A few questions on Maoist Third-worldism

[TooAcademic]

Not being a communist of any stripe (I tend towards non-authoritarian systems, particularly communalism), I am a bit ignorant of major tendancies in communist thought. That said, there is something intuitive and intellectually compelling about Maoist Third-worldist class analysis. But I am a bit confused about some of the finer points of the philosophy:

What are we as first worlders to do in support of third-world anti imperialism? I've yet to reason an answer to this question that does not smack of paternalism (ie. eaxprpriation to benefit third world prolatarians).

To what degree do we as first world radicals support movements that are both anti imperialist and repressive, such as theocratic nationalist movements that are both anti imperialist and herterosexist? Should radical queers support movements that favor killing gays just because a majority of proletarians in a given area support it or do we stand in solidarity with third world queers? What about when the interests of gays, women or what ever oppressed group are better protected by the imperialist regime?

How do Maoist third worldists feel about first world movements that support collective ownership and community property without a revolution as such (ie. cooperative businesses)? What about simmilar movements in the third world, such as seized, co-operative businesses in Argentina? What about such movements in the first and third world which attempt to ressurect traditional, pre-imperialist lifestyles (ie the EZLN)?

[BobKKKindle$]

Disclaimer: I am not a Maoist Third-Worldist.

An important point - the main principle behind Maoism Third-Worldism is the recognition that a large section of the working population in the developed world who have been bought off by the bourgeoisie, as they are given a share of the superprofits generated in the developing world, and consequently this section is not part of the working class as they payed more than the full value of their labour, and because of this they form a "labour aristocracy" which has the same interests as the bourgeoisie, including an interest in maintaining imperialism and fighting against any genuine revolutionary movements which have the potential to overthrow capitalism or otherwise disrupt the transfer of surplus value to the developed world. This principle, however, was not developed by Mao himself but by Lenin in 'Imperialism', specifically in the chapter entitled 'Parasitism and the Decay of Capitalism' in which Lenin explains how the labour aristocracy comes to exist, and also shows that Marx may also have been aware of this stratum. What this means it that accepting the existence of the labour aristocracy is not specific to Maoism although those who carry the theory to its extreme and argue that there are no workers in the developed world generally refer to themselves as Maoists on the basis of comments that Lin Biao made in 'Long Live the Victory of People's War' concerning the applicability of People's War on a world scale. Anyone who sees themselves as a Leninist should accept the existence of the labour aristocracy because it is a logical outcome of Lenin's theory of imperialism and there is no other way to explain the trend towards reformism in the developed world.


What are we as first worlders to do in support of third-world anti imperialism?

Maoist Third-Worldists would argue that we should organize amongst those who are exploited and oppressed, such as the illegal immigrant population and the lumpenproletariat, and should fight against imperialist wars from within the imperialist core.


To what degree do we as first world radicals support movements that are both anti imperialist and repressiveCommunists should extent unconditional military support to these movements as no individual has the right to tell the people of an oppressed nation that they should be deprived of their right to resist imperialism on the basis that the movements which have arisen from their struggles do not correspond to our ideological and moral expectations, but at the same time we should also criticize these movements when we find that they do promote reactionary ideas and try to bring them round to a more progressive viewpoint. Ultimately, the freedom of oppressed groups such as women and homosexuals cannot be realized under imperialism and so the defeat of imperialism will still be a progressive event.


How do Maoist third worldists feel about first world movements that support collective ownership and community property without a revolution as such (ie. cooperative businesses)?

Actually, MIM has quite an interesting viewpoint on this issue which you might be interested in reading about:

"The fact is that Amerikan workers own monopoly capitalist companies in airlines, groceries, car rental and many other industries--outright"

White Proletarian Myths (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/contemp/whitemyths/index.html#meansofproduction)

[Rascolnikova]

what do you mean when you say "unconditional military support?"

[BobKKKindle$]

what do you mean when you say "unconditional military support?"

When imperialist states conduct an act of aggression against an oppressed nation we support the military victory of movements which are opposed to imperialism (for example, Hamas in Palestine) and hope that the imperialists will be expelled from the countries they have occupied. We maintain this support even if we do not agree with these movements on political questions and that is why it is unconditional. The fact that this support is military and not political means that we are also willing to criticize these movements when they promote reactionary ideas which conflict with our progressive vision.

[Vanguard1917]

Actually, MIM has quite an interesting viewpoint on this issue which you might be interested in reading about:

"The fact is that Amerikan workers own monopoly capitalist companies in airlines, groceries, car rental and many other industries--outright"

White Proletarian Myths (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/contemp/whitemyths/index.html#meansofproduction)

Yes, the open scab line of MIM is simply the grotesque and caricatured representation of the general anti-working class content of 'Third Worldism'.

'Third worldism', as a Western political current, has its roots in the failure of Western leftwing activists to win over the working class to their politics. It came to prominence in sections of the left after the defeats of the 1960s. It was a product of Western leftwing disillusionment, especially middle class disillusionment, with the Western working class.

Unable to attract it to their views, Western leftists began to write-off the Western working class as a force for change. Instead of questioning their own inability to win the masses over to their cause, these leftists started blaming the masses themselves. Some of those around the New Left (which was a key component of the 'third worldist' current) argued that Western workers are only interested in shopping and that support for industrial action in the West should therefore be questioned, since strikes will only lead to higher incomes and thus more 'consumerism'. It was also argued that a rise in working class wages in the West will just mean greater exploitation in the third world. Hence the scab elements in 'third worldism'.

Unable to attract mass support for their politics, these Western activists started to look abroad. In faraway places like Africa and Latin America they found ready-made movements with which they could associate their own politics and thus provide themselves with some sense of purpose.* This meant that they no longer needed to engage in the business of winning people over to a revolutionary agenda. They very conveniently absolved themselves of the responsibilty of physically engaging with the masses or being around them.

After all, the important struggles were taking place millions of miles away and the working class at home was a lost-cause which objectively supported reaction. What was in fact the highly subjective interpretation of despairing and disillusioned Western leftists, was assumed and argued to be an objective reality.


