Why do you hate maoism third worldism so much?

why do you hate maoism third worldism so much?
most maoist third worldists arent actually like jason unruhe, we dont view all first world socialist movements as false, we simply recognize the revolutionary potential of the third world.

Other urls found in this thread:

commonruin.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/first-world-phantoms/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I don't

Because I know the third world "revolutionary potential" is as true as the first world one.

Source: from a third world country.

I don't hate you

I just think third worldists are a joke

Third-worldism is just nationalism under another name. It's cancer meant to divide the workers of first and third world nations, ignoring the fact that both are exploited.

1

i dont personally. I know it is obvious that revolutionary potential will come in the third world first because the first world relies on exploiting the third world.

I see a lot of Maoist third worldists are basically tankies who will support any state or group that is against the imperialists such as the DPRK or Iran

I don't.

I don't even know enough to make educated judgements. That said, I also have problems recognizing it's revolutionary potential as great. Not until it becomes Second World and goes World Revolution route, at the very least.

I've been part of leftist organizations in my priviledged third world country, and I can assure you that is not the case.

"Revolutionary potential" is not based solely on how bad conditions are. It doesn't matter how shit things get if they have no real means to revolt, or any theory to do so efficiently. I'm no prophet, so I couldn't tell you whether the first or third world will be the ones to overcome the capitalist machine in the end, assuming we even can at this point, but my bet is on the first world.

What practice does M3Wism recommend to revolutionaries in the first world? None, you guys are basically blanquist clandestine organisations propagating on the internet. Furthermore since when did you have authority to speak on behalf of the third world proletariat considering M3Wism is completely a first world phenomenon?

Agreed. The French and Russian revs. did not happen when the conditions were at their lowest point.

And today, if the revolution were ever to succeed in overcoming capitalism, it has to happen in the heart of the system. It doesn't really matter if it happens in th 3rd world because socialism in one country does not bother the global capitalist hegemony tbh.


Brazilian here, our Maoists are very comfortably in bed with porky to give a damn about anything.

This.

Actually, means are not that important (unless we are talking Vanguard). What important is understanding of theory. That is the real problem.

And here I don't agree. First world has resources to suppress revolutions.

As do third world countries. The first world's resources, to be precise.

False
True

Third worldists don't understand what Marxists mean by exploitation.

Third World is already openly repressive, while First World is still pretending that the game is not rigged. People are ready for violence in the Third World.

Additionally, First World resources mean that the priority will be given to keeping things stable in the First World. Faced with possibility of revolution at home, First World will recall it's troops back and let the events commence in the Third World.

This is why you have to kill Trots, children.


Pray tell me, what do 'we' mean? Are we talking absolute value or relative one?

Which results in… socialism?

No, it creates the middle east.

Which brings us to what this poster
said.

Do I even need to say it at this point?

The difference between surplus value and wages.

The first world has such a vastly higher organic composition of capital that even the most base work can produce surplus value that vastly exceeds the ability of almost any third world worker.

I like it. I have some problems with the superexploitation thing but overall it makes a lot of sense.

You are looking at the absolute value. Third World workers get smaller share (relative value) of surplus value they created. It's incorrect to simply say that they are less exploited.

Oversimplifying: it's like claiming that some high-paid expert gets extremely exploited, since he loses out on $100k, leaving aside the fact that it is 1% of his income.

Will he really be more revolutionary then some Tech Joe, who didn't get only $10k, but that was 50% of his total income? Because, practically speaking, that's what counts here.

But peace of EU/US doesn't create anything. Even religious clusterfuck of MidEast managed to create Rojava, for example.

Also, see above: I'm not saying that Third World has much of a potential (lack of theory/Vanguard). But compared to First World it does have a bit more of a potential

maoism is shit and maoists always do stupid shit
for example, while that hamster face faggot at least acknowledged that he was fucking wrong in promoting the "arab spring" and the toppling of the jamahiriya, some maoists in my area still call it a revolution that just went wrong

fucking retards and fuck you
always the same stupid shit with you guys

just hang yourself, really fed up with maoists trying to pretend being in a line with ML
stupid fucking cunts

...

kys you third worldist retarded wannabe ML cunt

Thirdworldism is not maoism, and it's irrelevant. Try MLM.

I don't know enough about it to hate it, and I defend some aspects of their thought when it coincides with my generic Marxism-Leninism.

...

But that's not what will bring about communism. Revolution in isolated pockets of the world doesn't work. The main problem is that technology has not made enough contradictions inherently in capitalism visible. When technological unemployment comes about, we will then have the choice of revolution or starvation. I doubt we will choose starvation. Technological progress is what will enable communism to occur and it will occur in a world-wide movement, with no difference between first and third world because it won't be necessary. All workers will benefit.

