Some time ago I supported Third Worldism and consumed various media explaining it’s theories, but at this point it just seems like one of many copes for a lack of revolutionary energy that place blame outside the self-proclaimed “vanguard” groups and displace the need for actual self-criticism. “Westerners are labor aristocrats” is just a form of complaining that “the proles have it too good” which is a subset of the classic Marxist dogma that "conditions determine consciousness and poeple will spontaneously become revolutionary when things get bad enough.” This is something that many accept, even when rejecting the particular claim that there is no white working class. This position seemingly grants the liberal assumption that regular capitalism is fine and it’s only crises and such that are bad; failing to account for the way in which people in poor conditions often follow false explanations for their problems and pursue actions that do not lead to liberation.
“The proles have it too good" is often a claim evidenced by the expanded set of goods that people have access to. As though capitalism didn’t continually manufacture new needs. As though access to cars and microwaves weren’t mandatory for a modern alienated worker with no time not dedicated to either the reproduction of capital or the reproduction of their own labor capacity.
“The proles have it too good” resembles the sentence “kids have it too good these days.” That is not an accident, but it’s not surprising that Marxists would have an aversion to that association. Each judgement’s purpose is to serve as explanation for something one does not like to see. The boomer sees kids with “poor manners” and explains that they have not faced enough hardship to adopt proper virtuous behavior. The marxist sees people going on with the everyday slog of capitalism and “failing” to revolt and explains “only with worse material conditions would they become revolutionary and pursure their historic mission.” It’s the same moralist logic.
Alas, the worker (however “aristocratic”) does not face the decision everyday of whether to contribute to the existing hegemony or do away with it. One works because one must feed oneself – regardless of how tasty the food is. The third worldist supposes that people are bribed into going down a certain path when in fact there was no decision before them. When the conditions finally worsen, there is no guarantee of revolution. If there is revolution, there is no guarantee of socialism. Why would people attempt to establish socialism if they don’t understand what’s wrong with capitalism? When things get bad people have often gone “our rulers are no longer treating us well. Let us change things so that we may have more benevolent rulers once more.” People have indeed been driven by poor conditions to revolt but their was no necessity binding them to the pursuit of revolution.
The third worldist claims that people have it better in the west because prices have dropped.
Of course, the price of commodities have dropped. This is the natural result of competition as well as particular aspects of capitalist competition such as the development of technology. This is elementary marxism. By no means does a decrease in profits imply a decrease in exploitation. Capitalists still seek an increase in absolute profit even as relative profits drop, and all profits come from the exploitation of workers. I’m not sure how imperialist super-profits are special or imply a widespread lack of exploitation.
The third worldist cites the New Deal and such as evidence of westerners coming to benefit from capitalism. Yes, workers fought hard and were ultimately placated or met with a compromise of certain reforms. This somewhat improved the conditions of certain people for some time. I have certainly not seen enough evidence to conclude that a significant amount of people, a whole “nation” had their interests shifted in favor of their former exploiters.
There have been “leftist movements” in the west since that time, and yes, they have not accomplished revolution. Why would they have when the dominant rhetoric and explanations are about states that don’t benefit the nation enough and immoral elites who are so much worse than the petty bourgeois, or even more abstract idealist complaints like many leaders of May 68. Most people did not have a marxist critique of capitalism and their critiques only reinforced the status quo.
Everyone’s “material quality of life is dependent” on the current system. We’re still exploited. We go to our jobs because we receive money in exchange for our labor. People would fight to destroy this system if they understood exactly how capitalism exploits them. People don’t rise up in many places right now despite the fact that they are “exploited more.” Paul Cockshott has shown that baristas, for example, are still very much exploited. https://youtu.be/dEsuQyyv5hc
White people in revolutionary america were not proletarian insofar as they were homesteaders and slave owners. I don’t see why proletarians couldn’t also be reactionary based on reactionary ideas. The fact that people have acted in a counterrevolutionary manner does not make them less proletarian – an argument Sakai used time and time again (yes, I have read Settlers). An argument presupposing the classic dogma of a revolutionary “historical mission” for the proletariat. Any complaint that there is a lack of revolutionary activity can be easily rationalized by the explanation “there aren’t enough (inherently virtous) proles.”
