Mfw someone tells me the first world has revolutionary potential

yep, achieved socialism then exported it to Cambodia. conditions met

Vietnamese imperialist reactionaries invaded to halt the true socialist revolution of Democratic Kampuchea.

suck my dick, you anprim

coming from belfast i think this is looking very far into the future and making quite a few rose-tinted assumptions. the national and sectarian divide among the working class in ulster has so thoroughly fucked working class organization that you'd be as well looking for the revolution to break out in the west bank. the working class is united against itself. there's riots and protests but all tribal in nature.
the end of partition - which i do support - will throw another spanner in the works because class consciousness in the south of ireland is even lower than in the UK.
there is lots of good work being done but its all very pessimism of intellect optimism of will. as great a writer as connolly was, i dont think ireland will be a beacon-light to anyone any time soon.

It's not that it is believable but that we have to believe it, because third worldism cant work if the first world still has a economic, military and political stranglehold on the rest of the world.

Asking the third world to bear the brunt of the vanguard duties just isn't feasible or fair at the moment. We have more power than they do, they just have less to lose so they're more inclined for bold and dangerous moves than we are.

This.

If you believe capitalism is an inherently stable system and wont lead to inevitable decay and therefore revolution and upheaval, why are you even a socialist? The entire premise is that the system is unsustainable and by definition won't last in the places it is set up.

...

Why is it that the goddamned nazis have appropriated the gott mitt uns aesthetic for themselves? I can't even go listen to WW1 music to kaiserpost without being bombarded with 14/88 in the comments

fuck, wrong thread

Make like Elsa and let it go.

Gott will never be mitt you

...

It already is.

peripheralization of the core, if ur into WST

And now Vietnam is China 2.0. They don't even pretend to be socialist.

This is all based on a severe misunderstanding of Maoism-Third Worldism. It doesn't assume that the global south will be able to export communism to the world, or even reach second-stage communism on their own.

It is about dismantling the primary contradiction of capitalism in the modern world. The reason why First World countries have zero revolutionary potential is because they have access to imperialist exploitation (extraction of resources, labor power and surplus value) to planish any potential class consciousness in the First World. Unlike the impotent praxis of all other communist tendencies, Maoism-Third Worldism is the only one that is based on historical evidence: Before the times of post-industrial outsourcing, the Great Depression almost caused a socialist revolution in the First World, because the productive forces and therefore the secondary contraction of capitalism induced class consciousness in the proletariat through the material conditions. Marx didn't foresee Fascism and Social Democracy though, which would destroy western class consciousness in its crib - however, both Social Democracy (Social Imperialism) as well as Fascism rely on imperialism to properly function, as they are both operating Keynesian redistribution systems. The Third World doesn't have access to that, as capital accumulation and surplus extraction happens on a global level, and will not be kept within their borders.

So what is the goal of Maoist-Third Worldism in the Third World? It is to a) liberate the exploited countries on a national level, b) modernize and industrialize them, which makes them self-sustainable, and finally c) establish Socialism in One Country (Marxism-Leninism). Marxism-Leninism is a system which is self-reliant and autarkical (DPRK and Cuba prove that), so it practically takes away the access the First World has to extort wealth from the liberated countries. As a consequence, the First World will eventually run out of countries they can exploit, and must consequently build the sweatshops they've been running in Bangladesh in their own sphere - which eventually will make the First World proletariat class consciouss and we can have a global communist revolution with the most developed western countries. Remember, capitalism cannot function without someone getting massively screwed over. The real question is, where that happens.

However, unless the western bourgeoisie has so many tools at their disposal to pacify their proletariat, revolution will be impossible there. Figures like Sanders or Corbyn are not part of a shifting overtone window; they are simply perpetrators of Social Imperialism which will replace the neoliberal phase we have since the 80s, only untill it stifles innovation and investment again to the point where the west will again be submitted to a "neoliberal shocktherapy" and the cycle starts again, and it can only be destroyed through Maoism-Third Worldism.

literally read Marx

Read what I've posted. Maoism-Third Worldism doesn't contradict Marx, Marx was totally right about capitalist contradictions, however, he didn't foresee Social Imperialism. Primary and secondary contradictions are not a replacement of Marx, they are an add-on. Everything that Marx said is still correct, it's compressed under secondary contradictions.

So if I boil this down what you're essentially saying is the third world countries could potentially stop the flow of resources back to the imperial centers by becoming self sufficient?

While I think this is possible to a limited extent now as some Latin American countries have shown. It still is a much harder up hill battle than disrupting or changing things at the center of imperial life. It might be possible for the feedback loop to start disrupting things on both ends and from an accelerationist stand point the lack of goods and services coming for the third world might ignite action at home, but the major changes and actions would still need to be made by first world workers because the shackles against smaller countries are still too large and overbearing for them to make real international change.

A) North Korea isn't M-L and hasn't claimed to be since the early 90s
B) North Korea relies heavily on foreign aid so i'd hardly call it self-reliant

Don't waste your time trying to convince spoiled rich college kids that they aren't going to be marching their parents into gulags any time soon.

