Red Pill me On 3rd Worldism

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.

Attached: sfqig6yyn6v01.png (1200x630, 797.17K)

Other urls found in this thread:

3rd worldism is idiotic and stuck in the 20th century. It, first of all, ignores the rise of neoliberalism in the "first world" which have caused living standards in those countries to drop as considerably less imperial loot is shared with the general population, and thus the material benefits of maintaining said empire become more and more dubious for the general population.

Second, it's not "the most exploited" who are necessarily revolutionary. If that were the case, one would expect the Roman Empire to have been overthrown by its innumerable slaves rather than the free Germanic tribes, or the French monarchy to have been overthrown by the French peasantry rather than the bourgeoisie. The Russian Empire was hardly the most exploited nation in 1917, if anything it was a fledgling imperialist power. What is required is a population that is both dissatisfied with the status quo and organized and powerful enough to overthrow the existing political state should said state begin to falter.

No. World systems theory is trash. Marx already has a really fruitful conception of history, why replace it?

Class is not socieeconmics. Class is not how much money you have. Class is if you get your money through buying other people’s labor, or by selling your labor on he market.

I don't know the first thing about strategy but the basic argument seems true to me (although I might disagree with some details), like once the poor whites were raised off the fields and given the chance to help their boss police their own internally colonized / oppressed populations, their rebellious days were over. Their political consciousness is directly related to the material situation and the capitalists' sharing privileges with them, and if there is dissent that arises, the capitalists can always quell that by increasing the rate of exploitation either abroad (via imperial and colonial warfare) as well as internally, such as toward migrant populations we are seeing now.

I was also just listening to an episode of Radio War Ned about the Spanish-American War, and how the Anti-Imperialist League was a big deal back then, but naturally enough they lost out and Amerikkka embarked on its imperial destiny. This might be one reason why the U.S. never had a proletarian revolution which Marx hoped would come after the U.S. Civil War, which was akin to a bourgeois revolution completing the process that began in 1776. This was during an age in which revolution was very possible, coming as the working class recovered from the Long Depression which we saw did result in a revolutionary episode in Russia in 1905. The U.S. military went on to murder hundreds of thousands of Filipinos and few Americans know that even happened – although one error I think the MTWs do is perceive everything the West does as like Wehrmacht, essentially, slaughtering everyone all the time instead of the slower and more gradual disposession / death by a thousand swindles which is how you really need to think about the genocide of America's own indigenous population.

It was interesting awhile back to see Duterte demand the departure of U.S. military advisors from his country, and he held up pictures of U.S. massacres of Filipinos to press his point – but a lot of the U.S. press were like "oh Duterte has gone crazy," they didn't get the references or even look at the photographs. If MTW is credible to me, is that people in other parts of the world remember this shit while Amerikkans do not.

Attached: duterte.jpg (1280x853, 101.88K)

Because he didn't live to see "proles" in the first world gleefully support super exploitation of third worlders in order to fund their parasitic welfare states. Fortunately Lenin updated much of Marx's work related to this matter so we can just consult with his many works instead of clinging to outdated analyses based on chauvinism and unexamined biases.

Well, what I think is interesting now is how there are several billion new proletarians who have been created, mostly in the third world, with the rapid explosion of cities as people move off their ancestral homelands where they were engaging in subsistence agriculture, and into the urban cycle of commodity production and exploitation. Like, we might see a communist revolution emerge all of a sudden in a third-world country very rapidly, like in South Africa, which will take everyone by surprise.

We saw a revolution occur in a third world country, it just failed.

Attached: de1008e80c22bbec9d5a3f4d69e52f724ea855e8.jpg (842x562, 96.8K)

What specifically do you think is outdated about Marx's conception of history?

There's a 100% chance that you're just throwing out some vague bullshit to justify your shitty un-Marxist politics.

who’d’ve thought

Attached: ChristComFlatEarth.png (1056x88, 27.95K)

Is that inconsistent with the theory? I mean, this seems like you basically agree with the MTWs, and the only real question is "have living standards dropped enough / has the loot run out?" Now, I think you're correct that it is running out, but you're seeing the white workers / labor aristocrats in the first world turn to fascism, not leftism. In the U.S., there's just a naked and open agreement by large numbers of people that China must be economically destroyed, that the Venezuelan government be overthrown, and these people exploited to serve American hegemony.

Well, Marxism is really pretty simple: classes are self-interested and they act that way, and the rising proletariat has the capacity to take over. It stands to reason then that the revolution would happen, as Marx predicted, in the most developed countries. This did not happen. So either:

1. Marx is wrong, i.e. Western Marxism and its various modifications is a bad theory (and often misdirected into liberalism).

