Unrestrict Maoism-Third-Worldism

[GreenCommunism]

We have proven time and time again that we are communist, and far from being part of a reactionary ideology. if we disagree about the status of the first world proletariat or the strategy that should be employed. then it doesn't make us non-communist.

What are the real reasons for MTW being restricted?

[mykittyhasaboner]

how about no?

[Bud Struggle]

how about no?

http://diabeticallyspeaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Nancy-Reagan-Just-say-no.jpg

[ComradeMan]

We have proven time and time again that we are communist, and far from being part of a reactionary ideology. if we disagree about the status of the first world proletariat or the strategy that should be employed. then it doesn't make us non-communist.

What are the real reasons for MTW being restricted?

Because you are probably too much like real Commies for many here!

[L.A.P.]

What is the reason to why Third Worldists are restricted from this forum?

[Devrim]

We have proven time and time again that we are communist, and far from being part of a reactionary ideology.

I think that third-worldism is a totally reactionary anti-working class ideology, with nothing to do with communism.
However, I don't think people should be restricted for it.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

How does that equate then?

"This ideology is reactionary and anti-working class, but they shouldn't be restricted from posting on a revolutionary pro-working class forum"?

[Weezer]

Maoism-Third Worldism is about as revolutionary as Maoism-Lin Biaoism. And National Maoism.

[Lyev]

How does that equate then?

"This ideology is reactionary and anti-working class, but they shouldn't be restricted from posting on a revolutionary pro-working class forum"?I think Devrim means because there are also members who, for example, believe police or the army are just "workers in uniform" (maybe I am guilty of this one), or maybe some users who defend North Korea like they do or whatever. So I guess if we accept those kind of users in the main forum, then maybe we un-restrict third-worldists, or the other way around. I don't really agree though. MTW is a whole viewpoint, whereas the stuff I mentioned are just single issues, even if they do have wider ripples into their exponents' thought.

[Nolan]

Ban those fascists.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Because they see a need for a dictatorship over the first world "exploiters," ie working class.

[Palingenisis]

I think that third-worldism is a totally reactionary anti-working class ideology, with nothing to do with communism.
However, I don't think people should be restricted for it.



Do you think anybody should be restricted?

[Bud Struggle]

How does that equate then?

"This ideology is reactionary and anti-working class, but they shouldn't be restricted from posting on a revolutionary pro-working class forum"?

How does this equate then:

Maybe it makes arm-chair-living-in-your-mommy's-basement-Commies-seem-irrevelent-in-the-real-world-struggle sound?

Teen aged suburban Marxist have more of a case to make than anyone living in the third world.

Really Comrade!

[Palingenisis]

How does that equate then?

"This ideology is reactionary and anti-working class, but they shouldn't be restricted from posting on a revolutionary pro-working class forum"?

Because he considers Trotskyism, Maoism, WSM style anarchism and various other things equally reactionary but they arent restricted?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

We have proven time and time again that we are communist, and far from being part of a reactionary ideology. if we disagree about the status of the first world proletariat or the strategy that should be employed. then it doesn't make us non-communist.

What are the real reasons for MTW being restricted?

lolno

[Widerstand]

What are the real reasons for MTW being restricted?

First World Amerikkkan ChauviniSSm!

[gorillafuck]

Do you think anybody should be restricted?
There are people who support the Libyan government as socialist who go unrestricted. Why is that less reactionary than being a maoist third worldist?

[Palingenisis]

There are people who support the Libyan government as socialist who go unrestricted. Why is that less reactionary than being a maoist third worldist?

Im recovering from a cold at the moment and also from contact with a Monkey Smashes Heaven in real life, and believe he was much more odious than the Libya fans Ive dumped into in my travels....They at least werent racist.

[mykittyhasaboner]

There are people who support the Libyan government as socialist who go unrestricted. Why is that less reactionary than being a maoist third worldist?

lol who supports Libya as socialist?

[Revolution starts with U]

Bud Struggle, you're so jealous of those w prole moms who don't throw their kids out in the rain :laugh:
unlike your bourgie heartless family ;)

Ad hominems are fun, can I do more now?

