Justification of the Three Worlds Theory

[Red_Struggle]

How would Maoists justify the Three Worlds Theory and what do you think of it nowadays? Not trying to be sectarian, I just want a solid answer.

[red cat]

How would Maoists justify the Three Worlds Theory and what do you think of it nowadays? Not trying to be sectarian, I just want a solid answer.

Maoists uphold the theory of three worlds. They reject its rightist and leftist distortions by Dengists and so called "Maoist third worldists". The three worlds theory is correct in stating that the world is divided into imperialist superpowers, other imperialist countries and colonies, and that the contradiction between imperialism and the broad masses of the colonies is the principal contradiction of today. The fact that class struggle is most intensified in the colonies proves this.


We consider Chairman Mao Tse-tung's thesis that three worlds are delineated just and correct and that it is connected with Lenin's thesis on the distribution of forces in the world based on the analysis of classes and contradictions. We reject the opportunist and revisionist misrepresentation by Teng Hsiao-ping of the three worlds that follows at the tail of the U.S. or USSR in order to betray the revolution. Starting from this, President Gonzalo analyzes the current situation in which the three worlds are delineated and further demonstrated that they are a reality.

-PCPSome Maoist CPs do not distinguish the three worlds theory from earlier theories of Mao. Hence when they denounce the three worlds theory, they are actually referring to its distortion by Deng.

[jake williams]

... the contradiction between imperialism and the broad masses of the colonies is the principal contradiction of today. The fact that class struggle is most intensified in the colonies proves this.
I have a number of questions about this.

1) How does this relate to any sort of theory of "three worlds"? The sharpest point of class struggle might well be between advanced capitalism as a social force, or even the specific international bourgeoisie of imperialist countries, and the needs of the working class in non-imperialist countries; I don't see how this leads into the theoretical usefulness or meaningfulness of a theory of "three worlds".

2) Is class struggle actually the most intensified in "the colonies"? What metric are you using here?

3) Would any initial validity of the theory not be on the road to becoming moot, if it isn't already? Post-colonial countries are more and more becoming imperialist powers, from Brazil to East Asia, not to mention countries like Canada. Is such a historically unstable theory useful?

I'm not at all trying to be hostile. I may well be misunderstanding the theory, and I do think at any rate that Mao and Maoist theory were probably significant in "internationalizing" Marxism out of Europe.

[robbo203]

Maoists uphold the theory of three worlds. They reject its rightist and leftist distortions by Dengists and so called "Maoist third worldists". The three worlds theory is correct in stating that the world is divided into imperialist superpowers, other imperialist countries and colonies, and that the contradiction between imperialism and the broad masses of the colonies is the principal contradiction of today. The fact that class struggle is most intensified in the colonies proves this.
.

Maoist theory is plain wrong. The division of the world in this way is superficial empiricsm and the fact that class struggle may or may not be most intense in the "colonies" proves nothing

In every part of the world, capitalism prevails. Imperialism is simply a symptoim of capitalism. It is an expression of capital's immanent self-expanding nature . Since capitalism is everywhere this imperialist tendency must also be everywhere. sometimes in more obvious manifest forms, sometimes only latently . The capitalist class is a global class. Libya under Gaddafi for example is by any reasonable definition a minor imperialist power with exported capital amount to $70 billions, based on sovereign wealth funds, invested all over the world including the developed countries. Many so called third world countries are the source of some of global capital flows that criss cross the world. Not much admittedly but some all the same. Its certainly not unheard of for some dictator in some particularly poor third world country to siphon off huge sums of money into swiss bank accounts , real estate, the odd industrial undertaking or some European football club. Moreover, the huge bulk of capital that takes the form of FDIs(Foreign Direct Investment) emanating from developed countries is actually invested in other developed countries. Does the fact that a large chunk of the UK's electricity or water supply industries is owned by some Spanish or French company make the UK a "colony"? That would be absurd.

