Maoism Turd Worldism is based on fallacies

Okay, could any M3Wists on this board please inform me, an infantile anarcho-syndicalist, as to how reformisms in the 1st world (minimum wage increase, less working hours, more worker control of industry, social safety net, stopping school privatizations, student loan debt relief) hinder class struggle in the 3rd? Because all I get whenever I ask this question to my Maoist buddies is that 1st worlders have "no right to complain" because "they benefit from imperialism" or "AmeriKKKans/KKKlanadians/Au$tralians are living on stolen indigenous land." Both of these are non-sequiturs which have little bearing on what is to be done. At best, they're appeals to emotion and guilt-tripping. If anyone could provide me with some real logical evidence to back up M3W please do.

Other urls found in this thread:

Learn what a fallacy is KKKracker.

Not the reforms of the 1st world, by the 1st world states themselves. They are policing and subjugating the rest.

And by the way, as for personalias from the meme, the dress up guy probably has no impact, and the hooligan guys have negative impact on advancement of left-wing political movements.

So fighting for a higher minimum wage subjugates the 3rd World, how?

Increases the rate of exploitation in the third world to pay for it.

Except that increased pay isn't coming from 3rd world labor, but from the boss' bank account.

No, it comes from stepping up the rate of exploitation in the third world. You can see this because if you raise wages in the first world the profit margins for companies actually go up.

ignore the other guy
mtws don't really have an issue with the first world wages, that's not the point, the point is third worlders being exploited to substain other countries instead of their own, they're not only victims to surplus value extraction, but imperialism too. first world workers wages have nothing to do with anything.

t. not a mtw but apparently i know the ideology better than them.

They don't. Imperialism exists whether or not the First World chooses the welfare state.
Which is objectively true. I don't know how you can look in the mirror with a straight face and deny that.
Well the argument is that capitalism has outsourced its contradiction into the Third World, where struggle is neutered. Porky will never let the crisis of the 20s happen again, rather we will be getting more fucked up stuff in the global south as an expression of these contradictions. Secondly, for the First World proletarian socialist revolution is just not in his interest, as a country that went socialist would be immediatly boycotted and besieged right away. This is just not a good trade-off for First Worlders. On the other hand, Third Worlders have nothing to loose, and the prospect of a socialist state would be an improvement to them, unlike First Worlders.

I think the main argument is just historical evidence. There hasn't a single succesful revolution in the First World. Not one!

It's an appeal to emotion. There's nothing remotely logical about offsetting your own struggle only because people overseas have it worse.

It's not of interest to the 3rd world either. Very few successful modern 3rd world struggles have been socialist.

The rate of exploitation in the First World is actually higher than in the Third World. Exploitation isn't synonymous with human misery. A worker can be perfectly exploited but doesn't feel it in his living standard. Third Worlders are less exploited but far more miserable.

Whatever it is, it doesn't make it less ture. What's bad about having an international proletarian consciousness?
People in the Third World look up to the Marxist-Leninist states (no unemployment, literacy, food), while First Worlders look down upon them as inferior. Why the fuck would any First World proletarian give up his comforts? He has no reason to. Show an Austrian Cuba, and he will recoil, show an African Cuba, and he will think this is paradise.

source, billy?

It's basic logic looking at the material conditions that facilitate ideological movements. Have you ever left your basement? If you want numbers you could easily compare the size and amount of proletarian movements in the Third World with the ones in the First World where communist parties are consistently at 0,1%.

Ahh, sure.

Nothing, but M3W is strongly against internationalism and universalism.

The West is more revolutionary than anywhere else in the world due to the legacy of the Enlightenment and its values (justice, truth, hope, egalitarianism, etc.). When 1st World people revolt, it's for the sake of saving Enlightenment values from being betrayed. When 3rd World people revolt, it's almost always out of ethnocentricism or religious fundamentalism. Historically, ethnic and religious separatist movements in India had far more popular support than the Naxalites. Islamists are stronger than ever in the Middle East.

This is extremely reductionist and economistic. Way more is at play than just material conditions.

This is what I wrote:
Do you deny this? Why don't you make an argument instead of shitposting.

Bullshit. Why would you say that?
Okay, so you are actually delusional.
Sheer idealism.
The First World doesn't revolt. We have all sorts of liberties like privacy or demcratic processes being taken away from us and nobody gives a shit. Do you think the election of Trump or whatever is a sign of "revolt"?
The point is that they do revolt. That means there is revolutionary potential, whereas in the First World there is absolutely not.
The point is that the Naxalites and the CPI (Marxist) even exists in the way they do. Third Worldists don't say socialism is just about to emerge in the global south - they say that there is the potential, while in the First World there is not.
Idealism contradicting every historical evidence.

Interesting how you guys are all squirming arround those pretty basic points. Literally the only argument in this thread is muh enlightenment.

Because it excludes a huge section of the world from socialist revolution and portrays them as the de facto enemy.

A corporate exec, a white 1st world worker, and a brown 3rd world worker are sitting at a table with a plate of 100 cookies. The corporate exec takes 99 and tells the brown 3rd worlder: "See that net exploiter over there? He wants your cookie."

Please don't tell me you're one of those hard materialists who thinks ideas never matter in any given situation. The ideas of the Enlightenment absolutely matter and are perhaps the only way socialism will ever come about (take into account Marx was in the Enlightenment tradition).

The 1917 revolution took years to build as did Catalonia, China, and Cuba. No one is saying Occupy, BLM or the Women's March were revolutionary, but the fact that they existed at all shows that a large sector of the American population is dissatisfied with the status quo. Not to mention all the anti-austerity protests in Europe, some of which turn violent.

You're conflating bourgeois-nationalist and/or religiously motivated revolts with proletarian ones. The Arab Spring didn't result in socialism. None of the jihadi groups fighting "the West" are fighting for the end of capitalism. If anything, they desire a nationalist capitalism similar to Modi, Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte.

Assertions which are based on nothing but oversimplifications, poor appeals to history and economism.

Because it matters. A return to universalism, progress and humanism over nationalism, religious mythologies and tribalisms is the only way to successfully implement socialism today. Capitalism doesn't need western values anymore since it can easily grow and reproduce in an Asian, Islamic or African environment, so the only way to end capitalism is to return to real western values and cast bullshit noble savage fantasies aside for good. I take it you're one of those idiots who believes Mugabe and Gaddafi were "socialists" right?

Daily reminder Mao got BTFO'd by a couple of pseuds.

what makes a food riot in senegal more potentially revolutionary than an anti-austerity riot in spain, esp. when european countries are never going back to their old welfare state models?

