Be honest, do you really think that revolution is really still possible in the first world?

Be honest, do you really think that revolution is really still possible in the first world?

Other urls found in this thread:

counterpunch.org/2016/06/07/the-wages-of-neoliberalism-poverty-exile-and-early-death/
motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/extreme-poverty-unemployment-recession-economy-fresno
mic.com/articles/132865/why-the-mortality-rate-for-young-whites-is-now-as-high-as-it-was-during-the-aids-epidemic#.F4FSNPxOF
theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/boomers-deaths-pnas/413971/
dissidentvoice.org/2016/07/genocide-by-prescription/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's literally the only place that it can occur. Maoist scum need to read actual theory.

Why are leftcoms so historically illiterate?

Like Russia, and Cuba, and China..

Yes. Donald Trumps presidency will energize the left. By that I mean the real left, AKA, the old left. The new left will be comprised of liberal democrats, by then the democratic party will be non-relevant.

Communism is not just free shit and industrialization.

Leftcom doing the leftcom shimmy. Soon, this thread will devolve into "The bolsheviks were bourgeois counter-revolutionarie."

Also, not all maoists are third-worldist doofuses.

Possible and necessary. Unless you subscribe to the One Big Gulag solution.

America was "first world" in the roaring 1920s. Depression hit and turned us into a fucking wasteland.

Communists and socialists pressured FDR to do what he did. Just remember we are always 1 disaster away from a revolution, and it is a matter of when, not if capitalism shits the bed again

Fascism will be realised in the civilised world before your stupid bullshit ever will.

This. Capital may have enjoyed it's brief victory over the CCCP but it can't keep going this way forever, bourgeois control can only go downhill from here and I seriously doubt it will ever be able to recover again.

Nationalist sentiment is just phase that comes up in periods of crisis and wanes within a few years, there are absolutely no exceptions to this rule. Maybe you will get your state sometime in the next few decades, it won't last any longer than the last ones. By placing nationalism over internationalism you've already doomed yourselves from the start.

Why in fuck do Third Worldists want revolution in countries still stuck socially and technologically in the 19th century?

Every time a third world revolution happens and the country stays shit, Socialism is blamed for the third world country being shit.

We need to build revolution in the first world. Millions live in poverty here, we just need to speak to them.

It's inevitable. The rate on profit continues to fall, work continues to be moved to automation. Sooner or later, there will be a revolution.

It's not that we have a desperate "want" to develop revolution there, it's just that those are the only places where the material conditions for revolutions still exist.

People in the first world aren't going to take up violence against their own government, period. People who are in "poverty" in 1st world countries still have way more to lose then anyone in the 3rd world. You can't just "speak" to people in 1st world countries to get them angry or radicalized enough to fight their own government, because they have more to lose then their chains.

There also hasn't been any serious presence of Marxism or Socialism at all in the first world for decades. I would gladly be wrong about this, but the material conditions for revolution just don't exist in the first world anymore, that boat set sailed (kind of literally) to South America like 60 years ago.

Were the ancient Chinese in crisis when they outlawed miscegenation with turkic nomads?

It will turn out exactly like it did last time and you'll only have yourself to blame. When that moment comes you'll forget all about fascism and Hitler, you'll be spending the rest of your time explaining how it was all someone else's fault. But don't be surprised if this time around people don't listen to your trite excuses…

...

Y'all niggas need to read some history books. Phases of relative prosperity and bad conditions for revolution come and go.

The argument that lumpenproles and many working class individuals might be apathetic about class consciousness and revolution due to being provided with bread and circus hold some weight, and is very much open to debate. However it can easily be posited that a crisis that disrupts their hedonist apathy is required to make them care.

If you honestly think the standard of living we have today is enough to prevent anyone wanting change you have to be kidding me. Huge amounts of people live in poverty in many first world countries, and others have a better class of misery where they're comfortable but scrape by from paycheck to paycheck and constantly worry about their kids and bills. Those who have absolutely nothing to gain from socialism or communism within the working class are an insignificant minority.