Point is that imperialism is a tendency and a matter of degree, not something rigidly set in concrete. Even the most autarkic backward capitalist state is imperialist in orientation by virtue of being capitalist. Sooner or later its later its latent imperialism will show itself, will take the form of manifest imperialism as it develops. It does not matter that hostircally capitalism may have been introduced from outside. All that matters now is that capitalist exists in every country and therefore invests every country with an imperialist aspect. There is a great passage from the Communist Manifesto which makes this point

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood

The problem with this whole imperialist discourse is that it elevates the superficial above the fundamantal and serves to obscure the latter. Individuals sucked into this misleading discourse are drawn by its flawed logic into practical/political approaches that actually serve to entrench capitalism . So called national liberation being one example. This presupposes a commonality of interests between local capitalists on the one hand and the mass of workers and peasants on the other under the aegis of the nation state. Far from representing an intensification of the class struggle it perverts and undermines the class struggle

[red cat]

I have a number of questions about this.

1) How does this relate to any sort of theory of "three worlds"? The sharpest point of class struggle might well be between advanced capitalism as a social force, or even the specific international bourgeoisie of imperialist countries, and the needs of the working class in non-imperialist countries; I don't see how this leads into the theoretical usefulness or meaningfulness of a theory of "three worlds".

The three worlds theory is useful in identifying the epicentres of revolution and the contradictions between the capitalist powers themselves. In general we expect the third world to be the starting point of world revolution because the bourgeoisie tends to pacify workers' movements in the first and second worlds through economic reforms while resorting to military means in the third world.


2) Is class struggle actually the most intensified in "the colonies"? What metric are you using here?

All of the most advanced struggles of today are happening in the colonies. In some places the national governments have been overthrown locally and the masses are exercising dictatorship over the former ruling classes through the red armies and people's revolutionary committees.



3) Would any initial validity of the theory not be on the road to becoming moot, if it isn't already? Post-colonial countries are more and more becoming imperialist powers, from Brazil to East Asia, not to mention countries like Canada. Is such a historically unstable theory useful?

I'm not at all trying to be hostile. I may well be misunderstanding the theory, and I do think at any rate that Mao and Maoist theory were probably significant in "internationalizing" Marxism out of Europe.

The countries of south and central Asia, Latin America and Africa are still colonies. While it may seem that some are becoming imperialists, these might be actually transforming into expansionist colonies which are used by imperialists for dominating other colonies. Canada is not a colony.

[red cat]

Maoist theory is plain wrong. The division of the world in this way is superficial empiricsm and the fact that class struggle may or may not be most intense in the "colonies" proves nothing

In every part of the world, capitalism prevails. Imperialism is simply a symptoim of capitalism. It is an expression of capital's immanent self-expanding nature . Since capitalism is everywhere this imperialist tendency must also be everywhere. sometimes in more obvious manifest forms, sometimes only latently . The capitalist class is a global class. Libya under Gaddafi for example is by any reasonable definition a minor imperialist power with exported capital amount to $70 billions, based on sovereign wealth funds, invested all over the world including the developed countries. Many so called third world countries are the source of some of global capital flows that criss cross the world. Not much admittedly but some all the same. Its certainly not unheard of for some dictator in some particularly poor third world country to siphon off huge sums of money into swiss bank accounts , real estate, the odd industrial undertaking or some European football club. Moreover, the huge bulk of capital that takes the form of FDIs(Foreign Direct Investment) emanating from developed countries is actually invested in other developed countries. Does the fact that a large chunk of the UK's electricity or water supply industries is owned by some Spanish or French company make the UK a "colony"? That would be absurd.

