"We need to think about our impact on the world and show more solidarity with the people being exploited to maintain this unsustainable system we're benefiting from."
I think this is an example of taking everything as absolutes, that acknowledging that labor aristocracy is a problem can’t just be a call for taking that into consideration and actively working to address it. No, it must mean they’re arguing there’s an intractable gulf between the working class in the “developed” world and in the “undeveloped” world and thus no international solidarity.
There's some weird shit in this whole kerfuffle like this guy claiming he met one person canvassing who was dismayed the DSA hadn't taken a position on Hong Kong or something and that's what's at stake here
But this is just standard Western leftists (“Marxists” even) who are “anti-imperialist when it’s convenient to me, but when my treat supplies are threatened I’m gonna do some imperialist propaganda”
and
“workers in the periphery don’t have a right to fight back against imperialism without MY permission! it’s not the right time to do this, you’re only gonna make the situation worse for yourself (while I stand idly by mocking you). it’s only the right time WHEN I SAY SO (meanwhile, we are on our way to overthrow our bourgeois governments in the West in approximately… 125 years)”
Man thinks that the core's economy collapsing after being deprived of all the free labor from neocolonialism would not hurt any worker
there's an infographic that's gone around here suggesting that is so unequal that the average person here would be better off with a globally equal distribution of wealth.
cut off full stop? sure that's gonna cause problems. Walling the 1% and paying fairly for that formerly colonized labor would go as smoothly as the bourgeoise would let it.
Yes I totally agree, this is why in itself the guy we're dunking on isn't absolutely wrong, in the sense that, global socialism is better for everyone. But the thing is, walling the 1% (aka revolution since the 1% have all power in the current system) is very hard, and Imperial core workers aren't showing enough organisation, skills and... Minecraft-only tactics, for this to happen.
So it is right to say that they are at odds with the global South proletariat in the sense that in the present, Imperial core workers fear economic crisis, and would in part support military interventions to maintain colonial power under the guise of democracy and freedom.
If the worker's movement in the global North turns to solidarity and revolutionary defeatism, then it's a banger and we'll all be better off
Marx even wrote that the English Proletariat were a “bourgious-proletariat” and that without many “very difficult years” nothing would change in England
Where does this whole notion that this kind of analysis, that is similar to world's systems theory, is actually not marxist come from? Saw some people on hexbear say the same thing. There are plenty of Marxist ways to analyse the contradictions between the global north and south. The school of thought known as global historical materialism exists, and evidently is based on Marxism, with concepts such as the law of worldwide value. Samir Amin basically dedicated his whole life to studying this from a Marxist point of view. You can disagree with his analysis, but it is still clearly based off of Marx.
When you actually start quoting Samir Amin to these people, they lose their goddamned minds.
I had someone telling me he was a Nazbol or "apologist for feudalism" (????) because he was exploring the differences between European feudalism and other tributary modes of production
I guess we're just supposed to post the "improve society somewhat" comic or the Monty Python bit where they find a commune of peasants living in pure filth