If products are really systematically sold to people in the imperial core at prices “below their labor value” that strongly implies that prices for consumer goods on the whole are much cheaper in the west than outside. Is that the case? Is there some purpose or explanation for this aside from “bribing the workers?” Obviously, there are professional-managerial workers who play a vital role in the circulation of capital and get payed more for it, but I do not see the labor-aristocratic side of that dominating. Anyway, people buy certain commodities that they did not used to based on manufactured needs, as I have already explained. https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/ideologies-about-consumption-and-consumer-market-economy uses workers in the north and south for different purposes, requiring different things of them, and they are both exploited.
On the whole, it seems like Third Worldists largely repeat liberal talking points about how the modern liberal democratic citizen is liberated from the perils of so-called capitalism, except, twisting it with moral condemnation because we have forgotted about “the little guys” in the global south.
You must log in or # to comment.
Depends what you mean by third worldism, but if your political view leads to your praxis to just being sitting on your ass and posting, then you probably need to reevaluate your view.
If products are really systematically sold to people in the imperial core at prices “below their labor value” that strongly implies that prices for consumer goods on the whole are much cheaper in the west than outside. Is that the case?
In a sense, yes. The cost of consumer goods is broadly subsidized by their procurement from far more exploited labor markets. The cost would be far far higher if they were manufactured domestically.
Is there some purpose or explanation for this aside from “bribing the workers?” Obviously, there are professional-managerial workers who play a vital role in the circulation of capital and get payed more for it, but I do not see the labor-aristocratic side of that dominating.
Also in a sense, yes, but it is not “the workers” broadly speaking, but specifically that upper strata. The proletariat is not a homogenous blob as you seem to recognize but contains many strata with conflicting material interests. The majority of consumer spending lies in just the top 10% of income earners in the US, which is what is leading to the sharpening contradictions as we see today. Many of the US working class are fighting tooth and nail to break into that top earning bracket, but as we know this is just not physically possible.
There is a certain validity to Sakai’s assertions of the “myth of the white working class” but that is not an immutable class character, it is manufactured to keep them fighting one another over meager scraps.
A better world is possible and we should always maintain revolutionary optimism. Revolution is only possible if enough people believe that it is.
Finally I will leave you with this funny comic which I believe illustrates a lot of our thoughts
From the existential comics post I took this from:
William James, with his pragmatic theory of truth, criticized the dominant scientific view of his time, which held that we should only believe things if we have adequate empirical evidence for them. He argued that many important ways we use belief in society follow a different pattern — in fact, belief can often come first and create the fact afterward.
He gave various examples. One was of a man who believes a woman should love him, and pursues her until she does. Another is from sports, where top athletes maintain a seemingly irrational belief that they can defeat any opponent. For instance, Buster Douglas never could have beaten Mike Tyson if he hadn’t first believed he could. In such cases, the belief created the fact.
His most famous example is that of train robbers, who are able to rob hundreds of passengers despite being only a few men. James explained that the robbers succeed because they can count on one another, whereas the passengers lack belief that, if they resist, others will rise up with them. If the passengers all believed in each other enough to rise together, that shared trust would give them the courage to act — and simultaneously destroy the robbers’ belief that they could succeed.
None of these examples fit the standard account of belief described by philosophers, yet huge portions of society depend on precisely this kind of belief and social trust.
In short we must maintain revolutionary optimism. We can be wary of certain social reactionaries, but we must also still make all attempts to build relations across divisions among the proletariat, because if we cannot believe in the possibility of a revolution then it can never take place.
To quote Pat the Bunny:
Keep on loving
keep on fighting
And hold on, and hold on.
Hold on for your life.In a sense, yes. The cost of consumer goods is broadly subsidized by their procurement from far more exploited labor markets. The cost would be far far higher if they were manufactured domestically.
What products is this true for,? I examined nikes made in vietnam and the median american labors for much more time to procure the shoes than the labor hours it takes to make and ship them. The exact nubers i found are in my post history.
the median american labors for much more time to procure the shoes
implying the median American owns nikes
you could easily expand this absurdly specific and contrived example you’ve chosen, to “shoes”
I looked at nike bc they were the poster child for exploitation. If Americans were benefiting the if would def be there. I have worked in manufacturing and have seen the books. If you knew how little consumer goods cost to make in the us with well paid union labor then you might be as suspicious as i am of those claims.
deleted by creator
Yeah but that is just examining a single hyperinflation status symbol in a vacuum and in no way representative of the majority of consumer goods let alone bare necessities.
