Maoism-Third Worldism: simply explained

[Struggle]

I am critical of Maoism-Third Worldism, but I am more critical of those who seek to see it supressed based on misconceptions or because they have not taken the liberty to study it.

I strongly suggest watching this new video (http://vimeo.com/24752359) released by 'Leading Light Communist Organisation' to get a more overall and genuine picture of what 'Maoism-Third Worldism actually is, rather than myths often written by those who have not taken the time to actually study 'Maoism-Third Worldism'.

I hate complacency in the movement, particularly by those who claim to be ‘guiding the masses towards revolution'.

With regards

[L.A.P.]

[Paraphrase]The world is much different today and it is no more divided simply by bourgeoisie and proletariat, but is now divided by wealthy nation and poor nation.[Paraphrase]

See, right there is where I think their theory is incredibly flawed. Nation-states are just divides of bourgeois territory that used to be competitive with each other, but globalization has driven the increased cooperation of the global bourgeois. Third-Worldists give in to the idea of nationalism that nations are political entities, and fuse that idea into the equation of Marxist analysis. This idea is false, a nation is nothing but a geographic entity whose only role is to be a boundary for a state. I understand that Third-Worldists don't actually view first-world workers as parasites and exploiters which is one of the misconceptions about them, but they do believe that the first-world workers are not revolutionary anymore due to their higher standards of living from the trickle down of capital in imperialist states being higher than occupied states. This is where they are wrong though, it ignores the fact that workers are materially exploited by not owning the means of production and it doesn't matter if the workers were driving gold Bentleys because as long as they don't own the means of production then the material conditions still say they're being exploited. To say that the bourgeois throwing a few bones ceases to make a class revolutionary is completely idealist.

NOTE: I'm high.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

The issue is that MTW's consider the the 'Labor Aristocracy' in the First World to be the same as the Bourgeois and requiring the same treatment that the Bourgeois require upon Class Liberation. Where as they're unable to see the Labor Aristocracy as simply being a condition of the current Bourgeois rule and requiring Liberation as well in order to set forward the foundations of a truly Proletarian Class.

While their theories regarding the 'Third World' needing to create a Federation in order to completely and utterly destroy Imperialism are rather consistent and solid, the rhetoric they use against First World Workers is not-- As First World Workers simply need to walk hand in hand witch such a Proletarian Federation in order to liberate themselves from the yoke of Bourgeois rule and Capitalism

MTW's more or less simply need to refine their theory in order to differentiate between the Bourgeois and 'Labor Aristocracy' and simply class the 'Labor Aristocracy' as requiring consciousness in order to break the cycle that they are currently in and become truly Proletarian. As the 'Labor Aristocracy' did not found the conditions of the Bourgeois First World Imperialist Nation and are simply stuck in the chains of this, just as the Third World is.

On a similar note: For what it matters however, the First World being 'Labor Aristocracy' isn't simply a MTW View, as it had originated quite some time ago among the New Left with similar ideas regarding the 'Third World' being potentially the Vanguard of Global Revolution, however these views weren't solidified to a certain point...

Maoist Third Worldism should be taken critically, however its silly to restrict MTW's and consider them blatantly Reactionary when their inevitable goal is building a Third World Vanguard that is to systematically destroy Imperialism and Capitalism. Though, their views considering the First World Proletariat as being the same as the First World Bourgeois is silly, as the First World Proletariat that lives under these better conditions is yet again, simply a victim in the course of Imperialism and Capitalism and has no control of Imperialism and Capitalism, nor the Means of Production.

In all fairness though, while MTW's are continually criticized through means that have nothing to do with theory, its rather hilarious that those calling themselves in support of the Proletariat do this... As unlike certain other groups, MTW's produce agitating engaging videos that are confronting Bourgeois Society. For example, ProletarianProduction's Consciousness Videos (Although massively incorrect on several issues) are better than others when it comes to agitation and confrontation of the Bourgeois.

Instead of accusing MTW's of being 'Infantile' or something of the likes for their comments, we should simply criticize their theory as opposed to entering into confrontation with MTW's that has nothing to do with confronting their theoretical fallacies at all.

[ZrianKobani]

I'm impressed, I found the video very moving and I think it puts a human face on the LLCO and their ideology. I like political flexibility too much label myself Maoist Third-Worldist but it'd be safe to say that I'm definitely a sympathizer to their cause and I think there's a certain amount of reason to it that deserves recognition.