* Of course, when it came to struggles a bit closer to home -- in the case of British 'third worldist' types, the anti-imperialist movement in Ireland -- many of these activists seemed to suddenly lose their bottle and their support was lukewarm, if it existed at all.

[The Douche]

should fight against imperialist wars from within the imperialist core.

What, by organizing bourgois anti-war groups? If they maintain that there is no revolutionary class in imperialist nations then what other way to "fight" against war is there? Or is it advocating urban guerrillaism?


Also, I don't mean this to insult you, I enjoy many of your posts, but, what are you still doing in the SWP? Your politics don't seem to match up.

[AvanteRedGarde]

'Third worldism', as a Western political current, has its roots in the failure of Western leftwing activists to win over the working class to their politics. It came to prominence in sections of the left after the defeats of the 1960s. It was a product of Western leftwing disillusionment, especially middle class disillusionment, with the Western working class.

Unable to attract it to their views, Western leftists began to write-off the Western working class as a force for change. Instead of questioning their own inability to win the masses over to their cause, these leftists started blaming the masses themselves. Some of those around the New Left (which was a key component of the 'third worldist' current) argued that Western workers are only interested in shopping and that support for industrial action in the West should therefore be questioned, since strikes will only lead to higher incomes and thus more 'consumerism'. It was also argued that a rise in working class wages in the West will just mean greater exploitation in the third world.


I agree with all of that. Isn't all knowlege the result of some sort of practice. Western leftists at large, not just those who've picked up Third Worldism, have been unable to win over the masses to their cause. The summing up of the cumilative lesson is that the American working class has historically not been a revolutionary agent. The only other explanations is that it that every single "revolutionary" group has a bankrupt practice and is simply not good enough to lead this objectively revolutionary class.

On the second point, has not exploitation in the periphery deepened, more people kicked off the land and thrown into the global economy? Would you argue that the last 40 years has produced something besides "greater exploitation in the Third World?" Have Americans become more or less consumeristic during this same period.



Unable to attract mass support for their politics, these Western activists started to look abroad. In faraway places like Africa and Latin America they found ready-made movements with which they could associate their own politics and thus provide themselves with some sense of purpose.* This meant that they no longer needed to engage in the business of winning people over to a revolutionary agenda. They very conveniently absolved themselves of the responsibilty of physically engaging with the masses or being around them.


Again I'd have to ask, what non-Third Worlidist grouping has a signifigant working class base anywhere. Its a shame that MIM was so crazy, they had some interesting ideas, but awful ones at the same time.

[benhur]

I am not a westerner, but I still feel third-world dictators (like Mugabe, or religious fundamentalist regimes etc.) should never be supported, just because they're anti-imperialist. Makes no sense, because if either side wins, workers are the ones who're gonna lose. Workers must support workers, that's it. And I've never understood why some members here feel they're doing the workers a favor by supporting groups that kill workers from both sides.:(

[DesertShark]

This makes me think of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who killed everyone who was educated, a professional, wore glasses, and/or some other reasons (about 26% of the population was slaughtered) to get Cambodia back to a Maoist state. Is Pol Pot an example of a "third-world Maoist"?

[BobKKKindle$]

to get Cambodia back to a Maoist state.

What exactly is a "Maoist state"? Maoists have always been supporters of industrialization as at the beginning of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, Mao announced that his objective was to raise the level of steel production to the same level as Britain in only seven years and by doing so transform China from a backwards state into a major industrial power, and economic historians have also acknowledged that the achievements of the Mao era allowed the rapid economic growth and industrialization under Deng Xiao-Ping to take place.

[DesertShark]

Agricultural, pre-industrialization. At least that was my understanding. The revolution had to start with rural peasants, not industrial workers, which is why Pol Pot had every major city emptied.

From wikipedia on Mao (emphasis mine):

His two most famous essays, both from 1937, 'On Contradiction' and 'On Practice', are concerned with the practical strategies of a revolutionary movement and stress the importance of practical, grassroots knowledge, obtained through experience. Both essays reflect the guerrilla roots of Maoism in the need to build up support in the countryside against a Japanese occupying force and emphasise the need to win over 'hearts and minds' through 'education'.
(...)
Throughout the 1920s, Mao led several labour struggles based upon his studies of the propagation and organization of the contemporary labour movements.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#cite_note-vaughan-12) However, these struggles were successfully subdued by the government, and Mao fled from Changsha after he was labeled a radical activist. He pondered these failures and finally realized that industrial workers were unable to lead the revolution because they made up only a small portion of China's population, and unarmed labour struggles could not resolve the problems of imperial and feudal suppression. Mao began to depend on Chinese peasants who later became staunch supporters of his theory of violent revolution. This dependence on the rural rather than the urban proletariat to instigate violent revolution distinguished Mao from his predecessors and contemporaries. Mao himself was from a peasant family, and thus he cultivated his reputation among the farmers and peasants and introduced them to Marxism.On the Great Leap Forward (from the same page):

In January 1958, Mao Zedong launched the second Five-Year Plan known as the Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward), a plan intended as an alternative model for economic growth to the Soviet model focusing on heavy industry that was advocated by others in the party. Under this economic program, the relatively small agricultural collectives which had been formed to date were rapidly merged into far larger people's communes, and many of the peasants ordered to work on massive infrastructure projects and the small-scale production of iron and steel. All private food production was banned; livestock and farm implements were brought under collective ownership.