I posted a big fuckin thing about why I disagree with third worldism the other day but the thread is gone and I don't feel like rewriting it ;)

I'll get to it later

also this^

simply recognizing that a revolution is more likely to happen in the third world =/= the third world right now is having a revolution

of course, but looking realistically at both the first world and third world, we can see the third world has a lot less resources to fund welfare programs to prevent a revolution as
said.

youre talking as if your very special snowflake theory has any presence anywhere at all. its common sense we should know that the revolutionary vanguard will act as a safety net rather than a block that will bring about the revolution like what happened in russia. we're that safety net for the third world when capitalism collapses

exploitation is based on relations, and we dont have to follow dogmatically some theory that was invented 150 fucking years ago. the world changed since then, and so did exploitation.

why do you think the global bourgeois will let us even survive, let alone have a revolution, if most of our labor can be replaced by machines?
not that im opposed to full luxury world communism, but we need to have a revolution before machines replace us

Maoism had great potential in it's early stages.

But the cultural revolution has to be one of the most retarded/crazy shit done in the name of Marxism, killing sparrows, mango obsession and beating old people up for being counter-revolutionary.

Third Worldism makes absolutely no sense from a Marxist perspective. Of course the Third world should liberate itself from exploitation and movements like teh Naxalites are invaluable. But there is literally no Marxist explanation why some farmers or AK-47 revolutionaries would start the world revolution, without the means of automation of and production the West wields.

No they don't, and yes they do.


This is exactly what I mean. Maoists do not mean the same thing as Marxists when they use the word exploitation.

should have remembered all trotskyists argue like a 12 year old

so what? the world isnt the same as it is back in marx's time, a lot has changed and thus marxist theory have to be changed accordingly to that time instead of holding on to some outdated concept.

Does wage labor exist? Does surplus value extraction exist? What has changed so dramatically that we need to change the definition of exploitation?

bumpi

Because it's anti-Marxist as FUCK

elaborate

The beginnings of the revolution will occur, indeed can only occur, in the advanced capitalist states that have developed productive forces to the limits of the profit system. True revolutions cannot be made arbitrarily or through the intentions of men or even entire classes; they can only occur when material conditions are met. But because advanced capitalist states are tightly integrated with one another, once the revolution begins in one it will spread to others, and through their global markets to the rest of the world.

Third world nations cannot spread their revolution, and they are almost certain to follow a script similar to the Russian one or the Dengist one.

Is elaboration possible?

I've heard that is a grossly exaggerated myth.

Those I didn't even hear about.

MTWism has nothing to do with Marxism and actually pre-dates Mao in the writings of Mirsaid Sultan-Galyiv, a Turkic nationalist who wanted the creation of a theocratic Islamic and pan-Turkic state within the USSR. Of course, Stalin saw the guy as a complete nutjob and had him executed. The kind of MTWism that Unruhe and groups like RAIM adhere to is mostly based on a vulgar reading of Edward Said and other postcolonial theorists, so why not refer to your theory as "Saidian Third Worldism"?

That's very deterministic and dogmatic approach.

Engels stated that Revolution will occur everywhere. And he was correct. Historically speaking.

I'm quite certain that's not how it works.

Yeah. Dogmatic idealism.

Sometimes shit just happens, 'kay? Marxism is about tendencies, not pre-determined fate, nor Popper-style predictions.

That's not a bad script. Even with WWII Soviets managed to spread Marxist ideas quite wide.

Right now many Marxist ideas are so ingrained into mass consciousness, people don't even realise them.

Where is the MLM poster when you need him to BTFO this third worldist?

He's gone.

The more I learn about other tendencies, the more I like Trots.

They truly are first worldist class reductionist sh!tlords of communsit tendencies.

People are divided more by class than nationality. Problem is, a working-class individual in a first world country is unlikely to be in the same economic class as a third-world laborer. We don't have a world proletariat unless the first-world workers are in the same position as the third-worlders.

Highly unlikely that the first world will voluntary put itself into that position though, in fact its more likely that machines will replace the proletariat and we'll all die out before the first world run out of resources to sustain themselves and maintain capitalism.

b

Based stalinposter rekt moronic pseudo-leftist

I don't hate it I just associate it with the Roo-man.

I think it's a bit quaint but there you go.

Then the Left needs to put them in that position, no?

Tbh OP we don't hate you , but mostly don't care about you that much , but i will agree that third world countries have the most of potential of a FAILED revolution, that's the difference , take the Egypt/Tunisia as an example they revolted , yeah cool , they had hope , but then they realised they fucked up and brought tyranny back into their house

I think class conscious people in the third world are more conditioned to carry out violence, but that doesn't mean that third worlders in general are more class conscious though.

because it's pseudo-marxist hogshit

commonruin.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/first-world-phantoms/

I love that picture.

jason unruhe represents maoism third worldism just as much as love life anarchy represents anarchism.
to be fair, jason does have basic knowledge of MTW, but look at his videos, all first world bullshit and defending a monarchy that has nothing to do with third worldism in the first place.

...

i didnt imply anything, i said what i had to say in that post

ya ok

kek if anything thats a good thing for third worldism

don't confuse meme title with insult, turd

Care to explain how Unruhe doesn't "understand" MTW?

i said jason understands the basics of MTW, but his videos are mostly irrelevant first world news crap. learn to read

Honestly I think it may do Jason some good to read Critical Theory, in particular Althusser's Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatus essay and Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man. That way he could actually connect the dots between the identity politics he hates so much and the "First Worldist" mentality.