What is Maoist Third-Worldism?

[ZrianKobani]

I had asked about possible synthesizing of Trotskyism and Maoism in another thread in hopes that I could possibly make an internationalist platform out of it and Maoist Third-Worldism was mentioned in the discussion. I did some searching around and found the Leading Light Communist Organization's website but couldn't find anything that described what exactly Maoist Third-Worldism is. Can anyone give me, in layman terms, a description of it's basic ideology and where it stands as far as Marxism-Leninism goes?

[∞]

A useless opportunistic, interpretation of trying to to forge relations with bourgeoisie states. This tendency is very much followed by idorts who often troll this forum.

[ZrianKobani]

What is it's ideology though? How does Maoist Third-Worldism interpret class struggle, revolution, etc. or what makes it distinct from other radical leftist ideologies?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

It's just Maoism taken to the extreme. They believe western/1st world workers are too spoiled and can't produce revolution, so they look to and admire the third-world struggle of Maoists (India, Peru, Colombia, etc.)
Most of it's most vocal supporters are suburban western kids :laugh:

^ This is probably the most flattering post you'll see about it.

[caramelpence]

There is no meaningful political tradition called "Maoism Third-Worldism", it is really just an internet phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with Trotskyism as far as I can see. Nonetheless, it is meaningful to speak of Third Worldism as a broad and heterogenous political trend, involving an emphasis on the Third World as a political project rather than just a physical space and an orientation towards national liberation movement, and there are elements of Chinese communist history that call also be put under this heading as well - Li Dazhao, who was one of the earliest Chinese communists and a founding member of the CPC, went so far as to characterize China itself as a "proletarian nation" in which all classes and strata were exploited, and he also characterized a future world revolution as a racial war between the most developed capitalist states and what would later become known as the Third World, i.e. countries like China and those countries that had been directly colonized.

[Тачанка]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9x-b8V-PSE&feature=related

[bcbm]

the highest evolution of leftist trolling known so far

[RedHal]

it's as rediculous as Trots who think office workers earning 6 figure salaries are workers:laugh:

[RedSunRising]

A useless opportunistic, interpretation of trying to to forge relations with bourgeoisie states. This tendency is very much followed by idorts who often troll this forum.

I dont like Maoist Third Worldists, but they are not opportunistic....I mean I cant see Chavez in a hurry to ally with a bunch of white hipsters who like to go on about "crackers" and make trippy youtube videos? Its true though that their line is very much "who ever is against the USA!" but thats more to do with the psychology that gave birth to this "movement" than them having their eyes of Ghaddafi throwing them a few million or whatever.

[RedSunRising]

the highest evolution of leftist trolling known so far

Their youtube videos suggest that they have a reactionary view of drug use so I am tempted to go along with this.

[bcbm]

i talk to llco on facebook sometimes if they are not a troll :bored:


I dont like Maoist Third Worldists, but they are not opportunistic....I mean I cant see Chavez in a hurry to ally with a bunch of white hipsters who like to go on about "crackers" and make trippy youtube videos? Its true though that their line is very much "who ever is against the USA!" but thats more to do with the psychology that gave birth to this "movement" than them having their eyes of Ghaddafi throwing them a few million or whatever.

if there was money in it i'd become one, shit

[Chimurenga.]

This thread really proves Revleft's inadequacy.

Maoism Third-Worldism is a newer tendency that takes orthodox Maoism but believes that there is no oppressed proletariat in the First World. They believe that there is a "working class" but that it has been bought off by the process of capitalist imperialism and are a part of the labor aristocracy. To back this up, they use income statistics from First world countries and then compare them to Third world countries. They source books like J. Sakai Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat and others to support this.

They also take the line espoused in Lin Biao's Long Live The Victory Of People's War of global people's war. To make an actual "exploited proletariat" in the First World, the revolutionary countries of the Third World would have to surround the US (or any other country) and basically blockade it, imposing sanctions, etc.

As for LLCO, they are almost exactly like the Maoist Internationalist Movement (aside from the feminism of MIM). Similiar lines. They exist primarily in two cities, Denver and Seattle. They operate mostly online, produce theoretical journals and work under front groups. MIM had the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL). Leading Light Communist Organization has Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement (RAIM).

That's basically the gist of it.

[caramelpence]

Maoism Third-Worldism is a newer tendency that takes orthodox Maoism but believes that there is no oppressed proletariat in the First World

I'm really doubtful that the term "tendency" is appropriate here, simply because I've seen no evidence that there is such a thing as Maoism Third-Worldism beyond MIM (now deceased) and a small number of internet blogs with sensationalist rhetoric and youtube videos. In what countries are there Maoist Third-Worldist organizations? None.

