Socialist Revolution in the First World

[nvm]

I was talking to a student teacher at my school and although we agreed on everything he told me that a socialist(real socialist not reformist social democratic) revolution won't happen in the First World because in the first world the middle class although it could benefit from a revolution it won't risk it's status quo and it won't participate in the revolution. Thus the working class people will be a minority (almost) so the revolution can't happen.
He also told me that in times of recession capitalism transforms itself(because the times of recession are the most dangerous for the capitalist status quo)
and so doing it prevents a revolution from happening. To clarify what he meant by transforming itself , he was talking about reformist pseudo-socialist governments going into power thus prolonging capitalist existence.
Of course I responded to all his pessimistic views but we didn't have a lot of time to talk this through. I won't put my response to him here I just want to see your views.

PS: He sounded kind of Maoist but I assure you he is not:P:P

[BIG BROTHER]

Well he did have some good points, people in the first world i.e. imperialist countries, who earn "middle class" wages never see themselves as proletarians even if they also earn their living by selling their labor(wether its mental or manual). Obviosly this doesn't mean its imposible that a revolution happens.

But I do agree to a certain extent with maoist. As I see it workers in third world countries i.e. neo-colonies, have more urgency to rebel. If enough countries rebeled, then the imperialits countries would be affected since they wouldn't be able to benefit from the explotation of the newly formed countries. This would change the structure in an imperialist countrie, and bring conditions more proper for a revolution.

Woah, i said all that, just to mean that I pretty much agree with your teacher, exept that we can't say "never", just not likely.

[Psy]

The middle class doesn't in the Marxist sense of class. They are still wage slaves thus still part of the proletariat. Also the bourgeoisie does not reform capitalism because markets are failing but because such failures stir the proletariat, they are nothing but the ruling class trying to buy off the proletariat when they see the proletariat becoming militant in great numbers.

[nvm]

As I see it workers in third world countries i.e. neo-colonies, have more urgency to rebel. If enough countries rebeled, then the imperialits countries would be affected since they wouldn't be able to benefit from the explotation of the newly formed countries. This would change the structure in an imperialist countrie, and bring conditions more proper for a revolution.
I said exactly that to him plus a few more:P


Also the bourgeoisie does not reform capitalism because markets are failing but because such failures stir the proletariat
ya that's what he meant and i absolutely agree

[gla22]

Well he did have some good points, people in the first world i.e. imperialist countries, who earn "middle class" wages never see themselves as proletarians even if they also earn their living by selling their labor(wether its mental or manual). Obviosly this doesn't mean its imposible that a revolution happens.

But I do agree to a certain extent with maoist. As I see it workers in third world countries i.e. neo-colonies, have more urgency to rebel. If enough countries rebeled, then the imperialits countries would be affected since they wouldn't be able to benefit from the explotation of the newly formed countries. This would change the structure in an imperialist countrie, and bring conditions more proper for a revolution.

Woah, i said all that, just to mean that I pretty much agree with your teacher, except that we can't say "never", just not likely.
I agree with you completely. The living standards of the first world are subsidized by the third world worker. The standard of living for the european or U.S citizen would diminish at first. The revolutions must happen in the third world first.

[nvm]

The revolutions must happen in the third world first.
So if the objective conditions come for a revolution in the US before any revolution has happened in a third world country we should just not do anything? lol
Look in an unrest (a revolutonary situation to put it better) just like in France in '68 or in Quebec shortly after we need to be organize to guide the workers to cease power and not wait for our comrades in Pakistan or South America to do the dirty work:P

[gla22]

So if the objective conditions come for a revolution in the US before any revolution has happened in a third world country we should just not do anything? lol
Look in an unrest (a revolutonary situation to put it better) just like in France in '68 or in Quebec shortly after we need to be organize to guide the workers to cease power and not wait for our comrades in Pakistan or South America to do the dirty work:P

I'm looking at this realistically. There isn't motivation for the average American to overthrow the system. Our best shot is to wait for the economy to collapse and then revolt. In the meantime educate people. We as socialists should help the movements abroad, I just don't see a revolution happening under the current conditions, there is no incentive.