Nope, but I think I did explain why socialist revolution is not an option for the average First Worlder. You havn't addressed that or made an argument.
They are dissatisfied by neoliberalism. They want a New Deal, that's all.
I merely stated that there is potential to revolt. Communists can hijack these movements, as it has happened with, I don't know, every fucking socialist revolution in history? I don't know you can possibly make that argument.
It's not my problem that history hasn't bend over to your idealism. It's just facts my friend.
Literal alt-right argument about muh Western values. Go away.
Strawman. Just surrender already.

Greece isn't First World, it's Second World. Something could be going down there, potentially. The difference is though, the aim of the riots. The ruling class in Europe would potentially have the power to pacify them, while the ruling class in the Third World can't do this. The struggle in the Third World is not against the whims of politicians but against global capitalism itself. Surplus extraction on a global level inhibits Third World countries to develop, as they don't have a national bourgeoisie.

you don't really think people are gonna watch this do you

No you didn't. You made assumptions based on anecdotes. Of course "Cuba" isn't going to be appealing to your average European, but why should it given that European countries have a completely different set of conditions than Cuba and would be far more warm to a socialist model which actually does reflect their conditions? Don't show them Cuba, show them an example of a futuristic western socialism.

Are you sure? Cooperatives, while definitely not socialist, are constantly growing in popularity.

It doesn't always happen that way and in order for that to happen communist parties in the 3rd world would have to have way more influence than they do now. Once again, you're making assertions based on nothing but shoddy history.

I'm saying actual history shows most revolutions in the 3rd world have been nationalist-oriented, not proletarian. What other examples can you give besides Cuba and Burkina Faso? Nearly every other "socialist" revolution was either nationalist/class-collaborationist or a Soviet puppet state (South Yemen, for instance).

3rd Worlders don't love justice, humanism, or progress. They love religion and tribalism which are completely antithetical to real socialism.

LOL! The Alt-right is anti-Enlightenment and plays with noble savage ideas of their own. Socialism is about the future, not the past.

Not anymore. Those welfare states in the EU are drying up as we speak.

They could make small concessions similar to what western countries did during the industrial revolution.

It's against foreign capital, not capitalism "itself." Maoism, in particular, calls for class-collaborationism and allows the bourgeoisie to maintain power in "socialism."

You know, an African would think the United States is paradise too. Or Saudi Arabia.

They bring up decent points against Mao's shitty methodology. On Contradiction is incredibly bad as a theoretical piece and even Maoists will agree.

Because imperialism is the first contradiction.

If you dad is stealing money from poor people I bet it's the priority to stop him from doing so then thing in what you spend his money at as second.

It's really so low to ask for givs while you are killing people in the 3rd world in daily basis.

First Wordlists totally ignore imperialism, even the remotely socialists in the last century were more anti-war than today's so-called socialists.

I won't be surprised if FWs did a revolution at some point and kept exploiting the 3rd world…

Because a socialist revolution would get immediatly boycotted and besieged, and due to the service economies of the First World, living standards would hit rock-bottom right away. Nobody is interested in that. People are fine with 1% more unemployment or a little bit of a lower wage as long as they can surf the internet, grab a coke for one buck and watch Netflix.
You said it yourself: Not socialist.
Compared to what, parties in the First World which are usually 20 people that can't even get a single seat in a community council? Did I say that it would be easy?
For the last time, history doesn't care about your feelings.
As opposed to what ZERO revolutions in the First World? What about the October Revolution, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc - did the proletarian faction not triumph over the nationalists in the end? How do you justify criticizing these revolution while bringing absolutely nothing remotely succesful to the table?
Another strawman and insult because you can't be bothered to argue your way out of a paper bag.
It's the same argument, their values might be different. Muh western values won't solve our problem. Ideas don't make history.
And? Are living standards decreasing rapidly? I don't see. Average income in my country has been rising. What comes to an end soon is the neoliberal cycle though.
No they fucking can't. They don't have the capital. There is no value to redistribute. The industrial revolution was a accumulation-reinvestment cycle, which is hindered in the Third World due to surplus extraction out of the country. Africa itself has 3 billion $ of value extracted while receiving 2 billion $ investements every year. Again, basic Marxist economics defeat idealism und utopianism every time.
It could easily be transformed in resistence against capitalism itself, like it has happened all the time in history.
So you havn't actually read Mao.

The difference is while global capitalism makes it unable for them to copy succesful capitalist models, they can only resort to socialist construction to sustainably boost their living standards. Or they migrate.

Damn Tina with the sick burn

Who is to say this wouldn't also happen in the 3rd world? Remember some of the biggest resistance to the Bolsheviks came from Muslim peasants in Central Asia.

le fun maymay.

Please. The fact that we have so much in the West only furthers the idea that the West is more bound for revolution than the East. If 1st Worlders kept pushing for more and more via general strikes and protests, they'd get to a point where they'd realize the limits of capitalism and liberal democracy and start demanding real change. If anything, frugality hurts class struggle since it keeps people pacified with having little while the bourgeoisie has way too much.

But it indicates a general shift towards favoring worker-operated industry.

Are you American? Because far-left parties and movements are much bigger in Europe.

Your understanding of history is terrible, that's what I'm saying. Every example of "socialist" revolution in the 3rd world ended in failure or revisionism (as MLMs would put it). Why?

Out of these, only the USSR was socialist and only for a few short years. Mao gave the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie power in the government, hence not a DoP. Vietnam and North Korea have always been far more nationalist than socialist.

I don't need to make a cancer cure in my kitchen in order to show you why homeopathy is bullshit. Once again, you - and all turd worldists - prove you're incapable of using basic logic.

If 3rd Worlders valued the ideas of the Enlightenment, then that's what they'd be basing their revolutionary movements on. So far, the only ones who do are the over a dozen US military bases in Syria who have made a somewhat successful revolution based on the ideas of Murray Bookchin.

Ideas when put into action make history. I guess we shouldn't be educating the masses about communism then?

In some countries living standards are going down the toilet. Greece, Spain, Italy, even France is becoming much shittier now than it was 20 years ago according to my French friend.

Which 3rd world countries are you talking about? BRICS countries definitely do and already have something close to welfare states.

You're not even talking about Marxist economics.

What history? When did the proletariat take power in China? Why is Vietnam full of sweatshops? Why is Cuba going full Yugoslavia? Why didn't socialists take power during the Arab Spring?

New Democracy isn't capitalist guize.

ffs this is bad.

Wages going up doesn't mean the rate of exploitation is going down, dipshit. Read some Marx.