2. The leftcoms and Trots are right, and the socialist revolutions that did happen are not socialist, they're state-capitalist or Juche-feudalism or whatever.

3. Blackpilled conclusion that Marx is right and we, Zig Forums and your socialist book club are wrong: we're misreading him, basically. Who we think are proletarians are not proletarians. And what MTWs say is that yes, if you're a first-world white person then it doesn't matter what you call yourself, it's basically just a posting style, and you're not the revolutionary subject despite working for wages or whatever you do.

Of course accepting #3 causes a lot of white lefties to get really mad and flip out, so they wind up here or on stupidpol after they're kicked out of other leftist circles where the smart people are hanging out.

Hey, you never know. They did actually overthrow a monarchy. And having a protracted people's war all the time is at least a way of organizing a society. Let's try to have some humility.

Attached: nxfrbugmwju11.jpg (1024x576, 52.04K)

Conclusion #3 is a pretty retarded tbh. Where in Marx can you find anything to support the the claim that first world proles aren't actually proles because they're part of a labor aristocracy?

Your missing 4: material conditions were not met for revolution. A developed capitalist state that has allready exported its labor (late stage) is less likely to have revolution because material needs are just below the threshold for revolution. This means people can fall prey to false class consciousness and insane amounts of bootlicking because in retrospect they're relatively "fine". The working class in America dosent revolt mostly due to misrepresentation of marxist work so that people dont actually try and read to understand it. Theres a reason why a majority of Americans think Marxism = "muh gommunist dictator 100 million starved to death xD"

Social democracy formed specifically to combat socialism. This is why so many social democratic countries are located around true socialist areas. Social democracy is by design created to combat socialism by giving the public a tiny taste of what socialism might look and feel like without it actually being socialism. This in turn makes the working class in social democratic states docile.

How tf does the exportation of first world jobs to the third world make them better off?

They are no longer working in factory settings, they're now working at service jobs. Keep in mind that the major job in Marx's time was factory work which was hard labor. We now do shitty jobs still, but its not physical either. Not like that really makes it any better.

I guess you could say that people feel as if they're better off even though they're not.

Yes. Change cannot happen in the first world, we must put our faith in our starving, illiterate third world comrades.

Attached: who is that porkymon.jpg (480x360, 5.79K)

This applies only to scandinavian countries, western europe or even Canada. But the workers in the US or Japan are definitely not placated, because these countries actually have no social programs. They might be cucked because of many other reasons, but I'm very sure, it is not because their life is too comfy.

Both of these answers are incoherent. Wages are at an all time low relative to productivity. Why the fuck would people feel better when they're forced into worse paying & less secure jobs in the service sector?

well obviously people don't feel it enough to be affected by it.

maybe because they still have a house, car, etc. Its not like they have a job yet own nothing. People are angry and that's a fact, sure. However, a majority of people don't know about Marxism so the only direction they feel they can go either the libertarian route or fascism.

iIm saying that we should aim to teach as many people about Marxism and socialism before the markets collapse or else were on a collision course with fascism.

Are you in your teens?

What the fuck is wrong with you? If people don't know what Marxism is they wont know how to respond to economic crisis or understand what they're going through. People are angry at neoliberalism which is plainly obvious, but they don't know the theory to understand what is actually going on so they turn reactionary.

People don't understand what Marxism is so they cant respond to whats happening correctly. If they did, there would be a lot more socialists and a lot less reactionaries.

Yes, but social democracy can no longer maintain this illusion. In the past years, everywhere in europe social democratic parties are shifting to the right or/and are crashing down. In the recent EU election, the german SPD only gained about 15% of votes. The death of social democracy is inevitable.

Im well aware of that, that's why as many people need to be taught the true nature of socialism as possible before it does collapse. People cant build a new society if no one has any framework to work on.

4 revolt is a primarily pragmatic matter involving comparative military and economic states of Revolutionaries and Conservatives

You didn't answer my question. I feel like the only way you could say "people don't feel it enough to be affected by it" is if you're an extremely sheltered teenager.

Securing a first world nation would be ideal for many reasons I shouldn't have to list because they should be obvious from the get go. The condition in first world nations are getting worse because social programs are being rolled back so claiming it wont spark anger is false.
that's because of le contradictions, they dont know about marxism or socialism so they choose to be reactionary.
No, we need to teach as many people in first world nations whats actually going on.

Attached: gamersrise.jpg (500x453, 41.81K)

It was a bad choice of wording, of course they're affected by it. They just don't know how to properly respond to it. I'm not a sheltered teen, i'm just some autist boat captain.

