What are you guys' thoughts on/critiques of Third Worldism?

How is it different than calling out Israelis as all beneficiaries of colonialism?

it's very idpol-ish to paint muh americans as enemies. Marxism is about material conditions, the class conflict. the bourgeoisie, not the evil white american, is the enemy

Relevant video:

youtube.com/watch?v=4Vzk5QBg9a8

First world exploits the third, much like capitalists exploit the workers.
But this does not mean first world workers are bourgouise oppressors. As long as the first world has the third world under its thumb, the third world will fail to throw off its chains. The first world must revolt and loosen the grip of the capitalists first.

We all benefit from colonialism in the "first world", some more than others. Doesn't mean everyone in the "first world" is the enemy.

They take some good points on superexploitation and the labor aristocracy and then drag it into a moralistic morass where Americans are all going to the gulag because they are bad and evil once the upstanding and righteous Third World ubermench rise up.

^

I don't entirely agree with Third Worldism, but I think it's absurd to note Israel's colonialism and the vile superstructure it creates without noting how the US is basically the same.

found the jew

What a very convenient opinion to a white american to hold.
Of course third-worldists are wrong in put the fight against imperialism over class struggle (they are wrong about many things actually), but ignore globalization and neoliberalism just make you sound like an orthodox-marxist.
Also don't use idpol as a pejorative to everything you don't like.

America must be destroyed if there is to be a revolution.

You are literally the only one bringing up Israel

They have 0 understanding of Marx.

karlthisell.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/on-third-worldism-and-anti-imperialism/

youtube.com/watch?v=twLl_fNK2OE

tbh fam religion isn't even about ideology to most conservative and intolerant religious people, it's about group bias and doing what feels right because of your upbringing

For real though, fuck these guys. Mao deserves better than this.

Mostly this imo

unlike the first worlders?
oh wow, does your time machine also let you travel into the past or did it only let you travel a few decades into the future?

pretty useless tbh just seems like common sense that revolution would occur in the third world first

...

A silly and irrelevant first world trend

There's no such thing as "Third World solidarity" anymore. Are the Palestinians holding rallies in solidarity with miners in the Congo? Is "Islamic socialist" Iran demanding that Bangladesh improve its labor laws? No. Meanwhile, BLM recently announced its strong anti-Zionist position.

Third Worldism only exists in the First World because only a First Worlder whose knowledge of Third World populations is limited to what he/she reads or sees on the internet could believe that Third Worlders are more inclined towards communism than First Worlders. Conditions in Third World nations have only gotten worse in the past 20 years and yet we've only seen a handful of explicitly leftist revolutions (Zapatistas, Nepal, Venezuela if you want to count that as a "revolution" despite Chavez not dismantling the capitalist state apparatus). Western imperialism towards the Arab World is extreme yet the only things the Arab Spring produced were a few liberal democratic regimes (Tunisia, Egypt) and a few civil wars (Syria, Libya, Yemen). India is going fascist. Ukraine and other former Soviet satellites are going fascist. Africa is going nationalist. Latin America is moving leftist but primarily social democratic.

What is this common sense you speak of? Where is it located? Is in the total sum of all social relations? Is in the ruling ideology? What a spooky thing to say.

The US does not take land from the thrid world and hand it to American workers. The capitalists exploit both sides. Soon it will even out and the poor Americans will live just like the poor Mexicans, maybe then third-worlders will place the blame back on the capitalists.

But American workers benefit from the exploitation of Third World workers. How is a working-class single mother in the Bronx supposed to afford the cheap blouse and skirt she needs as attire for work if a 14-year old girl in Indonesia isn't being exploited to produce them?

At that point murrica will likely go full fascist

danielkbuntovnik.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/on-maoist-rebel-news-and-the-folly-of-ultraleftism-third-worldism/

Very good critique. A real shame Unruhe didn't respond to this guy's better points about the national bourgeoisie and histories of struggle.

Yeah, I don't think that he's correct when he says that "Stalinism" i.e. non-Trotskyist Leninism, denies that revolution can happen in the First World. He was right to say that Lin Bao believed there was a proletariat, but even Mao would talk as if the working class revolution was right around the corner in the imperialist countries and the only industrialized nation he'd ever been to was the USSR as far as I know.

If anything Maoism was ultra-leftist on the question of revolution in the First World and MIM admitted that in 1943 even Stalin considered halting the offensive against Germany in the hopes that the workers would revolt against the Nazi regime but went ahead with the war anyway.