[#FF0000]

Yeah I agree with Devrim. Anyone who considers themselves a revolutionary socialist shouldn't be restricted no matter how fucking dumb they are.

[Amphictyonis]

All out war declared on the first world by the third! I wonder how that would work out?

5Ry9fPoxZB8

[synthesis]

I think "Maoist-Third Worldism" is based on relatively decent theory, yet it just draws entirely the wrong conclusions. People want to know why the "first world" proletariat hasn't fully embraced the communist agenda, and one easy answer is that they're "labor aristocrats," basically accomplices of the Western bourgeoisie, and therefore should be considered as reactionaries.

Problem is, most of the people who advocate this position are "First Worlders" themselves - they seem to be predominately academics, not proletarians - and their rhetoric often radiates a certain sort of contempt for the Western working class that, in practice, makes their own positions reactionary and anti-working class.

I think this can and should be articulated to them without treating them as class enemies, however, because the line is fairly blurry in and of itself. Would anyone really deny that the Western working class derives some indirect benefit from the hyper-exploitation of, say, Chinese proletarians, in terms of greatly reduced prices of consumer goods and such?

Another problem is that the concept of the "Third World" is essentially meaningless. The original usage, of course, was highly chauvinistic in a nationalist sense - the advanced capitalist countries were "First World," the socialist-aligned countries were "Second World," and all the other countries were "Third World." The problem is that if this paradigm ever had any use at all, it simply does not any more.

So even if "Maoism-Third Worldism" wasn't anti-working class, by dismissing the entire Western proletariat as reactionary, it would still be intrinsically meaningless as a system of analysis. Point is, people won't realize that on their own, especially not if they're antagonized without any perceptible reason.

[Lenin Cat]

Many people disagree on what is a proletarian on this forum. From anyone who is a wage slave to only the industral workers who are in poverty, I see no reason to restrict MTWism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Since they already think almost all westerners are living above the value of their labor, even homeless people, they're also against attempts to raise the standard of living of first world workers and end up lining up behind the same rhetoric as fox news.

[GreenCommunism]

I think that third-worldism is a totally reactionary anti-working class ideology

oh really, how are we reactionary? aka living in the past.


Another problem is that the concept of the "Third World" is essentially meaningless. The original usage, of course, was highly chauvinistic in a nationalist sense - the advanced capitalist countries were "First World," the socialist-aligned countries were "Second World," and all the other countries were "Third World." The problem is that if this paradigm ever had any use at all, it simply does not any more.


they don't use mao's world theory, they use their own.

All out war declared on the first world by the third! I wonder how that would work out?

they would destroy their own factory in the third world? and beside, pakistan and north korea are in the third world.

Because they see a need for a dictatorship over the first world "exploiters," ie working class.
but that's because they disagree with the analysis that they are proletariat.

i don't think people who advocate so called deportation to the third world to be allowed here, i am totally against this, it is ethnic cleansing and i don't want none of it.

also, someone told me that nie wieder deutschland is the slogan for the anti-germans. the pro-usa pro-israel communist are not reactionary but the mtw are?

[GreenCommunism]

Since they already think almost all westerners are living above the value of their labor, even homeless people, they're also against attempts to raise the standard of living of first world workers and end up lining up behind the same rhetoric as fox news.
actually, they think homeless people and illegal immigrants are living under the value of their labor, but they argue that they do have a better standard of life than many in the world.

as for increasing the standard of the first world workers, they are not against taking money from the bourgeois, but they are against raising the standard of living of first world workers as they see it as nothing but having a bigger share of the pie.

i would argue that they are more opposed in principle than in reality, they don't want higher exploitation of the third world with less exploitation of the first. i wouldn't mind them fighting for higher wage, but i do mind when all communists think about is raising the wage of the first world worker. it is a trap of the capitalist system that we feel our fight is only for people of our nation. ironically i am a nationalist and a separatist so.

[synthesis]

they don't use mao's world theory, they use their own.

