Not interested in arguing, if youre gonna make low effort posts like this. You answer that question yourself

I'm disengaging here as I feel my point is proven.

Low wages in the South is due to low labor productivity relative to the North. 100,000 US steel workers produce about the same amount of steel as 600,000 Indian workers. When it comes to agriculture, which employs 43% of Indians, the average American farm worker is around 50 times more productive. 6 million Chinese textile workers produce 7 times more garments than 4 million Bangladeshi workers etc.

Always love a good grift

Non-productive workers do not "exploit" the productive workers. The textile factories cannot compete or sell anything without advertisements and without having sea transportation. Besides, does the example of a single industry prove your point, as wrong as it is? As I already mentioned, the vast majority of capitalist investment is within nations, and a significant chunk of FDI is between industrialized nations.

The next paragraphs : "However, a mass working-class audience for anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-militarist ideas will most likely be created in the context of mass, class struggles against capital. Today, the main audience for the idea that workers need to stand up to right-wing ideas and practices are the small layer of rank and file activists who are trying to promote solidarity, militancy and democracy in the labor movement.

Only if these activists, with the help of socialists in the labor movement, can succeed in building effective collective fight back will these ideas – the politics of class radicalism – achieve mass resonance." Good luck building a labor movement while saying things like "white men are the biggest complainers".

Yeah, it’s reactionary by nurture lol.

Of course, so that's why you have to, by necessity, somehow reach out to them and find solidarity.

Wages of non-productive workers come from the surplus value of productive workers.

The links I posted explains how workers in first world countries do not really benefit from imperialism.

Imperialist investment, particularly in the global South, represents a tiny portion of global capitalist investment. (19) Foreign direct investment makes up only 5% of total world investment – that is to say, 95% of total capitalist investment takes place within the boundaries of each industrialized country.

Of that five percent of total global investment that is foreign direct investment, nearly three-quarters flow from one industrialized country – one part of the global North – to another. Thus only 1.25% of total world investment flows from the global North to the global South.

Prior to 1995 total profits earned by U.S. companies abroad exceeded 4% of total U.S. wages only once, in 1979. Foreign profits as a percentage of total U.S. wages rose above 5% only in 1997, 2000 and 2002, and rose slightly over 6% in 2003. If we hold to our estimate that half of total foreign profits are earned from investment in the global South, only 1–2% of total U.S. wages for most of the nearly 50 years prior to 1995 – and only 2–3% of total U.S. wages in the 1990s – could have come from profits earned in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Yes I want you to pick one that you think is valid. The disagreement here is about a particular idea or thought that is introduced into the socialist movement by people, usually non-workers, who want to educate the working class. I couldn't care less about the tone Marx had in his polemics. You began by talking about models and frameworks that Marx was a "goofball" for ignoring. You haven't given a single example.

EDIT : I don't mean to turn this into a debate. I'm genuinely interested in hearing about people's disagreements with Marx. Obviously Marx isn't infallible and anyone who has actually managed to prove part or whole of his theory was wrong or misleading would be doing a great service to scientific socialism.

N-word : OFF ON

I haven't laughed this hard in ages, thank you OP.

You are being vague and not answering a simple question. You said Marx didnt accept other "models". Can you name one of these models?

Instead of being vague, why don't you actually name some names? Then we can see if they are valid or useful.

I would suggest reading this article about the labor aristocracy - https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/128.html and https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/129.html

Is the labor movement any stronger in India or South America or South East Asia? The rates of unionization are much higher in developed countries. And in the poorest countries, the proletariat itself is a minority compared to the peasant class. The labor movement is very weak worldwide. There are many reasons for it, but race is not the reason. The article provides the correct explanation.

Is the white working class responsible for slavery and colonialism? Colonialism benefited the capitalist class, but it did not have any benefits for the working class.

So its stupidpol but also everyone knows it and agrees with it. So are you stupidpol?

I can get over it if my opinions are not removed, even though allegedly "everyone knows it"

The point is the white working class in settler colonial nations is broadly reactionary because they have enjoyed exclusive material benefits and privileges from the system of heirachies in capitalism

Race becomes class under capitalism due to inheritance, nepotism and racism. This doesn't mean that the white working class is reactionary by nature. Marxists straight up disagree with Settlers, not just at the margins, because it presents a race-essentialist argument. Moreover, coming to practical matters, what conclusion do you draw from Settlers, assuming it is true? Do you just straight up ignore the white working class and complain about them?

These kinds of arguments are typical from petit-bourgeois students and academics who have never been in a actual work environment. The communist movement has nothing to do with such people. If you are actually working class, do you try to organize with fellow white workers out of necessity, or do you dismiss them because they are "settler colonials"?

Do you understand the problem with thinking that it is white people or straights who are oppressing you instead of the capitalist class and the state? Whites being the majority of the capitalist class is the result of demographic majority, inheritance laws and racism. There are also black capitalists, Jewish capitalists, gay capitalists etc. Resisting this in the form of a struggle against the formless mass called "white people" is obviously useless. What liberation will you achieve by complaining about reactionary white workers?

Yes. Read Settlers.

No Marxist takes Settlers seriously. The idea that the white working class is anti-revolutionary due to their race is idealist reactionary nonsense. The weak state of the labour movement is an international phenomenon, not specifically limited to white people in USA. Not to mention the concept that first-world countries can only be wealthy due to third-world exploitation has no basis in reality, and very few Marxists agree with that, including Marx himself.

Just because you’re working class doesn’t mean you’re automatically a comrade.

True. And thats why you reach out to people instead of dismissing them.

Im not denying that some people described as white have feelings of superiority and entitlement. But is that limited to white people, or to certain age groups? And are those feelings universal? Obviously not. So what is the purpose of generalizing such things? That's my question here. OK lets complain about the Brahmins in India who or lets complain about the Chinese in SEA countries. The dynamics there are similar to white people in USA. What would be the purpose of that? What would that achieve?

90% of white guys aged 50-65 are working class. You are basically complaining about the thoughts and feelings of working class people instead of figuring out how to reach out to them.