Those service economies in the West aren't the products of neocolonialism, the "western mind" or whatever, but AUTOMATION. Statistically, manufacturing output in the US has been the same for the past 50 years. What's decreasing is manufacturing *jobs*. So, instead of coming up with turd worldist red jihadi fantasies, the correct solution is for leftists to figure out how to adapt the western proletariat into an economy where manual human labor has been rendered obsolete.

For the n-th fucking time: Conditions are already bad in the Third World, and a socialist contruction will overcome them, as it has happened all the time.
Why? Don't you know that the Frst World can easily tap more into African markets and live of those spoils for another century? You just say these things but you don't give me argument as to why this would be true.
Alright Cenk.
I am from Europe. And they are usually revisionist/reformist or straight up irrelevant.
Define failure. A revionist turn later on doesn't mean that a dictatorship of the proletariat was erected. Do you not believe we should strive for a dictatorship of the proletariat? What's your alternative? You are just trying to downplay/smear the achievements of past revolutions because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative.
Not true. Many of those states implemented a similar system, the DPRK even implemented a stronger workplace democracy.
He didn't. There is a difference between capitalist roaders and the bourgeoisie. New Democracy was just the Chinese version of the NEP.
What a terrible analogy. You blame people who developed a revolutionary theory after your theory has been utterly failing because you are still in denial. Did you ever think that Marx didn't account for the welfare state, modern imperialism and fascism?
Being propped up by the USA as the only reason to not get destroyed by a islamist milita isn't a very promising outlook. I don't know how that disproves Third Worldism though. I like how you mention nationalist tendencies to "debunk" other revolutions you don't like but Kurdish revisionism and patriotism gets a pass. Kurdish politics have always been extremly opportunistic.
How is that going for you?
The only BRIC countries that can effectively still count are Brazil and India, and they are both propped up by foreign capital, which flies in this case. The massive failure of Brazilian social democracy proves my point.
Accumulation and reinvestment of capital was one of Marx' central points.
I'm already knowing in what direction you are trying to go, and I'm not going to go along with it. I will say as much: In all of these countries a genuine communist dictatorship of the proletariat was established for a while. This is a goal, not the endgoal, that they turned revisionist later doesn't disprove that. But I know you will now try your hardest to smear all these movements because it is inconvenient to your world view.
Fuck off.

The US is somewhat an exception but most European countries would collapse if they would be cut off from the world market.


So why aren't they doing that now? Why are they imposing austerity measures instead?

Lol I'm not a liberal and coops themselves aren't liberal. Sitting around waiting for 3rd worlders to do revolution is liberalism.

Which country in particular?

The DPRK has always been racialist and crypto-fascist. Not at all a workers' state or internationalist.

NEP was also quasi-capitalist.

Show me a socialist revolution in the 3rd world which didn't turn nationalist.

Y.P.G. isn't nationalist. It isn't interested in setting up a state but a federation.

If they don't have the resources for social democracy, how would they have the resources for socialism?

"Special economic zones aren't capitalist guize!"

There is literally nothing wrong with metaphysics, and Mao's "theories" were utter shit.

Fucking Asserites and NazBols need to get off this board

This is fucking disgusting racism

The fact whether or not you can eat is a pretty big thing though. You can talk the talk, your belly will still be empty.
Because they are economic illiterates and ideologues, who try to see how far they can push things. Either way, the First World is far from collapse, that's just a doomsday fantasy of yours. The Third World will have to endure all the shit that's going to go down, do you really think porky will risk a potential revolutionary situtation in the First World?
I'm not actually a Third Worldist, I just agree with a lot of their arguments and I hate the smug shitting on "Turd Worldism" with no arguments whatsoever. Anti-War platforms are pretty good platforms to run on btw, that's not sitting on your ass.
So now you actually resorted to propaganda from Myers horrible book. Lazy.
And? What's your point? Would you not have implemented it? All this shitting on Mao but Lenin gets a pass?
Nationalism is a catalyst they need against the imperialist onslaught. I don't blame Cubans for being patriotic in the face of boycott on sabotage of the US.
Kurdish self-determination always played a role there. Kurdish nationalism facilitated the emergence of, which proves my point.
Christ, do you know how socialist economies work? You don't need a bourgeoisie to invest, you develop from scratch, such as the USSR under Stalin. Social Democracy is redistribution merely. Socialism has liften one billion people in horrible shitholes out of poverty and illiteracy, while being boycotted, do you think that is not appealing for people in said shitholes?
What do they have to do with New Democracy?

Fuck Mao and fuck Maoism.

kill yourself ☭TANKIE☭ scum



"Maoist Third-Worldists" have a pre-Ricardian understanding of economics. Here is what they actually believe:
1. The artithmetic mean wealth of a nation is a good indicator of the wealth of a random person you meet on the street there.
2. The profit rate in a nation is fixed independently of trade-union activity, legal regulations and so on, so any increase in living standards the working class gets there will be drained by exploiting the third world more, and likewise… hold on, this is so good it deserves it's own number. Make sure you have no liquid in your mouth before reading further.
3. And likewise, MTWs believe that if the workers in the first world reduce their wages, capitalists will just give away that extra money to the third world. Don't ask why.
Now, it is true that you usually can't directly quote them saying that, but you will arrive at these statements when you summarize their "arguments".


Your flag tells me all I need to know.


None of this is strawman though. Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries on earth yet most of its population consists of guest workers who are treated like chattel slaves.

I also love how you didn't address a single point made by .

I would add:

4. MTWists believe in hard determinism when it comes to culture. That's why they like to pin everything bad about western society on the west's role as "net exploiters". Sorry Jason, but I don't feel as if me following my religion, my favorite color, my preference for avocados over potatoes, or the way I make love to my partner are influenced at all by the way I produce shit at work.

5. Ironically they believe in postmodernist/postcolonialist bullshit about the "western gaze" despite claiming to be anti-pomo.

6. They deliberately ignore contradictions between Third World nations which they can't blame 100% on whitey (i.e. India vs. Pakistan, India and Pakistan vs. Bangladesh, Bangladesh vs. Myanmar, Morocco vs. Western Sahara, infighting between Christians and Muslims in the Sahel, Colombia vs. Venezuela, etc.).

7. They can't explain how, using their hard determinist/vulgar materialist model, first worlders like them "snap out" of their conditioning.

This guy believes a bourgeois is a straight white man with a stache and a top hat and a British or French accent.