Point is that imperialism is a tendency and a matter of degree, not something rigidly set in concrete. Even the most autarkic backward capitalist state is imperialist in orientation by virtue of being capitalist. Sooner or later its later its latent imperialism will show itself, will take the form of manifest imperialism as it develops. It does not matter that hostircally capitalism may have been introduced from outside. All that matters now is that capitalist exists in every country and therefore invests every country with an imperialist aspect. There is a great passage from the Communist Manifesto which makes this point

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood

The problem with this whole imperialist discourse is that it elevates the superficial above the fundamantal and serves to obscure the latter. Individuals sucked into this misleading discourse are drawn by its flawed logic into practical/political approaches that actually serve to entrench capitalism . So called national liberation being one example. This presupposes a commonality of interests between local capitalists on the one hand and the mass of workers and peasants on the other under the aegis of the nation state. Far from representing an intensification of the class struggle it perverts and undermines the class struggle

You are ignoring the nature of action of capital in the third world and the class composition of the third world population. The dictators are the ruling classes. Also, you will find imperialist nations having companies acting in each other's lands, but almost no colonial company operating on a large scale in an imperialist country. Hence UK might have French companies, but it won't have any large scale operation by a Nepalese company.

The imperialist bases are not located in the third world, which is why imperialists exploit the third world masses much more than their first or second world counterparts, and react to all resistances there militarily. These make the third world masses rebel early.

[jake williams]

The three worlds theory is useful in identifying the epicentres of revolution and the contradictions between the capitalist powers themselves. In general we expect the third world to be the starting point of world revolution because the bourgeoisie tends to pacify workers' movements in the first and second worlds through economic reforms while resorting to military means in the third world.
If this is the argument, then would not a theory of the relative pacification of workers' movements under particular circumstances make more sense than one of three worlds? I don't understand the theoretical usefulness of three specific categories of country which have more in common with each other than those of the other categories. And that leaves aside that I'm not convinced that the bourgeoisie can sustain its pacification of workers' movements, which to some extent has clearly gone on.


All of the most advanced struggles of today are happening in the colonies. In some places the national governments have been overthrown locally and the masses are exercising dictatorship over the former ruling classes through the red armies and people's revolutionary committees.
All of the recent, major incidents of capitalist states being overthrown by the revolutionary proletariat (or some coalition of forces including the revolutionary proletariat) have occured outside of the most advanced capitalist countries. But I think this might be a narrow view of advanced struggle given the different historical and material conditions faced by the respective working classes at our particular point in time.


The countries of south and central Asia, Latin America and Africa are still colonies. While it may seem that some are becoming imperialists, these might be actually transforming into expansionist colonies which are used by imperialists for dominating other colonies. Canada is not a colony.
Canada was very much a colony unless a "colony" is only an entity which exists during late, advanced global capitalism. Now it's a major imperialist power. That's not to say that imperialism - both domestic and international - don't exist inside Canada, but the Canadian bourgeoisie and its state carry out the work of imperialism. Brazil and South Africa both were very definitely colonies. Their respective domestic bourgeoisies, and their respective states in turn, do act imperialistically; they extract profit from subject nations. In both countries characteristics of still being "colonized" do exist, but I don't think it's clear this will carry on into the future. And though I don't necessarily want to go there, similar things could be said about capitalist China.


Also, you will find imperialist nations having companies acting in each other's lands, but almost no colonial company operating on a large scale in an imperialist country. Hence UK might have French companies, but it won't have any large scale operation by a Nepalese company.
The day-to-day class struggle of thousands of Canadian miners is against a Brazilian company, Vale Inco.

[robbo203]

You are ignoring the nature of action of capital in the third world and the class composition of the third world population. The dictators are the ruling classes. Also, you will find imperialist nations having companies acting in each other's lands, but almost no colonial company operating on a large scale in an imperialist country. Hence UK might have French companies, but it won't have any large scale operation by a Nepalese company.

The imperialist bases are not located in the third world, which is why imperialists exploit the third world masses much more than their first or second world counterparts, and react to all resistances there militarily. These make the third world masses rebel early.


