I am not a third-worldïst — I think it's beyond stupid to claim that some segment of the international working class doesn't qualify as proletarian because of the benefits they might derive from their nationality or race. This is just un-Marxist. I do believe however that third-worldïsts have a point when they say there is a stark divide between first-world proles and third-world proles, and that is often ignored by leftists who see the state of class unity with rose-tainted glass. First-world workers simply don't feel like they share common conditions and interests with third-world workers. The reason it's so hard to imagine a way to bridge that gap are the following:
1. CONSUMERISM: The cheap price of many sought-after goods in the first world (such as consumer electronics) is predicated upon the extreme exploitation of the third world, and no amount of ethical consumerism is going to change that. To the first-worlder, the social emancipation of third-worlders would mean an end to cheap clothing and smartphones. And they don't want that to happen.
2. NATIVISM: Global inequality means prospects are low in the third world, where economic insecurity remains pretty much generalized. This of course motivates many third-worlders to try and leave for a place with better economic opportunities, if they can afford and survive the trip. To the first-worlder, the freedom of movement of third-worlders would mean more competition for jobs and aid. And they don't want that to happen either.
The problem is this: first-world workers have been fully integrated within capitalist society during the post-war boom, which resulted in the (irreversible?) obliteration of class consciousness. They now have a good reason to support at least some of capitalism's feature if they benefit them — so they cover their eyes and kick the ladder. '68 was the death throes of the international proletariat.
American robber baron Jay Gould once allegedly said he could "hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Today, we don't need any capitalist to hatch that plot; it's the structural logic of globalized capital in crisis.
The current situation of the global economy is entirely transitory and a mere remnant of imperialism exacerbated by now impossible social democratic measures implemented in the developed western countries to abate revolutionary sentiments in the working class. This era is over and we have already experienced its death throes for the past 20+ years. Globalisation is merely the highest and in all likelihood final stage of capitalism, the logical conclusion of imperialism. The moment the bread and circuses stop it'll all come crashing down in the west, and by extension everywhere else as well. Its the end of the ride porky.
Eli Gonzalez
This has always been true though. The early industrial proletariat didn't want to go back to the countryside, they wanted better wages and conditions. People today want smart phones and shit because they're useful and necessary to exist in the world. I agree with this. The neoliberal revolution was what killed national and international labor movements. Now the global supply chain is incomprehensibly complex and hidden under layers of corporate bureaucracy and trade secrets. It will have to be shattered by a war or economic crisis.
Tyler Morris
yes and no yes: right-wing (sometimes left) populism, geert/ lepen/blumpf no: historical trend of past 60 years, plus current orthodoxy in political science and political philosophy of cosmopolitism and "global citizen" stuff
Camden Ross
The only ethical thing to do if you're a First Worlder is to go 100% off the grid, build a log cabin in the woods and live off the nature. Unless you completely detach yourself from Empire, you will only help perpetuate it one way or the other.
William Gutierrez
There's no reason to think that internationalism is dead although you are right to point out that it faces many hurdles. Consumerism is strong force and has found new markets to expand into but it has already been strong for several decades now and capitalism itself has alway needed to exploit the third world. If anything, we have seen a dip in western consumerism over the past decade. Like consumerism, nativism has also been a long used tool of capital. Over the past few years there has been a rise in racial violence but this is also after a large decrease over the previous decades. Cointelpro did a fuck of a job on international solidarity and leftists movements but that doesn't mean there's no future. The best way forward is to develop new movements based on solidarity and peace. Oppose the war movement and the military industrial complex that feeds it. It may not be immediately effective but proletariat the world over understand what it's like to not be heard by those in power. FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AND STAND FOR SOLIDARITY COMRADES!
Globalization and liberal academics don't qualify as "internationalism".
Joshua Baker
global capitalism requires global revolution, op. imo internationalism is coming back because the problems that are fucking over the industrialising third word such as poor safety and shitty pay and also fucking over the first world because the bosses are moving jobs over there. look at how quickly movements such as Arab spring spread though the mid-east thanks to social media. I am optimistic that a socialist movement of sufficient size can rapidly spread though the first and third world. Capital has a more difficult time controlling information. the time of controlling a couple telegraph stations meant you controlled the news is over.
Owen Carter
bump
Austin Reed
I hope by world revolution you mean a 50 year period of constant struggle, anything less is unrealistic
Jayden Price
Zig Forums thinks globalism and internationalism are the same thing
Sebastian Kelly
bump
Isaac Allen
The answer is race. There is more solidarity across racial lines than economic lines, much to the chagrin of the Marxist. This is why the white working class in America is overwhelmingly neo-reactionary or NutSac, rather than full-bore communist. The same probably applies to all other races, although we can't be quite sure because 1) black/brown races generally aren't intelligent enough to be class conscious in any meaningful way, and 2) the Asiatic races don't have the racial guilt/self-denial that whites do, and thus they've never had to choose between either class or race.
That's not an answer. Got any evidence to back that up? You can find shitload of documented cases of people uniting over racial lines or people of the same race engaging in "infighting". No, they aren't. Nobody cares about your special snowflake brand of neo-fascism. The Black Panthers were one of the most popular, powerful and influential socialist groups in US history. This sentence doesn't even make any sense.
I disagree. Cheep consumer goods comes to the destruction of high paying middle class factory jobs. Shiting production to the third world causes he destruction of high paying unskilled jobs that the post-war boom was built on. As for immigration it often causes a brain drain in the third world, so while it might benefit some to leave, those who don’t are worse off.
Austin Roberts
This is idealism
Nolan Johnson
Most of the white working class in America is liberal, conservative, socdem, or a mixture t Burger
Aiden Robinson
The international proletariat recognizing their common class interests and organizing accordingly. You know, "workers of the world unite" and all that jazz.