1st point: claims socialism in the first world wouldn't be good for workers there, but third worlders (doesn't even say workers) "have nothing to loose". Another example: But of course it's possible to create millions of pairs of people with one living in the first world and one in the third, with both agreeing that the one in the third world is better off. The nonsense he posts is what happens when one thinks everybody gets a nation's average.

2nd point: claiming third-world exploitation is triggered by the demands of the first-world working class, as if capitalists need some special motivation aside from money, as if they have a fixed goal of profit they are content with, and only if the greedy first-world workers cut into this, do these capitalists seek for ways to hit the profit goal again. But the profit goal has no upper limit. is even more crazy, saying that this greed by the first-world workers triggers more exploitation of the third world to such a degree that the profits go up when first-world workers achieve higher wages…

…which implies by symmetry the 3rd point, that lower first-world wages would have a beneficial effect on the third world (also take note how again and again these cunts tend to talk about the third world as composed of synthetic average people, but real people are bosses and workers).

Third Worlders DO have something to lose in socialism: their traditional cultures and social arrangements. There's a reason why communism is hated by Muslims: they see it as atheistic and thus antithetical to their existence as Muslims.

This picture is allright. People here in the 1st world go on a riot just for fun, not because of political reasons. They are indeed just larpers.

Based Tina Lee

I don't have to defend points I disagree with. You claimed that I believe the wealth of a nation is averagely distributed and that average purchasing power doesn't exist, which I or any Third Worldist would ever do. The fact that you refuse to engage with my arguments but want to force me to answer to your strawmen just makes me think that you are here to deliberately misrepresent Third Worldism. I'm not going to refute paragprahs you've put into my mouth.

The former isn't true, and the latter is just a fact - now, why Third Worldists are usually the only ones who talk about global net extraction, why this is the case despite Marxism is supposedly providing a holistic analysis is something other Marxists should ask themselves.
I don't even like Unruhe. I don't think you could possibly think that I pretend to know whether you grab an avocado or a potato at the store by sheer economistic determinism. The fact that the living quality in the Third World is outrageously bad is more than just "the way I produce shit at work". I don't know how you could say with a straight face that people in shittier countries are not more likely to push boundaries. Ironically, accusations of "economistic determinism" were and are usually the get-go argument against Marx, made by people who don't understand the reciprocal processes between base and superstructure. I could literally copy-paste the exact same argument you just made in a Holla Forums thread against Marxism.
I never delved deep into that but I believe there is something like a consciousness that is not kowtowing to capitalism in the mindset of formerly colonized people. For some whites, like Anglo-Saxons, who built their wealth off colonies and slavery, capitalist excesses have always brought progress and good living standards for their own ilk, obviously the cultures at the receiving end have a different view of it. There are more likely to go left instead of right in crisis, because neo-conservatism and fascism is based on an appeal to "the good old times with free market competition", while in the consciousness of colonized peoples, this was never there in the first place. Do you think a Syrian refugee who associated "liberal capitalist democracy" with bombs and beheadings is going to want "more of the same"?
Yeah bullshit. Have you seen a Third Worldist defending assholes like Modi?
Materialist conditioning isn't the fucking Matrix.

*yawn* most of the GDP of very poor countries results from foreign investment. Again: Facts don't care about your feelings.
And? That wasn't addressed. The guy believed I was ignoring the different levels of wealth redistribution in the Third World, which I never did. Saudi-Arabia isn't a Third World country. Generally, the overall GDP per capita in a country somewhat resembles the overall living conditions of the people under capitalism. Do you deny this?

I stated that the First World workers have nothing to gain from socialism as that would trigger boycotts and cold warfare on the level of the DPRK. Living standards would deterriorate. Try to explain to an average kid how loosing Netflix, Coca-Cola, night outs and his gym membership is preferable because now he can work in a cooperative where he can democratically decide who has to clean the pipes.
This is correct. I wasn't blaming the First World workers to facilitate exploitation, I'm not Unruhe - although, a lot of supposedly proletarian orgas in the West are lax on imperialism.

I'm amused that you think this is a contradiction of the MTW viewpoint. The rioters are Greek. You'll notice that the Greek economy recently collapsed due to EU enforced austerity, leading to a collapse in living standards to third world levels for the masses. What a coincidence we see black clad rioters suddenly appear at this point, eh?

Read the thread. If you need help, see: The claim was not that you literally admit to it, but rather that it is implicit in your arguments and gets explicit only when your waffling is compressed. By the way, you are doing this shit right now in your post. You say:
Once again, you throw bosses and workers together. I don't care about helping third-world factory owners.
Start reading Marx anytime, you might learn how capitalist exploitation in the Marxist sense actually works then. Consider what SNLT is. Socially necessary labour time. Think of several factories producing basically the same shit, and a few of them use outdated tech. If the workers in each of these factories work with the same intensity, those with the outdated tech do produce a smaller amount of value and their bosses have lower profit rates. Now suppose the workers in the factories that are technically behind get pushed to work harder with their substandard tech than the workers in the factories with the standard tech, though it's not enough to make the person-hour output equal to the worker working at the normal pace with the standard tech. Guess what, even though they are the ones sweating more, they are still producing less value.

You can be outraged by that as much as you want, and you can say this difference is not inherent to the people, and that can be proven if the workers switch places. But your outrage doesn't lead to insight into how the world works, much less into how to change it. Instead of being mad online, you should consider something that cannot be separated from the switch issue. In sectors where the switching argument applies, the boycott dilemma does not. The MTW claim that first-world workers have a strong incentive against trying revolution does only actually work when it comes to things they can't provide well for themselves. You know which sector this actually applies to? Oil. Will you now shill for the idea that humans should have different rights based on the natural resources in the vicinity of the location where they popped out of a vagina? MTW would only make sense if the switching argument and the big boycott dilemma applied to the same sectors, a scenario that is a logical contradiction.

PS: Dear Third-Worldists, I understand very well that you now try to imagine me as a particularly vile cartoony character, and you are about to say something about my tone or protest about being misrepresented in this or that irrelevant detail by some other post. This is an automatic self-defense mechanism because if you actually think about the logical argument in this post (made bold there for your convenience), your identity will self-destruct.

