The Gluttony of First Worldism
The First Worldist line is composed of wanting more, more of everything. Yet in its very essence it is entirely reactionary. For First World people to demand more is to demand an increase in the exploitation of the Third World. First Worldism is inherently reactionary because it calls for greater exploitation not less. First World people already massively over consume yet they always demand more. Communism isn't about getting more, it's about reorganizing human relations along the rejection of consumerism. First Worldism balks at such a concept and merely demands more luxuries.
Look at how the wealth of the world is divided up.
Clearly the First World is hoarding the world's wealth.
In a study of the world's distribution of wealth made by Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots the following was concluded:
Of the 60 million or so people who made up the world's richest percentile at the time of the most recent data, around 29million live in the U.S.
The top one per cent comprises anyone with an income over $34,000 after tax, meaning a family of four must earn $136,000 to make it in the category, according to CNN.
One quarter of the group's members live in Europe, with 4million in Germany and 3million in each of the UK, France and Italy. Other countries with large numbers of 'the 1%' include Canada, Japan and Brazil.
The proportion of the world's wealthiest people living in China, India, Russia and Africa is statistically insignificant, according to Mr Milanovic.
And the global median income is just $1,225 a year, meaning that the world's emerging middle classes are very far from reaching a level of wealth which would make them well-off by western standards.[1]
The overconsumption of the First World is a matter that First Worldists would rather you not see.
So what would it take for the entire world to live at the same level as Americans?
The data here are absolutely clear, the First World already consumes way too much. In a global redistribution of wealth it would be reduced tremendously. First Worldists only demand more for themselves. With this distribution of the world's wealth it is impossible to raise First World people even more without lowering the Third World further. If a global revolution took place First World people would respond to their immediate material interests and demand that the global inequality be maintained or be restored. First World people are not allies of the global poor. The revolution would be rolled back as reactionary forces revolted against egalitarianism.
First Worldists who refuse to acknowledge this are engaging in utopianism. It is physically impossible to just create more. There is only so much in the way of resources and productive forces. First Worldists advocate raising the exploited to the level of the exploiter, which is not possible as the exploiter has to be reduced. Communism is the elimination of all oppression and the distribution of wealth according to need. This is not what First Worldists fight for, they make demands for more at the expense of the global poor. This is why First World people cannot be revolutionary, this is why they are not allies. They are counter-revolutionary.
Lenin himself noted this trend early on when talking to the Communist International. He noted that the beneficiaries of imperialism unwilling to give up their wealth and privilege were counter-revolutionary.
"Crispien went on to speak of high wages. The position in Germany, he said, is that the workers are quite well off compared with the workers in Russia or in general, in the East of Europe. A revolution, as he sees it, can be made only if it does not worsen the workers' conditions 'too much'. Is it permissible, in a Communist Party, to speak in a tone like this, I ask? This is the language of counter-revolution. . .The workers' victory cannot be achieved without sacrifices, without a temporary deterioration of their conditions. We must tell the workers the very opposite of what Crispien has said. If, in desiring to prepare the workers for the dictatorship, one tells them that their conditions will not be worsened 'too much', one is losing sight of the main thing, namely, that it was by helping their 'own' bourgeoisie to conquer and strangle the whole world by imperialist methods, with the aim of thereby ensuring better pay for themselves, that the labor aristocracy developed. If the German workers now want to work for the revolution they must make sacrifices, and not be afraid to do so. . . .
"To tell the workers in the handful of rich countries where life is easier, thanks to imperialist pillage, that they must be afraid of 'too great' impoverishment, is counter-revolutionary. It is the reverse that they should be told. The labour aristocracy that is afraid of sacrifices, afraid of 'too great' impoverishment during the revolutionary struggle, cannot belong to the Party. Otherwise, the dictatorship is impossible, especially in West-European countries."[2]
These are the facts about the global distribution of wealth. In a global redistribution of that wealth the First World would be reduced dramatically. First World people are not entitled to more, they are entitled to less. The demand for more is reactionary.
[1] America IS the 1%: You need just $34,000 annual income to be in the global elite… and HALF the world's richest people live in the U.S., Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1–You-need-34k-income-global-elite–half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html
[2] "Speech on the Terms of Admission to the Communist International July 30", V. I. Lenin., Collected Works, Vol. 31, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1960, pp. 248-9
2015 07 05 in Third Worldism. Tags: global poverty, imperilaism, lenin, third worldism
The French Gonzaloists vs. The LLCO
Daniel Buntovnik's Hurt Feelings and Pseudo-intellectualism
← Donald Trump's Imperialist Chauvinism
Contradictions in Rights, Contradictions in Property for Same Sex Wedding Cake →
One thought on "The Gluttony of First Worldism"
Winslie Gomez says:
Reblogged this on HAPLOGROUP – bit that makes us human..