Why are Third Worldists wrong according to Holla Forums...

Why are Third Worldists wrong according to Holla Forums? Isn't the first world quite clearly being bought off whilst the third world takes the brunt of the exploitation?

Other urls found in this thread:


Historical materialism determines that a society much achieve an advanced stage of capitalism in order to make the transition to socialism. While misery in the so-called Third World is greater than it is in the economic center, the contradictions that will ultimately destroy capitalism are not as close to being fatal there as they are in the First World. There is room for capital to grow in the Third World, but it is quickly approaching its limits in the First.

much must

nobody denies that the third world is much more exploited, however usually the point of contention is that the first world doesn't have revolutionary potential.

This is an example of Bad Marxism 101.

First of all, the "priv-ileges" 1st world workers have like the minimum wage, mandatory breaks, eight hour workdays, universal healthcare, public education, etc. were not just made possible by imperialism, but were the products of ongoing struggle. Not to mention, the people who are most dependent on these programs are not the middle class but the lower classes.

Second, the rate of exploitation doesn't go down just because wages go up. Marx never makes this argument so it's foolish for Roo and the Leading Light Cartel Organization to keep parroting it. Wages come out of the boss's profits. When wages for 1st World workers increase, it's not that workers in Guatemala or the Philippines get more exploited, it's that the boss loses a little bit more of his profits.

Third, 3rd Worldism relies entirely on an orientalist view of the East. The idea that something inherent to Muslim, Asian, African, etc. cultures makes them more anti-capitalist (or at least harder for capital to dominate them) was promoted for years by the bourgeois elite in order to demonstrate how "backwards" these peoples were. 3rd Worldism takes the same racist trope (that "underdeveloped" nations are more privy to communism because their cultures repel modernization), romanticizes it, and uses it as the basis of their ideology.

Revolution can only happen from within. It's not the job of noble savage Mexicans and Algerians to bring socialism to white people via invasion. It can only be successful when done by the people themselves.

leftcom is right
strong work

Doesn't the term third world come from countries that weren't aligned with the US or Soviet Union?
1st = US
2nd = Soviets
3rd = neither
Or am I just imagining this?


An insightful retort.

Comrade, please.

Look at the global system from an Althusserian perspective. What role does the West play, and how does western culture serve the reproduction of capital on a global scale?

Western culture, especially Amerikan culture, is entirely hostile to socialism. Every time we see rebellion it's never coming from the "average" people (i.e. middle class) but from the outsiders (indigenous peoples, ghettoized peoples, immigrants, anarchists who live on the fringes, old radicals). That's not to say easterners are innocent either given that their cultures are also becoming entirely saturated in capitalist filth, but the poverty of the West still stands.

People have been saying that for like 150 years now.


adding onto that, years of austerity in the first world means that workers in the west are currently losing access to these benefits.

Literally all these things were implemented by the ruling class in order to pacify workers.
Abstract concepts of exploitation matter nothing to the worker as long as his material existence is satisfying. Furthermore, the First World relies less and less on manufacturing industry but rent-seeking, which doesn't perform the classic marxist surplus extraction. Modern entrepreneurship, self-employment and rent-seeking is about to be the future for the first world, while the third world will cover the manufacturing sector.
Way to strawman Third Worldism. It's kinda funny, Third Worldism gets either accused of "IdPol" or "economic reductionism". You can't have it both ways. The reason why this notion exists though is because unlike most western societies, capitalism hasn't done much good to these people, therefore, they are having a less positive view of capitalism, because for them, Marxist-Leninist state socialism is preferable to capitalist exploitation. Contrary to what bourgeois propaganda tells you, capitalism doesn't actually built up these exploited countries, because the cycle of accumulation and reinvestment is severed through superexploitation.
Amazing how triggered you guys get when faced with the reality.

Socialism has a good chance of emerging from anti-austerity struggles as we're already seeing potential for in Greece, Spain, and France (all three of these countries have very militant labour histories). Greek anarchists are already setting up self-governed mutual-aid based neighborhoods alongside refugees and migrants. The same thing could easily happen in French banlieues if it's not happening already.

Go back to grad school.

It's funny because he literally doesn't make any argument. I can see why Roo reacts like that since he's been refuting strawmen for years now.