I'm going to ignore your squirming and weasel moves, and ask you the question again: Do you think the average GDP per capita is in about 90s of the cases not a valid indicator of average quality of life under capitalism? Yes or no.
The fact of the matter is that they don't really exist or are proxies for foreign capital because the economy of Third World countries is based on foreign investment. You can see when looking at the massive discrepancy of GDP between African countries with no foreign investment which sometimes have literal medieval GDPs and countries that do.
I wasn't talking about exploitation. Actually, I was commenting in another thread how First World workers are actually more exploited than Third World workers, because they produce more value. This is in accordance with the labor theory of value. Where I disagree though is that the rate of exploitation is not synonymous with the amount of human misery because a dozen other factors play into account that are represented in the average purchasing power of Third World workers. The fact that they get less exploited doesn't change the fact they still can't buy shoes. This is where Marx' theory needs to updated, as he didn't account for outsourcing of the produtive forces, which creates this differently shaped correlation of exploitation rate and human condition. Again, this isn't the 19th century anymore. You say it yourself, by mentioning that they still sweat more.
Yes, and? How is being boycotted from wealth in form of natural resources for the receiving end any different from being boycotted from wealth created by labor?
Not true. This assumes that the productive industrial output is still high enough to supply the population in the West the same level as before. I can guarantee you, being cut off from foreign trade would be a disaster for almost every European state and many "Asian Tigers". The USSR was, arguably, the most succesful socialist state and that was clearly correlating with their rich amount of natural resources and a huge industrial basis.

I'm not a Third Worldist.
Edgy stuff.

in about 90%*

Marx didn't claim it to be synonymous. If you think you have read him saying that, you are probably reading him in very short bursts. It's common with Marx as well as other economists that they simplify stuff and put aside certain issues that are variables in the real world and make them fixed when they describe something. These simplifications are usually stated at the beginning of a work and at the beginning of chapters, sometimes it can happen a bit sudden. You just have to pay attention. Marx makes explicit in some sections of Capital that he is putting aside foreign trade. If you only look at an isolated paragraph you can get a very wrong impression. Even though he didn't publish a book exclusively about foreign trade he had in mind at some point, he also talks about colonialism in Capital.

Moreover, you don't even need unequal relations between countries to have an example of an exploitation-misery dichotomy. Marx talks about different ways of increasing surplus value. One of them is working longer while being paid the same as before. It is also possible to increase the surplus by developing technology in a way that reduces the amount of work-time necessary to produce what the workers themselves consume. So, a slight reduction of the working day while workers still get to consume the same pile as before happening together with a decrease in the work-time necessary to produce that stuff that is so strong that the time worked above producing what goes into producing this pile is bigger than it was before, that is an increase of exploitation even though the quality of life for workers gets a bit better. Marx already knew that. Read Capital.

Do you believe Europe and the US don't have the capacity to feed themselves?

I know, and maybe I should have phrased it better: It is usually held as a belief that Marx predicted a socialist revolution to happen in the center of capital, which is also what Marx generally said. Many leftists treat it synonymously though, the ones that aren't well read on Marx. Anyway, how is this an argument again? Exploitation rate isn't directly related to revolutionary potential, now that is some vulgar economism I get accused of. I don't have to answer the rest because I agree with you.
Maybe to get by, but there would be a worse diet, a lack of tropical fruits for example. The DPRK can feed itself despite having shitty soil, but their diet isn't great. It's also not just about food, what about the lack of access to rare earth materials? Almost all technology and hi-tech relies on it. You realize we are dealing with a generation that pretty much takes all these things as an absolute basic given, right?
Your tone was condescending, you pretended I would become emotional or whatever. Also, saying that "your argument will make your identity self-construct" is just beyond cringey.

Except Roo uses this flawed methodology all the time.

So you admit to falling for the de-generacy maymay. "Western culture is evil because the West exploits the 3rd World". Yet the West also produces feminism, LGBT rights (try being gay in Iran), strong sympathy for the oppressed, etc. There's probably more Palestine solidarity on your average WESTERN university campus than there is in the entire Muslim World. How does "muh net exploiters" explain this?

Marxists DO talk about the global class divide. They're just not as reductionist in assuming every American is de facto rich whereas every Haitian is de facto poor (in fact, there are First Nations reservations poorer than Haiti).

Turd Worldists do engage in economic determinism much, much more than the average Marxist for the reasons I've mentioned before: all they see are numbers and graphs. My understanding of God isn't based on my role as a "net exploiter" and I'd posit Gazans' understanding of God isn't based on their experiences as people living in an open-air concentration camp. These ideas predate colonialism, proletarianization, and imperialism by centuries and even so are impossible to fully grasp at an individual level (DiaMat can't explain mystical experiences, for instance).

So why don't we see waves of communist revolutions in the Turd World today? Why are jihadis way more popular than dwindling Arab communist parties? When the Turd World revolts, its revolts are almost always ethnocentric or religious in nature, NOT COMMUNIST. Their revolts are, in essence, no different than Occupy protesting for a bigger welfare state, since neither does anything to break capital.

Again, you are employing vulgar materialism and determinism. Why aren't we seeing Syrians protesting against capitalism? Islam was historically way more free market than Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) and Muslims have their own "good old days" mythologies. Why do you think Muslims across the globe favor a feudal caliphate over a DoP?

Maybe not Modi, but definitely China, Putin, Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Mugabe…

None of these regimes or groups are anti-capitalist.

So how do you explain the "good white people" who are as much products of net exploitation as the bad white people?

You can grow mangoes and many other tropical fruits in a Mediterranean environment…

Yet Turd Worldists parrot this truism ad nauseum. "The Third World suffers more therefore they have more of an incentive to do revolution" – nonsense. We've seen left-wing revolts occur throughout the West in the past ten years yet haven't seen much from the Third World with the exception of over a dozen US military bases in Syria (Venezuela and Bolivia are social democratic AT BEST).

Maoism-Third Worldism: yeridat ha-dorot (generational decline, something we Jews have known for centuries)

Once again, crackers keep stealing from us. And yes, Third Worldism thrives on bold metaphysical statements.

The reason why turd worldists, tänkies, Maoists, AnPrimms, theoretical antihumanists, indigenists, Blanquists, TERFs and religious communists will always end up going full NazBol is simply: they see neoliberalism and modernity as bigger threats to the world than all-out fascism.

This is why you often see turd worldists, tanks and the others I mentioned promoting bullshit like "left-right alliances" against *western* hegemony, i.e. siding with islamists and disgustingly misogynistic and homophobic anti-zionist ultra-orthodox Jews against Israel, siding with black, brown, or yellow fascists like Mugabe or Assad against the west, upholding Russian or Chinese imperialism against western imperialism, insisting Russian Nazis aren't as bad as Ukrainian Nazis, upholding regimes which have killed communists like Iran only because America doesn't like them and so forth. In their view, the "primary contradiction" isn't even imperialism, but the west. Anything or anyone which is anti-western, anti-liberal and anti-modern is their de facto ally including religious authoritarians, Russian or Chinese-supported dictators, Native American nationalists who want to send white Americans to the killing fields, etc. Liberal Enlightenment values are considered worse than home-grown third world totalitarianisms only because the former is a product of the colonizing west whereas the latter is a product of the noble savage east.