[BobKKKindle$]

The revolution had to start with rural peasants, not industrial workers

Mao always made it clear that although the supported of the peasantry was necessary in countries suffering from underdevelopment due to the numerical weakness of the proletariat, the proletariat (a category encompassing rural proletarians as well as urban workers, according to Mao) would still assume the leading role, and the socialist revolution would still be carried out to serve the interests of the proletariat. Consider the following:

"Though not very numerous, the industrial proletariat represents China's new productive forces, is the most progressive class in modern China and has become the leading force in the revolutionary movement"

Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society, March 1926 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/AC26.html)

Emphasis mine - in the future you should be aware that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source and is often full of factual inaccuracies or misleading statements and so if you want to learn the truth about the course of historical revolutions you should either read the works of people who took aprt in these struggles or study textbooks. In reality, of course, the CCP was composed almost solely of peasants by the time it took power in 1949 and the social base of the revolution was primarily agrarian, as can be seen from the fact that the revolution did not involve widespread urban uprisings of industrial struggles. However, the fact remains that Mao did support industrial development and his actions, especially the GLF, reflect this.

[DesertShark]

in the future you should be aware that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source and is often full of factual inaccuracies or misleading statements and so if you want to learn the truth about the course of historical revolutions you should either read the works of people who took aprt in these struggles or study textbooks.
I understand that. I didn't use wikipedia to originally get my information, it was what I was told when I was in Cambodia learning about what happened to the people there (first hand, from the people). I referenced it here because its an easy resource. And what you said doesn't mean that Pol Pot didn't used Maoism to his own benefit to force people out of cities and into fields.

[redguard2009]

Vanguard has it partially right but I'm not surprised of his use of hyperbole in calling Third Worldism "anti-worker".

Unfortunately throughout the history of euro-centric communism there has been an enormous tendency for turning a blind eye to the absolutely horrific existence of workers in other parts of the world. While these euro-centric comrades gathered and conspired to bring about revolutionary social and economic change in their western countries they made quite the effort to excuse the complete lack of support for progressive movements in unindistrialized countries, throwing around theories about "the necessity of a particular stage in development of a nation's economy and society before any truely progressive situation can take place". Essentially, if a society was not near the same level of social and economic development as Europe, well, then, it shouldn't have any sort of revolution.

Of course, the hundreds of millions of people that suffer such misery as would turn many of us priviledged westerners into heaping bags of pathetic sobbing, don't really feel very kindly about this. As the majority of the earth's population scrape their fingers to the bone just to avoid starvation from one day to the next, they see us pandering and stomping around our gilded halls arguing about whether our workers should be making 20 times what they do or 30, or whether health benefits should include dental care. And as the militaries of our countries bomb what pathetic lives they've managed to cobble together into dust and send tens of thousands of their brothers and sisters to horrible deaths they see a handful of us bothering to show up to protest it.

I for one am highly disgusted at this self-centric view a lot of communists in the west have, their nonchalant dismissal of the struggles of the billions who are far worse off than them and their insistence that any attempt at progress must be rated and monitored by them to judge their "legitimacy".

Third Worldism is what many priviledged white workers don't want to hear -- that they're a part of the system that sends millions a year into shallow graves, that their inability to risk even the tiniest amount of hardship, to risk the priviledged life they live, is something to be scorned and criticised. It says a lot that there are men and women in this world who have had everything we hold for granted taken from them, who live in mud in the depths of jungles and the most inhospitable mountains to fight for the distant hope of a better life, and the vast majority of us will do nothing but criticism them for it, arguing that they shouldn't fight, that they are oppurtunists and that we know better than they what progress is.

[Cumannach]

Is it alright if I resurrect this thread?

What exactly are the Third Worldists trying to say? That every capitalist that employs wage labourers in the First World also has a factory in Africa or somewhere from which he takes superprofits and uses them to pay his first world workers more than the value of the goods they produce? Why exactly does he have this First World business going at all then? Why not just hand over the means of production to the First World workers? Let them have their own co-ops? For this to be true every business in the First World would have to be chronically unprofitable and require a constant injection of outside funds. Does this show up on the books of your average corporation or is it all done in secret?

Without that, the only other way you could say the First World proletariat 'exploit' the Third World is by having available to them very cheap products, thanks to the the low wages paid to the Third World producers- but how is that exploitation by the proletariat, which 'bourgeoisifies' them? That's like saying buying a Mitsubishi or a Playstation is exploiting Japanese workers and becoming thus a 'bourgeoisified' proletarian, by virtue.

Another thing, in this little calculation they make about world GDP and the value of labour, do they take into account the fluctuations of demand and supply, and the fact that Third World workers could be producing relatively highly expensive products, thus pushing their wages far above the average value of labour while still being paid less than the product of their labour?

And is it not true that Marxism has always regarded the relations of production the source of socialist Revolution and not the living standard of the people? For example Marx supported the improvement in working conditions and wages that were achieved by the struggle of the English proletariat.

Any Third Worldists on here care to discuss?

[Die Neue Zeit]

as they are given a share of the superprofits generated in the developing world, and consequently this section is not part of the working class as they payed more than the full value of their labour... Anyone who sees themselves as a Leninist should accept the existence of the labour aristocracy because it is a logical outcome of Lenin's theory of imperialism and there is no other way to explain the trend towards reformism in the developed world

So mere clerical workers in the First World who don't get the salary equivalent of a "living wage" are paid more than the full value of their labour, then? :rolleyes:

Lenin was referring mainly to the trade union bureaucracy, though in this day and age I'd definitely include prominent pro athletes and entertainment celebrities.

[AvanteRedGarde]

It's funny that you put the term 'living wage.' in quotes, since Marx implied that the proletariat received just enough to provide for the reproduction of labor.

How do plasma TV's and hybrid cars factor into this? Obviously people who buy them are made more than what is needed for the simple reproduction of labor- what would actually be a living wage.

[Poison]

Not being a communist of any stripe (I tend towards non-authoritarian systems, particularly communalism)

I'm surprised no one else pointed this out. Are you really under the impression that communism is inherently authoritarian? And are you really under the impression that communalism is any different from communism?

USSR, China, North Korea, were all authoritarian, yes, as they never made the move to socialism (if you are Marxist and think that is what brings communism), the regimes in charge of the revolution (stupid idea imo) decided to hold onto power instead of allowing communism to happen. That doesn't make communism authoritarian.