Ok i was going to do apples next but you should do it and report your findings since youre the one making assertions.
Apples are like one of the few things we produce domestically and guess who harvests most of them?
Yup why i was going to look at it.
So far what i have is:
Median us worker is at $26 per hour
Apples near me are $1.50 per pound
A 1973 study i found said workers picked between 240 and 360 pounds of apples per hour.
You can keep going to see what the total labor hour cost per apple is and if the median worker has to work more or less hours to obtain the product. Let me know what you find out.
if the median worker has to work more or less hours to obtain the product
how many apple pickers do you know? I’m assuming you’re American based on the reek of bad faith and faulty reasoning.
What is bad faith about asking for data to support a claim? I looked at shoes and concluded the data didnt support the claim americans benefit in that regard. If capitalists are unwilling to share profits then why super profits?
You reek of antiintellectualism and an unwillingness to investigate a matter before speaking.
You’d also have to factor in the labor of growing, cleaning, transporting, and stocking apples, not just how many apples get picked in an hour. I don’t know if you’re wrong about people overpaying on apples. Just that there’s more to the cost of apples than how many can be picked.
Which is why i suggested them to research and confirm their claims i simply found ‘some’ data.
Is a meme for a reason.
A 1973 study
Lmao nah I’m, good whatever friend.
Whats your issue with it?
The primary reason for the Labor Aristocracy’s existence is not access to advanced goods and services, but being “bought into” the system through limited property ownership and personal participation in Empire or, on the other hand, manufactured precarity.
Some examples of these:
Suburban home ownership
Car ownership
Loans for the above
401k’s instead of pensions
Having a job in weapons manufacturing, defense and security technology, being a cop or a soldier, having family who are cops or soldiers.
Having a job in the oil and polymer industries (refinery, plastics, pharmaceuticals), or any industry upstream or downstream from oil (car manufacturing, steelworking; road construction, transportation, medicine).
The American ruling class has designed an economy where nearly all economic activity is in service to the empire, which, again, has workers “Bought into” the system. You are unlikely to oppose war and empire if your job depends on the petrodollar, you’re making weapons of some sort (guns, vehicles, uniforms, technology) to benefit the military, your retirement portfolio depends on the strength of the American economy, your home and car will be repossessed if you quit your job, and most of your neighbors are in the same boat.
And it’s no surprise that the few industries that are not inherently reactionary (such as, to some extent, agriculture) are the ones that end up being underpayed and exploitative, and are worked primarily by America’s internal subjects: immigrants, Blacks, children, drug users, and the mentally ill.
If there is hope, it is in that Capitalism always has a need for higher profits and greater exploitation, and over time Empire will turn itself inwards and exploit those who were previously accomplices.
I would say that the west has it better in one regard and it’s the types of jobs they are doing. The capitalists understood this when they carried out globalism, exporting the heavy industry, manufacturing and dirty industry jobs to the periphery in order to destroy the traditional base of support for the left in the west. This left the west with mostly service work alongside a small amount of high tech manufacturing.
I get into it with others quite often but it is easier to organise people whose work is heavy, dirty or in some way physically hard on their biology than it is to organise people who have relatively easier work. Emphasis on “relatively”.
i think this view is too vibes based, what about ‘hard’ work makes it easier to organize? how does dirt make you think you need a union?
the difference is material: where the workers are and how much damage they can do with distruptions. Heavy industry has expensive centralized facilities that can be organized which are heaps of expense to move/close. The lighter the industry, the less centralized it needs to be and the blunter organization at any given part becomes. service industries can prune and replace union shops, because they’re one in 100s, that’s simply not an option at a steel company.
Hard physically demanding labour is different to standing behind a counter or sitting at a desk. It creates a comradery with other people doing the same physically hard exhausting shit that IS materially different to work that does not do that. A bunch of naked mine workers that can die if they do not look out for each other on a day to day have a different connection to office workers.
Also just the basis of many human relations is time spent doing the same task. In a lot of service work or computer touching jobs people largely work alone, or an individual projects in teams. You just don’t get the same bonds forming as you do when you’re like suffering in a line with nothing to do but socialise for entertainment.
After trying to organize fellow office workers for over a year with a small group, some of whom work remotely like myself, it is basically impossible to get them to do anything outside of flash in the pan events that make people temporarily mad for a few weeks. Then they realize again how comfy it is to be able to pet their dog while they work and stop participating.