Ugh, learn how economics work. When wages and social benefits go down prices will go down as well. In Germany, real wages (adjusted to the inflation rate) have been going down since the 90s, yet the living standard hasn't decreased. If there is anybody who is suffering the consequences of austerity its the Third World worker.

Because the first world has revolutionary potential.

WTF I love social democracy/social imperialism now
Meh. Greek in particular is interlocked within the EU and its mechanics. Greece is already stabilizing by neoliberal standards, there is not going to be any revolution, because a Grexit is going to he ten times worse then the austerity measures for the average Greek. Stop being such an utopian.

It did.

If there is no first world insurrection, then the USA will just bomb third world communists into oblivion.

A third world insurrection being hopeless doesn't make a first world insurrection possible though.

people in greece are prostituting themselves for hamburgers now.

This is a disgusting oversimplification. Look at the history of labour struggles in the Western world and you'll see how most of them were "reformist" in nature.

Is that why anti-austerity protests in Europe exist? Is that why most Americans are getting more and more angered at meager wages, shitty jobs, and high rent prices? For god's sake, most youth in the West can barely afford a decent standard of living as it is.

This is literally "service workers aren't REALLY workers". Nonsense. Services like haircuts can generate value.

Capitalism wasn't helping westerners until they fought for said reforms. And assuming your blanket statement is true, where are the mass Marxist-Leninist movements in the 3rd World? Most militant movements in the Global South are either ethnic nationalist or religious in nature with barely anything socialist or proletarian about them.

The entire dichotomy of "doing reform" vs. "doing revolution" is a red herring Turd Worldists enjoy throwing around in order to belittle real instances of struggle in the 1st World. The word "reform" is also heavily politically loaded since it's come to mean "sellout" when really even seemingly big changes can be seen as reforms. For instance, if Israel became Palestine again, that would ultimately be just a reform since replacing a Zionist bourgeoisie with a Palestinian bourgeoisie would do nothing to destroy the domination of capital.

Leftcoms are right when they say that twentieth century revolutionaries engaged themselves in a bit of wishful thinking. It was never the material contradictions of capital that forced revolutions to happen but rather just the promise of a better existence made to desperate people.

Now, the only way for growth to happen is by porkies devouring one another. There is no corner of the planet that is free from the influence of capital, and there needs to be a periphery to maintain the center. What can it do now except spin itself apart?

They're not wrong.

The same USA that can't even kill a warlord in Somalia? USA can't even get rid of Maduro right now. Wars for the US in the 21st century don't work like that. They are hellish expensive, and the liberal public will be mobilized against them, and they are likely to be the absolute killer for a chance for a second legislature for any president. This isn't the 50s anymore (and even in the 50s, USA couldn't defeat DPRK).

How was I not making an argument? I dissected 3rd Worldism's major premises to show why they're bullshit.

Stop LARPing like someone from the 20th century.






United States is not the only imperialist power. France does a ton of shit in Africa and Britain still has many of its former colonies by the balls.

Reminder that the LLCO is a Cartel, run by a pasty white Mexican gangbanger. Prairie Fire is doing hard time, and he's joined forces with Aryan Nations. If you Third Worldists had any brains, you'd go 4PT like "Supreme Commander" Hector.

Maduro is a socdem who has talked a little about more ambitious reforms, running what used to be a petrostate without much of an economy. His rule is threatened by dissent in the military and protesters (very possibly backed by foreign powers). If the USA hasn't sent in marines, it's because they don't need to. If things should ever get to the point where revolution in poorer regions of the world starts to seriously disrupt capitalism, the USA and it's buddies (possibly the PRC too, depending on how the situation there develops over the next few decades) will go fascist in a hot second and the liberal anti-war protesters you're counting on to interfere with the war effort will be lining up to enlist to stop the racist, homophobic communist bigots who are standing between them and their mocha lattes.

Why do you want to jinx him like that?

Come on now. You know you are selling your boys short.

Amazing how Turd Worldists promote reformists like Maduro and Morales in the 3rd World but then bash any attempt at reform in the 1st World under the guise of "social imperialism" or "it literally never happens that way" (to quote Roo).