[BIG BROTHER]

yea pretty I pretty much back gla22. It doesn't mean that socialists in the US should do nothig. It just means that its most likely and more necesary for the workers in opressed contries, to uprise.

[nvm]

I'm looking at this realistically. There isn't motivation for the average American to overthrow the system. Our best shot is to wait for the economy to collapse and then revolt. In the meantime educate people. We as socialists should help the movements abroad, I just don't see a revolution happening under the current conditions, there is no incentive.

Yes I agree but the objective conditions can change rapidly in the next 20 years given the state of the economy of the USA
and to remind you that imperialism is strong and might crush a revolution(directly or indirectly) in a third world country if the revolution is not spread fast enough to other countries
Also i would like to remind you that if we have revolutionary conditions in the first world and we succeed in overthrowing capitalism this will be a decisive or even mortal blow to capitalism :D

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes I agree but the objective conditions can change rapidly in the next 20 years given the state of the economy of the USA
and to remind you that imperialism is strong and might crush a revolution(directly or indirectly) in a third world country if the revolution is not spread fast enough to other countries
Also i would like to remind you that if we have revolutionary conditions in the first world and we succeed in overthrowing capitalism this will be a decisive or even mortal blow to capitalism :D

I agree, that indeed if the U.S. turned socialist, it would be a massive blow against capitalism and imperialism.

[Dros]

I was talking to a student teacher at my school and although we agreed on everything he told me that a socialist(real socialist not reformist social democratic) revolution won't happen in the First World because in the first world the middle class although it could benefit from a revolution it won't risk it's status quo and it won't participate in the revolution. Thus the working class people will be a minority (almost) so the revolution can't happen.
He also told me that in times of recession capitalism transforms itself(because the times of recession are the most dangerous for the capitalist status quo)
and so doing it prevents a revolution from happening. To clarify what he meant by transforming itself , he was talking about reformist pseudo-socialist governments going into power thus prolonging capitalist existence.
Of course I responded to all his pessimistic views but we didn't have a lot of time to talk this through. I won't put my response to him here I just want to see your views.

PS: He sounded kind of Maoist but I assure you he is not:P:P

1.) The proletariat is in the majority even in the first world. A revolutionary movement grounded there can win.

2.) Certain sections of the petty bourgeoisie are very revolutionary, especially certain sections of the intelligentsia. However, they will only act in reaction to a proletarian lead revolutionary movement.

[gla22]

^^^^

I would say the petty bourgeoisie is the majority in the first world. If not the first world proletariat is much better off than the proletariat of Marx's era. The first world lifestyle is subsidized by third world oppression and imperialism. If socialism took root in the first world the imperialism would end, the standard of living for us would diminish. That is why there is no motivation. The most important thing we as socialists can do in the first world is to prevent our countries from destroying the revolutions in the third world. If the third world revolutions succeed, the standard of living will go down or there will be a "real" proletariat in the first world, one with the motivation to revolt.
I am worried that when the time comes we won't be ready to make the changes necessary.

[Dros]

^^^^

I would say the petty bourgeoisie is the majority in the first world.

And you would say that based on... what exactly?


If not the first world proletariat is much better off than the proletariat of Marx's era. The first world lifestyle is subsidized by third world oppression and imperialism.

Yes that's true. It's called a "labor aristocracy".


If socialism took root in the first world the imperialism would end, the standard of living for us would diminish. That is why there is no motivation.