[brigadista]

http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/support-these-iranian-trade-unionists/

[Cumannach]

It's funny that you put the term 'living wage.' in quotes, since Marx implied that the proletariat received just enough to provide for the reproduction of labor.

How do plasma TV's and hybrid cars factor into this? Obviously people who buy them are made more than what is needed for the simple reproduction of labor- what would actually be a living wage.

As I understood it, Marx implied that, abstractly, the price of labour-power was the value neccesary to reproduce that labour-power again. That abstraction doesn't take into account the fluctuation of that price due to demand and supply and the possibility of combinations of workers to force the price up to artificial levels in any given society.

The existence of a legally upheld and enforced minumum wage in a society is a result of class struggle , an 'artifical' fixing of the price of labour-power. The proletariat in such a society are still wage slaves and are still exploited as the price of their labour-power though held above one certain, low, limit is also held below another limit, which is the value of the product of their labour. Hence they are exploited. They still own no means of production for themselves, must sell their labour-power, and must struggle to hold on even to their past gains, aswell as to make new ones and to ultimately emancipate themselves.

[AvanteRedGarde]

As I understood it, Marx implied that, abstractly, the price of labour-power was the value neccesary to reproduce that labour-power again. That abstraction doesn't take into account the fluctuation of that price due to demand and supply and the possibility of combinations of workers to force the price up to artificial levels in any given society.

The existence of a legally upheld and enforced minumum wage in a society is a result of class struggle , an 'artifical' fixing of the price of labour-power. The proletariat in such a society are still wage slaves and are still exploited as the price of their labour-power though held above one certain, low, limit is also held below another limit, which is the value of the product of their labour. Hence they are exploited. They still own no means of production for themselves, must sell their labour-power, and must struggle to hold on even to their past gains, aswell as to make new ones and to ultimately emancipate themselves.

I think the crux of the maoist thirdworldist argument is that First World workers actually make more than the value they create, accounting on a transference of value from the Third World.

Also, Maoist Third Worldists frequently point out that most First World labor is employed in the circulatory phase of capital accumulation, not the productive phase.

[Cumannach]

I think the crux of the maoist thirdworldist argument is that First World workers actually make more than the value they create, accounting on a transference of value from the Third World.


Well how exactly do they envisage this transfer? Is it in the use of Third World labour to produce means of production which are then used by the First World workers in making their products?

[AvanteRedGarde]

A cash register isn't exactly the means of production.

[Cumannach]

Yes it is. It's a means of producing a service. Capitalist production would collapse if products couldn't be sold. Besides, since when is most heavy industry in the Third World anyway? Where did this notion even come from?

[AvanteRedGarde]

You just repeated what I said. A cashier is involved in the realization of surplus value.

However, a smile while handing your you hamburger isn't a service as a commodity.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Well how exactly do they envisage this transfer? Is it in the use of Third World labour to produce means of production which are then used by the First World workers in making their products?

Remittances of profits back to First World corporations, interest from debt, 'unequal exchange' resulting from disparities between purchasing power and exchange rates, raw exploitation (the minimum wage in many countries is a tenth that of America or the UK), the selling off of formerly public property to foreign imperialists, etc. All of these things concentrate wealth in places such as Europe, Japan and the U.S.

[Cumannach]

Do you know of any figures that actually detail this process, namely the direct subsidization of FW wages paid by FW capitalists with the surplus value of TW workers?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Why would you expect it to be a direct and apparent process?

To answer your question though, yes. Different writers have addressed various mechanisms by which value is transferred to the First World, in some cases to imperialists via the remittances of profits from investments, and in other cases to the First World as a whole through things like unequal exchange (the disparity between the purchasing parity of a currency and its exchange rate) which is reflected in the price of consumer goods. Others writers, mainly MIM, did pretty ingenious extrapolations: looking general real world profit rates, shuffling around workers with varying degrees of exploitation to see which confiquiration most explained global wealth today. Most of these writers, though influenced by Marx, do not consider themselves MTWist; some reach basically the same conclusions as MSH (Monkey Smashes Heaven) and MTWists regarding global class without calling themselves MTWists. Others look at one particular mechanism of imperialist exploitation and make conclusions not far off from most posters here.

If you sincerely want to find out more about these authors and the books and texts I'm talking about, then message me. I can did through my stuff and write up a good intro bibliography.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Being quite possibly the only (real) Maoist on this message board, I figure my answers to the original inquiries would be qualified.

(We will ignore all the insulting comments absurdly comparing Maoism to Christianity, etc.)

First of all "third worldism" -- the logic that says there are "bourgeois nations" and "proletarian nations" -- is wrong. It may be historically associated with Mao, but, as Bob Avakian has more recently synthesized, it was a historical error to simply write off whole nations as incapable of revolution; a partial abandonment of the basic Marxist principle of revolutionary internationalism. (That's not to say, of course, that the world doesn't largely consist of imperialist and oppressed nations.) Moving on...

As for what the orientation of communists in oppressed nations should be with respect to various non-communist currents, these can and must be united with very broadly...assuming they are actually of a progressive character that advances the goal of getting to revolution. You cannot unite with, for example, jihadist or other fundamentalist causes, as these represent historically outmoded strata. But you can and must unite all positive factors -- all who can be united -- toward goals that advance things toward socialist revolution. These forces have to be united within a framework of independent, political struggle; struggle, that is, that doesn't accept the terms of the ruling class, but sets its own terms. And, within these efforts, the communist party must never abandon its political independence or cease to struggle ideologically with those forces it is united with to win them over as far as possible at any given stage to communism. The party must establish revolutionary leadership of a broad united front. This front under the leadership of the proletariat and its vanguard party must be maintained throughout the whole socialist transition to communism.

That's the Maoist position.

P.S. It is also possible to unite strategically with reactionary parties in certain circumstances, but only toward the achievement of specific goals. For example, Mao put forward that the communists in China could unite with the KMT in resisting the Japanese invading and occupying forces. This would hasten forward a new situation in which revolution would be possible. Through this struggle, the Communist Party won over vast masses of people to the idea of socialism and some to communism. But of course, once the war was over, they had to break it off with the KMT in all senses because the KMT was a reactionary representative of foreign capitalists and had to be defeated.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Otherwise truck drivers aren't workers.