I know that may of come off super sheltered and snarky but i'm a little bit pissy today unfortunately

Well I think you should try this. But the scarier notion here is they might look at the true nature of socialism and reject it. Like, equalize living standards across the whole world? How many Americans will go for this? Hence why a lot of this "socialist" energy is being diverted into the Bernie Sanders campaign or whatever which wants to revive a 1950s-era home ownership society, basically.

Attached: Jr2xrVv.gif (340x191, 884.22K)

It's outdated in the sense that it is only useful for a 20th and 21st century socialist after they have read Lenin.

Socialism will be foisted upon the first world from the third. Until that time the first world left should promote revolutionary defeatism in order to demoralize and disrupt the core imperialist society.

Why *specifically* is it outdated? Why is it only useful with Lenin's additions?

Not to be rude, but that sounds like white guilt with a materialist paintjob, and really it's rather cute to see American exceptionalism find a cozy home in the revolutionary left, and the European side of things got pistolwhipped in 1973 and saw the snuff film live in 1991 so a lot of bullshit takes on Heidegger and of course all the rain dances on international solidarity keep the depressed stragglers of the March through the institutions alive and grifting, and of course there's also benefits and spectacle for the normies so maybe we should at least defend that.

But at least the food is good, and now with the Forever War and all the idpol screeching about appropriation you can find whatever refugee you need for the fundraiser catering and the food really is good, the only reason I ever went to that shit.

And of course the leftcoms were wrong and fetishism, cargo cult thinking and squabbling over which dead Russian could build Red Prussia more efficiently is the way to go in the 21st century and by the way it was Bukharin.

Attached: IMG-22cfc555383a3b4d2ca959d116b7e1a9-V.jpg (501x498, 31.16K)

Its a lot more nuanced than just that. Workers would also own and control the means of production democratically. I mean global living standards might not all be equal in a long time but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus on one of the more major factors of socialism. Bernie is now also advocating for workplace democracy, as least as of late.

Attached: aRPBgxq_700b.jpg (700x525, 42.68K)


The run-on sentences made this post more fun, but also hard to read tbh. Historical speculations are pointless and gay, but Bukharin would have likely been the least disastrous option tbh. This is undeniable.


Please don't report me for Formalism, I'll self criticise later and I'm banned already.

And yeah, I've had this conversation too many times with people from almost every possible strain of the left that doesn't simply spit at the ground when they hear the word Union after the Soviet and this is what it distills into.

And it's funny because Hegel was right on this one thing and the authority-power plane in the Presidium really turned into Byzantium which not only confirms a material analysis of history but also proves that revisionism really can make you do the strangest things.

Also German syntax can be a fucking nightmare sometimes but when skillfully used it can help a good Austrian symbolist fill a page before using a period, and Hegel has some good takes on the subject as well.

Attached: fanny-kaplan.jpg (284x400, 23.18K)

ABsolutely irrelevant. The ruling class will just increase welfare for workers and make the job market easier. It will be just succdem or UBI.

New deals and Yang gangs are possible in 1st world countries, basically creating future boomers. In 3rd world countries these 2 things are impossible.

Lol, MTW is not about wypipo and New Afrikans. That's Sakaism in style of MIM tards.

what a respect for the third world proletarian, eh?


Kill yourself tranny

i'm posting to say you're a pseudo-intellectual in the full sense of the term
everyone, look and remember

At least the third world actually has revolutions, when the fuck was the last time a first world state revolted, 1850?

Read a fucking book

Sakaism simply understands America through the lens of it being a settler colonialist state, something the obsessively anti-idpol shetlered white kid left has a problem understanding

Lmao are you trying to refer to the attempted social revolutions of the 60s? I don’t consider Tsarist Russia to be a first world state.

And what fucking book, are we going to pretend that the world hasn’t changed since the time of Marx? Fucking Lenin understood the world had changed, Marxism isn’t a religion dumb fuck

Fuck off, their post was good, you're just an uptight dipshit.

Paris commune
Bavaria, Hungary,Finland
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia

Read some fucking history book, retard

Russia was the 4th largest economy in 1913

You're wrong

This. Revolutions generally happen as a result of specific crises rather than just the general poverty of a country.

Do you realize that the same thing could be said about black people living in the United States, since they definitely are much less exploited than an indian working in slave conditions in Qatar or in a factory of Bangladesh?

amazing. saved

except youre literally fucking wrong. he wrote extensively about the nonexistent revolutionary potential of the english working class due to the spoils of the exploitation of India.


Yes, but it's not Third worldism. Sakai actually sees revolutionary potential in 1st world.