This is an unscientific view. The majority of people in the US and the First World are forced to sell their labor power. They are proletarians, objectively. They do not own anything and while they have a higher standard of living, I see no reason why socialism would necessarily decrease that when you account for the increase in productive efficiency that would result from planned production or the increased output of less alienated labor. Secondly, these people are still brutally oppressed under this system and there is still a pressing need for revolution. I don't see poor, exploited masses who are getting shot be the police, murdered with drugs, and forced into wage slavery saying "well yeah I get assaulted by terrorist cops and I spend my entire day generating surplus value for a parasitic class, but if I were to try and emancipate myself from these conditions I would lose my share of the superprofits!"

The proletariat in the first world is revolutionary. There is a bourgeoisified section of the working class, but by and large, the vast majority of people, even in the first world, would DIRECTLY BENEFIT from a socialist revolution.


The most important thing we as socialists can do in the first world is to prevent our countries from destroying the revolutions in the third world. If the third world revolutions succeed, the standard of living will go down or there will be a "real" proletariat in the first world, one with the motivation to revolt.

Certainly that is an important part of our duty as internationalists. I don't know about you, but most of the groups that advocate this line (MIM, IRTR, MSH) use it to avoid actually dealing with the working class. These groups are disaffected petty bourgeois intelligentsia who fetishize the third world proletariat and adopt the "labor aristocracy" line to justify their unwillingness to "get their hands dirty" if you will. I'm not saying that's your position. But I do think your line is in error and ultimately untrue.

[gla22]

^^^^
I have to disagree with you on some of those points. The standard of living would go down for the American consumer if all products they bought were manufactured at the federal and state minimum wages. The U.S citizen could buy less stuff and that is the last thing our consume culture wants.

I misspoke when I said the majority of people were petite-bourgeoisie, however there is a larger portion of them now than in Marx's time.

The "labor-aristocracy" and the current economic condition of the U.S makes the political climate bad for socialist revolution. If there were socialist revolutions all over the third world before the U.S then the U.S could adopt socialism. I would like to see it the other way around but realistically speaking I don't.

Lastly, I am not the "disaffected petty bourgeois intelligentsia" I recognize the need for worker revolutions in the U.S but again I don't see it feasible now, and I would see it more feasible if more third world countries rose to socialism.

[bezdomni]

I would like to point out that the working class did not have a majority in the population in either Russia or China before their respective revolutions. The majority of the people there were peasantry. Communism isn't populism, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't necessary because the proletariat is the majority but because the proletariat is the only class whose interests are the complete abolition of class society as a whole.

[shamrock123]

^^^^
I have to disagree with you on some of those points. The standard of living would go down for the American consumer if all products they bought were manufactured at the federal and state minimum wages. The U.S citizen could buy less stuff and that is the last thing our consume culture wants.

I misspoke when I said the majority of people were petite-bourgeoisie, however there is a larger portion of them now than in Marx's time.

The "labor-aristocracy" and the current economic condition of the U.S makes the political climate bad for socialist revolution. If there were socialist revolutions all over the third world before the U.S then the U.S could adopt socialism. I would like to see it the other way around but realistically speaking I don't.

Lastly, I am not the "disaffected petty bourgeois intelligentsia" I recognize the need for worker revolutions in the U.S but again I don't see it feasible now, and I would see it more feasible if more third world countries rose to socialism.

I see where you're coming from here but I doubt any kind of socialism would develop in the first world out of third world revolutions alone. A more probable outcome would be some kind of fascist seizure of power based on xenophobia ("it's those africans/latin americans/whatever trying to sabotage our economy!"). Without a class conscious revolt in the first world the third world and first world are doomed.

Now, how class conscious the first world proletariat is is debatable. I'm kind of on the side of "not very". Fortunately it doesn't take much to change this from my experience. The working class all suffer from similar objective conditions even though there is variance depending on how well off the worker is. For instance pretty much every worker hates their boss, feels alienated, and knows deep down that they're being exploited - even if they have an SUV in the garage and health benefits.

[Dros]

The standard of living would go down for the American consumer if all products they bought were manufactured at the federal and state minimum wages.

