New Bunkermag Article

...

The grim (for you first worldists, not me) conclusion I get from the article is that capitalism will cause first worldists to get third world standards of living. This is excellent news, it confirms what I've been saying: is not the third world that will catch up to the first, it'll be the other way around.

It won't get as bad, but it will certainly get worse, which is what really counts.

Good article, this is the money-shot:

The only way out of this trap are capitalist development, planned primitive capital accumulation (Stalinism), or that the first world establishes socialism also, and then helps develop the third world out of solidarity.

It's not the money shot, it's the height of stupidity. Developed countries are only developed due to the exploitation and repression of the rest of the world. If, somehow, the entirety of the rest of the world managed to go full gommunist they would outstrip developed nations in all aspects from resources to population, as well as relative political unity. Cutting off trade with them would be the death knell of their supremacy, with only one exception: nuclear weapons, which has its own disquieting possibilities.

We must seize both the means of production and imperialism if we are to win. One cannot succeed without the other.

You could not be more wrong. Resources and population mean diddly squat in and of themselves. What makes life better in the first world is the historical accumulation of value fixed in infrastructure, factories, and social organization and institutions. If the third world tomorrow cuts of all trade they will be stuck without ready access to technology, machine tools going from the simple to advanced, capital goods, and specialists needed to make it all work.

You lack a basic grasp of the very dreary and dull reality of gradual industrial development.

It's true.

What feeds and supplies developed nations? It's not ideas.

It'll take around $4.5 trillion to repair infrastructure in the US alone. Factory production is largely outside developed countries. Social organization and institutions as a category is so broad as to be meaningless, and in any case nothing without the base – and that also has the undertone of the rest of the world being backward culturally in relation to the West, which is an opinion better suited to a Holla Forumsyp.

So now the third world is cutting off trade? I thought it was the other way around. Do try and keep the facts straight.

What feeds and supplies developed nations is largely developed nations. The EU and the US for example are net exporters of agricultural products, on the part of feeding. With regards to mineral inputs, the picture is more mixed. But most of those actually come from middle income countries like Brazil and Russia, and oil-exporters, which are often not "underdeveloped" in a strict sense.

Now as to factory production, you are again plainly wrong. A lot of low-end factories are sprouting up in developing countries, but if you look at the biggest "workshops" you will still find the US and European countries, and SK and Japan. The low number of people employed mask the large output being achieved in popular perception.

Of course the biggest workshop nation is China. Bit if you still class them as third world, you are plainly a fool. Of all countries around, they probably stand to gain the most from extracting resources from the third world to fuel industries.

Now, the above points betray out what would happen if the first world were to boycott the third: very little. Only if all middle income countries and oil producers also joined in would a problem occur.

You're a weasel, I'll give you that.
So his money-shot is actually nothing.

His point was that the third world's premier problem is underdevelopment, and revolution does not change that. Your counterpoint was that revolution would end exploitation by the first world and mean the death knell to first world supremacy because their development is a function of the exploitation of the other.

But, one, that isn't necessarily true, for the reasons pointed out above. The first world exploits the third, but likely isn't dependent on this exploitation to survive. And two, merely ending exploitation does not lead to development in the third world. The third world would find itself in the position of the USSR in 1921, face the same difficult choices, which was my point exactly: Dengist capitalism, or Stalinism.

Oil producers in the middle east are "third world". Can we imagine the developed nations tolerating that without any significant economic impact? That alone refutes everything argued as rubbish.

Please tweet this article to Roo.

@MaoistrebelNews

Bump

ＩＭＡＧＩＮＥ ＭＹ ＳＵＲＰＲＩＳＥ

...

Jokes on you I didn't even read anything

You still go to gulag, but I will make sure you get cigarettes, and two bowls of gruel.

Mind.
Fucking.
Blown.

You must be the same moron from that other thread.

you're delusional
this is why GDP is cancer
it only shows value captured, not value produced
and faggots like you look at these numbers and make conclusions that Core is self sufficient

look into the value chains theory
and then think again about what it will cost to severe these chains

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Fucking laughing at the bourgie idiots who complain about $8 dollars per hour. That's more than 70% of the world. First worlders are the global bourgeois and have no revolutionary potential.

And worse, the more muh privileged they are, the more they vote for fascist retards like Trump and Le Penis because they don't want to share their wealth.

Kill yourselves porkies. You profit from the exploitation of the global working class and can keep your living standards because of us.

Go home jason you're drunk

latch on to teen angst. no one likes working in the first world either.

Yeah nah fuck off with your spooky bullshit, nazbols.

National Bolshevism is more related to Third Worldism than the point of view espoused in this article though

Most of what this article argues is insignificant to the general Third Worldist claim that revolution will never happen in the First World because First World people benefit way too much from imperialism to desire revolution.

The benefits of imperialism are decreasing as time goes on, as the first world bleeds capital and production to the third world.

It's a terrible argument and it doesn't apply to more resource-rich Third World countries like Congo or Brazil.

fuck off

Stupid Maoists should become Dengists already.

Most workers don't benefit from deindustrialization. Globalization is killing the first world labor aristocracy.

Untrue. They benefit from service labor and small-scale businesses which are created through the exploitation of the Third World.

THE ROO HAS SPOKEN:

twitter.com/MaoistRebelNews/status/854828385910095872

Kek, looks like we finally shooed the roo

maoistrebelnews.com/2016/07/01/espresso-stalinist-simply-not-capable-of-debate-honesty-or-adult-behaviour/

maoistrebelnews.com/2015/12/19/daniel-buntovniks-hurt-feelings-and-pseudo-intellectualism/

Here are two "responses" he made to others who thoroughly critiqued/debunked his batshit insane 3rdWorldism.