[RGacky3]

Its mainly the labor aristocricy problem that I see as a problem with Maoism-third worldism, as well as all the problems that come with Leninism, theoreticlaly they have some good points on imperialism and third world exploitation.

But they are dead wrong on the labor aristocricy issue.

Also they always end up making wierd cultish movements like the shining path.

[Struggle]

I'm impressed, I found the video very moving and I think it puts a human face on the LLCO and their ideology. I like political flexibility too much label myself Maoist Third-Worldist but it'd be safe to say that I'm definitely a sympathizer to their cause and I think there's a certain amount of reason to it that deserves recognition.

I think you take a similar approach to me. I subscribe to theories, ranging from across the board. A lot of what MTWists claim is accurate, but other arguments are not. Furthermore, I do not think you need to be a Maoist in order to be a ‘Third Worldist’. I agree and disagree with Mao Tse Tung, likewise with many other revolutionaries. And I think that is the correct and healthy thing to do.

[Red_Struggle]

"First world peoples live lives of luxury"

Yeah. I mean anyone who doesn't own a Yacht is a barbarian. It's not like we have homeless people or anything, and it's not like healthcare is a big deal.

SO GO ON OUT AND GET YOURSELF A GODDAMN YACHT!

[Thug Lessons]

Labor aristocracy, (in third worldist rather than Leninist terms), is a real thing, but it's on the way out. Both the national and international situation is stacked against it and absent the emergence of a vibrant labor movement in the first world it's doomed in the short term, and probably doomed in the long term regardless.

[Geiseric]

the first thing that alarmed me was that the name of their organization was leading light, it spews cultism. As for wanting people in the third world to revolt awesome! I would love to see that happen! However, I'm sticking to the belief, not from chauvinism but from practicality that if the revolution happens in a single leading first world country, i.e. england, the U.S. or France, the entire system will crumble. Thus that's what I would focus my attention towards.

[RGacky3]

Labor aristocracy, (in third worldist rather than Leninist terms), is a real thing, but it's on the way out. Both the national and international situation is stacked against it and absent the emergence of a vibrant labor movement in the first world it's doomed in the short term, and probably doomed in the long term regardless.


The argument I get alot for labor aristocracy is the obvious fact that workers in the first world generally do better than the third world (even adjusted for cost of living), there is no way around that, its obviously true, however the REASON for that is what I take issue with, as with the implications that come along with it.

The reason many third-worldists give is that the first world workers were being paid off, which is obviously untrue considering that the capitalist have worked from the begining of things like unions and social-democracy to dismantle it (and are not in some places succeding), also the implications are that first world workers are not exploited and thus benfit from capitalism, which is also untrue considering giant raising profit margins, and increased productivity and efficiency, as well as the fact that the slight increases of living standards in the first world coencided with 2 things, 1. MAJOR revolutionary struggle, and 2. GAINT raises in productivity and profits, the second far far outwieghed any fainst that the working class gained, meaning that their exploitation is actually more so.

[Thug Lessons]

The argument I get alot for labor aristocracy is the obvious fact that workers in the first world generally do better than the third world (even adjusted for cost of living), there is no way around that, its obviously true, however the REASON for that is what I take issue with, as with the implications that come along with it.

The reason many third-worldists give is that the first world workers were being paid off, which is obviously untrue considering that the capitalist have worked from the begining of things like unions and social-democracy to dismantle it (and are not in some places succeding), also the implications are that first world workers are not exploited and thus benfit from capitalism, which is also untrue considering giant raising profit margins, and increased productivity and efficiency, as well as the fact that the slight increases of living standards in the first world coencided with 2 things, 1. MAJOR revolutionary struggle, and 2. GAINT raises in productivity and profits, the second far far outwieghed any fainst that the working class gained, meaning that their exploitation is actually more so.
I don't agree with that entirely, but even if I did it wouldn't really change anything. It's possible to be progressive in the first world, and even for first world populations as a whole to be progressive, but I can't really see them achieving anything more than unionism, social democracy and so on in the short term, and if the situation were to change drastically such as to make radicalism more viable, it would probably benefit the right as least as much, and probably more, than it would benefit the left.

[RGacky3]

but I can't really see them achieving anything more than unionism, social democracy and so on in the short term

And thats something positive, and if that happens it won't have any negative impact on third world movements, infact it might help them.


and if the situation were to change drastically such as to make radicalism more viable, it would probably benefit the right as least as much, and probably more, than it would benefit the left.

It depends on how the left reacts and how strong they are at the time.