One problem with this. The majority of truck drivers are "owner-operators." I suppose cashiers don't own the cash registers. What part of the communist manifesto did Marx talk about the conditions of cashiers? I think I missed it.

I saw the part about where he said, "Just as [the bourgeoisie] has made the country dependent on the towns, so has it made...nations of peasants [dependent] on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." and the increasing pauperization of the working class, but I fail to see anything about cashiers.

[PoWR]

Comrades already debunked this crap here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-engels-lenin-t62589/index.html) before.


...companies couldn't continue on if they were not exploiting their workers.

Of course there is a labor aristocracy, labor lieutenants.. trade union bureaucrats and the like..

All workers -- or even the majority or a large portion -- cannot belong to this aristocracy. The workings of capitalism (the very ones that gave rise to this upper crust) don't allow it, and the aristocracy itself could not live without a mass base of workers to rest on.

And of course workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries often have it subjectively worse than workers in the imperialist countries.. and indeed the capitalists in the imperialist countries super-exploit the workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries, and use the cheap consumer goods they make as they spread consumerism in their imperialist countries, taking workers’ minds off of their exploitation, alienation and the like..

But it cannot be confused that the majority of the population in the imperialist countries, like the imperialist-oppressed ones, are workers, and to advocate a scab line against them lines you up with the capitalist bosses, no matter the color of the flag you fly.

Instead, what this means, is that we must whole heartedly support the struggles in the imperialist-oppressed countries, which can deal death blows to imperialism, bring crisis to the imperialist countries, and signal the beginning of the end for capitalism.


"The epoch of imperialism is one in which the world is divided among the “great” privileged nations that oppress all other nations. Morsels of the loot obtained as a result of these privileges and this oppression undoubtedly fall to the share of certain sections of the petty bourgeoisie and to the working-class aristocracy and bureaucracy. These strata, which form an insignificant minority of the proletariat and of the toiling masses, gravitate towards “Struvism”, because it provides them with a justification of their alliance with their “own” national bourgeoisie, against the oppressed masses of all nations." - V.I. Lenin The Collapse of the Second International (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/iii.htm#v21pp74h-217)


"...imperialist capitalism creates both in colonies and semicolonies a stratum of labor aristocracy and bureaucracy..." [so, the aristocracy is not just in the imperialist countries]. - Trotsky, “Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay.”


http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/conc1en/img/carprod1950-1999.gif

Automobile production of the world. As you see, the three main imperialist countries still produce half of the world's cars. Add to that France and Italy's production - and it is clear that at least that sector of industry still makes most of its surplus value in the first world.


The workers in every country are oppressed and exploited, that's how capitalism functions. The same capitalist class is doing the exploiting and oppressing all around the world. The capitalist elite that exploit my uncle in a coke mill in Pittsburgh are the same capitalist elite that exploit another brother in another mill in Mexico, and another in Colombia.

Another problem you seem to have is your failure to understand that the world economy is not a zero sum game.

No one denies that there are all kinds of horrors being waged by imperialists all over the world, but to try to pin those on working people is as disgusting as it is un-communist.

You want to "criticize" someone? Criticize the bourgeoisie and organize against their rule. Even if every worker in the imperialist countries voluntarily gave up a large chunk of their wages (which they wouldn't do, as its against their material interests, and people act in their material interests--another basic communist understanding) the super-exploitation of workers in the imperialist oppressed countries would continue as it is, and even get worse (gains by workers in one place have a tendency to lead to gains by workers in other places as well). The only people that would benefit are the capitalist elite. In that regard, your line serves them well.

Communism isn't about working people anywhere taking the hit; it's about working people everywhere wrestling the means of production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie to reorganize society along democratic lines, in the interest of meeting human need.


Then there's the fact that industrial production has increased in the imperialist countries since the 1980's.

That's the case in the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

Source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://allcountries.org/uscensus/1381_index_of_industrial_production_by_country.htm l)


It is in ["First World workers'"] interests to struggle against the exploitation of workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries because (a) the workers in imperialist and imperialist-oppressed countries share a common enemy and (b) the betterment of conditions in the imperialist-oppressed countries would prevent the worsening of conditions in the imperialist countries (when the bourgeoisie doesn't have a place with cheaper labor to run to, or lower-paid workers to bring in, when workers start fighting). This is all basic communist theory.


The tertiary sector in Mexico holds the biggest percentage of workers...

So this means all of them are basically parasites huh?


No, a perfect example of parasitism is a guy who inherits a factory and becomes a millionaire without ever lifting a finger.

A ticket-taker at a movie theater is a perfect example of a prole, who helps in the realization of profit and expansion of capital.

Let's say a capitalist owns a movie theater. He buys a reel of a new movie that comes out (do they still use reels? doesn't really matter) for $10,000.. Then he shows that movie for three weeks and makes $500,000. Where did that 490,000 come from? Without workers to run the theater he would just have a $10,000 reel. Those workers create value for him by providing a service*.

It's the same with the actors in the movie, who don't have anything to do with the production of the film it's recorded on, but still play a role in the expansion of capital by adding their acting to it. The final movie is a shared product of the actors, the folks that put the film together, the camera operators, etc.

* Marx wrote, "Productive labor is therefore—in the system of capitalist production—labor which produces surplus-value for its employer ... It follows from what has been said that the designation of labor as productive labor has absolutely nothing to do with the determinate content of the labor, its special utility, or the particular use-value in which it manifests itself.. The same kind of labour may be productive or unproductive... For example Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost for five pounds, was an unproductive labourer. On the other hand, the writer who turns out stuff for his publisher in factory style, is a productive laborer... A singer who sells her song for her own account is an unproductive laborer. But the same singer commissioned by an entrepreneur to sing in order to make money for him is a productive laborer; for she produces capital." (Theories of Surplus Value, Addenda to Part 1) -- emphasis added.