Italian Soviet Republic when?

That's one of the main ideas, yes.

I'm not sure, while you are correct that the shackles of imperialism are tight and strong, the global contradictions of capitalism becoming greater ever since the fall of the USSR. New powers like the SCO members China, Russia and India are challenging American hegemony over global capital, fueling up interventionalism which isn't successful at all. At the imperialist front, the United States suffers defeat after defeat, which opens an opportunity for socialist movements in the Third World. Nobody said it's going to be easy though.

However, I'm not sure how you propose to change things at the imperialist center. First World workers will be voting in their own interests, and at this point a socialist revolution is not in their interest. Western countries have been de-industrialized, and I don't see how a socialist revolution could succeed without a drop in living quality. Keynesian Social Democracy would increase living quality, and of course requires imperialism to function. The reason why the Nordic countries are successful Social Democracies is because of their relations to imperialist countries.

We aren't denying that the First World proletariat will eventually be necessary to create a socialist world - but imperialism, the primary contradiction, needs to go first.

DPRKs revisionism is more aesthetic and cultural than it is economic or social. It's still operates more of less under Marxism-Leninism with additional Juche spooks.

Foreign aid has been reduced since 1991, it is true that the fall of the USSR made the DPRK take a hit, which resulted in shortages. Same with Cuba (end of pesticide imports from the USSR), only that Cuba was able to compensate this quicker ( also due to its good relations with some other anti-imperialist Latin American countries). It's still ten times more sustainable as capitalism, imagine a developing (!) capitalist country being subjected to this sort of economic terrorism. It would be worse than Somalia.

Mao was right again

Kim Jong Il very explicitly said that Juche was against marxism and historical materialism.

I think they're strong because the world bank and US military are still sufficiently powerful enough to quash the hope of most nascent revolutions in the third world. These are things that can be made less powerful here, but that people on the shit end of the stick don't have much power or control over. In some cases they don't even need to interfere that directly, as is the case with Venezuela where trade restrictions have basically destroyed the countries economy, all for them daring to give a shit about their own people for a change.

If your last sentence is true we don't disagree on much but I think the emphasis or shouldering of a revolution will mostly come from First world countries ending their own exploitative practices at home and overseas.

Stick to spewing bullshit with garbage praxis

The rate of profit will fall in the first world regardless of imperialism. When it hit’s zero the first world d will be red pretty quick. Then the revolution can be spread from the first world to the third world by having the first world socialialists use imperialist infrastructure.(CIA, Militaries, etc)

KYS

Source? Just curious

...

So, then you must not be a socialist. Kill yourself to bring about socialism, you stupid faggot.

In the speech that was given right after the Berlin Wall fell called "Socialism of Our Country is a Socialism of Our Style as Embodied by the Juche idea."
It argues that the failure of Marxism in Europe is partially due to its reliance on historical materialism which ignores human agency. Korean Socialism, by contrast, is supposedly more advanced because it is focused on mankind and human actions and is thus better suited to Korea than Marxism-Leninism which was developed within a European context.

do NOT bully ireland!

I understand your point about its neutrality, but i think its third world status is historical. Nowadays its so closely aligned with the EU, American culture and the neo-lib economy specifically to do with corporate finance i think it could be argued its first world.

Half of those people are probably reactionaries who want a more right wing government.

Of all the first world countries America is the one place where a Leninist style revolution would be basically impossible. America needs to decline first before any revolution can happen.

i'm actually an ML and not a faggot throwing an M after that is a closet defeatist fascism enabler.

Scientific development of marxism doesn't stop at 1938 you know. MLM is just the more evolved form of ML

There is some revolutionary potential, but it's unlikely that any revolution will actually be allowed to start. The NSA will know who is going to start a revolution long before it happens. If they can build a graph of who is talking to who, they can identify the key players and take them out. There will not be another MLK in the West without the NSA's approval.

Mao would have had to read Marx to develop marxism

Why do you think he hasn't? Mao was a total nerd. His dialectics on contradictions is a great enhancement of historical materialism.

...

OR
OR
OR
OR

First Worldism is hard. Third Worldism is impossible.

Reminds me of the Rojava situation.

Those are all challenges faced by revolutionaries in the third world (in any country, really), but let's not lapse into defeatism here. Revolutions have succeeded in toppling governments and seizing power in the third world before. Both roads are hard, and both are essential for any chance of success. For third world revolutions to endure they need successful revolutions in the first world to take the pressure off of them. For the possibility of revolution in the first world, imperialist nations must find themselves in crisis which can be brought about by limiting their ability to exploit the resources and labor of the third world.

Believing otherwise is idealism. Only the most developed societies are capable of spreading revolution

That's precisely why it won't happen. The US already has an incredibly militarized and sophisticated internal policing system. The rest of the west is following suit as well. Couple that with the preference for fascism among the "middle classes" and you have a recipe for 100 or more years of imperialist capitalism.

...

ok