[RedSunRising]

I'm really doubtful that the term "tendency" is appropriate here, simply because I've seen no evidence that there is such a thing as Maoism Third-Worldism beyond MIM (now deceased) and a small number of internet blogs with sensationalist rhetoric and youtube videos. In what countries are there Maoist Third-Worldist organizations? None.

Actually they have people in Poland, another country which like the USA the Communist movement has traditionally been very weak.

[RedSunRising]

if there was money in it i'd become one, shit

Hey Ghaddafi used to throw money at anyone who asked back in the day, if he survives and you write him something polite and grandiose enough he might send you some drinking and rent money! :)

[caramelpence]

Actually they have people in Poland, another country which like the USA the Communist movement has traditionally been very weak.

What you mean is that a blog occasionally has articles in Polish.

[RedSunRising]

What you mean is that a blog occasionally has articles in Polish.

No they actually have a group with a membership in double figures.

[caramelpence]

No they actually have a group with a membership in double figures.

What is their organization called, does it have contact details, etc.? I've yet to see anyone point to an actual concrete organization that has contact details other than the comments or email section of a single blog. I also find it unlikely that you actually know how many individuals in a given country identify as Maoist Third-Worldists given that it is really quite easy to use a blog or a publication to give the appearance of having a significant support base or membership, as long as you are sufficiently imaginative with pseudonyms, and this is in fact what some "false flag" leftist parties have done in the past to make it seem as if they are significant, when they were really formed by the state and run by a tiny group of state informers. I think this thread is actually emblematic of a problem with much of the left - that people have a habit of getting fixated on supposed political tendencies that actually don't extend beyond a small number of people writing on the internet in isolation from real political developments, and by that I mean not only internet Maoists but also right-wing phenomena like "anarcho-capitalism" who are just as isolated. It would probably be a lot more useful if communists concerned themselves with carefully studying and analyzing real-world political forces and phenomena like the contemporary role of social democracy and whether trade unions are fully integrated into capital, rather than fetishizing forces that have no practical or philosophical relevance whatsoever. This isn't to say that a lone blogger writing on the internet can't offer really good analysis or that polemics between small organizations are pointless, but I think that many leftists really do take some kind of joy in their irrelevance and sustain that irrelevance by orientating mainly towards other marginal forces.

[Old Mole]

Firstly maoism third-worldism is an internet disorder. Secondly it is an invention by people that doesnt know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Marxism, at least I havent seen anything ever produced by them that was Marxist/Communist. The idea about the first world-proletariat being bribed by Capital is rather old and was always stupid. Look up Gotfred Appel and "leech state theory"

[Chimurenga.]

I'm really doubtful that the term "tendency" is appropriate here

Tendency, for lack of a better word.

I'm also trying to be objective here. Crazy, I know.

[La Peur Rouge]

it's as rediculous as Trots who think office workers earning 6 figure salaries are workers:laugh:

So it's not ridiculous at all?

[Hebrew Hammer]

This thread really proves Revleft's inadequacy.

Maoism Third-Worldism is a newer tendency that takes orthodox Maoism but believes that there is no oppressed proletariat in the First World. They believe that there is a "working class" but that it has been bought off by the process of capitalist imperialism and are a part of the labor aristocracy. To back this up, they use income statistics from First world countries and then compare them to Third world countries. They source books like J. Sakai Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat and others to support this.

They also take the line espoused in Lin Biao's Long Live The Victory Of People's War of global people's war. To make an actual "exploited proletariat" in the First World, the revolutionary countries of the Third World would have to surround the US (or any other country) and basically blockade it, imposing sanctions, etc.

As for LLCO, they are almost exactly like the Maoist Internationalist Movement (aside from the feminism of MIM). Similiar lines. They exist primarily in two cities, Denver and Seattle. They operate mostly online, produce theoretical journals and work under front groups. MIM had the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL). Leading Light Communist Organization has Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement (RAIM).

That's basically the gist of it.

From my understanding (just a note to the OP, I'm new), this seems fair.

[bezdomni]

Maoist Third-Worldism is mostly synonymous with Lin Biaoism.

To be honest, the best summary you can find about what Lin Biaoism (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/linbiao.html) is comes from MIM who obviously sympathize with and frequently articulate this theory.