What definition is this, then?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

actually, they think homeless people and illegal immigrants are living under the value of their labor, but they argue that they do have a better standard of life than many in the world.

Monkey smashes heaven argues that even the poorest people in the US, like homeless people, exploit third worlders because of the benefits they receive in the form of homeless shelters and assistance.


i would argue that they are more opposed in principle than in reality, they don't want higher exploitation of the third world with less exploitation of the first. i wouldn't mind them fighting for higher wage, but i do mind when all communists think about is raising the wage of the first world worker. it is a trap of the capitalist system that we feel our fight is only for people of our nation. ironically i am a nationalist and a separatist so.There isn't really any room for raising the living standards of first worlders outside of world socialist revolution, which obviously requires the third world and hence the unity of the world working class, but even if there was, higher wages in the first world would give third world workers more leverage against international capital so it wouldn't come at the expense of third world workers anyway.


oh really, how are we reactionary? aka living in the past.

Because you take a completely defeatist attitude towards the first world working class and hence completely abstain from the fight for socialism in the first world. Because you refuse to defend the first world working class against the attacks of capital because you see it as capital simply giving the workers a smaller bribe. Because you undermine the struggle for the unity of the working class.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

also, someone told me that nie wieder deutschland is the slogan for the anti-germans. the pro-usa pro-israel communist are not reactionary but the mtw are?

Restrict them too!

[Armchair War Criminal]

What exactly is the definition of a Maoist-Third Worldist for purposes of moderation?


actually, they think homeless people and illegal immigrants are living under the value of their labor, but they argue that they do have a better standard of life than many in the world.
Shouldn't it be uncontroversial that the homeless, who are almost always unemployed, are living over the value of their (social) labor? (This is of course different than saying they deserve to live in such misery.)

[GreenCommunism]

What definition is this, then?
i found it.
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/what-about-the-second-world/


There isn't really any room for raising the living standards of first worlders outside of world socialist revolution, which obviously requires the third world and hence the unity of the world working class, but even if there was, higher wages in the first world would give third world workers more leverage against international capital so it wouldn't come at the expense of third world workers anyway.

well there is strikes, i'm not sure it really helps the third world though, wouldn't it put pressure for more exploitation?

Because you take a completely defeatist attitude towards the first world working class and hence completely abstain from the fight for socialism in the first world. Because you refuse to defend the first world working class against the attacks of capital because you see it as capital simply giving the workers a smaller bribe. Because you undermine the struggle for the unity of the working class.
we are not completly defeatist, we simply think there are different priorities, i do try to get people on the communist movement no matter what, i still am member of a so called first worldist party.


Shouldn't it be uncontroversial that the homeless, who are almost always unemployed, are living over the value of their (social) labor? (This is of course different than saying they deserve to live in such misery.)
oh i guess, i think when i read this they were refering to the homeless who do work. but yes, they do exploit them in a way, i mean they exploit society but it isn't like i would disagree with them doing it. many of them have mental illnesses so we totally should care.

[Sam_b]

lol MSH nice source pal

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol MSH nice source pal

They're not Maoist-Third-Worldists? :confused:

[synthesis]

i found it.
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress...-second-world/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/what-about-the-second-world/)

Okay, but even he seems to admit that his definition is nebulous at best:


Some nations don’t fit neatly into either the First World or the Third World. Nations are being polarized into the First World and the Third World, with fewer and fewer in between. Rather than postulating a “Second World” for the difficult cases, it might be better to break the First World and the Third World each into a “core” (including Luxembourg in the First World core and Haiti in the Third World core) and a “periphery” (maybe Poland periphery in the First World and Chile in the Third periphery). When we talk about “Second World,” it is really just a shorthand for discussing these peripheral edges.


He seems to simply be operating on the basis that "First World countries" are "exploiter nations" while "Third World countries" are "exploited nations." This basically proves both of my points.

[GreenCommunism]

? well of course, there is no clear line in the sand. it's mostly about having a service industry dominate all others. all i said was that they don't use mao's theory.


lol MSH nice source pal
what's wrong with MSH?

