I'm not a third-worldist. I'm talking about the people who say that Americans workers benefit so much from slavery phones that even under socialism they'd be worse off without the slaves. This would roundly disprove that.

How is global socialism not third-worldist? You're saying that the median American, even under completely equal global redistribution, would still be a little bit richer than before.

Doesn't this argument support Third Worldism? And isn't the concept of global wealth equidistribution a core tenet of Third Worldism?

[–] macerated_baby_presidents@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You're saying that the median American, even under completely equal global redistribution, would still be a little bit richer than before. Doesn't this argument support Third Worldism?

No, I don't think so. I'm talking about people who believe that the imperial core has no or limited revolutionary potential because of the benefits they reap from imperialism. They think that the necessary global socialist revolution will begin in the third world, and it's only once imperialism is no longer an option that socialism will have mass appeal in the core. If socialism is already better than imperialism for first-world workers than you don't need to be a third-worldist, revolutions can start anywhere. I admit I'm not super familiar with third worldism, maybe I'm caricaturing them as more pessimistic/defeatist than they are.

I've been frustrated recently how hard it is to talk in hypotheticals on this site. I say "interesting this would disprove X because of Y" and I get several people saying "obviously X is false because of Z". I don't believe X (and I'm literally presenting an argument against it!), why are you all trying to argue with me about it? I'm trying to talk about Y.

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Okay, I was not clear on what third worldism actually meant. I thought it meant "global socialism including the third world" and that the NON-thirdworldist position was "bougie white imperial core socialism for citizens of westoid countries" which would basically be in the same direction as europe right now, but more goodies for European proles and less for European elites, while the third world stays poor. I'm against that.

However, if ThirdWorldism is simply the belief that the revolution will start in the third world, then:

They think that the necessary global socialist revolution will begin in the third world, and it's only once imperialism is no longer an option that socialism will have mass appeal in the core.

All of that stuff literally already happened
That's what the CPC is, and why communism is even vaguely on Gen Zs radar today but never before

Chinese did socialism in 1950, socialist education was superior at making high skill workers, now China eats America's lunch, hence communism (and nuclear war) are on the American population's radar. Some are sane and want communism, more are mayobrained and want to nuke China, but all of them have some type of reaction to the Chinese disruption. So you can't "not be a thirdworldist" because thirdworldism is what literally happened over the last 70 years (and continuing, as China continues to invest into Africa and SEA)

I've been frustrated recently how hard it is to talk in hypotheticals on this site.

well part of the problem is that I can't even see the original comment that guy posted

However, even if the avg American benefits from a worldwide equal-wealth distribution under a utopian government, some people would still benefit MORE. For the American it might mean less mental stress, while for a Bengali it would less mental stress AND being able to afford enough calories to grow past 5 feet tall. Obviously one of these parties has much more to gain, so rationally the revolution would begin to take place first in one of these areas (and it already did)