Is it true that it is futile to try and organize revolution in 1st world countries because the working class has been placated with welfarism and social programs, so therefore we need to build a revolution from the 3rd world instead?
The premise is that 1st world workers don't do revolution because they are bought off with the spoils of 3rd world plunder. 3rd world plunder is what affords America its consumerist lifestyle. Resources and labor are extracted from these countries (oil, minerals, drugs, electronics ect.) where cheap shit is made in the 3rd world, so that it can be sold in the 1st world. So in a sense, for the 1st world to do revolution would go against their best interests, because they effectively have become a labor aristocracy. Not to say people in the 1st world can't be poor, but it doesn't compare to being 3rd world poor. Relative poverty sucks, but absolute poverty is a matter of life and death.People in the third world are subjected to work conditions comparable to the guilded age. And as history has shown, all of the countries that had revolutions and successfully built socialism were all backwards 3rd world countries.
At face value it makes a lot of sense to me. First world workers aren't fighting for a new system, but rather a return to an idealized time in the past that was supposedly better than now. That is to say 1st world countries have a propensity to a far right backlash when they enter crisis.
So is it really better to focus our efforts on aiding 3rd world guerrillas over aiding in our own domestic struggle?
Share your thoughts with me.