What are your thoughts on Maoism/Third Worldism? I've been looking into it lately. Its analysis of contemporary and class relations and concentration of capital make a lot of sense to me, but I'm curious to hear some opposing views.
Third Worldism
Jackson Wood
Kevin Moore
...
David Jackson
Their entire approach is fundamentally non-marxist, going to shill my shitty blog on the topic: karlthisell.wordpress.com
Matthew Clark
whops, didn't mean to sage.
Ian Adams
I'm interested in Your opinion on this:
Joshua Diaz
Nice post, fam.
Chase Allen
Leading Light is an infamous honeypot, there is nothing to comment.
Noah Stewart
It's edgy teenage garbage, OP.
Jose Martin
That isn't unique to MTW; I recall labor aristocracy was originally theorized by Lenin. And there is a clear divide between petite-bourgeois and first world workers.
No, first world workers are still workers. But this doesn't change the fact that they benefit from the exploitation of the third world.
Workers in the first world are still exploited. But if a worker is paid above his labor value with money acquired from surplus labor appropriated from other workers, he is still indirectly benefiting from exploitation. The argument is that this practice is what is sustaining the first world's high standard of living and complacency.
Are you suggesting the the US isn't an exploitive power? I suppose overthrowing Central and South American governments and replacing them with puppet regimes for economic gain isn't a form of exploitation then.
Also de-industrialization is just a consequence of the large amounts of industrial jobs being outsourced to developing countries in order to cut costs. And what happened in Flint was the fault of the state government that decided to cut costs by no longer buying water from abroad before their water sanitation facilities were fully up and running.
Kevin Taylor
They're right in their assertion that first world workers represent a labour aristocracy on a global scale. Their claim that they are therefore not proles but bourgies is retarded.
Jaxon James
Wow, that's an extremely weird way to completely misinterpret what I wrote. I'm criticizing the very real tendency of MTWs to under-emphasize or ignore the class struggle within exploitive (and exploited) powers in favour of a relationship between nations. Maybe just should go easy on all that straw?
And, you're just repeating the arguments I've already addressed, a worker is never paid "above is labour value" it's a completely un-Marxist conception of the proletariat-capitalist relationship, the labourer is exploited as long as he/she produces surplus labour for the capitalist, the worker is by definition always paid under his or her labour value.
Seriously, re-read the text, I've answered exactly those arguments already.
Mason Campbell
>Your
Xavier Sanchez
What do you think he pussy feels like. Girl in the image.
Nathan Ramirez
It's spelled boypussy you pleb.
Camden Allen
So i guess the whole article is shit then?
Anthony Wood
I don't know, I just don't think it's any value in spending time on that site.
It's possible they might actually have some blokes in it who seriously think they're part of a revolutionary cell (well, they have one sympathizer at least: Jason Unruhe) but it's pretty common knowledge that it's just a bunch of cops.
Evan Cooper
The relationship between nations is class struggle. This isn't to say that there isn't any class struggle within exploitive nations, but a global revolution needs to be viewed primarily in a global perspective. Of course there's exploitation in developed nations but the third world today is the most downtrodden, most exploited, most humiliated, to extents your average first worlder couldn't imagine. History and reason show us that revolution will initially spring forth from the world's most destitute, not from developed, western countries. Naturally this is where we should prioritize armed revolutionary struggle.
Okay, but first world workers are paid significantly more than if the capitalists didn't have access to dirt-cheap labor abroad. And benefiting from exploitation doesn't necessarily translate into higher wages every time. Government-funded benefits like social welfare spending, better infrastructure, and cheap commodities are inadvertent benefits of third world exploitation. Developing countries simply don't have the position in the world stage to fund government initiatives on credit like the first world does.
Apologies if my reading comprehension isn't in its prime today, I've been awake for about 26 hours.
Jordan Reed
And this relationship has completely changed, somewhat thanks to the MLs themselves who forwarded it. It's the entire point of the article.
Your argument is the standard "the west/developed countries receive too many benefits to revolt" and my argument is that dichotomy is no longer (if it ever was) applicable, I refer to this later in the text - but I also plan to write a piece on it in the future.
Simply put, said gains of imperialist colonialism (ignoring the part on how they've only come to aid the workers due to the worker's struggle in said countries) are being undermined every day - the first world proletariat is growing very much aware that it's getting fucked over by capitalism. Flint is a famous example, but reality is that it's happening everywhere: England, Sweden, Germany, most of the former Eastern bloc.
Hell, a lot of nations have haven't even manage to "develop" before they had to start cutting costs, see Brazil.
The entire idea of "they have more than us" is irrelevant to Marxism, you might certainly hold a different opinion - but in that case you're making arbitrary distinctions that are not Marxist. At the end of the day, the oil rig worker, the service counter, and the programmer for Apple are all proletarians. Furthermore, Maoism as an idea is irrelevant to "the west", and you're not where it is (not to mention the third world are often doing pretty fine on their own look at India) - start thinking about how you can organize the proletariat here and now rather than dreaming of revolutionary tourism.
I'd also like you to not slip into the idea of nationalism as a on it's own liberating force, the space and struggle that nationalism develops against the plurality of the colonial state, is simultaneously an new oppressive force upon the people it claims to represent. The right-nationalist turn or more or less all ML/Maoist states was never some accident or takeover by reactionaries, it was a continuation of the very policies that where once liberatory.
Jacob Watson
dat posing…
Bentley Allen
There is literally zero reason to believe that this occurs, nor have I ever seen a coherent suggestion from a MTW about how this COULD occur.
A diagram with arrows going from third world to first world is not an explanation btw.
Read this solidarity-us.org
Hunter Richardson
A lot of people her love to shit on it. I agree with a lot of it. Global capital concentrates in certain countries and exploits others. Anyone who twists this into some retarded narrative that just by being a westerner you are an exploiter of those in non-developed countries, and that you as a worker cannot be exploited or some shit - is just plain idiotic. People have it worse in these countries, but that isn't the fault of the proletariat in developed states.