Yes because we all can afford to move abroad and not try to improve material conditions. Also, not trying in first world countries will just give governments like the US and UK more leeway to oppress AES and third world countries. BE isn’t even apart of an org either.
He's right, but for the wrong reasons, the US left won't matter precisely until the security apparatus of western capital is overwhelmed by developments in the Third World, at which point the 17 security agencies and the corporate alliance that sustains it, begins to either breakdown or expand at such an unsustainable rate that it generates "nothing to lose" opposition in the west
The capital flows that create the impoverished conditions of the Third World are filtered back to the west to perpetuate the military industrial complex, once those flows are disrupted, simultaneously opportunities for both the global southern left and the left of the imperial core begin to appear, it has never been either/or, but the primary driver for that dynamic is in the Third World, but that never implies the western left won't have an important role to play once the dominoes begin to fall, even if it's defeated
If there's anything sadder than leftists advancing a strawman of third worldism, it's a "third worldist" unironically embracing that strawman for clicks
some really important praxis has been done in the imperial core (Britain) against arms industries arming israel, and that's just recently.
historically imperial core activists had a huge hand in sabotaging the rightist intervention in the Russian Civil War, and for the pro-USSR wartime policy decisions in WW2. y'all think France and Britain didn't go into Finland against the Soviets purely because of "strategic considerations" and libshit? or were they worried about massive fucking strikes? fuck would the US have given up in Vietnam or Korea when they did without the antiwar movements?
There's a reason why domestic counterinsurgency really kicked off when the US withdrew from Vietnam after getting owned too many times by the Viet Minh. By cutting their loses and tactically retreating, the US was able to more focus on crushing domestic unrest. The reverse is true. An empire that overextends or is caught up with inter-imperialist war loses their grip on their populace. The 1905 revolution happened at the same time as the Russo-Japanese war and the 1917 revolutions happened at the same time as World War I.
To expect a socialist revolution to occur in a bourgeois state build from the ground up as a bourgeois state without a shred of noncapitalist history, be it feudal or socialist, and without help from the outside, be it socialist savior or imperialist rival, is complete madness.