I had a stronger bond with my fellow ‘soldiers’ after 2 days participating in a Civil War reenactment (as the union, ofc) than I do with my co-workers over many years.
I had a stronger bond with my fellow ‘soldiers’ after 2 days participating in a Civil War reenactment (as the union, ofc) than I do with my co-workers over many years.
Right and what did that come from? The physical element. Doing physical things with other people is a bonding force-multiplier.
There’s a reason that corporations use exercise events, sports, climbing, or “build a boat out of these materials” types of team-building events to bring teams together tighter. The physical element has a significant impact on how people connect to one another.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned it. Even pretending to be at war brings you closer together than seeing each other over a video call once a week while your entire team works independently.
Of course, of course. Still people are exploited and have trouble making ends meet. If anyone doubts that service jobs are productive and that service workers are exploited, please review the first link.
This was an excellent read. I have a buddy who’s been going down this road and had lately gotten rather racist due to it, which confused the shit out of me for the longest time. He’s always supported the third world over America (rightfully so), which was no problem for awhile at least. Lately though he is largely as you describe here. I’ve been calling out the racist things he says and have been trying to pull him away from these pat soc tendencies but I only really committed to trying bring him back to ML thought recently so I’ll have to keep it up and see what happens. I’ll probably bring up some of the things you’ve mentioned and hopefully get him to reflect a bit.
Unfortunately moralisms easily overlap. Racism, on the ideological level, is essentially a condemnation of the “evil people” who prevent things from being good for one.
That’s pretty much the mindset he has atm. It started with hating whites, again understandable as he’s faced racist abuses more than once for being Chinese, it then expanded to all Americans regardless of ethnicity, so we’re getting more problematic there, and now he’s just straight up racist to literally any ethnicity.
It’s been very disheartening to watch but since I started mentioning that I’ve noticed him spewing racist shit he’s been better, around me, but it’s still apparent his thoughts/world view remain the same.
He’s been my best friend for nearly my entire adult life though, and got me into ML thought, so I will keep nudging him, hopefully, further and further away from this patsoc, terminally online, irony poisoned frame of mind he’s picked up.
Make 50 million t-shirts for 5 bucks, pay container ship workers round 10 million to transport them, pay port workers 20 million to unload them, another 30 million to local delivery system, 100 million to local advertising, which subsidizes internet infrastructure and dozens of influencers, another 100 million to shop workers, sell them for 20 bucks, or 1 billion. Each of the step is exploited, but some steps get 10-100 bucks an hour, while some get 0.7 bucks an hour. Could it be that getting started at t-shirts at their equal price of 15-20 bucks would rather cut down profits of all middle men involved, and make them more expensive at end point, reducing available consumption basket of imperial core workers and amount of jobs available simultaneously (so both losing jobs and reducing treats?)
Or could it be that tech and pharma workers sans trade deals enshrining ip laws in global south would not get that much money to spend on luxury items produced by global north workers? Or be so attractively compensated that best brains in global south/internal periphery dream of going to core?
One can imagine that global north issue is how much disposable income you get after rent and where oscillations of 3% in salary/inflation can both bring you under or pay you more than salary in poorer half of global south just in increase alone
Ceo with worker hat (as a manager, sans external holdings) is also exploited, eg they bring more money to stock holders than their compensation package, or they wouldn’t be hired
Now, on the other hand, waiting for global south revolt and sitting on your ass seems like a losing proposition as well, but not because it can’t happen sometimes, but rather military, economical and ideological disparity is too great and seems like there is not enough industrial (producing commodities) jobs to go around the world in any case, so any country acting alone would get couped/outcompeted/bombed to shits. What you can do about it is a harder question, but dismissal it as a question at all seems rather cowardly
*and another fucking thing, where is imperial core trash going, do look it up for fun. Things would cost a lot more, if their disposal was included as disposal, not dumping them on shores of africa/south east asia
deleted by creator
Indeed, the working class is at where they are at. They (we) are a bundle of calculating bourgeois psyches who have been taught to critique in an idealist fashion. And yet, if we are to realize our collective interests we must make people understand the reasons behind their suffering.
I was driven to Third Worldism after repeatedly following and then discovering terrible takes from proto-ACP “patriotic socialists.” I even joined a patsoc party and argued with them over Amerikkkan nationalism. Unlike then, as you can see, I have found no reason to center the issue of the “national question.”
me on the left
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