>Holla Forums bans a user permanently for arguing that "the eternal anglo" was more perfidious and powerful then jews with the simple excuse: defending jews.
Really makes those synapses fire

Banning people asking questions or wanting to talk, even if it seems shallow doesn't work in our favour. At most the thread should be locked or bumplocked and they should be told to lurk.

How many are actually destitute, as in starving to death? Only 120 Americans starved to death in 2004. I don;t even have to mention that a lot of those were dumb asses who got lost in the woods. That's far better than any communist/anarchist society.

True but your argument hinges on capitalism functioning the same way it has in the past which won't necessarily be the case. You can't just conquer Africa again at least not with a traditional military invasion the way Europe used military conquest to escape from the Long Depression of the late 19th century. There's also the fact that the rop is declining and is likely to decline further in the future, on top of a whole set of other contradictions. All that makes the stabilization of capitalism, at least in the ways we're familiar with, increasingly unlikely and harder to pull off.

If there's a Third World War and people survive it will people just really go back to work and accept capitalism like in the 20th century? I doubt it. Not to mention that the two world wars hurt capitalism considerably and the War on Terror is already sinking the reputation of the US and the wider West.

There are large amounts of homeless, even if they don't just starve clearly they're not grateful to their benevolent bourgeoisie overlords for letting them live and sleep on the streets. In my country there are huge problems with people living in houses that ought to be condemned due to structural instability, fire risk, dampness and mould, they're exploited by cash loan agencies who are the only people they can turn to if something bad happens in their lives, then are stuck in debt for years. Their kids develop Asthma because their houses are so fucking shitty. Meanwhile houses in our largest city have reached the average price of around $800,00 each due to foreign investors buying property and this weird obsession older people have with having a second property to rent out. Meanwhile I'm working on wiring up a luxury apartment block with stupid shit like remote controlled blinds for useless cunts I hate to live their trite little lives in.
Throughout most of gommunist Russia's time poverty and unemployment was extremely low, this is also the case for many other smaller Communist/Socialist nations. Many of the other ones which are the seed for the "muh starving gommies" meme were poor and full of starving people before Communism, I'd like to see capitalism magically turn a poor country into a utopia.

$800,000*

And are these disease ridden hobos capable of violent revolution? Do they have cognitive ability and physical integrity to partake in armed conflict?
Much of that can be blamed on internationalism.

counterpunch.org/2016/06/07/the-wages-of-neoliberalism-poverty-exile-and-early-death/

There's Third World-like living conditions in the United States. Researchers have also found a surprising number of people living on less then 2 dollars a day: motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/extreme-poverty-unemployment-recession-economy-fresno
i mean hell I've heard from other sources that previously they didnt count them bc they didnt know how/assumed they didnt exist.

Not to mention that mortality rates for middle aged
whites are exploding which is unheard of in a developed country in peacetime bar the collapse Soviet Union.

As far as people starving to death, millions upon millions of people starve to death under capitalism every year. What's to be celebrated except the fact that the American Empire provides a better standard of living for most of its citizens then poorest Third World nations? It still does this on the bones of millions of people and the capitalists want our living standards to be even lower and make even more profits off of us–partially because they need to keep their profits up, partially because they know their empire is failing.

American workers and Western workers in general are still exploited but they've been subjected to capitalism longer so they've managed to attain a better living standard through fighting; also they are "pr1vileged" in some sense to live in the heartland of capitalism.

Most revolutions have been in poor countries because there has been relatively little war on Western soil in the 20th century. In both World Wars it was really Eastern Europe/Russia where the bloodiest and most savage action occurred, hence the reason for revolution there.

Whether they are or not isn't entirely relevant, if violent revolution occurs it will do so during significant social/economic strife. It isn't going to be a conventional conflict.

I'm not sure who you're quoting with the thing about the war on terror. But what do you think fuels and funds internationalism? Capitalists interested in the potential for profit offered to them by the governments they have in their pockets taking control of these areas.

...

Go easy on the assumptions comrade.