Reformism but enacted by the ruling class. Literally the first social security implementations were done by Bismarck, a feudal reactionary.
Keynesian economics are not any indication for a communist movement. It seems to me that our current neoliberal "shock therapy" is coming to an end, we might very well get another "New Deal" soon.
Compare the living standards and the predicament of the youth right now with the living standards and predicament of the youth in pre-revolutionary Russia, China, Vietnam, etc. and then we can talk. You can still buy a huge bottle of coke for less then 2$ in most western countries, as long as that exists, there won't be any revolution.
I wasn't talking about service workers. I was talking about petit-bourgeois entrepreneurship, self-employment and rent-seeking through franchises or copyright. Please be exact.
India, Nepal, Philippines, etc., where is the revolutionary potential in the first world? For that to be a valid argument to need to point me to a more promising proletarian struggle.
Stop being stuck in the 19th century. Mao has developed quite clearly that when faced by imperialism, the short-term interests of the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie align. You can review that in any revolution that has occured in history quite cleary. That doesn't mean that in the aftermath, the re-emerging class struggle would be succesful against the risen national bourgeoisie, but it has been the only valid modus operandi for communists since the beginning of the 20th century.
I don't, Jason does it, but he is not the official voice for Third Worldism whatsoever.
Not at all. A liberated Palestine wouldn't be favored at all by the world, and class struggle would immediatly arise - and since you have been making moral arguments, let me make one as well: It would also increase the situtation for Palestinians who are living in a literal Apartheid state.

Daring hypothesis that involves accepting some neoliberal points I would ordinarily be contrarian and contest:
if it is true that living standards in China are growing rapidly, and we will be assuming it is, then I would make a case that the first world quite possibly has more potential than the third world because we're stagnating

Britain has gone a decade without a real terms pay increase. If Chinese wages are increasing even at say - 4% - and even only in the "middle class", then their outlook is much more positive than ours. They've started from further behind, but their direction of travel is positive, which is the key thing - if living standards are improving at reasonable speed, why revolt, even if they're currently shit?

Meanwhile, if you're living worse than your parents and the outlook is poor, what do you have to lose?

The only countries which want to keep Palestine occupied are the US and a couple of south sea islands.

Also many imperialist nations give a shitton of money to Palestinian elites.

Fuck off Walter Benjamin.

Grad school really fucks with you.

Most turd worldists are also grad students. I guess hating on progress is mindlessly trendy when you're writing a humanities dissertation.

No, you claimed that Third Worldism is some cultural marxist post-colonial mysticism.

Is that why Kerala became the most succesful Indian state under a Marxist-Leninist government? Because they are all LARPers?

No, why would I say that? The USA has been the most interventionist power, granted, France has done some shit in Libya and Mali, and Britain is usally the appendix of the US whenever they do an invasion, but on the global scale, USA does like 95% of the necessary western interventions. Look at their military budget compared to European nations.

Of course Maduro is an reformist, but he is not a social imperialist, I have no idea how revolutionary the PSUV actually is, I have no enough insight on the topic, but it sure as hell is more socialistic than these Sanders/Corbyn types liberals love to bring up. But that doesn't matter anyway, its an example of the USA trying to get rid of an anti-imperialist movement, and it is failing. The petit-bourgeoisie that helped Chavez to gain power, proved itself to be incapable to deal with economic sanctions and is now full-blown reactionary; what happens in Venezuela is to be seen now, it sure as hell is a more vivid revolutionary ground than a fucking Labor Party rally in Bongistan.

Yeah, because the movements we favor are not at all progressive for the people in the third world who suffer from racism and sexism more than any western nation. Christ, apply yourself to the Gulag. The DPRK is socially more progressive than the RoK.

The third world definitely has more revolutionary potential, but revolution there will be subverted or put down by the imperialist powers if it gets too far along. At the very least there has to be civil unrest and mutiny in the wealthier countries.

The same would happen to a western country if it would try to implement actual socialism.

It doesn't change the basic fact that said "concessions" were won through a conscience struggle. And I assumed Maoists had no issue with class collaborationism so as long as it helped the exploited class in the long-run?

Neither are jihadis, Hindu nationalists, Native American fascists, Nation of Islam, Black Hebrew Israelites, Mexica Movement/Aztlan retardation, Muslims who want to re-Islamicize Iberia and the Balkans, NazBols, etc.

This argument is entirely fallacious and a faulty comparison.