How do you mean? Socialism is about the masses taking possession of the means of production. That means control over production and the products consumed are controlled by the proletariat. Even "labor aristocrats" don't have that right now. Ultimately, socialism means far more for the masses even if that doesn't translate into what they're consuming right now.


The U.S citizen could buy less stuff and that is the last thing our consume culture wants.

No. The amount of consumer goods available would go down. That is NOT the same as the standard of living and the fact that right now certain sections of this country are engrossed in commodity fetishism does not mean that that is an impetus that will drive people away from revolution.


I misspoke when I said the majority of people were petite-bourgeoisie, however there is a larger portion of them now than in Marx's time.

So? Certain sections of the petty bourgeoisie will necessarily find themselves on the revolutionary side.


The "labor-aristocracy" and the current economic condition of the U.S makes the political climate bad for socialist revolution.

A lot of things make the political climate bad for revolution. That's why there is not a red flag over Washington RIGHT NOW.


If there were socialist revolutions all over the third world before the U.S then the U.S could adopt socialism. I would like to see it the other way around but realistically speaking I don't.

The US is not going to "adopt" socialism. Not ever. Not if every other country in the world has a revolution first. Uneven economic development caused by capitalist production leads to cycles of production and wars and other external factors that mean the "political climate" and the objective conditions that define that climate are in constant flux. Thus, while conditions right now are objectively counterrevolutionary, the instability of that situation will give rise to a revolutionary situation as time progresses.


Lastly, I am not the "disaffected petty bourgeois intelligentsia" I recognize the need for worker revolutions in the U.S but again I don't see it feasible now, and I would see it more feasible if more third world countries rose to socialism.

That's true. It is currently infeasible. But we are not confined to making a revolution in the present. We can and must wait for (while hastening the development of) a revolutionary situation in the U.S.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

^^^^
I have to disagree with you on some of those points. The standard of living would go down for the American consumer if all products they bought were manufactured at the federal and state minimum wages. The U.S citizen could buy less stuff and that is the last thing our consume culture wants.

I misspoke when I said the majority of people were petite-bourgeoisie, however there is a larger portion of them now than in Marx's time.

The "labor-aristocracy" and the current economic condition of the U.S makes the political climate bad for socialist revolution. If there were socialist revolutions all over the third world before the U.S then the U.S could adopt socialism. I would like to see it the other way around but realistically speaking I don't.

Lastly, I am not the "disaffected petty bourgeois intelligentsia" I recognize the need for worker revolutions in the U.S but again I don't see it feasible now, and I would see it more feasible if more third world countries rose to socialism.

Actually, the proportion of wealth earned by the petty-bourgeoisie has been decreasing. I can't recall the link but one study found that small business owners and contractors constituted 20% of Britain's total wealth in 1949, whereas it's almost half that today. I would say a good 80-85% of the developed world can be considered proletariat.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I misspoke when I said the majority of people were petite-bourgeoisie, however there is a larger portion of them now than in Marx's time.

I don't think that this is accurate. From what I've read, in Marx's time the proletariat was a minority group. In France at the time of the Manifesto, for instance, well over 50 percent of people living in France were peasants and/or self-employed in some fashion or another.

[getfiscal]

I would say a good 80-85% of the developed world can be considered proletariat. This line of thinking means that people earning a hundred thousand dollars a year or so are members of the proletariat. They may be in a technical sense (the double freedom of not having means of production and having to sell themselves), but it seems doubtful that these people are revolutionary in global terms. They aren't anywhere near the hundreds of millions of people that survive on less than $2 US a day.

[gla22]

The truth is,in the U.S at least, the ordinary person is not motivated to revolt at all. There are few leftists and there is a growing number of libertarians. The only way the U.S has any chance is if the economy majorley collapsed 1930s-esque. I can't speak for the rest of the west put in the U.S it isn't going to happen soon.