I think you will find I am not ignoring "the nature of action of capital in the third world and the class composition of the third world" . I did not say there were no differences. I said these differences were superfical in relation to the fundamental fact that capitalism exists everywhere and hence also the tendency towards imperalism. In other words it is immanent within the self expanding nature of capital itself


In this fundamental sense it is quite wrong to say "The imperialist bases are not located in the third world". The basis of imperialism is global capitalism which as the term suiggests is global


I also fundamentally question your claim that "imperialists exploit the third world masses much more than their first or second world counterparts". Where is the empirical evidence to support this? If this were true then the amount of FDIs (foreign direct investment) emanating from rich countries and invested in the third world would be much much greater than it actually is. As it happens the vast bulk of FDIs from rich countries goes into other rich countries , not the third world. Why, if your theory was correct, are capitalists in the rich countries in the main passing up this heaven sent opportunity to exploit the more easily exploitable workers in the third world where according to you the rate of exploitation is so much higher?

There are of course differences in wage levels between workers in the rich countries and those in the the third world. This is undeniable. However, this is NOT an indication of the rate of exploitation. It is theoretically possible for a highly paid worker to be more exploited than a low wage worker. Amongst other things it depends on the level of productivity

Marx showed the mechanism by the which the rate of profit under capitalism tends to average out and equalise - as it must. I suggest that this same process is happening not just within, but between, countries and more so in this supposed era of neoliberal globalism

[red cat]

I think you will find I am not ignoring "the nature of action of capital in the third world and the class composition of the third world" . I did not say there were no differences. I said these differences were superfical in relation to the fundamental fact that capitalism exists everywhere and hence also the tendency towards imperalism. In other words it is immanent within the self expanding nature of capital itself

Only countries that have an independent national bourgeoisie that are not largely under control of foreign capitalist powers can become imperialist. This is not the case with colonies. Not only is the national bourgeoisie of colonies suppressed by imperialism, they cannot even overthrow imperialism on their own. So a colony cannot change directly into an imperialist power.



In this fundamental sense it is quite wrong to say "The imperialist bases are not located in the third world". The basis of imperialism is global capitalism which as the term suiggests is global

The headquarters of how many big MNCs are located in some third world country?



I also fundamentally question your claim that "imperialists exploit the third world masses much more than their first or second world counterparts". Where is the empirical evidence to support this? If this were true then the amount of FDIs (foreign direct investment) emanating from rich countries and invested in the third world would be much much greater than it actually is. As it happens the vast bulk of FDIs from rich countries goes into other rich countries , not the third world. Why, if your theory was correct, are capitalists in the rich countries in the main passing up this heaven sent opportunity to exploit the more easily exploitable workers in the third world where according to you the rate of exploitation is so much higher?

Investment does not need to be much greater than what it is right now. This itself is leeching the third world enough for imperialists. If you have any difficulty in believing that third world workers are exploited more, then just compare the average wages of workers of India and America in any field.


There are of course differences in wage levels between workers in the rich countries and those in the the third world. This is undeniable. However, this is NOT an indication of the rate of exploitation. It is theoretically possible for a highly paid worker to be more exploited than a low wage worker. Amongst other things it depends on the level of productivity

What theory is against the fact that a starving or half-starving worker is more exploited than one that has all his meals a day? About productivity, the third world workers are kept productive enough to generate super-profits for imperialism. If A generates 100 dollars and is given 10 dollars, while B generates 50 dollars and is given 6 dollars, A might not be the one being exploited more. Training, the type of labour, factors involved in evaluating the commodity or service produced, social facilities etc. count. A doctor working in a government hospital is never more exploited than a brick-kiln labourer.


Marx showed the mechanism by the which the rate of profit under capitalism tends to average out and equalise - as it must. I suggest that this same process is happening not just within, but between, countries and more so in this supposed era of neoliberal globalism

How do the wages of an average Indian and American workers average out and equalize?

[red cat]

If this is the argument, then would not a theory of the relative pacification of workers' movements under particular circumstances make more sense than one of three worlds? I don't understand the theoretical usefulness of three specific categories of country which have more in common with each other than those of the other categories.

