rereading foundation of leninism and from reading bunch of Mao, peasants seem to be a necessary for a revolution, and with the lack of peasants in the west world, what other alliance can the paroles make lumpen or lower end of petty bourgeoisie ? are they any good readings on this question ?

some maoists (including bpp iirc) believe it is gang members, lumpens

thought about em right after but i don’t think lumpen is correct we seen it bite bpp in the ass with the amount of informant they had and as funny as a story of a cadre randomly robbing a gas station is it shows a lack of discipline im more on the route that lumpens need to be prolaterized

so wat would that look like for u

i was going to say is there any specific reason in this case you'd feel it's necessary to use the textbook definitions of these instead of modern extrapolations, but i thought about it, and if youre falling more under the kinda third-worldism label and still want to use textbook definitions (which its possible to do with that in mind), then yeah nah virtually the entire west is basically the bourgeoise except like homeless people and like line cooks lol

Doesn't the necessity of peasants for a revolution come from the fact that a big portion of the population are peasants in those countries. I wouldn't necessarily say that's a universal thing

getting into settlers by sakai territory here
and i agree

that's why its hard to go 1 to 1 with maoism in the US, its like, you have to extrapolate a lot, and there are many, many contradicitons

I'm a third worldist insofar as I think the West has negative revolutionary potential ie higher chance of moving towards fascism, but the a***ysis that comes to the conclusion that the majority of workers in the West benefit more from global capitalism materially than they would from socialism is nonsense imo, they definitely are the least exploited, but that doesn't mean they extract wealth like the bourgeoisie does.

I'm not saying I agree with it fully, I'm just saying that that's really the only argument i can see if you wanted to use pure textbook definitions. Like there are coal miners in the US who own multiple cars and fully own the land they live on (until the government decides they don't) - that would put them out of peasant territory, but at the same time calling them a petty bourgeois seems kinda off. Plus a majority of the western world owns stock or has stuff like IRAs/etc and thus benefits from exploitation - same could be said about consumer commodities or supply chains. You have to kinda worry about modern economic nuance in definitions otherwise.

I think there's def validity when third worldists talk about unequal exchange but calling workers in the west bourgeois is just so idiotic and i feel like it's mostly people who def arent from a working class background and honestly have no real idea what it's like to be poor in the west

I more or less agree with you, I just mean that discourse around specific definitions which were otherwise classifiable at the time of original Marx & Engels writing needs slight tweaking if you're to talk about western class a***ysis outside of a third worldist perspective. Like the difference in land ownership, stock ownership, etc. is way different - at the same time though there's still labor exploitation obviously but the scale is all wonky and off-balance. You have to kind of bring relative scale into it when talking about the west, which you don't need to do as much when talking from a third world standpoint.

we were talking about it a bit ago but this is what i dislike the most about hasan's audience specifically lol

A bunch of Hasan's audience are just socdems who also post communist memes

Every time he has a take on foreign policy that doesn't follow western dogma they're like HASAN I AM SO DISAPPOINTED IN YOU

There won’t be revolution in the United States until it loses its position of imperialist hegemony

Simply too many people are plugged into the bourgeois framework built by the state as a result of it being the imperial core

A collapse of the system will result in a retraction of financial basis of American economics and allow for more traditional labor dynamics to return

My take

i think there is a huge gap in theory on this topic here

to give credit to the type of philosophy that emerged around/post-frankfurt school (who was i just otherwise semi-shitting on a few pages ago), they have at least attempted to talk about these things and bridge that gap, especially in terms of what you sometimes find in aspects of continental philosophy.
However, even that stuff isn't necessarily as recent, so unless you're basically looking at people like Zizek or Fisher, then yeah you aren't going to get a lot of recent a***ysis there, and imo I'm not a massive fan of how people like Fisher approached it either.
You do actually see a lot of right wingers taking on these topics in their own circles, esp. the small selection of rwers that flirt with marxist economic theory, but you don't get great stuff from there for obvious reasons.

I don't think there's necessarily a gap in theory here as much as there isn't a consensus, it's a very divisive topic among Marxists and for a change it's actually a meaningful theoretical disagreement instead of petty infighting aboutt historical events that don't really matter today.

didn’t mean to use textbook definition didn’t know any other definitions existed

I don't think they really address how the material class structure in the West differs from the third world, they're just ideology fellas

Again def would recommend this conversation between Zizek and Vivek that addresses this

that’s true just Stalin saying how peasants became the reserve army of the bourgeoisie, and in the October revolution became the reserve army of the proletariat due to being promised land and ending the war which other parties backtracked on. Also in Mao writing the peasent-prole alliance is a huge thing just got me thinking about in modern context

I think if we're gonna PSYCHOANALYZE it I think dismissing the Western working class as "bourgeois" is just a COPE for the fact that the Western left has been miserably unsuccessful in mobilizing the working class for a very long time now.

Heh.. well if they don't wanna listen to us about socialism.... I guess they're just bourgeois scum right???

yeah i’m familiar with there time i need to learn much more in modern context

Western leftists are masters in high level COPIUM

No revolution? It's IDEOLOGY

No worries proletarian dictatorship CHYNA will save us

THEY'RE ALL BOURGEOIS I NEVER WANTED YOU ANYWAY!!!!!!

semi-prole i guess if s*** gets too bad

Assad and Xi and Putin will all link up and invade the United States and create a based Socialist regime and I will be in charge of it and I have never read Marx and theres a gas leak in my house and