What do you mean by "revolutionary potential?" Revolutions are a combination of material conditions and the will of the people, not either/or.

We don't see any leftist factions in most militant 3rd World nationalist/religious struggles, that's my point, and when we do they're usually useless and just tailing. Tell me how likely it is that a country like Yemen with all the Sunni/Shia infighting will go communist.

If the Palestinians win back all of '48 Palestine it will just be ruled by Palestinian elites who will sell their own people out worse than Mandela did. 50% of the people in historic Palestine are Jews and they contribute the most to the economy. There is no way a Palestinian NB will go against them.

Can I ask: are you a member of the LLCO or RAIM?

Oh for god's sake. Can you try not to be a stereotype of maoists just for this thread?

No, because revolution in the first world would give the revolutionaries access to much more advanced military equipment, and possibly nuclear weapons.

This is precisely why your western communist bullshit will never take hold in the majority of the Third World. Even in the DPRK, which is 4PT, they maintain traditional Korean culture. Third World women are not motivated by "liberation" as westerners see it; they are motivated by tradition. Ask any Muslim or Hindu woman if they'd like to be "liberated" from their traditions and practices by secularism.

Not to mention a developed economic infrastructure.

why were the vietnamese the best communists?

Yeah I'm sure there are reactionary women, but so what? They'll lose.

What makes you think this? We don't see class struggle in Palestine right now despite Hamas screwing over the rest of Gaza.

How many Syrian women are fighting alongside the FSA? It's not that there are reactionary women, as though they were the minority in traditional cultures, but that most women in traditional societies do not have any political aspirations. They are motivated by God and Family. They do not see their obligations as servitude. You would do well to grasp this and take heed, because your current rhetoric will not convince them.

Plenty of Kurdish women fight for the YPG.

That's true, but most Third Worldists detest the Kurds, for their alleged collusion with the Israelis.

Also take into account how little the global Muslim community (the Ummah) supports the efforts or ideology of the YPG. You see plenty of support for Hamas, plenty for the FSA, plenty for Hezbollah and other jihadi groups but almost none for the secular left-wing Kurdish factions. It's almost as if economic interest can't win over cultural loyalties.

The third world doesn't have the resources to fight a global revolution, for one. Those parts of the world just don't have military hardware that could stand against (mostly US) modern hardware. Whereas in the first world, that shit is around and could be seized. Second, they're not white. Western countries could get away with carpet bombs or nukes and the "it's gommunists :DD" would fly. That shit wouldn't fly in a white country.

Yea Benjamin was big into the lurianic kaballah just like the genocidal israeli settlers. The whole jist of it is basically kosher Pol Pot where the jewish messiah destroys civilization and brings everything back to paradise. That's why jewish settlers don't care how many innocent Palestinians they kill, they just want their messiah.


They can't overthrow those places while keeping the structure they want for a replacement. If it was communism they wanted to oust they'd cross lines that they wouldn't otherwise, possibly including nukes.

No one is ever going to use nukes again. America keeps losing because it's a dying empire. If the Naxals won in India the US would be powerless to stop them because they can't just be ousted through proxy warfare or an easy coup.

Little profit struggles are at lower stakes than total, existential war

At best you can hope to count on a sizeable fifth column of leftists (that is, global bourgeoisie who think they’re communists) to aid a struggle mounted from Mexico but that’s still a long shot

What's it like living in the 2030s?

Assad is a fucking porky who is being supported by other porkies.

The Ukraine is third world?

How is getting their oil while occasionally dropping bombs and having proxies do all the fighting not "winning?"

Living under the Chinese nuclear umbrella sure helps.

What beautiful fantasy world do you live in? Is this the result of that opioid epidemic that I have been hearing so much about?

You're not debunking anything. My point is, America has zero capability to successfully win anymore. Trump was put into power for the purpose of saving the last of what america has left and he's failing hard. Maduro is still here, Assad is still here, Donbass is still being revolutionized, Houthis are kicking Saudi ass in Yemen, the DPRK is stronger than ever, Naxals have a decent chance of winning in India, Brazil is going to go back to leftism very soon, etc.

Quads don't lie.

What do you think "winning" is? Flying a particular flag over government buildings?

Now THIS is optimism

If everyone thought like this man we would have communism by now

America has been reduced to basically just tearing countries apart (e.g. Libya) when it used to be able to erect client states. The empire is slowly decaying.