Marx wrote "The capitalist increases the number of these laborers whenever he has more value and profits to realize" (Capital V.3); he didn't say that would [I]prevent revolution from happening! If anything, the increase in the number of unproductive workers (which does not include people like restaurant workers, btw) indicates the advance of capitalism, which Marx showed, brings us closer to communism (or at least, brings the conditions for the creation of communism forward).

[AvanteRedGarde]

Sounds like you put a a lot of time and effort into digging up all that info. Your websites seems nice. Seems like you've made some good international connections to preexisting groups. How's the actual organizing going??

In any case, If you divide the Global GNP (the product of all labor) by the number of people in the world you would find a figure less than the average American yearly wage. Essentially, if you did a egalitarian redistribution of wealth today, most Americans would become poorer. In any case, very very few would become richer. Explanation??

[Cumannach]

Sounds like you put a a lot of time and effort into digging up all that info. Your websites seems nice. Seems like you've made some good international connections to preexisting groups. How's the actual organizing going??

In any case, If you divide the Global GNP (the product of all labor) by the number of people in the world you would find a figure less than the average American yearly wage. Essentially, if you did a egalitarian redistribution of wealth today, most Americans would become poorer. In any case, very very few would become richer. Explanation??

In my opinion, this is because the world is not one economic unit. There are still over 100 different nations. There are still national governments. There are still nationalist economic policies like tariffs, subsidies and state ownership, and most importantly national forced concessions to the working class like minimum wage levels, in whichever countries the working class has been successful enough in waging class struggle.

The value of a product is determined by the average socially neccesary labour to produce it. The value of labour-power is the socially neccesary cost of reproducing it. To calculate the price either of labour-power or the value of labour on a world scale would require the world to be one society.

From a capitalists point of view, in the First World, he can't, legally, buy labour-power without paying above a minumum wage. In that society, effectively, labour-power is more expensive. He can't sell the product of his worker's labour without paying minumum wage levels, and high taxes. Therefore, effectively, the product of labour is more valuable, and the price is higher.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Cumannach.
Couldn't it be argued that the world is more of a single economic unit then not? The oil is ones car probably comes from Canada or Mexico, with prices stabilized by additional supplies elsewhere. My underwear (the only thing I'm wearing right now) was made in India (I took them off to check.) The computer I'm typing on contains cobalt from Africa and was assembled in China. I frankly don't find your argument all that convincing.

[Cumannach]

Well where does it go wrong? Just because international trade exists doesn't mean there are uniform social conditions throughout the world.

Social conditions like legal, state-mandated concessions to the working class, such as labour laws and progressive taxes are just as valid as any other social conditions. So they have to be taken into account when calculating the quantity of labour socially neccesary to produce things, as well as the quantity of value socially neccesary required to reproduce labour-power. There are still huge variations in the social economic conditions among nations, in labour laws, tax rates, social welfare etc. So the world is not one economic unit.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Capital can freely flow without much restrictions. For the most part, so can commodities. The only thing that can't are workers. While the world is largely one economic unit, with capitalism-imperialism prevalent throughout the world, it is not one social unit: it is divided along class lines.

While you claim that "concession gained through workers struggles" account for part of the normal value of labor, I would contend that this latter quality of labor, that is does not freely travel as does capital, drives down the average socially necessary labor value. Obviously if my underwear was made in America, the value of labor embodied in it would be more. However, since it was made in India, where the value of labor is less, the end commodity costs much less- resulting in a higher purchasing power for me (since the value of my labor is more than the value of an Indians labor, I would be able to purchase is 1 hour of labor what contains 1.5 of Indian labor). Again, English labor laws do little to change the social conditions by which my underwear was produced.

Back to the "concessions won through struggle." Such concession are predicated on the latter quality of labor: that it can be super exploited elsewhere. It is no accident that those who've won the most concessions "through struggle" are always those from oppressor and imperialist nations.

[Cumannach]

Capital can freely flow without much restrictions. For the most part, so can commodities. The only thing that can't are workers. While the world is largely one economic unit, with capitalism-imperialism prevalent throughout the world, it is not one social unit: it is divided along class lines.

Capital can't flow completely freely, and even if it could, wherever it enters into production it has to abide by the local laws, that is, the specific local social conditions apply to capital wherever that capital originates from, and the effective social value of labour and labour-power are are still constant in that locality, regardless of the provenance of the capital used to employ it.


While you claim that "concession gained through workers struggles" account for part of the normal value of labor, I would contend that this latter quality of labor, that is does not freely travel as does capital, drives down the average socially necessary labor value. Well I look at this in two ways. I think, firstly, the mobility of capital is utilized in an effort to break down and reverse the legally enforced social conditions that keep the abstract value of labour and labour-power relatively higher than they would otherwise be, by threatening to create mass unemployment by shipping all the capital and it's jobs out of the society. This threat is used to apply political pressure against the current more favourable social conditions. And secondly, from another perspective, by moving capital out of a society, the demand for labour-power decreases, which lowers the price of labour-power, since the price of labour-power is the socially neccesary value required to reproduce it modified by demand and supply.


Obviously if my underwear was made in America, the value of labor embodied in it would be more. However, since it was made in India, where the value of labor is less, the end commodity costs much less- resulting in a higher purchasing power for me (since the value of my labor is more than the value of an Indians labor, I would be able to purchase is 1 hour of labor what contains 1.5 of Indian labor). Again, English labor laws do little to change the social conditions by which my underwear was produced.
.

Here in Ireland it occasionally rains. There is much less labour required to produce a tonne of wheat here than in the Middle East say, with all the labour they must put into irrigation. Irish agricultural labour is less valuable, but there's no exploitation between workers going on, when Irish wheat is exported to the Middle East.

What you're saying is, that by not boycotting Third World labour products, the working class become exploiters of the Third World. Ideally the workers would boycott Third World products. But Ideally the workers would overthrow capitalism. Also, any worker that buys any commodity is, by this logic, an exploiter of the working class.



