalism in the West, the nations of the Third World are being exploited endlessly.

What I'm saying is that before, there were apparent divisions between the classes of a given nation. That's why revolutionary fervor was so high a century ago than, admittedly but sadly, now. Now, Western nations are mostly and comfortably bourgeois--making Marxism seem ridiculous because of its notion of the class struggle. But the class struggle, which before was mainly within nations, is now mostly [i]between nations. Thus, a truly international revolution is more needed now than ever before. Do you get what I mean?


What do you mean by this? International 'class struggle' is not a new phenomenon, colonialism/imperialism preceded the recent shift towards third-world based industrial production (which i think) you are talking about.

Maybe not a new idea, but definitely a new theory. Marx called for the German proletariat to rise up against the German bourgeoisie. Lenin led the Russian proletariat in rising up against the Russian bourgeoisie. The same with China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. But now is the time, for example, for the nations of Africa, impoverished and mostly workers, in general to rise up against the European exploiters.


Nor is primary production the only arena of 'class struggle', unless you're saying class struggle is 'impossible' in the increasingly service-based economies of the core countries? No does participation in this sphere of the economy form the soele definition of who is part of the proletariat.

Look at what is there--do you see the West, sitting comfortably on over $20,000 a year on average, form revolutionary leftist parties? No; all they are, at most, are social democrats who've abandoned most of Marxism. Can you really say the class struggle is fervently adopted by most of the bourgeoisie, and even lower-class workers, of the already-developed world?


France has no national proletariat? It is a country of capitalists?

Ah, by "proletariat" you probably mean the "lower classes." Perhaps I meant "revolutionary urban workers"--the factory and mine workers who are driven by necessity to revolutionize as Marx envisioned. In this case, no, nations like France have only several thousand of those. In any case, the working classes of these countries are much better off than those of the Third World; they form unions with which to compromise with the capitalists.


You're not exactly putting forward a new idea, and it's not even Trotskyist in nature.

Mao called it the "theory of three worlds."

While there are much wise analysis in this theory, Hoxha debunked a lot of it.
Read "Imperialism and Revolution" by Hoxha, as he discusses a lot of problems with this line of thinking.

Marx said "Workers of all countries unite." This way of thinking, allthough there is some truth to it, basically negates all working class struggles in the developed and imperialist countries.

I never claimed it to be Trotskyist. Could you produce the main thesis of that work, as I am not familiar with it?

How does Marx' statement negate that?



obkindles, I think you've got what I'm trying to say.




[b]Yes, I am familiar with Mao. As you may have noticed, I pointed out that it was he who developed this theory.

Still, I think that what I said is fair: This way of thinking negates all class struggle in the developed world.

Persynally, I have always felt that the theory of three worlds was akin to the catholic concept of "Original Sin": If you are born in an imperialist country, even if you are fresh out of the whomb, you are an imperialist. From this way of thinking, class background is completely subverted to where you were born and raised.

Now, a persyn like me, who is a die-hard communist, always organizing for revolution, is an imperialist/labour aristocrat, because I was born in the first world, and therefore profit indirectly from my countrys imperialism abroad. Now, a persyn who is a pimp in Thailand, by this way of thinking, is therefore more revolutionary then me, because he had the good fortune of being born in an un-developed country. You see where I'm going with this?

By this way of thinking, a Third world dictator can be revolutionary, and a first world communist can be reactionary. Technically, Augusto Pinochet was born in the third world, and the first world profited much off of his endeavours. Does this make him proletarian? Meanwhile, Marx was born in Germany, a developed imperial power. Therefore, by this way of thinking, Marx was a bourgeosie labour -aristocrat. :D

The issue is a matter of CLASS. There are proletarians and Bourgeosie in EVERY COUNTRY. Now, in some countries the proletariat live better than others, and in some countries the national bourgeosie is subservient to a foreign bourgeosie, but the principal stays the same: This is not a war between the developed world and neo-colonies; This is a war between the Bourgeosie and the proletariat.

Now, I'm not going to completely write off the theory of three worlds, because yes,
the workers of the first world do profit from the endeavours of the workers of the thrid world. Still, what do you want us to do about? Feel guilty all of the time, and go to confession to repent our sins to a poster of Chairman Mao, and hope that in the after life we will be born in the glorious third world?

Or, we could work to overthrow the imperialist system that is oppressing the third world FROM THE INSIDE.