Maduro has established Special Economic Zones throughout Venezuela, much like Deng Xiaoping, and is gearing Venezuela towards Chinese style market-socialism. Assad is a nationalist, and his family has been giving Russia Syrian oil for decades. The DPRK is 4PT and is more traditional and rigidly hierarchical than it is egalitarian. It continues to exist only because it is propped up by Russia and China, who continue to stand by it, in utter embarassment, because if the DPRK were to be toppled by the Americans, nothing would stop them from pushing onwards into Russia and China at the same time.

The Left is in a position of weakness and lackluster. Stop fooling yourself.

The FSA is secular, Hezbollah is cool with christians now, Wahhabism is funded by Saudi Arabia, an American client state, and Islamic radicalism was backed by the United States to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. During the middle of the 20th century, the Middle East and North Africa were much more secular than they are today. That Indonesians aren't supportive of radical groups active thousands of miles away fighting for causes they care little about shouldn't be a surprise. Religion is used as an instrument of control by a few more reactionary states, and is more generally a product of material deprivation. After imperialist foreign policies come to an end, I expect to see a return of secularism.


muh labor aristocracy is a myth created to divide the working class. third worldism has nothing to do with Marx, it is an ideology originating in the failure of the world revolution of 1917-21. The german and central european revolutions failed, leaving the USSR as an isolated one party state. The stalinist doctrine of socialism in one country, a doctrine born out of defeat, spawned third worldism and all its retrograde succesors. and what does it mean to be bought off are all the workers in the 'first world', no matter how precarious they are or how committed to communism they are somehow tainted by some sort of original sin? isn't misery the only inexhaustible resource under capitalism? The stalinist/maoist/idpol love for generalised psychological platitudes really pisses me off.

The question is, do you really want to stop capitalism? or do you want to separate people between 'bad' and 'good', between the elect and the reprobates? do you want to separate justified suffering from unjustified suffering? And the circle of the true sufferers gets smaller and smaller all the time. eventually third worlders are going to declare humanity as a whole corrupt and unworthy of saving.

Besides, most 'third worlders' lack an actual understanding of 'the third world' (a slippery and nearly meaningless concept), they fetishise it. third worlders see 'the third world' as an homogenuous oppressed mass, as a mere projection of their aspirations, they don't understand any nuance concerning the third world, leading them to support bourgeois nationalist regimes, theocrats and bloody dictators who are not even leftist at all.

They learned not to do that. A miserable shithole of a country that gives you all of its resources (Iraq) is far better than a successful, stable competitor (Germany).

Benjamin wasn't a tankie or a postmodernism, if anything, he was close to leftcoms and anti stalinist trots. His idea of non linear time came after the molotov ribbentrop pact, when WWII was imminent and german leftists/ jews felt betrayed by Stalin and the USSR. Just waiting for capitalism to 'collapse under its own contradictions' is downright suicidal when the catastrophe is looming on the horizon, as stupid as SocDems' naive faith in progress. you have to actually go out there and do something. pseudo positivistic determinism is suicide



kurds are not arabs and have a completely different culture and language. the secular Ba'athist arab regimes treated kurds as second class citizens, as did the turks. the ummah is an islamist pipe dream for the most part, it's like talking about 'christendom' as if it still was some sort of unified political entity. the muslim world is as full of sectarian, racial and ethnic divisions as any other place of the world.

i made a thread about this today, it was only worst because i have a shitty inglish and i was never good at expressing myself
fuck you OP, you are just reminding me the worst part of me

Guerilla warfare only succeeded when peasants (i.e. non-urbanized workers) got involved. Communists suffer too much butthurt to admit this.


Yeah guys, this capitalism is way more socialister than the other capitalism.

It still doesn't change the fact that most Muslims despise the YPG. Where are all the pro-Kurd solidarity rallies in the Muslim World? Why aren't Palestinians showing solidarity with their Kurdish brothers and sisters who are also fighting an anti-colonial struggle and have been for decades?

Palestinians fucking hate Marxism.