Back to the "concessions won through struggle." Such concession are predicated on the latter quality of labor: that it can be super exploited elsewhere. It is no accident that those who've won the most concessions "through struggle" are always those from oppressor and imperialist nations.

I would reverse the causation here. I think it's because the First World workers are so politically successful that First World capital feels the desire to export itself and try to and all too often succeed in repressing any attempts to raise the value of labour by the workers in it's new foreign location.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I'm going to try to keep this brief and deal with the main themes.


Capital can't flow completely freely, and even if it could, wherever it enters into production it has to abide by the local laws, that is, the specific local social conditions apply to capital wherever that capital originates from, and the effective social value of labour and labour-power are are still constant in that locality, regardless of the provenance of the capital used to employ it.

Ok. So insafar as capital is mobile, it will adjust to conditions in which it is utilized. And insofar as capital is mobile, the effective social value of labor and labor power of where that capital is utilized becomes its dominant factor, not those from which the capital originated. Since it reasonable to assume that the majority of capital is productively utilized in the Third World (which mind you is a majority of the world), it is reasonable to assume that when talking about the socially average value of labor, we should include the Third world into our calculations. This only advances the argument that the world is one economic unit and that the social average value of labor is less than typically accounted for in this west.


Well I look at this in two ways. I think, firstly, the mobility of capital is utilized in an effort to break down and reverse the legally enforced social conditions that keep the abstract value of labour and labour-power relatively higher than they would otherwise be, by threatening to create mass unemployment by shipping all the capital and it's jobs out of the society. This threat is used to apply political pressure against the current more favourable social conditions. And secondly, from another perspective, by moving capital out of a society, the demand for labour-power decreases, which lowers the price of labour-power, since the price of labour-power is the socially neccesary value required to reproduce it modified by demand and supply.I am taking this to mean that the world is largely one economic unit and that under normal circumstances, First World wages would equalize with that in the Third World. The major problem here is that this hasn't occurred yet. The over valuation of First World labor must play some other functional role(s) in the overall imperialist system.



Here in Ireland it occasionally rains. There is much less labour required to produce a tonne of wheat here than in the Middle East say, with all the labour they must put into irrigation. Irish agricultural labour is less valuable, but there's no exploitation between workers going on, when Irish wheat is exported to the Middle East.Actually, depending on the situation, it could be a case of textbook definition. If for instance, let's say that Ireland and the Middle East trade one ton of wheat for an identical one ton of wheat. If there is 100 hours of labor embodied in the Irish wheat and 110 hours of labor in the Mid East wheat (and even if the wheat is otherwise identical), this would be exploitation. If the Middle East instead decided to trade 110 hours embodied in oil for 100 hours of wheat, the would represent the exact same amount of exploitation.


What you're saying is, that by not boycotting Third World labour products, the working class become exploiters of the Third World. I'm arguing that the transference of value, through commodities and unequal exchange, is but one manner by which a minority of workers have become a de facto petty class of exploiters.


Also, any worker that buys any commodity is, by this logic, an exploiter of the working class. This is a wrong understanding of my logic. And I think it might be the source of some confusion on your part.

Let me explain. In order to for capitalism to work, you can't just have people making stuff. Afterall, capitalism wouldn't work if it just made things that collected dust in warehouses. They have to be bought also.

In a hypothetic case, lets say a we have two workers. Each makes widgets for 1 dollar an hour. Worker A makes one widget in an hour for one dollar. The capitalist takes this widget and sells it to worker B for 2 dollars. Worker B, essentially worked 2 hours to buy the product of 1 hours labor. The capitalist keeps the remaining dollar, the product of one hours labor, as his own.

now lets modify this situation. Lets say Worker A makes 1 dollar an hour and Worker B makes 10 dollars an hour (this is roughly comparable to the difference between minimum wage in Amerika and the average manufacturing wage in China). Now, Worker A makes one widget for 1 dollar in an hour. The capitalist, raises his price and sells the widget for 5 dollars to Worker B. In this case, Worker B purchases, through a half hour of work, the product of 1 hours work. This would represent a value transfer. In this latter situation, the capitalist appropriates 4 dollars as opposed to the 1 of the previous situation.

I hope this clarifies how some workers could be exploiters, without implying that all workers are.


I would reverse the causation here. I think it's because the First World workers are so politically successful that First World capital feels the desire to export itself and try to and all too often succeed in repressing any attempts to raise the value of labour by the workers in it's new foreign location.Which began first, the slave trade, the genocide of indigenous people and the theft of a continent; or the revolutionary struggles of conscious workers? I shouldn't have to answer the question.

Moreover, it certainly would be a very good indictment on these conscious First World workers if their struggle culminated and more expansive and deepening exploitation of the 'periphery' as well as the things I mentioned above.

[Cumannach]

Since it reasonable to assume that the majority of capital is productively utilized in the Third World (which mind you is a majority of the world), it is reasonable to assume that when talking about the socially average value of labor, we should include the Third world into our calculations. This only advances the argument that the world is one economic unit and that the social average value of labor is less than typically accounted for in this west.


How exactly is it reasonable to assume the majority of capital enters production in the Third World? Do you have some numbers to suggest this is the case? I admit I would have to go and look up figures, I can't state it off the top of my head, but I would have been quite sure it wasn't the case.

However, that actually doesn't bear upon the argument. If most capital is used in the Third World, how does that affect the fact of the political advances in the First World, that need to be registered as social conditions in calculating labour value? Until the man made - political and legal - social conditions of production are uniform throughout the world, the simple calculation of the total global value of labour cannot be used alone to describe the global relations of production.