[nvm]

This line of thinking means that people earning a hundred thousand dollars a year or so are members of the proletariat. They may be in a technical sense (the double freedom of not having means of production and having to sell themselves), but it seems doubtful that these people are revolutionary in global terms. They aren't anywhere near the hundreds of millions of people that survive on less than $2 US a day.

I don't know a lot of people in Canada who as you said "technically" (and it's sure they do) belong to the proletariat and make 100 000 $. Only doctors make that much. So don't exaggerate numbers here. I think that the middle class which earns about 40 000 $ a year can be revolutionary when the objective conditions come. The middle class is and will continue shrinking driving people from the middle or upper working class to lower wages , unemployment and lower standard of living. And then they will become very revolutionary and capable of transforming this society. Until then we need a vanguard of "professional" revolutionaries ready to lead this revolution.
And that is where the RCP get's it wrong.They ve written off the Canadian working class and they focus to the Third World while being useless to the First World. The RCP despite it's force it has not played any role in any transitional movement like the student movement, the strikes regarding factories leaving from Canada to go to China and various other worker's and student movements. The RCP is a shortsighted , ultra-left party and all of those who share the belief that the First World working class
is not revolutionary are in the same category .
I am not trying to flame here but I am sick of this BS by some "communists".

[getfiscal]

I don't know a lot of people in Canada who as you said "technically" (and it's sure they do) belong to the proletariat and make 100 000 $. Only doctors make that much. So don't exaggerate numbers here.When you start talking about 80% - 85% of people, though, you are talking about middle-upper income people as well.
I think that the middle class which earns about 40 000 $ a year can be revolutionary when the objective conditions come.What "objective conditions" do you mean?
And that is where the RCP get's it wrong.They ve written off the Canadian working class and they focus to the Third World while being useless to the First World.The RCP does not do this. (Somewhat unfortunately.)
shortsighted , ultra-left party and all of those who share the belief that the First World working class is not revolutionary are in the same category .The First World working class is not revolutionary, though. Waiting for a magical crisis is not going to change that fundamental balance, only a third world revolution undermining imperialism will fundamentally change anything. Otherwise, at best, in a first world "crisis" there will be a push for neo-Keynesian policies and not revolutionary ones.

[nvm]

When you start talking about 80% - 85% of people, though, you are talking about middle-upper income people as well

I did not talk about 80-85% of the people, someone else did. But I'm pretty sure in that percentage only 5% make more than 70 000 $. So let's say 65-70% of the people that make less than 70 000$. If those people are attacked by the capitalists through job cuts, cutting funds for healthcare , education plus the high prices of oil , which bring higher food prices, won't that make the majority of them revolutionary? We've seen only the start of the government attacking health care and 50 000 people were on the street, we ve seen only the start of the rise of oil that cold reach 200$ a barrel and even now there is growing dissatisfaction and the working class is dropping to the poverty line, we ve seen only the tart on the attack on education and tens of thousands of students were on the streets . So what makes you think that if the capitalists go further with their agenda that won't bringthe objective conditions for a revolutionary period? (I hope you now understand what I mean by objective).



The RCP does not do this. (Somewhat unfortunately.)

So you claim that the RCP has not written off the Canadian working class and you find that unfortunate? Well to your satisfaction the RCP HAS written off the First World working class in general.


Waiting for a magical crisis is not going to change that fundamental balance,
You are being short sighted here. That is what I mean by short sightedness. At the beggining of this post I have answered this as well.


Otherwise, at best, in a first world "crisis" there will be a push for neo-Keynesian policies and not revolutionary ones.

For exactly that reason we are building a vanguard in Canada that has not written of the unions and the workers as" bourgeois" ( the RCP claims that :lol:) and through building the organization and having influence in the working class before the turning point we can guide the workers to a non-reformist socialist revolution.

