u/parwa - originally from r/GenZhou
I know this is more of a Dengist sub than a Maoist one, but I was hoping I could find some insight here as it’s a book I’ve seen praised across many leftist tendencies. I read through some sections of it recently (mostly skipped over the historical stuff because I knew about most of it already) and while I went in with an open mind I’m really torn on it. I’m mostly just unsure of what the conclusion is. If revolution must be led by the colonized, where does that leave everyone else that wants a revolution? Are descendants of settlers supposed to just sit back and wait? Besides, just in terms of pure numbers isn’t that nearly impossible? From my understanding you need mass support to pull off a successful revolution, not just a fraction of the population. I don’t want to just write it off as an op as I’ve seen many others do, because it has some good points, yet I can’t help but think it might be. It seems like both a great way to get people of color to distrust white leftists and refuse to organize with them, and to get white leftists to refrain from organizing in fear of speaking over the colonized. I also feel like it kinda fails to take manufactured consent into account. What are your thoughts on it?

  • archive_botOPB
    0·
    5 years ago

    u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
    Not petit bourgeois, but labor aristocracy, yes.

    ILO wage rates / Global inequality, 2007

    • Inflation-adjusted Average Hourly Wage Rates for male OECD workers in 2007 = $17
    • Inflation-adjusted Average Hourly Wage Rates for male non-OECD workers in 2007 = $1.50
    • Factoral Difference between OECD and non-OECD wages = 11x

    That 1.50 number, is what marx called the social cost of reproduction of labor power. You make more than that, then you are technically labor aristocracy, and in the minority of the worlds workers.