The issue is CLASS, not Nationality.

That's not exactly what I was meaning. I meant that developed nations tend to be capitalist and favor capitalism, and this is true, and that developing ones don't. I'm not saying that if you're French, you're automatically capitalist, nor am I saying that there is not one single true Communist in France.

[Red Party]

I don't think the United States wants to let communism develop in peace. In Cuba after comrade Fidel Castro got to power the americans blocked trade with them to starve them and in Russia after the revolution the capitalist countries blocked trade with Russia.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 02, 2006 08:39 pm
I don't think the United States wants to let communism develop in peace. In Cuba after comrade Fidel Castro got to power the americans blocked trade with them to starve them and in Russia after the revolution the capitalist countries blocked trade with Russia.
And that's why a global revolution must occur between nations to liberate the true proletariat from the hands of the capitalists and petty bourgeoisie.

[Prairie Fire]

In the theory of three worlds, Mao basically states that the standard of living in the imperialist countries is higher only at the expense of profits taken from the third world.



That's not exactly what I was meaning. I meant that developed nations tend to be capitalist and favor capitalism, and this is true, and that developing ones don't.

I would say that developing nations do favour capitalism as well, because the reactionary cliques that run them are usually propped up by developed nations in the first world. Of course, the peoples of these countries have an axe to grind with capitalism. The peoples of the developed world haven't felt the sting yet, hence they are not as outraged. However, if you look at the state of the US during the Vietnam war and now during the war in Iraq, you will see how people react when capitalism starts to hit home.


How does Marx' statement negate that?

Marxs statement doesn't negate proletarian internationalism, but it does negate the theory of three worlds.

[Inviction]

I would say that developing nations do favour capitalism as well, because the reactionary cliques that run them are usually propped up by developed nations in the first world. Of course, the peoples of these countries have an axe to grind with capitalism. The peoples of the developed world haven't felt the sting yet, hence they are not as outraged. However, if you look at the state of the US during the Vietnam war and now during the war in Iraq, you will see how people react when capitalism starts to hit home.

Developing nations or the puppet, corrupt governments of developing nations? As you can see, the hardest hit by capitalism and the most disillusioned with it these days are not the lower classes of the already-developed world; no, most of these people, if not already capitalist, aim to be capitalist because they see their opportune environments and don't realize the impoverishment going on in the Third-World nations. In any case, these people have relatively high living standards. Thus, this is why the nations whose majority of citizens are heavily exploited by and angry at capitalism, citizens who are fueled with anti-imperialist outrage, must revolutionize against the exploiters, whose class, originally merely a class, has increased to become most of whole nations.


Marxs statement doesn't negate proletarian internationalism, but it does negate the theory of three worlds.

I'm not really focusing on the theory of three worlds. I only use the term "Third World" because it's common; there are really only two worlds.

But anyway, why isn't it possible for the revolutionary proletariat of developed countries, which, you must admit, is a small number, to join with the bigger revolution of the Third World against the First? This surely would not negate but rather affirm Marx' message, no?

[Prairie Fire]

But anyway, why isn't it possible for the revolutionary proletariat of developed countries, which, you must admit, is a small number, to join with the bigger revolution of the Third World against the First? This surely would not negate but rather affirm Marx' message, no?

As I said, there is nothing wrong with proletatrian internationalism. This is Marxist,yes.

[Orange Juche]

It doesn't help when the media (CNN in this case) compares the "type of socialism" Chavez is trying to build with North Korea.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by RavenBlade+December 02, 2006 06:19 pm--> (RavenBlade @ December 02, 2006 06:19 pm) The peoples of the developed world haven't felt the sting yet, hence they are not as outraged. However, if you look at the state of the US during the Vietnam war and now during the war in Iraq, you will see how people react when capitalism starts to hit home.[/b]
Many people in 'developed countries', have been feeling 'the sting' for hundreds of years. There is poverty in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Native peoples, blacks, immigrants, women, expecially single women with children, the youth, the elderly, the unemployed and the "unemployable", suffer here and now in some of the richest places on earth... But these people are mostly disempowered and immobilized, and often are unable to effectively organize or struggle against capitalism oppression.

Meanwhile, rest of the population (the majority being part of the ever-expanding middle class) is at least getting by with enough to sustain themselves through to the next working day, the next pay cheque. They are complacent: they have beer and tv. They are 'happy', or believe that 'happiness' will one day come to them due to their faith in the market and capitalism.