[getfiscal]

I did not talk about 80-85% of the people, someone else did. But I'm pretty sure in that percentage only 5% make more than 70 000 $. So let's say 65-70% of the people that make less than 70 000$. If those people are attacked by the capitalists through job cuts, cutting funds for healthcare , education plus the high prices of oil , which bring higher food prices, won't that make the majority of them revolutionary? We've seen only the start of the government attacking health care and 50 000 people were on the street, we ve seen only the start of the rise of oil that cold reach 200$ a barrel and even now there is growing dissatisfaction and the working class is dropping to the poverty line, we ve seen only the tart on the attack on education and tens of thousands of students were on the streets . So what makes you think that if the capitalists go further with their agenda that won't bringthe objective conditions for a revolutionary period? (I hope you now understand what I mean by objective).I personally doubt that high oil prices will make Canadians revolutionary. If anything, it could make them critical of parties that want higher gas taxes for environmental reasons, like we are seeing with the attack on Dion. At the very least, it doesn't point towards revolution, it points towards reformism for the vast majority.

Those reforms may well be good ones. Free education would be a substantial step forward, although alone it simply means that Canadian workers can reproduce themselves easier. But it isn't much of a step towards the demise of global capitalism.
So you claim that the RCP has not written off the Canadian working class and you find that unfortunate? Well to your satisfaction the RCP HAS written off the First World working class in general.I think it makes sense to put this in perspective. There are hundreds of millions of people living in slums. These people are more likely to be revolutionary than those that exploit them for cheap consumer goods. Revolution happens at the weakest link in the imperialist chain. It happens when not only the working class is ready but the ruling class is unable to continue as normal. There is no sign that the Canadian ruling class is in a bind.
For exactly that reason we are building a vanguard in Canada that has not written of the unions and the workers as" bourgeois" ( the RCP claims that :lol:) and through building the organization and having influence in the working class before the turning point we can guide the workers to a non-reformist socialist revolution.I would consider your organization a small reading circle of students, not a vanguard capable of achieving and holdling state power. Of course, you have to start from somewhere, and I sincerely wish you luck, I just don't think that an analysis that starts from the perspective that some of the richest people in the world are going to overthrow capitalism makes much sense.

[Sam_b]

I wish people would stop referring to the 'third world', it makes people living in LEDCs/Global South seem like the untermenchen.

[Dros]

I wish people would stop referring to the 'third world', it makes people living in LEDCs/Global South seem like the untermenchen.

It's a term coined by Mao Zedong to describe the pattern of global exchange. It is not, as many believe, first world chauvinist language.

[chegitz guevara]

I agree with you completely. The living standards of the first world are subsidized by the third world worker. The standard of living for the european or U.S citizen would diminish at first. The revolutions must happen in the third world first.

Hardly. First world workers have better wages not because they are getting part of the surplus of Third world workers, but because the fought so hard that the bourgeoisie needed to buy us off, and let us keep a little more of what we create. First world workers are still heavily exploited, but we are so incredibly productive that our slice of the pie is fairly large, even with the capitalists taking most of it.

[Sam_b]

It's a term coined by Mao Zedong to describe the pattern of global exchange. It is not, as many believe, first world chauvinist language.

It doesn't make it a good thing, though.

[Dros]

It doesn't make it a good thing, though.

What exactly is the problem? Most objections to the term are based on the assumption that it's being used in a chauvinist context (because it often is).

[gla22]

When i say third world I refer to poor exploited developing nations.

[turquino]

Hardly. First world workers have better wages not because they are getting part of the surplus of Third world workers, but because the fought so hard that the bourgeoisie needed to buy us off, and let us keep a little more of what we create. First world workers are still heavily exploited, but we are so incredibly productive that our slice of the pie is fairly large, even with the capitalists taking most of it.

The amount of value added to a commodity by labour in the underdeveloped world is significantly undervalued. Their wage levels are artificially depressed because of the lasting effects of colonialism and domestic repression of labour’s demands. Labour productivity measured in physical terms instead of monetary value added should be a better indication of who is exploited, and who is doing the exploiting. And i think the claim that first world workers contribute large amounts of socially necessary labour is very tenuous.