That isn't arguing on Roo's terms. He says that Marxism is an evolving theory, and that Marxism-Leninism was the most up to date theory in that lineage, and that Maoism was the elaboration on that present to its time, and MTW is the most up to date iteration of the theory. He sees Marxism as a continuously growing description of the capitalist system, and that is the basis for his claim that Marx didn't understand the role imperialism would play in defending capitalism. He claims Lenin saw this, Mao saw this, and now MTWs are the cutting edge.

Well, when an actual socialist leader of country weighs in on the issue, it will be important. Otherwise, we just condemn Israeli fascism.

Slowly transform into a semi-feudal hellscape of different classes of workers that are pitted against one another to defend the ruling class.

I mean, we lived in conditions of total poverty and misery for millenia, with masses of people joining to defend the aristocracy because of superstition, because of meager wages paid to military men and promises of spoils and land, because they simply weren't as well armed as those military men that would fight for the aristocrats on the basis of upholding their tenuous but valuable status.

We are coming into an era where AI and remote controlled drones can be deployed to kill people from such distances that whatever meager access they have to mortars, guns and surface to air missiles, they can't possible hope to achieve anything except a moral victory with the people. But what can the people do to the empire a world away except continue crying into cameras and attempting to attack it through terrorism? And what do the people in that empire do except get furious at every attack and call for the third world menace to be glassed once and for all? And what happens when that empire shrinks into cities with property rates so high that slums surround it like a moat, and any attack on it is met by fire coming out of the sky on a population of people so immiserated, so irrelevant to the rapidly automated economy that they can barely subsist, let alone combat the high tech robots killing them from miles away?

I'm not convinced "capitalism collapsing" is a pre-requisite for anything like a revolution. Capitalism will evolve into such muh privileged access to wealth as to resemble a return to aristocracy, and there will still be commodity production to some extent, but only for the few tens of millions, maybe hundreds worldwide that can render services to their trillionaire lords, and everyone else will just be a tragedy. We already look at the billions worldwide living in slums and say "such a tragedy". You think it can't come here without the same response? You think the rich owners in China, in India, in Brazil fundamentally give a shit that their cities are surrounded by slums, that they won't pay to have people shot that would come trying to take their wealth?

No one denies Marxism needs to be modified to fit the present day and existing conditions, but Turd Worldism is barely Marxist at all in that it rejects basic Marxist principles for oversimplifications of how imperialism functions.

I'm not a turd worldist but these kind of disingenuous strawman arguments make me want to defend that side. You didn't even have to go there since your first two points were actually good.

I don't know the full extent of his theory, I'm just granting him that he might actually have some kind of theory. I've never read it, never read his book. Never even read Mao.

But I do know that arguing with him on the basis of what Marx said has resulted in him dismissing Marx as outdated in the past, so it's irrelevant to whatever his argument is. True, in a very simple way the argument seems to be that it is demonstrable that workers in different parts of the world, in different states seem to act contrary to international solidarity, and furthermore workers in different parts of the world have more of a record of revolt. This is almost incontrovertibly true, but does he have a theory underpinning it that is more nuanced than "first world workers are paid more"? I honestly don't know.

Yeah but most muslims don't support ISIS so it doesn't really follow that the reason they don't support YPG is because their reactionary.

This board really hasn't taken seriously the idea that having a secessionist nationalist movement inside your country and region may not be that attractive to those who aren't part of it. If a powerful armed secessionist Chicano movement arose in Texas or California most people would be screehing
Then imagine that it was supported by whatever power most people view to be the great satan in the region (likely Russia or China in the US) and you get the idea.

Am I the only one who reads the kind of stuff that YPG puts out and is kinda disappointed? At least PLFP is nominally Marxist unlike YPG so the optimism about YPG is misplaced imo. How can a society that is not guided by a scientific understanding of capitalism create a post-capitalist society?

Rojava isn't secessionist but federalist, TEV-DEM and the SDF are multiethnic projects and have stated their intention to remain within Syria while preserving self government. Syria isn't the US, it's an artificial multiethnic state that has always been wrecked by sectarian and ethnic divisions. Tankies sure love to appeal to a reified will of the nation.

Not nationalist, but traditional. Marxist and Anarchist movements are often superficial because their primary motivations are of an economic and materialist nature. Third-Worlders did not go through an "enlightenment" as we have in the west, and ascribe to what you would refer to as "metaphysical" doctrines. That is to say, they are idealists, not materialists. Their commitment to their religions (Islam, Shamanism, Hinduism, etc.) and their cultural traditions are mystical, primordial, and ancestral. Your Marxist theory can't compete with the Qu'ran. Promote theological and traditional socialism adapted to specific Third World countries or just give up.