When people speak of Lin Biao's line, they refer to a few things: 1) His revitalization of the Chinese army in the 1960s along Maoist lines, support for Mao's theory of protracted People's War, as opposed to "modernized" regular warfare. A corresponding emphasis on surrounding the imperialist cities with the rural Third World. 2) A willingness to enter united front with Brezhnev to support armed struggles. 3) Opposition to those in the party taking the Zhou Enlai line. 4) His role along with Chen Boda in elevating "Mao's Thought" to a new stage of Marxism-Leninism.

A significant part of the theory that MIM leaves out, as I understand it, is that Protracted People's War is universal and extends to the international struggle (which Mao argued against, IIRC). That is to say, the third world countries become "base areas" and surround the (collapsing) imperialist countries until they are able to go on the "strategic offensive" and claim a final victory over capitalism.

There is also this article, which is "interesting":
MIM Response to the RCP-USA Criticism of Lin Biaoism (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/rcponlinbiao.txt)

There is this quote from Lin Biao:


Taking the entire globe, if North America and Western Europe can be
called the 'cities of the world,' then Asia, Africa and Latin
America constitute 'the rural areas of the world.' Since World War
II, the proletarian revolutionary movement has for various reasons
been temporarily held back in the North American and West European
capitalist countries, while the people's revolutionary movement in
Asia, Africa and Latin America has been growing vigorously. In a
sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of
the encirclement of the cities by the rural areas. In the final
analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the
revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American
peoples who make up the overwhelming majority of the world's
population. The socialist countries should regard it as their
internationalist duty to support the people's revolutionary
struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

MIM "adds" to this:


The Communist Party of China said that at a time when its fraternal
party in the united $tates was the "Progressive Labor Party," which
went over to crypto-Trotskyism a few years later and broke with Mao.
Thanks to uneven development, we do not know what Mao and Lin would
have said if MIM had existed in the imperialist countries at that
time. As it was, there were those in the Communist Party of China
who wanted to spell out in even more detail what "temporarily held
back" the revolution in North America and Western Europe, but of
course, complications included things like the existence of the
Progressive Labor Party as the fraternal party in the united $tates.

Hence, there is now and always has been a very close link between
exposing the labor aristocracy and People's War. Is it any accident
that parties in the Third World that oppose People's War link up
with parties with the most brazen labor aristocracy lines?

[emphasis here is mine, for lulz]

This part summarizes the Lin Biaoist position pretty well:


In the imperialist countries, parties that represent the labor
aristocracy and deny that surplus-value from abroad has turned their
countries into parasites oppose People's War. The more labor
aristocracy they represent, the more various parties drop Maoism.
The "RCP-USA"'s attack on Lin Biao is the same as these other
organizations' attacks on Lin Biao. Since the "RCP-USA" often
appears to support People's War it is only the most dangerous
expression of the whole contradiction. Parties that uphold the labor
aristocracy and oppose People's War need each other and justify each
other. That is an unavoidable law of revolution in our time. The
imperialist country "comrades" talk about reform and ultraleft
stunts by which workers will suddenly find themselves in power,
thereby to justify a lack of People's War in the Third World, where
the comrades can afford to await their great nation chauvinist big
brothers in the Western imperialist countries. For their part, the
Third World leaders opposing People's War offer up their people for
neo-colonial exploitation as an inevitable part of sealing the deal
with the imperialist country social-democrats and revisionists. This
is regardless of the intentions of the leaders of any party. It is
not for nothing that Lenin wrote of the labor aristocracy in his
preface to "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism": "Unless
the economic roots of this phenomenon are understood and its
political and social significance is appreciated, not a step can be
taken toward the solution of the practical problems of the communist
movement and of the impending social revolution."


For context, the "RCP criticism" (which I am unfamiliar with) is summarized like so:


When it comes to subverting the international communist movement
from within, attacks on Lin Biao are meant as attacks on the
strategy of People's War and the elevation of Mao's contribution
to "Marxism-Leninism" that made it "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." That's
why the "RCP-USA" has been attacking alleged followers of Lin Biao
since the 1980s and aiming this charge at MIM. The "RCP-USA" takes
Lin Biao's coup attempt as an excuse to attack everything Lin stood
for before the coup.


Here is another reference, which I did not bother to read:
MIM on Modern Lin Biaosim (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/linbiaotoday.txt)

[DiaMat86]

The MIM critique of Progressive Labor Party as crypto-trotskyist is so weak. China took the capitalist road so PLP broke with them. This was the correct decision. What China has become today began way back then.