I'm sorry, but I'd take a liberal Israeli who wants a two-state solution on the 1967 border over a Palestinian islamist any day. I'd take a liberal Ukrainian over a homophobic Putin fanboy any day. I'd take a liberal "first world" feminist over a third world traditionalist any day. Progress is the solution and we need MORE destruction of tradition, not less.

What if it's the Enlightenment that was wrong?


Hilarious. ISIS is an American/KSA proxy that may or may not have gotten out of hand.

Not gonna lie, Imperialist Holy Alliance sounds pretty badass

it definetely got out of hand, but the good news is that they're fighting it with more proxies, so it's definetely NOT gonna happen again, right?

Justice, truth, hope, progress, equality, etc. are not wrong. In fact, they're the foundation of socialism.

Except Roo uses this flawed methodology all the time.
Roo is not the offical spokesman for Maoism-Third Worldism. Can I then claim that Muke is the official spokesman for Leftcommunism?
I don't think it comes down to "de-generacy", rather that life quality isn't as good. Despite that, do you deny that consumerism is somewhat a powerful cultural force? You don't need to use a term used by Holla Forums to misrepresent me.
Yeah? Some MLs do, anarchists sometimes do, ultralefts never do.
But that's, on average, a fact. The average Haitian is poorer than the average American.
Yup, they work with actual economic data.
Seriously nigger?
It's not the point that they are often not communist, but if you read my other posts more carefully you'd realize that my argument was the the fact alone that they revolte is reason enough to conclude that there is revolutionary potential, whereas apathy is predominant in the West. It's actually a pretty simple argument and I don't see why you ignore it instead of facing it. Secondly, my other argument was that this is based on history. All the communist revolutions, even fucking over a dozen US military bases in Syria happened in the Third Word. This is quite a baggage on your part, I don't I am the one who needs to prove something, I think you are because history is not on your side.
As someone who is critical of over a dozen US military bases in Syria: Look at the over a dozen US military bases in Syria. Nice work though you have me defending over a dozen US military bases in Syria now lmao
Argueable. But I'm too tired to dive into that right now.
That's, like, five different can of worms we can debate seperately. Short version: I don't support Putin but I don't think Russia is imperialist in Syria, I think Assad is anti-imperialist but not a leftist so he gets critical support, Hezbollah is anti-imperialist and authentic but not leftist so they recieve critical support, China is not a socialist country but has a Marxist government which is revisionist yet they enforced sanctions on the DPRK so I'm not supporting them, Iran is anti-imperialist but jails communists so I'm against them but don't want them to be sanctioned, Mugabe is a SocDem who is anti-imperialist but suffers from capital flight which means he should get critical support, etc.
I'm not moralizing. I'm arguing that there is barely any potential for a mass revolt, not because "white people" are evil or anything, it's just they don't see the equilibirum of effort and reward concering a revolution correlating with their self-interest. Many people think that capitalism is unsustainable, but still won't do shit. Have you read "Capitalist Realism"?

I've argued this

You get it.

Reason led to the autistic Cult of Reason with all its grave consequences, ironically paving the way for Emperor Napoleon, materialist rationalism is inherently nihilist and people prefer their spooks over it. This is why society always end up having to recourse to transcendental values that stand above fallible human reason.

hegel pls

He is the most visible representation of M3W, so yes it is worthwhile to show the flaws in his ideology.

It is, but it can also be to our advantage. Someone who is happy living frugally is far less likely to revolt than someone who wants more and more and realizes the limits of capitalism to provide him with the indulgences he craves. There's a reason Buddhist monks never fight for socialism and why the Catholic Church promoted frugal living specifically as a means to offset potential opposition.

We need more greed, not less.

"Everything I don't like is ultraleft" ffs. Global Class divide doesn't mean shit when it comes to pragmatism. I can't organize Palestine or the Congo but I can organize people from my own city.

Doesn't change the fact that many Americans are also poor. Ever been to Appalachia? Baltimore? Cleveland? The deep south? Denying poverty in America doesn't help class struggle overseas. Regardless as to what goes on in Haiti, your landlord is still coming tomorrow - are you going to do the mea culpa thing and say "well I shouldn't fight my landlord because those poor Haitians have it worse" or are you going to organize the tenants of your building into a rent strike?

Data itself means nothing. This is no different than when Holla Forums pulls out the black crime statistics or I.Q. tests.

Garbage. Greece revolts. Catalonia revolts. Paris revolts. Oakland revolts. Baltimore revolts. Yes, these revolts may be for social democracy, but how is that any different than Muslims flocking to jihadi groups?

Bullshit. Paris Commune, Mai 68, Portuguese Revolution, Anarchist Catalonia, 1907 revolt in the south of France (which came VERY close to forming a socialist breakaway state), and so on all occurred in the West. Also, what the fuck do you think the anti-globalization movement was? That shit didn't happen in Guatemala but on American soil.

The point is, Muslims have their own mythologies which could also hinder socialist revolution. Looking at economics is highly one-sided.

Why not?

How? The Assad family were pretty much propped up by the Russians and ran Syria like the mob. The Syrian civil war happened due to the small Alawite elite getting rich off of Syria's oil and mineral wealth all while the other sectors of the economy were left underdeveloped.

They are class-collaborationist Shia fascists.

They are anti-western, not anti-imperialist. What the fuck have they done aside from giving Hamas a few guns?

Mugabe is allowing China to colonize Zimbabwe.

You sound identical to a bourgeois economist. People don't always act out of "rational self interest", in fact most human behaviors and desires are IRRATIONAL. There is no reason for white kids in America to join Antifa and fight fascists if they benefit from white supremacy and yet they do.

What does that even mean? Of course people need ideas, we're not automatons.

Fuck off Anal Water.

They're not wrong TBH. Neoliberalism has killed way more people than fascism, and western culture is inherently colonial and chauvinist.

it means that people don't have a sense of purpose because their material conditions are nightmarish, not because guys in a wig tipped their fedoras in the 1700s.

i mean, if you want to talk about how people "prefer spooks" you could at leat notice that most of them have little to "prefer" anyways, it's not like you can choose to not believe what you've been brainwashed to believe your whole life.


Who determines what justice, hope, Progress, equality, etc. are?

All cultures are chauvinist. Some are just more effective than others.

