Third-Worldism, what is the rationale?

[ВАЛТЕР]

I do not understand their logic. Please help.

I know they favor revolution in poor third-world nations and feel that the working class in the west is spoiled and is not a friend of the revolution etc.

However, I do not understand how they are willing to alienate an entire portion of the working class in order to achieve their goals. They make enemies out of western proletariat because they are "better off" than the proletariat in Indonesia, not understanding that the working class in the west isn't living amazing privileged lives simply because they have electricity and water. How are they willing to make enemies of the working class?

[Bandito]

To put it simple, they believe that (some) Western workers aren't allies of the oppressed people of the world, because of their high wages and the fact that (sometimes) their work contributes the oppression of Third World countries.

It's a bad definition and a mistake Mao made in his theory, but his theoretical contribution shouldn't be judged on that alone, it has many positives that we can learn from.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I am asking because this person is trying to convince me that western workers do not deserve solidarity because in the US minimum wage is $7 an hour. This is beyond a stupid statement because I, having been in the US know damn well you can't live for $7 dollars and hour. Not to mention raise a family.

[Red Rabbit]

It's an atrocious perversion of Mao's 'Three Worlds Theory'. Anyone that considers themselves a Third-Worldist doesn't fully grasp neither economics nor political theory.

[Pustelnik]

It is obvious that the goals of leftist proletarians in stronger capitalist countries just tend to gain more social rights in the system while keeping the capitalist system intact and not wishing a communist revolution at all (in most cases this can be observed). They just do not want to lose the social rights which had been gained and they just want to have unions etc. In the meantime some of these proletariat certainly have gains from imperialism.

On the other hand leftist proletariat in weaker capitalist countries tend to favor communist revolution at first sight. Most of these do not have any social rights comparable to proles in stronger capitalist countries. Why would they want to wish a stronger capitalism anyway ? Since growing capitalism in such countries mostly mean a huge gap between the rich or poor.

It is obviously difficult within my understanding that these two different kinds of proles may understand each other well. They certainly have different conditions. While proles have mostly nothing to lose in poor countries in a revolution, proles in stronger cap. countries tend to be much more conservative not wishing to lose their little properties and gains from their ancestors etc. during a revolution. They have more confort. This also gives birth to anti-immigrationist so called "leftist". They are on the one hand at the side of having social rights and unions but on the other hand they do not wish that their countries are occupied by masses from 2nd and 3rd world countries with different cultures etc.

As a last point to be mentioned I would say the proles in stronger capitalist countries bear more responsibilty for the future of the world. They need to give up their conservativism. Mostly they have more time and possibilities in order to educate themselves. So first they need to educate themselves and then try to help poorest proles for that. So many proles do not even have the privilage to access internet for example. Many have not even heard about Marx and leftist movement, they are extremely alienated. So the more comfortable proles need good understanding on their duty and as said above they need to give up their conservativism.

As a last note... The suffering proletarians may be in rage as your example Walter. They may be in such a condition of hate anything towards west. This is because their lack of understanding Marx but for this they can not be blamed since probably it was impossible to educate them given their conditions. And also they may have suffered severely due to poverty. In such situations you should be patient and explain the common goals of all proles on earth.

[Ismail]

"Maoism-Third Worldism" is an internet trend. There are no "Third Worldists" on earth outside of the West. Even the Shining Path in Peru believe that the American proletariat has revolutionary potential.

As noted above, modern-day "Third Worldism" is a perversion of Mao's "Three Worlds Theory," which in itself sought to distort class struggle. As Hoxha said, "Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of 'three worlds', classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development." (Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979, p. 256.) Modern-day "Third Worldism" does the same only even more so.

The correct Marxist-Leninist analysis is that of the labor aristocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy), which was discussed by Engels and Lenin and touched upon by Hoxha.

"The development of the economy in the West after the war also exerted a great influence on the spread of opportunist and revisionist ideas in the communist parties. True, Western Europe was devastated by the war but its recovery was carried out relatively quickly. The American capital which poured into Europe through the 'Marshall Plan' made it possible to reconstruct the factories, plants, transport and agriculture so that their production extended rapidly. This development opened up many jobs and for a long period, not only absorbed all the free labour force but even created a certain shortage of labour.

This situation, which brought the bourgeoisie great superprofits, allowed it to loosen its purse-strings a little and soften the labour conflicts to some degree. In the social field, in such matters as social insurance, health, education, labour legislation etc., it took some measures for which the working class had fought hard. The obvious improvement of the standard of living of the working people in comparison with that of the time of the war and even before the war, the rapid growth of production, which came as a result of the reconstruction of industry and agriculture and the beginning of the technical and scientific revolution, and the full employment of the work force, opened the way to the flowering amongst the unformed opportunist element of views about the development of capitalism without class conflicts, about its ability to avoid crises, the elimination of the phenomenon of unemployment etc. That major teaching of Marxism-Leninism, that the periods of peaceful development of capitalism becomes a source for the spread of opportunism, was confirmed once again. The new stratum of the worker aristocracy, which increased considerably during this period, began to exert an ever more negative influence in the ranks of the parties and their leaderships by introducing reformist and opportunist views and ideas.

Under pressure of these circumstances, the programs of these communist parties were reduced more and more to democratic and reformist minimum programs, while the idea of the revolution and socialism became ever more remote. The major strategy of the revolutionary transformation of society gave way to the minor strategy about current problems of the day which was absolutized and became the general political and ideological line."
(Enver Hoxha. Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1980. pp. 82-83.)

Notice how Hoxha does not suddenly say that a proletariat thus ceases to exist.