I am taking this to mean that the world is largely one economic unit and that under normal circumstances, First World wages would equalize with that in the Third World. The major problem here is that this hasn't occurred yet. The over valuation of First World labor must play some other functional role(s) in the overall imperialist system.
Don't take it to mean that. All it means is that there is ongoing struggle between the FW proletariat and FW capital. The assumption that because FW labour is still more valuable, this high valuation must play an intentional functional role for capital in the system of global imperialism is not well founded on anything I can see. There does exist class struggle and there do exist victories for the working class, and not everything goes the capitalist's way. Why is there a constant attack upon the condition of labour in the FW?



Actually, depending on the situation, it could be a case of textbook definition. If for instance, let's say that Ireland and the Middle East trade one ton of wheat for an identical one ton of wheat. If there is 100 hours of labor embodied in the Irish wheat and 110 hours of labor in the Mid East wheat (and even if the wheat is otherwise identical), this would be exploitation. If the Middle East instead decided to trade 110 hours embodied in oil for 100 hours of wheat, the would represent the exact same amount of exploitation.
The point is, in terms of wheat, in Ireland the value of labour is lower than in the Middle East, just like in India, in terms of textiles, the value of labour is lower than in England.

(Because from Capital's point of view, your average unit of capital can employ more labour in India than in England, since there are no heavy taxes, or high wage levels, and so, to Capital, English labour is more valuable - in terms of capital - it costs more)

Now an English worker consuming Indian textiles is exploiting Indian workers, only if a Syrian worker, by consuming Irish wheat, is exploiting Irish workers .

Likewise, with Saudi energy fuel, there is less labour required to produce a unit of energy in Saudi Arabia than in Ireland, meaning the value of labour in terms of energy is lower in Ireland than in Saudi Arabia. Now, all other things being equal (which I accept they're not) all Irish workers are being grossly oppressed by the Saudi oil refinery workers whenever they switch on a lamp, or drive to work.

However, in relation to Capital, the Syrian and Saudi workers, are generally more exploited than Irish workers, that is, by Capital.



In a hypothetic case, lets say a we have two workers. Each makes widgets for 1 dollar an hour. Worker A makes one widget in an hour for one dollar. The capitalist takes this widget and sells it to worker B for 2 dollars. Worker B, essentially worked 2 hours to buy the product of 1 hours labor. The capitalist keeps the remaining dollar, the product of one hours labor, as his own.

No worker A makes a widget in 1 hour, and this widget is worth 2 dollars. He only gets paid 1 dollar for it. The capitalist sells it to worker B for 2 dollars. Worker B, in order to get 2 dollars, must make 2 widgets, since the capitalist won't pay him the full value of his labour. And the same goes for worker A. The only exploitation going on here is by Capital.


now lets modify this situation. Lets say Worker A makes 1 dollar an hour and Worker B makes 10 dollars an hour (this is roughly comparable to the difference between minimum wage in Amerika and the average manufacturing wage in China). Now, Worker A makes one widget for 1 dollar in an hour. The capitalist, raises his price and sells the widget for 5 dollars to Worker B. In this case, Worker B purchases, through a half hour of work, the product of 1 hours work. This would represent a value transfer. In this latter situation, the capitalist appropriates 4 dollars as opposed to the 1 of the previous situation. And the same. This is just like the commodity examples above: Worker B's labour is worth more (costs more) than Worker A's to capital, because the social conditions of worker B determine the value of his labour, from the perspective of capital, the cost of employing it.

To make an example of the implication of what you're saying; say Irish farm labour is worth less in Spain than Spanish auto factory labour is worth in Ireland because farming conditions, while not as good as in Ireland, are not as poor relative to Ireland, as automobile manufacturing conditions in Ireland are poor relative to Spain. So a Galway farm hand that buys a SEAT to drive to work in is being exploited by Spanish auto workers.



Which began first, the slave trade, the genocide of indigenous people and the theft of a continent; or the revolutionary struggles of conscious workers? I shouldn't have to answer the question.

Moreover, it certainly would be a very good indictment on these conscious First World workers if their struggle culminated and more expansive and deepening exploitation of the 'periphery' as well as the things I mentioned above.
It's like saying you shouldn't fight back against a thug that attacks you in case he runs off and attacks someone else.

[Hiero]

'Third worldism', as a Western political current, has its roots in the failure of Western leftwing activists to win over the working class to their politics. It came to prominence in sections of the left after the defeats of the 1960s. It was a product of Western leftwing disillusionment, especially middle class disillusionment, with the Western working class.

I don't have time to read the whole thread at this point, but I will address this point.

This idea of "third worldism", which I personally don't like, infact has roots in two prominent non-western economicist. One from Greece, Arghiri Emmanuel and an Egyptian Samir Amin if you are looking at a Marxist analyist of Imperialism in the post WW2. Kwame Nkrumah even mentions the extent of 1st world expliotation of the 3rd world and how this exports class conflict from the centre to the periphery. The earlist position I can find is Lin Biao, in the 60s at a CCP congress, which gives it it's Maoist tint.

The constant lie on this website is that the notion of 3rd world revolution before first is that it is brought on by white, middle class guilty. When infact non-white, non-anglo and non 1st world have taken up a whole theoritical position on what you call third worldism.

As a 1st world political current it hardly exists, and even in the 3rd world it is non-existance beyond the notion of nationalist sentiments of east verses the the west. As a acadamic trend it barely exists, because really every acadamic marxist, every commnist in the 1st and 3rd world has a really shallow idea of expliotation over a global system.


Edit: By the way you would have to read a bit of Amin to actually counter my arguement, but I am sure you are content with some bullshit Trotskyist or some hack "Marxist" re-writing old Marx to even consider reading the more expanded Marxist works.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Cumanche,

I wrote and thought i posted a response, but apparently it didn't work. Anyways.

This thread is getting really old. I've given you any number of examples and evidences, and you've been making up excuses and abstract explanations for most of it. You have failed to provide in evidence, even implicit, which would lead one to believe that First Worlders are exploited. You continue to build up strawmen and not address the details and substance of what I'm presenting. At this point, It seems like you are throwing things at me to see what sticks.

In all, I'm done wasting my time and dealing with your various "explanations," in the face of all evidence and obviousness.