But then there are people like us. I think that a majority of us are surely 'proletarian' in our relations to the means of production. We work hard, and live hard, and some of us are even "communists", "anarchists", or "socialists". But most of us are also "middle class". We are (computer literate for one thing, but also) for the most part, fed, clothed, and homed. We can be active, and be activists, and make our own clothes, advocate and educate, and do everything we can, here and now...


"Invocative"
the hardest hit by capitalism and the most disillusioned with it these days are not the lower classes of the already-developed world; no, most of these people, if not already capitalist, aim to be capitalist because they see their opportune environments and don't realize the impoverishment going on in the Third-World nations. In any case, these people have relatively high living standards. Thus, this is why the nations whose majority of citizens are heavily exploited by and angry at capitalism, citizens who are fueled with anti-imperialist outrage, must revolutionize against the exploiters, whose class, originally merely a class, has increased to become most of whole nations.

Too many people in the 'global south' (Inviction is right; there really are only "2 worlds", like there are only 2 classes) are suffering right now, in ways that are undreamable for many of us who live in the 'developed' world. People are starving, dying of disease, and making war. "Citizens" are subject to corrupt governments who leech off 'northern' capitalists to fund their own "armies" and "nations" to oppress the people are exploit the resources of the land.

But we 'northern' proletariat aren't (for the most part) starving to death, we're dying of obesity, and diabetes- we're dying of boredom and loneliness, hungry for the feelings, emotions, and head rushes, that money can't buy (not that we could afford them anyway). It isn't critical to 'northerners' en masse to revolt, so they won't. I'm of the mind to escape the cesspool of Western capitalism and join the revolution wherever it's happening/going to happen. Class war is all around us, across borders and oceans, but all around us. I know that I want to be a part of it over "there"... Because only a very small part of me believes that it could ever happen here.

[Prairie Fire]

No arguments here, Okacrisis (awesome name, by the way.).

I am quite aware that that there are many peoples in the developed world who are suffering (I'm not a Maoist). Hoxha allready made a lto of those statements in "Revolution and Imperialism". In fact, I made a strong effort to drive this point home against some Maosists associated with MIM on "It's right to Rebel forums".


On the other hand, you also admitedly seem to have doubts about the revolution happening here. Why?

[cumbia]

How does quoting a maniac and citing him every other post make your case anymore viable?

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by RavenBlade+January 17, 2007 03:31 pm--> (RavenBlade @ January 17, 2007 03:31 pm)On the other hand, you also admitedly seem to have doubts about the revolution happening here. Why?[/b]

"me"
Because only a very small part of me believes that it could ever happen here.

I certainly have doubts about whether revolution will happen here (the 'west'/'north') within my lifetime. But I didn't mean to say that I thought it would never happen here. I just think that it will happen in other places first.

But who knows, maybe 'the one that counts' will happen everywhere, simultaneously. Maybe it has to in order to 'work'.

[Prairie Fire]

Cumbia:


How does quoting a maniac and citing him every other post make your case anymore viable?

I'm the one who is quoting a Maniac?

I read your profile. So you are a Catholic revolutionary? :D

Yes, I've often looked at the pope, spitting on womens rights and muslims, upholding the status quo and living in his Vatican palaces and thought 'Now theres a true revolutionary." :D

Being a revolutionary catholic is like being a Black Klansman, or a Jewish Nazi; you have taken the most ancient, most reactionary institution (catholicism), and you have taken the anti-status quo force of the new society (revolution), and you have fucking hyphenated these words! Revolution and Catholicism have nothing in common.

Besides, it is not the quote that makes my argument more viable; it is the scientific analysis of the theory laid down by men such as Hoxha that makes my argument more viable.

[cumbia]

Liberation Theology, Christian Anarchism and Christian Socialism. Read abuot these movements before you pretend to understand my beliefs. The pope like most of my brothers isnt god, I dont understand why people feel he represents the christian religion this way. The pope may represent a corrupt and morally suspicious insution, then again mao, stalin and countless others hid under the veil of communism which people now regard as morally evil and equate it with mass murder. My point is, regard me they you wish but down take what I stand for which is peace, love and equality on all spectrums and compare it to a person that represents something I know isnt great. And for the record, Im christian. Also, if you have any questions feel free to address them, peace be with you.