It's really not a strawman.

I hate to give the nosemaster any credit, but his critiques of postcolonial theory (and thus turd worldism) are pretty valid. The East has become as saturated by capitalism as the West to the point where cultural nationalism (wearing a hijab, meditating, belief in circular time, prioritizing obligations to family over self-interest) can no longer repel the effects of capital on the mind. Certainly, we see instances where easterners are demonized and can blame colonialism for conditioning the prerequisites, like the burkini ban. But there are instances where "outsider" westerners are also demonized. What would happen if, say, the entire state of Utah wanted to ban caffeinated drinks from being sold in their state in order to preserve Mormon culture? What would happen if orthodox Jews in NYC demanded all street lights in the city be turned off during the sabbath? The LDS has an unbelievable amount of financial power and the US keeps giving billions in aid to Israel every year, but that doesn't change modern western culture from giving these groups a certain amount of deviance.

The entire world suffers at the hands of capital. It's not a West vs. East thing nor was it ever. The East will start seeing its cultural artifacts turn into consumer goods sooner than later.

So what in capitalism has changed so that the rate of exploitation DOES go down when wages increase?


modern industrial engineering has made manual labor obsolete
especially 3rd world labor

workers are irrelevant

third worldists are completely right.
the first world is hopeless

Not gonna lie it would be pretty cool if half these things were right.

They aren't
fuck the first world fuck burgerland
kill the janitors
world is a fuck

read book

The most violent settlers in Palestine are all messianic nuts. Look up Chabad-Lubavitch. They pay their members and their eight kids to move to the settlements for the sake of "messianic redemption".

This is a myth. Socialism and secularism were always more popular in the Muslim World than they ever were in the west. PFLP, Gaddafi, Nasser, Ba'athism, South Yemen, the Indonesian communist party, the communist factions of the FLN, the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, the Soviet government in Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who participated in the Bolshevik revolution, Islamic anarchism during the Ottoman Empire, Rojava, even Muhammad himself held proto-socialist views concerning sharing all wealth.



Soviet puppet state.

Literally slaughtered by Islamists backed by the West.

Also slaughtered by Islamists.

Also slaughtered by Islamists.

Another Soviet puppet.

There were also many Muslims who fought against the Soviets, see Basmachi Movement.

Barely significant, anarchism was always much more popular and successful in Europe and Latin America.

Secular and not based on Islamic principles at all.

Muhammad was a classic succdem who allowed for private property and free markets, even building a marketplace near the holiest site.

You can certainly make the argument that Islam is not the reason why these countries are in shit or why their bad apples blow people up, but to suggest Islam is the reason why you see communist movements in said regions is just as fallacious.

first world marxists are larping

this is a retarded overgeneralisation. even victorian anthropologists and the postcolonial wankers of radical alterity would be ashamed of spewing such platitudes about muh non western mind. people in india and the middle east can read the same books you get in the west. they are not aliens, nor racially condemned to supersition. stop tripfagging you absolute moron.

LLCO are a drug cartel.

Found the liberal

You missed my point entirely. Of course they can read the same books, but since their values have been inculcated into them since childhood, ancient religious and traditional values, they are not as likely to drop their beliefs and devote themselves to secular doctrines such as Marxism, doctrines which are hostile to religion and tradition. Religion and tradition are cheap for us, but not for them. In other words, yes, they can read Marx, but the word of Marx is nothing compared to the word of Allah, and the teachings of Marxism are superficial compared to their ancestral traditions. I'm not saying they're "stupid" or "simple-minded" for ascribing to traditional doctrines, far from it; it is we who are stupid and simple-minded. They know who they are, but we fumble around in the dark, guided only by fables of progress and technological advancement.

But what is about the russian revolution? The people were also backwards and religious, but they still managed to crush tsarism.

And why is a reactionary like you, looking for conversation on a leftists board?

I said the middle class are NOT the people who are most dependent on the welfare state if by "the welfare state" you mean things like public education, universal health care, food stamps, and the like.

