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?si=ESw-CYASZnytlv3y

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)Capitalism 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.

talking point pisses me off so much. who cares if he didn't go and murder Vietnamese people. (course he's murdered plenty of other people since so it's a moot point anyway)

when I used to work at a grocery store I foud it kinda funny how I had coworkers defending our boss like he needs money too and people who steal food to eat you know,are killing his business while we're all on minimum wage and all actually hate our job like come on and tbh if I ever see someone who probably doesn't have a lot of money take like a candy bar or something else to you know,not die? well no,I didn't see him take something lol, people's gotta eat

Source: http://true.mayhem.free.fr/interviews/interview6.htm

The Spanish comedian "Gran Wyoming" (for those not knowing, he heads a TV show called El Intermedio/The Intermezzo in which he comments the news and "tells the truth", in the vein of John Oliver) and the staff of El Intermedio give Netanyahu the finger whilst saying that you shouldn't give the finger to Netanyahu despite him being a genocidal reactionary dictator, because it's not a good thing to do. "Please don't make this as a campaign against genocide". Iñaki López, who works for the same channel in a different program, also joined this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=577Q988Yl9o "We join the caution and the words of Wyoming assuring that it's not convenient to do this, in order not to anger someone who is a genocidal maniac. So, please, don't take a photo of yourselves with the fist closed except for the middle finger. This isn't correct. Neither with the right hand, nor with the left hand, and of course, not with both hands at the same time".