Some Questions About Maoism Third Worldism and First Worldism?

[Soseloshvili]

Literally just yesterday I had the theory of Maoism Third Worldism explained to me but I still have a lot of questions about what exactly the movement's plans are

1) So you've established that the first world are entirely exploiters. Does that mean that all labour movements within the first world are pointless if they are not entirely for the third world?

2) What do we do about the first world? Blow it up? Strangle money out of it? :bored:

3) How does the homegrown social elite factor into Third Worldism, I mean not all people in the third world classify as oppressed, there are homegrown exploiters in the third world independent of the first world and sometimes in spite of the first world (Apartheid in South Africa, for example).

4) What about immigrants, do they count as exploiters in the first world? My whole family is immigrants, I can tell you that we definitely were exploited if not oppressed at some points.

5) There are people who live in extreme poverty within the first world. You cannot deny that there are people who cannot afford food, cannot afford adequate housing and are subject to heavy wage slavery in the first world. Surely those people aren't exploiters.

6) As Maoists, you must be anti-revisionists. I disagree with that stance, mainly for one reason: Does that make any revolution in the Third World that is not Maoist a revisionist movement and not on side of the real working class? For example, what about the Anarchist revolution in Chiapas, Mexico? Since you claim you are the only legitimate working class vanguards, they must be revisionists right?

7) Through education couldn't we change the exploiting ways of the first world and eventually strive for equality between the first and third world over a long period of time?

8) What exactly is the First Worldist stance, for all those who oppose Third Worldism?

9) Are all Third Worldists Maoists? Are there Trotskist Third Worldists, Anarchist Third Worldists, etc.?

10) Is there any Maoist Third Worldist party of organization, or is it just an unorganized movement?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I'm just curious. :)

[PirateJenny]

I have studied the MTW line very closely. Sorry I don’t have time to answer everything in great detail here. If you want info check out Leading Light Communist Organization, Monkey Smashes Heaven, and Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement and other similar groups.

Short answers:

1. yes.

2. Sounds OK to me.

3. We oppose Third World exploiters too, especially compradors.

4. It depends. Some are, some are not exploiters.

5. There are very few who live in “extreme poverty” in the First World. There are a few, but they are too few to constitute a meaningful social base for revolution.

6. We support the broad united front against imperialism. Even a movement that is not led by MTW can be progressive. Check out the politics of the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement for more info.

7. We won’t destroy imperialism through moral appeals and education of the exploiters. After taking state power, the exploited will impose their dictatorship and exploiters should be reformed through education to become contributing members of global society.

8. A First Worldist is someone who thinks that there is a significant revolutionary social base in the First World or thinks First World peoples are exploited.

9. I only know of Maoist-Third Worldists.

10. There are MTW movements and organizations in many countries. The English-speaking and Polish-speaking seem to be the most active at present in terms of producing literature.

[Soseloshvili]

I have studied the MTW line very closely. Sorry I don’t have time to answer everything in great detail here. If you want info check out Leading Light Communist Organization, Monkey Smashes Heaven, and Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement and other similar groups.

Short answers:

1. yes.

2. Sounds OK to me.

3. We oppose Third World exploiters too, especially compradors.

4. It depends. Some are, some are not exploiters.

5. There are very few who live in “extreme poverty” in the First World. There are a few, but they are too few to constitute a meaningful social base for revolution.

6. We support the broad united front against imperialism. Even a movement that is not led by MTW can be progressive. Check out the politics of the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement for more info.

7. We won’t destroy imperialism through moral appeals and education of the exploiters. After taking state power, exploiters should be reformed through education to become contributing members of global society.

8. A First Worldist is someone who thinks that there is a significant revolutionary social base in the First World or thinks First World peoples are exploited.

9. I only know of Maoist-Third Worldists.

10. There are MTW movements and organizations in many countries. The English-speaking and Polish-speaking seem to be the most active at present in terms of producing literature.

Okay.

1) Basically you're saying I'm pointless. Well, I suppose.

2) Um... no. I don't know if you've been to the U.S.A, I used to live there, and despite it's Imperialist, Capitalist nature, I have no desire to declare war on the entire American populace. Even Che agreed that the American workers should not be harmed.

3&4) I guess you're right

5) Well, I don't know. Even a small labour force can act as a vanguard.

6) Refreshing from an anti-revisionist

7) You just contradicted yourself, saying that we can't change things through education but then saying that we should use education to change things. We should use education to change the first world, in my opinion.

8) Ahh. Well, idk, I might side towards that.

9) Oh, okay

10) That's pretty decent

Well I thank you for explaining this to me, but I have to say I disagree with MTW.

Thanks a whole lot though.

[PirateJenny]

Okay.

1) Basically you're saying I'm pointless. Well, I suppose.

2) Um... no. I don't know if you've been to the U.S.A, I used to live there, and despite it's Imperialist, Capitalist nature, I have no desire to declare war on the entire American populace. Even Che agreed that the American workers should not be harmed.

3&4) I guess you're right

5) Well, I don't know. Even a small labour force can act as a vanguard.

6) Refreshing from an anti-revisionist

7) You just contradicted yourself, saying that we can't change things through education but then saying that we should use education to change things. We should use education to change the first world, in my opinion.

8) Ahh. Well, idk, I might side towards that.

9) Oh, okay

10) That's pretty decent

Well I thank you for explaining this to me, but I have to say I disagree with MTW.

Thanks a whole lot though.

1. First Worldist pinheads do indeed have points. Whether you do or don’t, the jury is still out. j/k

2. Just because you have no desire to wage class war against exploiters does not mean that First Worlders are not exploiters. What do your desires have to do with anything?

5. You are not going to overthrow the state with a small vanguard of the mentally disabled, drug addicted, elderly homeless, etc., a small army of the truly destitute in the First World. If you think you are, you are deluded.

7. I did not contradict myself. Read more closely. We won’t destroy the system by educating the exploiters. However, after we have destroyed the system and built a new one, we will rehabilitate them through education.

[AK]

There is no such thing as "First Worldism". This user "PirateJenny" will hopefully be banned or restricted for being an MTW troll.

[AK]

What's quite telling is that you group the first world capitalists and workers together and call them simply the "first worlders" - completely ditching any Marxist analysis and treating inhabitants of a fucking region as a distinct economic force (since when did living in the first world make you economically more powerful by default?). I also find it very strange that you think all first worlders are exploiters when - last I could recall - workers in the first world don't actually extract surplus value from those third world workers.

Goddamit PirateJenny, you are really fucking stupid.

[La Peur Rouge]

Blah, blah, blah

Because some workers are way more proletarian than others! :thumbup1:

[bricolage]

only the fourth world are really revolutionary

[Soseloshvili]

2. Just because you have no desire to wage class war against exploiters does not mean that First Worlders are not exploiters. What do your desires have to do with anything?

My point was that I really don't see why as Communist we have to declare war on 20% of the world's population. It doesn't make sense to me. Peaceful educational methods are still applicable in the first world.


5. You are not going to overthrow the state with a small vanguard of the mentally disabled, drug addicted, elderly homeless, etc., a small army of the truly destitute in the First World. If you think you are, you are deluded.

In the first world there are millions working in unskilled labour positions that suck majorly. My brother at the moment is a linesman, making not much over minimum wage working 12-14 hour shifts with no health benifits. I see revolutionary potential.

[28350]

The English-speaking and Polish-speaking seem to be the most active at present in terms of producing literature.

Telling.