There are contradictions between the second and first world as well. The three worlds theory is a name that Maoists have been using for all this. Yes, a different name might have been more appropriate. In fact, capitalist countries can be actually further subdivided into one more category.



And that leaves aside that I'm not convinced that the bourgeoisie can sustain its pacification of workers' movements, which to some extent has clearly gone on.They cannot sustain the pacification of workers' movement. Already with the advancement of the third world revolutions, imperialism has lost much of its incoming super-profits. So radical movements and violent retaliation are expected to increase in near future in the imperialist countries. The working class of every country will have to go for armed struggle, sooner or later.



All of the recent, major incidents of capitalist states being overthrown by the revolutionary proletariat (or some coalition of forces including the revolutionary proletariat) have occured outside of the most advanced capitalist countries. But I think this might be a narrow view of advanced struggle given the different historical and material conditions faced by the respective working classes at our particular point in time.Exactly which incidents are you talking about? Also, we should be referring primarily to the movements led by the proletariat here. No other class can lead a successful revolution now.



Canada was very much a colony unless a "colony" is only an entity which exists during late, advanced global capitalism. Now it's a major imperialist power. That's not to say that imperialism - both domestic and international - don't exist inside Canada, but the Canadian bourgeoisie and its state carry out the work of imperialism. Brazil and South Africa both were very definitely colonies. Their respective domestic bourgeoisies, and their respective states in turn, do act imperialistically; they extract profit from subject nations. In both countries characteristics of still being "colonized" do exist, but I don't think it's clear this will carry on into the future. Canada was a colony. There seems to have been a series of movements through which the national bourgeoisie came to power. Same with South Africa.



And though I don't necessarily want to go there, similar things could be said about capitalist China.China went through a revolution and a counter-revolution which caused it to become capitalist and a growing imperialist power.



The day-to-day class struggle of thousands of Canadian miners is against a Brazilian company, Vale Inco.Thank you for this information. I will study about this. Have you got some good sources on Vale Inco and the associated workers' struggles?

[jake williams]

Thank you for this information. I will study about this. Have you got some good sources on Vale Inco and the associated workers' struggles?
What sort of sources?

http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/articleprint63/01%29_HISTORIC_MINERS%27_STRIKE_ENDS_IN_SUDBURY.ht ml

[Savage]

"From the point of view of Marxism, in discussing imperialism it is absurd to restrict oneself to conditions in one country alone, since all capitalist countries are closely bound together. Now, in time of war, this bond has grown immeasurably stronger. All humanity is thrown into a tangled bloody heap from which no nation can extricate itself on its own. Though there are more or less advanced countries, this war has bound them all together by so many threads that escape from this tangle for any single country acting on its own is inconceivable," ('Intervention on the Report on the Present Situation, at the 7th (April) Conference of the RSDLP(B), Collected Works, Vol. 2, page 73).-important quote

[red cat]

What sort of sources?

http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/articleprint63/01%29_HISTORIC_MINERS%27_STRIKE_ENDS_IN_SUDBURY.ht ml

That sort. Please give me links to more reports if you can. Thanks.

[caramelpence]

In what way did Mao actually articulate anything resembling a "theory" of three worlds? At which point did he make anything more than series of cursory remarks that have since been treated as a "theory"? Is there an essay or a pamphlet where he articulates analytical links and provides clear evidence, or is this another case of Maoists celebrating anti-intellectualism and treating Mao's offhand remarks as if they were profound?

[robbo203]

Only countries that have an independent national bourgeoisie that are not largely under control of foreign capitalist powers can become imperialist. This is not the case with colonies. Not only is the national bourgeoisie of colonies suppressed by imperialism, they cannot even overthrow imperialism on their own. So a colony cannot change directly into an imperialist power.