MIM thinks "Mao could do no wrong". Promoting this kind of authoritarian politics is what Mao would call, "Waving the red flag to conceal the red flag". It's a good thing they only exist on the internet.

PLP correctly theorized years ago that socialism retains too many aspects of capitalism. Markets, nationalism, wages and privileges being the worst of these. This theory has been borne out in practice. It is the most critical task of any ML to win workers to support real communism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Its amazing how dedicated people are to a concept like "people's war" which has nothing to do with the historical occasion of victory for Maoism. Sadly for Lin Bao's fantasies, Third World guerrilla forces do not successfully "surround the cities" without external state support and conversion to a conventional maneuver force.

[Ismail]

Hoxha, January 1, 1976 (from Reflections on China Vol. II, pp. 187-188): "Another expression of this anti-Marxist line of Mao's is the concept that 'the countryside must encircle the city'. This means that the poor peasantry must lead the revolution, that 'the proletariat of the city has lost its revolutionary spirit, has become conservative and has adapted itself to capitalist oppression and exploitation'. Of course, this theory is anti-Marxist and cannot lead to revolution, cannot establish and give the role that belongs to it to the dictatorship of the proletariat, or to its leadership — the Marxist-Leninist proletarian party. Anything can be covered up with words and propaganda, but not the essence of the question, and consequently, if not today, tomorrow, the time will come when the roof and the walls will fall in, because, without the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist communist party and without resolutely implementing the immortal theses of the Marxist-Leninist theory in the correct way, socialism cannot be built."

[caramelpence]

Third World guerrilla forces do not successfully "surround the cities" without external state support and conversion to a conventional maneuver force.

At the risk of flattery, this is an absolutely essential point. Despite the mythology and romanticism, the CPC did not come to power via a guerilla war led by the peasantry. Whilst I'm not so sure about their dependence on external state support, it is totally correct to say that the Civil War was ultimately fought through largely conventional means, and the main body of the CPC's troops were not drawn from the peasantry in the base areas under CPC control - in fact, a large proportion, as many as half by 1949, were troops who had, at some point, fought on the side of the KMT, but who had then joined the PLA after being captured or left behind as the KMT armies were retreating in order to avoid facing the punishments that would follow if they returned to the areas under KMT control and to avoid having to face the shame of being a deserter or a defeated soldier, which they would inevitably face if they were to return to their original communities. The implementation of land reform actually created problems when it came to the recruitment of peasants into the PLA because peasants were less likely to join up when they had gained meaningful agrarian property for the first time in their lives, and the role of peasant communities was generally limited to (doubtlessly important) supportive roles that did not require them to actually join the ranks of the army, such as the transportation of munitions and wounded soldiers, and the building of trenches.

[HEAD ICE]

slightly related but I just finished reading Goldner's take on the NCM and damn it has to be one of the funniest damn things I have ever read. dude goes HAM:
http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/elbaum.html

[Jose Gracchus]

Whilst I'm not so sure about their dependence on external state support,

I agree the USSR was anything but a consistent base of support for the CPC's ambitions to capture state power for itself and itself alone during its pre-1949 existance. My point is simply this: without the USSR to its northern border, and the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation that destroyed the Kwantung Army in August 1945, there would have been no total CPC victory over the KMT, a feat which no Maoist insurgency since can hope to duplicate.

Every ounce of Maoist bravado is based on a completely clueless mythology, and impossible to duplicate elsewhere. There's no way for the Naxalites to conquer India from within. Even the CPC victory required a large loss of faith in the KMT by both foreign backers and domestic social forces, in a scenario unlikely to be duplicated.

[Kadir Ateş]

Maoism, if one could historicize it, was just a way for the petty bourgeoisie to align itself with different fractions of the peasantry and working class in order to develop state capitalism in China. Since China's industrial base was not as large as that of Russia's, the peasants played an unusually high role.

[Jose Gracchus]

To be honest, even that might be a bit too charitable to Maoism: while they sopped to the peasantry under specific circumstances by pursuing land reform, they were not brought to power on the backs of the peasantry acting as a class, seizing estates en masse, deserting an imperial army in the midst of inter-imperialist war, and even swinging support, in their limited capacity to act as an organized, political class actor, to a party basing itself on the revolutionary working class, enabling an attempted social revolution in Russia.

As far as class politics go, I don't even think Maoism is "based" in the peasantry to the extent of the SRs. Its more alienated than that, I would say more like focoism or Chavezismo.