These are universal values we should be striving towards.

There's that word again.

Muke is the most visible representation of Leftcommunism, so it is worthwhile to show the flaws in his ideology.
You can lobby for anti-war, anti-Zionism, and anti-imperialism. In fact, lobbying for anti-war is far less likely to be socially accepted than openly lobbying for communism.
The ojective poor in America are a minortiy and not politically relevant whatsoever. That doesn't mean I don't feel for them, it's heartbreaking, sure, but we are talking about the chance of revolutionary potential.
Are you assuming we don't put data into context?
Greece rather gets cucked by the EU and doesn't go all the way to Grexit because staying in the EU, despite neoliberal austerity, is still better than turning into Europe's North Korea by Grexit. Paris was a fucking 150 years ago. At that time, revolution was still very much possible in the First World. I'm saying it isn't feasible in 2017. Sorry. Do you notice something about these movements? They all fail, because after protesting, people just go home and forget about in five months. A Third Worlder can't do that, because his home is shit. His life is shit.
They are militant.
They don't have capital interests in Syria. They don't want a pipeline so they don't loose the market share in Europe, that doesn't mean they are imperialist in Syria. Russia's interest is the integrity of the Syrian state.
Maybe. The fact is that they are anti-imperialist now and the majority of Syrians, including Syrian communists, support Assad against imperialism which would mean the end of laicism, for exmaple.
Not everything you don't like is fascist.
Check out Yemen.
That's a strong argument for conservatism you make here.
That doesn't make it wrong. Why do you believe did German workers striked in 1919? Because they all absorbed the nuances of Marx?

I meant to say it is more socially accepted.

They're Judeochristian values fam, they ARE transcendental, you're proving me right


I don't know what you're bringing up AW or Hegel for, I'm just suggesting that non-Western people might have a very different idea of what these concepts mean.

Meant to reply to , phoneposting a shit.

I don't care about Muke.


I'm not Jewish so how can I "lobby" for anti-Zionism? That's shit Jews have to figure out on their own.

Such as? Protesting imperialism isn't going to get you very far considering how most policy decisions are made exclusively by higher-ups. I'd rather fight for a higher minimum wage.

I can't tell if you're a communist or a right-winger. Of course the poor don't have much influence, but then again neither do the working poor in the 3rd world. The key point is to organize.

Revolution doesn't happen all at once. It takes years, even decades, to get off the ground. Remember, the 1917 revolution began years before with reformism.

Show me a theory beyond "muh data." I'm curious.

Again, you're operating under the false notion that a revolution is something spontaneous which happens in an instant. Wrong. It takes years to build.

This is a huge generalization. Most third worlders have families which they have to take care of, hence they often don't take to the streets for days on end because their family lives are more important. Palestinians protest for a few days when the IDF starts sealing off Jerusalem and then go home once their kids need food.

Doesn't matter. BLM was also militant and yet not a single 3rd Worldist gives them any credit. Jason Unruhe is even on record attacking BLM as "black fascists."

Show me a source which isn't RT which shows the majority of Syrians like Assad, because I can show you sources which say they don't. The bulk of FSA fighters were Syrians from the countryside who came to the cities for employment opportunities, since Assad's neoliberal reforms dried up the countryside pretty badly.

Hezbollah are fascists. They are Asserist class collaborationists.

Yemen is an inter-imperialist conflict. If the Houthis win it becomes another Russia puppet. If the Sunnis win it becomes a Saudi puppet. Whoever wins the Yemeni people lose.

Not at all. In fact, conservatives and free market fundamentalists sound closer to you. "Human behavior is mostly rational" is a bourgeois myth.

How are Jewish values universalist when Jews literally set up an ethnostate?

Jesus I'm not talking about jews as a people, I'm talking about where did those western values came from, they came from jewish and christian religion, even if jews and christians don't happen to be the best representatives of said values.

Jews aren't universalist, they are tribalist as fuck. Ask any orthodox rabbi if he'd want his daughter to marry a black convert vs. a secular ashkenazi and he'll pick the latter because Jews are ethnic supremacists not a religion.

How is this a decision not made by higher-ups? Also, you pretty much admitted you don't give a shit about imperialism and rather want more gibsmedat.
Well, if we assume the proletariat is the revolutionary subject, the poor certainly don't count since they're lumpen, and a minority. I was talking about object poverty, not relative poverty. The worker in Bangladesh is objectively poor, while the average American worker is not. That doesn't mean I don't care about the American worker.
Then I don't see your point in writing off Mugabe as SocDem if you yourself think this would be a necessary step. I'm not even that fond of Mugabe, just an example.

Then take and replace "judeo" with Paul the Apostle or whatever. My point still stands.

Gibsmedat can inspire leftist consciousness. It's not about offsetting long-term goals for short-term ones, but realizing you have to win smaller battles if you're going to win a bigger war.

All revolutions adapt to their social conditions. Perhaps you're a turd worldist only because the Maoist or Jucheist model of revolution isn't feasible in the west. That doesn't mean revolutionary potential in the west is non-existent, only that revolution has to be carried out differently.

Mugabe isn't a SocDem, he's an African nationalist. Race-based land reform isn't socialism.

That depends on multiple factors, specifically the people's ability to act. No one can predict the future here so the vital thing is to work with what we've got to the best of our abilities. It's just as likely that leftist movements in the turd world could be repressed or taken over by rightist elements too (remember Iran?).

Hamas are screwing over the people in Gaza pretty badly right now. I also fail to see how a Hamas government is a step towards proletarian revolution.


What are American's interests in Yemen? Are you literally denying Russia has geopolitical interests?

No, they say capitalism behaves rationally because consumer choice is rational. Likewise, M3W goes off on the idea only third worlders will want socialism because it's in their "rational self interest".

Paul was highly anti-Jewish. There's a reason why the Church has always attacked Jews as their primary targets.

I'm not opposed to a welfare state in the West. It just isn't socialism. Welfare states can very well also kill class consciousness, see the New Deal.
Then let's hear it: What model do you propose?
EXACTLY. Do you think Catalan separatists are going to clash this plane with no survivors or are are more likely to go home and watch the new episode of Game of Thrones?
Putting the cart before th horse, the fault is of Israelian imperialism, not at the resistence of people in Gaza. They deny them medication and electricity. Listen to yourself, you actually advocate to compromise with imperialism because you rather want to have a friendly slave owner than a nasty one. I don't give a shit if Israel institutes an apartheid state with a human face, I want Israel to be destroyed.
I never argued they were?
I never did. My claim is that Russia's geopolitical interests lie in the integrity of Syria and Yemen, while American political interests are opposed to the latter.
Consumer choice is. I buy the cheap meat if I'm having a low wage. The prices and all that are not rational.
Is it so fucking weird that a communist would argue with the self-interest of people? Anyway, it's true. A Marxist-Leninist worker's state would be a huge improvement for many Third World shitholes, but have fun to convince a First Worlder who will immediatly cry about muh capital flight.