You are missing the wider picture completely. Imperialism is not the property of some countries and not others. Imperialism is everywhere. It is immanent through capital's self expanding nature. America by your logic would be classed as a colony as well as an imperialist power because it is dependent on foreign capital

What I am trying to impress upon you is that imperialism is relative and what you call an imperialist power is only one where the capitalist tendency towards imperialism takes a more manifest or obvious form. However, imperialism also exists as a latent potentiality everywhere including your colonies. In other words imperialism is an attribute not of certain nations but of capitalism itself



The headquarters of how many big MNCs are located in some third world country?


Not many but that's not the point is it? In any system of economic competition there are bound to be winners and losers so to speak but they are all part of the same system and the same logic that informs the system



Investment does not need to be much greater than what it is right now. This itself is leeching the third world enough for imperialists. If you have any difficulty in believing that third world workers are exploited more, then just compare the average wages of workers of India and America in any field.

Again this is irrelevant. No one is disputing that average wages of workers in India and the US are markedly different. But as I tried to explain to you, this does not mean the same thing as saying the rate of exploitation is markedly different. There are other variables aside from wage rates that you have to factor in - including productivity levels. However my question remains unanswered - if Indian workers are being exploited so much more than American workers or European workers, why is the great bulk of American "Foreign Direct Investment" going to places like Europe or Canada and not India? Some FDIs do obviously go to India but nothing like on the scale that would suggest your theory held any water or would vindicate the idea that indian workers are "more exploited" than American workers.

You are using "exploitation" here in a descriptive empirical sense as in "suffering harsh conditions" and not in an analytical or marxian sense pertaining to the technical rate of exploitation.




What theory is against the fact that a starving or half-starving worker is more exploited than one that has all his meals a day? About productivity, the third world workers are kept productive enough to generate super-profits for imperialism. If A generates 100 dollars and is given 10 dollars, while B generates 50 dollars and is given 6 dollars, A might not be the one being exploited more. Training, the type of labour, factors involved in evaluating the commodity or service produced, social facilities etc. count. A doctor working in a government hospital is never more exploited than a brick-kiln labourer.



Again where is the evidence for these "superprofits"? Where is the raw data? You keep on saying that a worker must be more exploited becuase he is half starving and on low wages etc which overlooks what exploitation is really about - in the Marxian formulation, s/v

Contrary to what is implied by the notion of superprofits, the tendency in capitalism is for the rate of profit to even out or average out across the board - for surplus value to be redistributed as it were among the capitalist class as a whole. Otherwise, since labour is the source of this surplus value, this would imply that rates of profit would be forever foredoomed to remain the highest among the most labour intensive industries and that in turn would present a permanent barrier to capital intensification, a constant factor diverting capital towards the most labour intensive industry possible. Obviously that is not the case. So the idea of superprofits is fiction and runs contrary to basic economic logic and the need for profit rates to average out. Of course, there are differences in the rate of profit over time and from place to place and from industry to industry but there cannot be any such thing as a permanant structural difference as implied by the notion of "superprofits". The mechanism of supply and demand, as Marx showed, would necessarily work to overcome this through price readjustments.





How do the wages of an average Indian and American workers average out and equalize?

It is not equalisation of wages as such that is the key here but equalisation of the rate of profit - a different matter. Profit is the bottom line when it comes to attracting capital investment

[Marxach-Léinínach]

How would Maoists justify the Three Worlds Theory and what do you think of it nowadays? Not trying to be sectarian, I just want a solid answer.
It's misunderstood by many including Hoxha in his 'Imperialism and the Revolution'. Hoxha basically mixed up the Three Worlds Theory lines of the 70s and the Global People's War lines of the late-60s and ended up criticising a theory that didn't resemble either. He seems to have considered the TWT as advocating a war of the third world against the first world and valued reactionary third-world leaders over progressive forces in the first world purely because of their location. This was wrong however.

