I've lived in both the UK and Sri Lanka (I know it's not the same country as Pakistan, but it is in the same subcontinent and has similar status as "third world") and yes, the average quality of life in the UK is far higher.
In the UK, I am not rich by any means, and I exist fairly unarguably in the white-collar working class. In Sri Lanka, aided by virtue of being white, the same amount of wealth placed be unarguably in the upper class - but certainly at the poorer end of that spectrum. Many of the people that I mingled with, native Sri Lankans, were a lot richer than I was, living there. In Sri Lanka, most people that I mingled with had house servants. With the exact same amount of money, they would not be able to afford that in the UK.
What matters when it comes to the question of class consciousness is not so much exactly how much money you have, exactly what inanimate objects you own, or exactly how big your house is. What matters is your class - that is, your relation to other people in that society.
The working class in the UK and the working class in Sri Lanka live very different lives; one fairly unarguably worse than the other. But they exist in the same relationship to the rest of their society, no matter what the actual numbers are. This is what class is; class is not wealth, it is a social relation.
Dominic Cox
good post
Connor Taylor
Wow someone on Holla Forums who's actually read Marx
Evan Scott
Understandable. Ironically the most likely way that your life will improve over your lifetime is embracing neoliberalsim. One of the effects of neoliberalism (intended or otherwise) is moving money from the west to the east.
Jace Myers
The problem with third-worldism isn't just the antagonism you mentioned it breeding between the 3rd and 1st-world working class, but its ideological worship of failure. The 1st-world's existence isn't wholly the result of stolen wealth from the age of colonial empires (some former colonial powers like Russia and Turkey are 3rd-world, some former colonial subjects like South Korea and Ireland aren't), it is instead the result of accumulated victories by various leftist movements (primarily organized labor) with tremendous difficulty against everyday conditions that were largely identical for the masses everywhere in the world.
Wherever the 3rd-world exists today, one can look back on their history to see not only exploitation by external foes, but the repeated failure of labor agitation, and victories by the politically corrupt or autocratic. In this respect, 1st-world workers shouldn't be seen as enemies, but as a model to study. To be sure, for instance, 21st-century Pakistan isn't the same as the 19th-century USA, but many of the same struggles we won are ongoing in the 3rd world, probably with many of the same solutions.
Not always true. Aside from the arguable example of China, I can't think of any intentional examples, but the downfall of absolute monarchy in Europe is commonly credited in part to the massive number of people who died to the black plague shrinking the reserve army of labor.
Neoliberalism simply siphons wealth away from the 1st-world poor, does so using the labor of the 3rd-world poor, gives a cut to the 3rd-world elite, and dumps the majority into bottomless maw of the 1st-world elite. It also strengthens the grip of the 3rd-world elite, while abusing the slim gaps within the 3rd world (Africans are poorer than Asians are poorer than South Americans are poorer than Eastern Europeans…) to keep the 3rd-world poor more firmly in line.
Alexander Kelly
Every good lie contains an element of truth.
Oh, no. We get the appeal. We just recognize that the ideology itself fails to resolve the nature of the problem. Any proposed solution that does not attempt to eliminate class will always fall into the same trap. Also, allowing the creation of a fictional great enemy (the First World) definatively obscures the nature and identity of those who actually work against you. You end up hating other slaves instead of your shared masters.
It is a shame that this myth has not died yet. The truth is that there is no more economic mobility in the economic center than there is in the periphery.
Jackson Barnes
thanks (checked) Neoliberalism tends to keep money in the west; even the IMF has admitted that it's a complete and utter failure recently.