Again you confuse Holla Forums for Laissez-faire capitalists. Also by deaths do you mean they just dropped dead, or died a few years earlier than average? That's the thing with social sciences; they're vulnerable to sophistry. I can look at a guy who made 45k a year and lived a few years under the nation average life expectancy and say it was because he was poor. I could look at a guy who died in an industrial accident and say it was because he was too poor to go to college and get a safer job.

>Dude, just out out to some homeless folks on the street and try to do revolution
Why do Third Worldists do this? Even in poor countries the conditions have to be right for revolution–you can't just will it into existence; it isn't enough for there to be suffering people around.


good reply

*go out

If it's violent revolution there will be people killing other people, which the people who actually have a reason to revolt aren't capable of doing on a large scale without getting BTFO.

Who said anything about Holla Forums? Its like you had your talking points ready when it wasn't even relevant. Thanks for outing yourself tho

One guy wouldn't mean anything but if I was to show that millions of guys making 45k a year were dying earlier and that the causes could be attributed to poverty that would mean something. There's a reason why the very wealthiest people in the United States live on average a decade longer or more then the poor. Not to mention that the cost of living is going up, so that 45k figure doesn't mean what it meant a decade ago, in much of the country that's barely having your head above water.

I'd expect a group of people who believe so passionately in the "anuddah shoah" meme to know the facts about this. But I can't say I'm surprised because I honestly don't think Holla Forums really gives a shit about white workers beyond giving every white man an Aryan waifu.

mic.com/articles/132865/why-the-mortality-rate-for-young-whites-is-now-as-high-as-it-was-during-the-aids-epidemic#.F4FSNPxOF
theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/boomers-deaths-pnas/413971/
dissidentvoice.org/2016/07/genocide-by-prescription/
The studies these pieces are referring to are highly scientific works done by medical professionals, not """cultural marxist""" social sciences that you guys like to bitch about.

You'd know all about sophistry.

Or, you could say that the pressure that bosses put on workers to speed-up production to make profit increases work-related industries as well as the incentive the profit-motive creates to skirt around safety violations had a large part in that accident.

*wh1te genocide

Why exactly? The police and military aren't going to crack heads without question. They're still people and the people they're expected to deal with are their countrymen. You can expect them to suppress resistance to some extent, but if it gets to the point where they need to kill people to maintain order most of them are going to give the government the finger.

Yes cops kill people sometimes, but if you replaced people with "everyone" and sometimes with "weeks or months on end" they're not going to turn into bloodthirsty killers with nothing but the death of proles on their mind.

That's a good objection to social sciences statistics. Unfortunately I tried to find the paper to see what they actually claimed to be a poverty linked death and I can't access it without paying or spending hours fucking around with accounts on shitty websites that might not even give me what I want. So neither of us can really say for sure which standpoint is correct. However we can likely assume poverty linked deaths make up a notable amount of the deaths that occur in America, even if it isn't as much as the report claims. As well as that it isn't as black and white as "died of poverty" "died of something that isn't poverty", some will likely be pushing the envelope, but being poor does not kill you by itself, it leads to sudden death, early death and illness indirectly by shaping the living conditions and behaviour of those in poverty. Even in cases such as someone working in THE ACID MINES it's silly to deny that poverty is not a contributing factor, even if it isn't the only one.

Or his dumbass co-worker who should've been fired for incompetence but couldn't because of the labor union ran him over with a forklift. See how easy it is?

I disagree fam, cops in the US are subjected to militarized training lifted whole-cloth from Israeli anti-insurgency training/tactics that teach them to see the average citizen as an enemy. The outbreak of massive police violence over the past decade is proof it had some success yes I know there has never not been police violence.

How did the entire union fit on the forklift?

Really I can't believe that 1. you're an actual worker and not a NEET 2. you live in a right-to-work state or some place with lax labor protections and union busting policies. Porkies that run open shops hire incompetent people all the fucking time, sometimes I think the only real criteria for keeping a job in America is knowing how to be a kiss-ass 24/7.

They get fired because they drain money.

t.someone who doesn't work for living.
source: go outside

You are retarded

It isn't possible yet (and it never was) but it will be in the future. Just wait for unemployment to rise a bit higher.