Russians have always been actually reactionary. Why do you think the USSR never had a female leader? Russians today are even worse in that regard and since the USSR's fall the Orthodox Church has experienced a boom.

I could also point out how most of the Bolsheviks were tribe members, but then I'd be called Holla Forums. There isn't even anything wrong with Jewish communism anyway.

What is the "middle class" in this bourgeois world?

Because you touch yourself at night.

We're all victims of capitalism, each country with different cons. Japan is a relatively rich country where the population is incredibly alienated with record suicide rates while a country like Bangladesh is piss poor from capitalist exploitation, with people leading a very unstable and unsafe life. Both countries have revolutionary potential regardless of their situation, because the population of both countries hate their life as a result of it.

Regardless of who's in the worse situation, what it's doing is turning the people of different countries against each other by comparing their misfortunes, when instead they should be uniting against their common oppressors instead. Sure life is easier for some, and sadder for others, but we're all victims to a failure of a system, even people who'd be classified as "bourgeois" are, they're alienated as fuck and can't enjoy life because of the pressures they feel, they just feel like they're doing the right thing for themselves and even possibly somehow for the world by believing in a spooky system. All everyone needs to do is to realize it, this is the first step, and playing the blaming game is not going to help.

The sovjet union under Lenin made huge improvements for the whole society. You make a mistake, when you make no difference between the sovjet union under lenin and the sovjet union after his death.

Most of Lenin's policies went AGAINST the standard Russian culture of the time.





Here's why

Unruhe responded to this.

I think the notion that its not secessionist is somewhat rich given that "preserving self-government" will inevitably mean diminishing or abolishing the real power of the Syrian state as it is.

Who knows what will happen in reality when its all over? It is quite convenient that its all happening in the Syria and Iraq, two nations targeted by US imperialism and not in Turkey where the Kurds are most discriminated, most concentrated and most aggrieved.

You could honestly say the same thing about the US.

It maybe an open question whether MLs in particular have the most correct understanding of modern capitalism but it is undeniable that the wearer of that crown will have to be Marxist. It is not possible to understand capitalism without Marxist theory, and from what I've seen the Kurds are not Marxists. They spend more time talking about feminism then they do class struggle and some of their leaders have even said that private property will be maintained. Now let us reflect on the fact that its hard enough to push socialism forward even when private property is abolished and yet if this primitive idol is not done away with we will not advance a step closer to communism then we did in the 20th century.

Under Assad, Rojava was treated as a colonial possession, intentionally underdeveloped, the teaching of Kurdish language and Culture was banned. Saddam actually gassed tens of thousands of Kurds, and the US didn't give a fuck. Why do MLs insist in worshipping the state even when the state in question is far from Marxist?

And also the situation in Iraq is way more complicated, there is a long running conflict between the PKK/YPG and the Iraqi Kurdish, more right wing oriented KRG. The Turkish state is at war with its Kurdish population, Kurdish MPs are imprisioned, cities bombed out and occupied. It's not at all different from what is happening in Gaza and the occupied territories.


seriously at least try using google before you talk about stuff you clearly have no knowledge of. 'MLs' in here tend to be willfully ignorant and prefer 'anti imperialist' platitudes to actual understanding of the situation on the ground. should people just let themselves get screwed out of existence because muh anti imperialist RISK?

there is a difference ethnocentric messianism between and universalist messianism. Benjamin falls into the latter camp. Actively doing whatever you can to bring about redemption beats waiting on 'progress' or 'the contradictions of capitalism' to save us all somehow imo.

also takies have zero understanding about how 4th generation/nonlinear warfare works, preferring instead a simple framework of 'antiimperialist' good guys vs 'imperialist' bad guys. this isn't the cold war anymore, any conflict has multiple state and nonstate actors engaging in different and shifting relationship with each other and different reasons for participating in the conflict. the ypg doesn't fall squarely into an 'imperialist' us led block, and also pursues relationships with assad and russia. How can both Turkey and the YPG/PKK be US imperialist puppets while being literally at war with each other. Is the Syrian communist party less revisionist than the various Turkish Maoist/ML formations currently fighting in Rojava?

even in the cold war, there were clear geopolitical goals that can't easily be slotted in the simplistic good vs. evil narrative. even more so if you believe the USSR stopped being socialist at some point.

Fuck Palestine. They're a bunch of morons and not worth the effort.