...
so who disagrees that MTW should be unrestricted ? the other rules should apply to advocating ethnic cleansing or racism, albeit ironically that would be mostly about anti-white racism .

[GreenCommunism]

Im recovering from a cold at the moment and also from contact with a Monkey Smashes Heaven in real life, and believe he was much more odious than the Libya fans Ive dumped into in my travels....They at least werent racist.

how were they racist? i'm sorry for anything that happened.


Because you undermine the struggle for the unity of the working class.
the only one undermining the unity of the working class is those who don't want to help their brothers oversea who face starvation and illiteracy.

[#FF0000]

I am pretty sure everyone is down with third world workers doing their thing to fight their hyperexploitation.

[synthesis]

? well of course, there is no clear line in the sand.

That's not what the rhetoric suggests.


it's mostly about having a service industry dominate all others. all i said was that they don't use mao's theory.

Right. It's still bullshit (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html).


so who disagrees that MTW should be unrestricted ? the other rules should apply to advocating ethnic cleansing or racism, albeit ironically that would be mostly about anti-white racism ....seriously?

[ContrarianLemming]

If MTW's are restricted, then Juche supporters should go with them, I think they make an equal amount of sense.

[ComradeMan]

This raises an issue-

We have avowed Stalinists, Castrists, Authoritarian Communists, people who support(ed) the horrendous Derg and also a number of Indigenist movements and so on. If we want to start restricting people for this that and the other where will it end? No group/ideology is without some merits and without criticism either- back in the day Hoxhaists were restricted too. You could argue that Stalinism was reactionary, counter-revolutionary and so on couldn't you?

I think the problem with Thorld Worldism is that people don't understand the class perspective from a Third World point of view. When people in the so-called Third World feel that they are poor and exploited they look and see that the so-called First World are rich and are the exploiters therefore the whole class paradigm gets shifted onto a world scale. The difference here with say "orthodox" class paradigms is that the definition of proletariat is shifted onto a larger scale with a whole population/group/race being perceived as proletariat and another as bourgeois. The intricacies of this are many but I think you have to try and see where people are coming from too. If you are living in abject poverty with poor education and few rights and sending your children to work in a sweatshop so as to feed yourselves then you might quite understandably see the rich "West" as representing a world bourgeoisie. The fact that there is also an oppressed proletariat in the developed world is little consolation to those in the poorer parts of the world is it?

Deng Xiaoping, who was reformist, criticised many aspects of Maoism yet even he maintained that the revolutionary side of Maoism was different to the politico-economic side with the famous seventy percent good, thirty percent bad quote.

Third Worldism is closely tied to the Non-Aligned Movement and thus you'd have to start restricting Cuban Castrists, Guevarists and pretty much anyone else with an anti-Western stance along with advocates of the US based NCM. You'd also have to restrict any advocates of the following Bob Avakian, H. Bruce Franklin, Harry Haywood, Noel Ignatiev, Michael Klonsky, Nelson Peery and to an extent much of Chomsky's writings seem sympathetic in a sense.

I think the reason why so-called modern left groups avoid Third Worldism and Maoism is because of the personality cults involved, obvious with Maoism, but then again- what about the Stalinists?

[Sasha]

Yeah, but juchists tend too get themselves restricted on anti-choice or banned on homophobia way before the ba team gets round to discussing restricting them on the juche bit.

[ContrarianLemming]

Yeah, but juchists tend too get themselves restricted on anti-choice or banned on homophobia way before the ba team gets round to discussing restricting them on the juche bit.

how bout long time juche folks though? I wont names names but - and we all hate using the term - really fit the whole "totalitarian socialist" thing.

remember the poll asking people if NK was socialist and democratic? about 15 people said yes, or more, they should have all been banned.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, but juchists tend too get themselves restricted on anti-choice or banned on homophobia way before the ba team gets round to discussing restricting them on the juche bit.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a non-sequitur. We are talking about Thirld Worldism and Maoism. Fidel Castro would have been restricted on RevLeft for some of his outbursts about "maricones" wouldn't he?