MIM explained it away as Stalin embracing Third Worldism avant la lettre and writing off German workers as bought off, but really it was probably just smart military strategy to continue the war. Stalin did put a lot of emphasis on anti-colonial revolution as a person from a colonized nation himself, but if you actually read Stalin he always emphasized that bourgeois democracies were just facades to oppress workers run by a handful of plutocratic elites like the Rothschilds, Rockefeller's, etc. I think he probably put more emphasis on the plutocratic nature of the bourgeoisie than Lenin tbh.

I don't understand why it seems things have to be either Third Worldism or Trot/Anarchist ultra-leftism, where the revolution is coming any minute and the skeptics are the ones holding it back. It seems people forget that there's such a thing as military strategy and in the rich nations that the military and police forces are so large that they could easily crush a riot or the actions of a small militia. Most workers and Leftists believe there's a big petit-bourgeoisie in the rich countries, even if some Leftists claim not to believe that, the fact that they use "petit-bourgeois" as a slur and a swearword all the time belies that.

The advance of revolution is a dialectic imo, when developed nation revolutionary efforts succeed then its far more likely Third World revolutions will succeed. When developing nations succeed in revolution it is often followed by leftist tumult, resistance, and uprising in the rich nations.

We need a radical movement in ``both`` the global North and the global South.

Unfortunately this is too true.

Are you arguing from an M-L-M perspective? I'm interested in M-L-M (though I don't think I would ever consider myself one), do you think PPW is universal and can be applied to within imperialist countries?

Also what do you make of this transcript of Mao welcoming a delegation from "revisionist" Yugoslavia?

theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/historical-fragment-minutes-of-maos-conversation-with-a-yugoslavian-communist-union-delegation-beijing/

I thought the left-com position was that Mao was a Stalinist?

First world workers enjoy from the capitalist exploitation of the third world, that doesn't mean their interests are always with the capitalist exploitation of the third world. What it means is that capitalists use resources they pillaged from the third world to throw some bones to first world workers and pacify. But the fact that they need to do that implies that their interests are not actually the same. Workers from both the first and third world will benefit from dismantling capitalism, the current exploitation of the third world is just used by the ruling class to divide and rule between the workers in different parts of the worlds. And anyway that distinction is becoming less clear nowadays that big parts of the third world are industrializing while growth is slowly and non-employment is rising in the west.
The same is true with Israel and Palestine. Israel uses Palestinians as cheap labor and gives some Israelis Palestinians lands to live on, but it's not as if the life of most Israelis is paradise because of this, they are still exploited by the Israeli ruling class. The reason why the ruling class does this is so that it can continue exploiting both the Israeli and the Palestinian working classes without worrying that the Israeli workers will revolt. They wouldn't have done this just to benefit the lives of Israeli workers, they'll always try to give them the bare minimum that they can. To say otherwise implies that the ruling class really is concerned with the well-being of the workers, rather than trying to exploit them in every way while sometimes giving some of them extra power or rights to avoid an escalation in the class conflict.

The MLM position of universality of PPW is often misunderstood, and it's easy to see why. PPW as it was carried out in China (and in other places like Peru, India, and the Philippines) was (to grossly over-simplify) "surrounding the cities from the country side." Obviously that is not applicable universally, and it changes based on where it is applied.
The PCR-RCP has done a lot of good work defending and expanding the universality of PPW.
pcr-rcp.ca/old/en/pwd/1e.php
(this was written when they were still an organizing committee)
pcr-rcp.ca/en/archives/1499

wew

He was (he never stopped referring to himself as an ML), but that doesn't mean everything he wrote should be rejected without giving it critical examination. and I would say the same about Stalin's writings

"On Practice", "On Contradiction", and "Oppose Book Worship" are all interesting reads.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4DWL3gQLI

The real problem with MTW is that it doesn't go far enough. At this point, Unruhe is merely advocating a semi-nationalist strategy whereby the Third World nationalizes its resources and cuts off the First World from its supply of cheap minerals and labor. Nowhere does Unruhe advocate a total destruction of the First World and its parasitical CULTURE or SOCIETY. And what about the Native Americans in the Americas? Where do they fit in to Jason's paradigm?

reddit.com/r/shittankiessay/comments/50nz15/xpost_rultraleft_a_firstworldist_liberal_parasite/

Revolution will never occur, then.

How so?

quora.com/Does-Narendra-Modi-and-the-BJP-represent-the-rise-of-fascism-in-India-Why-or-why-not

love them

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