Let's differentiate between the two theories. The GPW thoery was about the countries of the 'global countryside' ie. the third world one by one experiencing socialist revolutions and then as a whole encircling the 'global cities' of the first world, and didn't really bother focusing on progressive struggles in the first world apart from the Black Panthers and such, consigning socialist revolution there to some future date. The TWT was basically just a theoretical justification for China's foreign policy in the 70s which was about uniting China, the "liberal democracies" of North America and Western Europe, and various comprador bourgeois groupings in the third world against the "Hitlerian social-fascists" of the Soviet Union. Contrary to what Hoxha suggested, the TWT was actually a step away from national liberation rather than an overemphasis on it, and their coverage of progressive movements in the first world increased dramatically during the TWT period.

[RedSunRising]

Canada was a colony. There seems to have been a series of movements through which the national bourgeoisie came to power. Same with South Africa.


Canada was a settler state. It would be wrong to compare "colonies" like Australia, Canada and Israel to colonies like "Rhodesia" for instance.

[jake williams]

Canada was a settler state. It would be wrong to compare "colonies" like Australia, Canada and Israel to colonies like "Rhodesia" for instance.
Why? I understand that there is a distinction between majority settler states, and minority settler state, but beyond that (and Israel and Rhodesia are both minority settler states)? Canada as a colony played an analogous economic role as a colony to Rhodesia. Clearly they're not the same, but I really don't think they're so fundamentally different that they can't be compared, if "colony" is a useful concept. Various colonized parts of the wolrd are all different from each other.

[Rooster]

Could someone explain to me what maoists mean by colonialism?

[Red_Struggle]

It's misunderstood by many including Hoxha in his 'Imperialism and the Revolution'. Hoxha basically mixed up the Three Worlds Theory lines of the 70s and the Global People's War lines of the late-60s and ended up criticising a theory that didn't resemble either.

They kinda tie into eachother. Global People's War advocates the countryside of the world (the third world) overtaking and overpowering the global cities (the first world). The Three Worlds theory advocates that the main enemies of today are located in the first and second worlds and that the third world are non-aligned and are more ripe for socialism and are thus ok to align oneself with, even if said third world government is reactionary (pinochet, savimbi, Mobuto to name a few).



He seems to have considered the TWT as advocating a war of the third world against the first world and valued reactionary third-world leaders over progressive forces in the first world purely because of their location. This was wrong however.

Then why did China support the reactionaries listed above?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

They kinda tie into eachother. Global People's War advocates the countryside of the world (the third world) overtaking and overpowering the global cities (the first world). The Three Worlds theory advocates that the main enemies of today are located in the first and second worlds and that the third world are non-aligned and are more ripe for socialism and are thus ok to align oneself with, even if said third world government is reactionary (pinochet, savimbi, Mobuto to name a few).

Then why did China support the reactionaries listed above?

GPW was about specifically socialist countries encircling the first world though. The TWT was just an after-the-fact theoretical justification for China's policy of uniting with the west and all its compradors in the third world against the USSR. It never had anything to do with the third world taking over the first world or whatever

[Return to the Source]

Marxach-Léinínach is pretty much right. The three-worlds theory was established after the Sino-Soviet split to provide some geopolitical justification for combating Soviet influence in places like Afghanistan, Angola, etc.

[Red_Struggle]

The three-worlds theory was established after the Sino-Soviet split to provide some geopolitical justification for combating Soviet influence in places like Afghanistan, Angola, etc.

And this justifies siding with reactionary regimes in Africa and Latin America how? How was soviet social-imperialism more of a threat than American imperialism? And why did Mao think it necessary to divide the world into three, ignoring the actual class makeup of each individual country?

[Return to the Source]

@Red Struggle:

You've got me wrong. I think the concept of Soviet social imperialism and the three-worlds theory was ultra-left and significantly hurt the international communist movement.

[Red_Struggle]

@Red Struggle:

You've got me wrong. I think the concept of Soviet social imperialism and the three-worlds theory was ultra-left and significantly hurt the international communist movement.