Also please stop that reddit format

Why is social democracy revolutionary in Venezuela but reactionary in America?

This is empty speculation at best. Welfare states can also enhance revolutionary consciousness. The wave of leftist protests we're currently witnessing in Europe are all coming about due to austerity measures, youth finally being hit with the realization that they're not getting the welfare states which their great-grandparents fought for.

You can't do revolution a priori, which is a major issue with dogmatism. You can't predict how a revolution is going to happen, you can only grab on to existing conditions and work from there.

Your condescending attitude aside, there are still protests going on in Catalonia right now despite a media blackout. Catalans aren't "going home to watch GoT" but are continuously engaging in events.

And honestly, I could make the same claim about Ahmad going back to work after a day of protesting the IDF. He needs to feed his wife and kids, after all.

So what? Hamas still carries responsibility for how they handle the situation. Right now they're further alienating their own people through their own austerity measures.

Pretty bold claim you're making there. Since when is any imperialist country's interest about "integrity" for a receiving nation?

Bourgeois econ is pretty clear that human behavior is rational and thus markets are rational.

Yes, because Marxism never claims to be rationalist.

How do you propose doing this? Israel has one of the most powerful armies in the world, some of the best technology in the world and is withstanding BDS quite well (their economy is actually growing despite boycotts). Israel can't be defeated militarily as has been proven time and time again.

As you've said, the youth are literally getting pissed because their welfare states are going away. It's almost like welfare states do kill class consciousness.

They wouldn't be protesting if they had nothing to begin with, dipshit.

It's like: if you want to make your dog angry at you, give your dog a nice big bone and then take it away right as the dog is really starting to enjoy it. If the dog had never had the bone to begin with, it wouldn't have cared.

It's not. It's historical evidence.
So they want their welfare state back, fine. How is that socialist again? Third Worlders don't have that memory. They don't have a past like the New Deal.
Truth hurts.
So? What's gonna happen?
Ahmed doesn't even have healthcare because he is living in an apartheid state.
NO THEY DON'T. Hamas isn't enforcing an emabargo on Gaza. That's like saying that the Yemenites are responsible for their own genocide because they weren't complicit enough. Literally a bourgeois appeal to muh responsibility which is the exact same shtick opportunists of Syriza use when they have to kowtow before neoliberal captial.
I didn't say Syria was a receiving nation. At this point I assume you either have a low Autism Level or you deliberately misrepresent me. I said Russia's interests, the "receiving end" is Europe and the gas market, not Syria.
Well, they actually ignore rational self-interest as they want a benevolent business owner who only makes profits for the benefit of society. It's still true that "humans are irrational" is also widely used to justify conservatism.

I don't know - giving the west's weakness to fight off insurrections the last years levels makes me optimistic.

Weren't you attacking Roo in the other thread for formalism? Because you're doing the exact same thing. Revolution doesn't happen the same way in every single place. A socialist rev in Italy won't look the same as a socialist rev in Indonesia, simply because their conditions are vastly different as are their histories, cultures, needs, etc.

Again, if you want to make a dog angry at you, give it a bone and then take the bone away. If you give it nothing to begin with it has nothing to get riled up about. Likewise, proles 100 years ago fought for crumbs and won them, now that their great-grandkids are losing those crumbs the said great-grandchildren are becoming radicalized. It's this kind of radicalization which SOCIALISTS need to take advantage of and use to further actual socialist goals.

See what I mean about taking conditions into account in a deeper way?

Venezuela and Bolivia are welfare state social democracies.

We don't know and there's no point in guessing. The important thing is, Catalans are STILL protesting weeks after the election took place. Just yesterday there was a massive protest in Barcelona.

Except Ahmad is more committed to his wife and kids than he is a platonic idea of communism. Maybe he thinks communism is against his religion. Maybe he looks at Dubai and wants a future Palestine to look like that over the DPRK.

Except, you know, how humans handle a particular situation DOES FUCKING MATTER.

Assad is still a Russian puppet, the Assad family are akin to mafioso and Syria descended into civil war because the Syrian people were fed up with an Alawite elite keeping the oil profits to themselves instead of developing other industries. Supporting Assad IS supporting imperialism and denying agency to the Syrian people.

I have never seen conservatives use "humans are irrational." Quite the contrary, I see them using rational choice theory all the time.

Palestinians are not Iraqis or Yemenis. They have already been waging an insurrection for the past 70 years and it's gotten them nothing but failed peace agreements. What are they supposed to do?

Also take into account most Palestinian men are fleeing to the Gulf States or Europe rather than resisting. Gotta feed those wives and kids, y'know.


Activism isn't a "1st worldist" thing. Plenty of third world groups do it too.

It's not out of 3rd worldist reasons, it's because activism is pointless.

Color me surprised.

Doing what the American elite wants will not lead to a decrease in the killing of communists.
This is not really the choice you have in Ukraine. You can either support homophobic anti-NATO guys or homophobic racist Fascists that literally give Hitler salutes while posing with Swastikas and NATO flags and literally praise Hitler in their publications and literally murder union organizers.

And why would that be a bad thing? How would that make things worse for the Third World wokers? Or weaken the position of the working class in the world system? Literally all the points stated in apply to you MTW lot (as shown in this thread, see: ).

MTWists use Marxist economics retard.

Literally no one says this. You're making shit up.


Fuck off liberal.


Except Adorno and Horkheimer wanted MORE enlightenment, not less. They critiqued the failures of the Enlightenment in the tradition of the Enlightenment. Comparing them to Evola is fucking stupid.

Why do Third Worldists, like RAIM, do support the government of North Korea? Isn't it obvious, that the ruling party is just opressing the people there and has no socialist intentions?

Race-based nationalism and ethnostates are liberating and totally in-line with Marxism so as long as the ethnic groups doing it aren't white.

This answers not my question and Third Worldism has nothing to do with skin color.

because muh primary contradiction.

Hi Jew, we know it's you.


Nothing wrong with temporary alliances to defeat a bigger enemy.


I like how it implies that the anti imperialist alliance would be an unholy one too.

A fucking tank
Every time

Zionism is a bigger threat to the world than a few Russian nationalists.