Most value transfers from poor to rich occur in the area of international trade, not monopoly-finance capital (i’m not denying this is a factor, but not the primary one). First world workers share in the surplus through consuming cheap consumer goods made possible by undervalued Third World labour.

This subsidization of the global north’s living standards by the global south could explain why there’s an apprehension toward revolutionary socialism and internationalism here. There are probably other factors at play, but this topic needs more study.

[Sam_b]

When i say third world I refer to poor exploited developing nations.

Yeah thats what I don't like. I think it implies too much hierarchy, that these countries aren't 'as good as' richer western capitalist states.

[gla22]

^^^^^
There is a blatant hierarchy and that is the problem. Alot of third world nations are ex-colonies or still under puppet governments and influence of the larger nations. They are poorer and are exploited. But not calling them third world dosen't make them first world developed nations. It is good people can recognize the hierarchy and the inequality so they can fight it.

[Illus]

It's a term coined by Mao Zedong to describe the pattern of global exchange. It is not, as many believe, first world chauvinist language.
Three-Worlds theory is extremely social-chauvinist.

[getfiscal]

Three-Worlds theory is extremely social-chauvinist.Can you explain why, please?

[AGITprop]

I would consider your organization a small reading circle of students, not a vanguard capable of achieving and holdling state power. Of course, you have to start from somewhere, and I sincerely wish you luck

:lol: You are either RNK, or someone else pulling information out of his ass. But my bet is that you are RNK (Though, I'd be happy to see you disprove this):)

I assure you we are not 'a small reading circle of students'. Though the majority of our members are students, we have workers as well.

We are an organization that is dedicated to cadre-building, so yes, that would require much reading, something that we pride ourselves on, because we do have an actual education program to follow. But, to claim that we do only this is slanderous. We actually actively intervene in what is going to in the labour movement as much as possible and take what we learn from our intervention, bring it back to the theory, and build from there, in a dialectical manner.

Also, our organization has only existed ten months in Montreal, while the RCP has been around 40 years or so. I wouldn't jump the gun and assume WE couldn't be a revolutionary vanguard.

[Dros]

Yeah thats what I don't like. I think it implies too much hierarchy, that these countries aren't 'as good as' richer western capitalist states.

It does imply hierarchy. It implies a hierarchy that objectively exists in terms of global exchange of capital. The term actually implies the opposite of what you are saying it does. It does not mean that these countries are inferior, it simply means that they are objectively exploited.


Three-Worlds theory is extremely social-chauvinist.

Krommando, explain why or leave.

[La Comédie Noire]

The truth is,in the U.S at least, the ordinary person is not motivated to revolt at all. There are few leftists and there is a growing number of libertarians. The only way the U.S has any chance is if the economy majorley collapsed 1930s-esque. I can't speak for the rest of the west put in the U.S it isn't going to happen soon.


What do you think of recent economic problems? Such as rising food and energy prices.

As well as the major cut back on benefits.

Truth is you can buy less and less with a pay check almost monthly.

[The New Manifesto]

:lol: You are either RNK, or someone else pulling information out of his ass. But my bet is that you are RNK (Though, I'd be happy to see you disprove this):)

I

He's not RNK. I know this because Getfiscal is also a member of another political fourm where he uses the Same User Name.


BUT...I belive that NVM is also a puppet acount of a certain restricted member, with the same Sig.

[AGITprop]

He's not RNK. I know this because Getfiscal is also a member of another political fourm where he uses the Same User Name.


BUT...I belive that NVM is also a puppet acount of a certain restricted member, with the same Sig.

*facepalm*

nvm was LOLLIPOP, and before that was MTLYOUTH.
I know nvm in real life, we are in the same organization.

as for getfiscal, just because he uses that name on another forum does not disprove him to be RNK, but anyway I don't really mind, I know RNK in real life as well. He's an okay guy. :lol:

[nvm]

BUT...I belive that NVM is also a puppet acount of a certain restricted member, with the same Sig.
Nope. My usernames were MTLYOUTH LOLLIPOP and NVM all in the same account so stop assuming things.