Well ok then.

[red cat]

You are missing the wider picture completely. Imperialism is not the property of some countries and not others. Imperialism is everywhere. It is immanent through capital's self expanding nature. America by your logic would be classed as a colony as well as an imperialist power because it is dependent on foreign capital

What I am trying to impress upon you is that imperialism is relative and what you call an imperialist power is only one where the capitalist tendency towards imperialism takes a more manifest or obvious form. However, imperialism also exists as a latent potentiality everywhere including your colonies. In other words imperialism is an attribute not of certain nations but of capitalism itself

Not many but that's not the point is it? In any system of economic competition there are bound to be winners and losers so to speak but they are all part of the same system and the same logic that informs the system

Imperialist socio economic system varies qualitatively in the imperialist countries and in the colonies. In imperialism the topmost winners are the imperialists and their agents, while the bottommost losers are the broad masses of the colonies.




Again this is irrelevant. No one is disputing that average wages of workers in India and the US are markedly different. But as I tried to explain to you, this does not mean the same thing as saying the rate of exploitation is markedly different. There are other variables aside from wage rates that you have to factor in - including productivity levels. However my question remains unanswered - if Indian workers are being exploited so much more than American workers or European workers, why is the great bulk of American "Foreign Direct Investment" going to places like Europe or Canada and not India? Some FDIs do obviously go to India but nothing like on the scale that would suggest your theory held any water or would vindicate the idea that indian workers are "more exploited" than American workers.

Most probably because wages and cost of raw materials are so cheap in India that imperialists are able to buy all of what is produced with a very small amount of money. So, not much investment is required to make huge profits in India.


You are using "exploitation" here in a descriptive empirical sense as in "suffering harsh conditions" and not in an analytical or marxian sense pertaining to the technical rate of exploitation.

Again where is the evidence for these "superprofits"? Where is the raw data? You keep on saying that a worker must be more exploited becuase he is half starving and on low wages etc which overlooks what exploitation is really about - in the Marxian formulation, s/v

That simple Marxian formula is not very useful for dealing with social implications of exploitation. It does not consider various social factors or the contradictions between different types of labour and undervaluation of some of them. According to it, the exploitation of an unemployed person is undetermined and an unemployed person getting some government subsidy is not exploited at all ! It also fails to predict which sections of the exploited classes are more revolutionary and are likely to rebel first. Half starving workers might try to overthrow the state even before the skilled, "more exploited" workers in the classical Marxist sense raise a demand a pay raise.

About the super-profits, one example is that even though wages are very low in India, a foreign company can buy most minerals at one-tenth the rate for India -based companies. I will look for documents that mention this.


Contrary to what is implied by the notion of superprofits, the tendency in capitalism is for the rate of profit to even out or average out across the board - for surplus value to be redistributed as it were among the capitalist class as a whole. Otherwise, since labour is the source of this surplus value, this would imply that rates of profit would be forever foredoomed to remain the highest among the most labour intensive industries and that in turn would present a permanent barrier to capital intensification, a constant factor diverting capital towards the most labour intensive industry possible. Obviously that is not the case. So the idea of superprofits is fiction and runs contrary to basic economic logic and the need for profit rates to average out. Of course, there are differences in the rate of profit over time and from place to place and from industry to industry but there cannot be any such thing as a permanant structural difference as implied by the notion of "superprofits". The mechanism of supply and demand, as Marx showed, would necessarily work to overcome this through price readjustments.

It is not equalisation of wages as such that is the key here but equalisation of the rate of profit - a different matter. Profit is the bottom line when it comes to attracting capital investment

How can profits average out between the whole capitalist class? A small capitalist will always make less profits than a big capitalist, not only because his profit is on less capital to start with, but also because profits increase non-linearly due to technical centralization of the means of production.

[Ingraham Effingham]

It's a euphemism for what imperialism takes from each world:

First world - tax money
Second world - cheap labor
Third world - natural resources and lives