Everyone has got some reactionary baggage, usually to do with age, culture, religious upbringing or sheer personality. But that is not the point. If Third Worldism is going to be restricted on RevLeft then is suggests that RevLeft is more about champagne socialism than anything else.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm afraid that's a bit of a non-sequitur. We are talking about Thirld Worldism and Maoism. Fidel Castro would have been restricted on RevLeft for some of his outbursts about "maricones" wouldn't he?

Everyone has got some reactionary baggage, usually to do with age, culture, religious upbringing or sheer personality. But that is not the point. If Third Worldism is going to be restricted on RevLeft then is suggests that RevLeft is more about champagne socialism than anything else.

the point I'm being that I basically agree, because there are far worse more unpleasant groups then third worldists here, like Juchists, and if they get to stay unrestricted, so should MTW's, for the sake of fairness.

[F9]

We have proven time and time again that we are communist

No you havent!Cause such a thing cant happen.
Of course we have other reactionaries posting around free in the main forum, with simillar or worst ideas, but the problem isnt that you are here, but they aint there too.

[ComradeMan]

the point I'm being that I basically agree, because there are far worse more unpleasant groups then third worldists here, like Juchists, and if they get to stay unrestricted, so should MTW's, for the sake of fairness.

I agree too. The whole restriction thing itself is in a way open to discussion. It seems people are restricted at times on very arbitrary bases. The purpose of RevLeft should also be to educate and inform. Someone may hold a belief that others consider erroneous or flawed in some respect but the answer is not to sling mud at them and restrict them is it? At least an attempt should be made to discuss (meaningfully) the issues that are at hand and work out the problems. What I see here at times is like a virtual version of an infinite number of aggressive picket lines throwing bricks at each other.:cool:

For people sitting in the Developed World (for the most part) using computers and in a sense living the capitalist life (beyond their control) to call themselves revolutionaries and then restrict those who come from parts of the world or who sympathises with those said causes strikes me as being very First-Worldist and very bourgeois.

[Sasha]

See the restrictee conveniently steering the discussion...

What was it again you got restricted for?

[ContrarianLemming]

What I see here at times is like a virtual version of an infinite number of aggressive picket lines throwing bricks at each other.:cool:

at times?

I think they should either unrestrict all of the "bad" ideologies or restrict every one of them.

[ComradeMan]

at times?

I think they should either unrestrict all of the "bad" ideologies or restrict every one of them.

I know what you mean! But then who would decide what was good and what was bad? :) Who would decide about who was to be the decider?

The problem with the left in general is that it has so many factions, groups, ideas and principles that the net result is that they usually don't get on too well with each other- like the Bolsheviks and the Makhnists! The right usually doesn't have that issue. :(

I think this calls for a poll however.... now the idea has been platformed it should be voted on.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

While it is possible that bringing these eiijits onto the main site might help educate them, does anyone not find that their mere presecence degrades the level of discussion on the forum, with threads being made and intensely argued over wheter Vietnam is socialist now or not, rather than any theoretical point that may actually advance the left?

In addition to this, they are embarrsing and could potentially put newcomers off with their moroncy.

[ComradeMan]

While it is possible that bringing these eiijits onto the main site might help educate them, does anyone not find that their mere presecence degrades the level of discussion on the forum, with threads being made and intensely argued over wheter Vietnam is socialist now or not, rather than any theoretical point that may actually advance the left?

In addition to this, they are embarrsing and could potentially put newcomers off with their moroncy.

That's a very high and mighty statement coming from someone who may have had a far more pivileged life than these persons.

It's also unfair given that the main language of the board is English and perhaps these people don't speak English as a native language and are thus forced to express their ideas in a less-than-perfect manner.

As for the point of Vietnam, well Stalinists et al have been arguing about whether the USSR was or was not communist since the board began.

[F9]

OI is not the place to discuss whether or not a reactionary position will be unrestricted.If you want to discuss about Thirld Worldism, please do so, but on if members supporting it will be restricted is not discussable(at least not in here)

Closed