I think it makes sense to put this in perspective. There are hundreds of millions of people living in slums. These people are more likely to be revolutionary than those that exploit them for cheap consumer goods. Revolution happens at the weakest link in the imperialist chain. It happens when not only the working class is ready but the ruling class is unable to continue as normal. There is no sign that the Canadian ruling class is in a bind.

Yes but why do you have to be shortsighted? What about the future? We are entering a turbulent economic and political period .Why should you be so pessimistic? Also even we who focus both internationaly and nationaly we have things to show such as creating HOV and inviting Celia Hart and that way we are creating solidarity among people in Canada and people in south America.

And I ' lll repeat AGAIN and AGAIN that now the Canadian workers are not revolutionary but when the objective conditions are met they will be, just like they were 38 years ago with the strikes and just like other workers in other parts of the first world were revolutionary at times. That's why we want to build a vanguard here to promote solidarity internationaly(like we are doing) and prepaire for the revolution in Canada(like we are doing now). As about the accussations for the small reading group, well comrade Isaak explained it very good.

[getfiscal]

:lol: You are either RNK, or someone else pulling information out of his ass.I'm someone else pulling information out of my ass.
I assure you we are not 'a small reading circle of students'.My mistake, I await the revolution. ;)
Also, our organization has only existed ten months in Montreal, while the RCP has been around 40 years or so.The RCP was founded in 2006. It is also a small organization like the IMT or NEFAC. Anyways, I'm just joking around.

[AGITprop]

I'm someone else pulling information out of my ass.My mistake, I await the revolution. ;)The RCP was founded in 2006. It is also a small organization like the IMT or NEFAC. Anyways, I'm just joking around.

Alright.

And, really, it was founded in 2006? My mistake.

Many of the older members of the RCP though have been active though for a few decades.

[piet11111]

the people in western europe understand that their standards of living are under attack with the increasing costs of living and their wages not even managing to keep pace with inflation.

they know that they are paying for the profits of their bosses (wage increases not possible they are told) so class consciousness is growing and the amount of struggle is growing too.

i don't believe that these good people will tolerate the self-enrichment of the bosses much longer while they are facing problems paying all their bills and food.

in the netherlands there is growing protests against the many bonuses the managers are giving themselves and even the politicians are feeling the pressure to make laws that put and end to this.
in germany the proposed wage increase for the parliamentarians has been axed because the people got angry because they do not get any real wage increases.

[chegitz guevara]

The amount of value added to a commodity by labour in the underdeveloped world is significantly undervalued. Their wage levels are artificially depressed because of the lasting effects of colonialism and domestic repression of labour’s demands. Labour productivity measured in physical terms instead of monetary value added should be a better indication of who is exploited, and who is doing the exploiting. And i think the claim that first world workers contribute large amounts of socially necessary labour is very tenuous.

Most value transfers from poor to rich occur in the area of international trade, not monopoly-finance capital (i’m not denying this is a factor, but not the primary one). First world workers share in the surplus through consuming cheap consumer goods made possible by undervalued Third World labour.

This subsidization of the global north’s living standards by the global south could explain why there’s an apprehension toward revolutionary socialism and internationalism here. There are probably other factors at play, but this topic needs more study.

Several things to keep in mind. Third world workers are not the only ones with depressed wages. Wages have declined in the US for over thirty years, with a brief reversal in the 2nd Clinton administration years.

2nd, Marxists do not measure exploitation in physical terms, but in terms of their share of remuneration to socially necessary value added. McDonald's workers are not more exploited than steelworkers, even if steelworkers make ten times the amount of wages. They may be more oppressed, but they are not more exploited. Now, if you aren't a Marxist, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.