maoism - third worldism

[Avanti]

maoism - third worldism

as espoused

by llco.org

is the only

marxist-leninist

movement

which is

approaching the truth


the truth is

when marx

wrote the manifesto

when marx

wrote das kapital

the world

was a different place


workers

lived worse

than animals

were tortured

forced to work

hour after hour

but


communism arose

and fearing revolution

the capitalists

the state

were forced

to create welfare


also

early workers

were unruly

undisciplined

chaotic

organic

the state

instituted

public education

and so on

to make the workers

docile

obedient

patriotic

teach them

to follow commands


the early

indoctrination methods

were clumsy

nowadays

the media

and the education

are both

brainwashing the people

mixing in

different aspects

of indoctrination


but

the core is

the workers

have everything to lose

warm homes

computers

dvd players

cars

15,000$ a year

college tuition


congratulations

you made them

successful

you gave them

social rights


soon they'll lose them

again

but then

they won't even

have a job

because

a robot will do

the job

some of them

will become

robot programmers

engineers

consultants

some will fall through


those who remain

will become

solidaric

with the rulers

with Babylon

with the banker priests

with the capitalists


and their major nightmare

will be

the brown ocean

of young human beings

in the south

in the global slum

who are dynamic

hungry

righteously angry


they are stronger

they will be stronger

if you have to

struggle

for your life

and you survive

you will be stronger


the ideology

for the future

for white

working and middle class men

will be

a mixture

between nazism

and ayn rand-ism

they will call themselves

alpha males

and brag

about

their superior education

and genes

with

increasingly shrill voices


at the same time

they will dream nightmares

of hordes of third world poors

screaming at them

raising torches

raising their fists

their fingers like claws

ripping

their convulsing

bodies apart


have you ever thought

how westerners

love

the "angry muslim crowd"

i imagine

most islamophobes

dream

of being

gang-raped

by an angry

arab crowd


ultimately

it is them

vs us

but we will

survive

we will win

we will lose most battles

but win the war


because

we are procreating

they are not

the liberation

the liberation

from alienation

will come

from the south

and from the slums

[ind_com]

MTW is the most inactive branch of MLs. The Maoists who are actually waging PPWs believe that the working classes of all countries have the potential to seize power.

[hetz]

http://static3.fjcdn.com/comments/Brace+yourself+a+shitstorm+approaches+_cbaf318aab5 13d2b482cc178553820c2.jpg

[Let's Get Free]

I find "third worldism" to be unproductive and divisive.

[Avanti]

the maoists

who wage

people's war

doesn't know

about

how

lethargic

the western

working class

really is

but i give

that mtw

has

pretty crap

solutions

after all

aren't they

leninists?

it's

their analysis

that's

mostly correct

[kashkin]

People wanting to be raped by a crowd of Arabs? WTF?

Maoist Third Worldism shows a complete ignorance of how capitalism works. The idea that first world workers are oppressing third world people, workers and capitalists, is ludicrous. Workers in the third world have nothing to gain siding with their native capitalists.

Essentially MTW is nationalistic. It pits the third world against the first world, not workers against capitalists.

Edit: Lethargic working class? Seriously? Say that in Greece or Spain.

[Avanti]

People wanting to be raped by a crowd of Arabs? WTF?

Maoist Third Worldism shows a complete ignorance of how capitalism works. The idea that first world workers are oppressing third world people, workers and capitalists, is ludicrous. Workers in the third world have nothing to gain siding with their native capitalists.

Essentially MTW is nationalistic. It pits the third world against the first world, not workers against capitalists.

Edit: Lethargic working class? Seriously? Say that in Greece or Spain.

the third world

is not

a nation

the third world

is non-west

we are the other


as for racists

racists

often have

suppressed

sexual urges

towards

the people

they claim

to hate


why else

such a fixation

on cock size?

[ind_com]

the maoists

who wage

people's war

doesn't know

about

how

lethargic

the western

working class

really is

but i give

that mtw

has

pretty crap

solutions

after all

aren't they

leninists?

it's

their analysis

that's

mostly correct

The Maoists that wage PPW communicate directly with parts of the western working class, and occasionally inspect their preparations in person. So I assure you they do know a lot.

[prolcon]

why

do you

write

everything

like this?

I can't

be the

only

person

who has

noticed this.

Please stop.

[the last donut of the night]

dis gotta be a joke

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Why does Avanti get off scot-free when lighter trolls have been banned outright? The enormous walls of text are just downright annoying and the content is even worse.

Also, fuck the bigot MTWists. Anyone here who identifies with them is no fucking comrade of mine.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why does Avanti get off scot-free when lighter trolls have been banned outright? The enormous walls of text are just downright annoying and the content is even worse.

Also, fuck the bigot MTWists. Anyone here who identifies with them is no fucking comrade of mine.

Agreed, they're nothing but an internet tendency in the first world, and they are a shitty group that act as wreckers in the third world

[prolcon]

Oh, is that what we were talking about? I couldn't tell because it's a policy of mine not to read anything that's written no more than three words per line.

[Questionable]

The biggest problem I've encountered with MTWism is that it doesn't really look at where surplus-value is distributed. Sure, a lot of surplus is taken out of these "third-world" and put into the West, but if we look at economic distribution it actually goes into the hands of a small amount of people.

[GoddessCleoLover]

MTW is just a current term for what we used to call "Mickey Maoists". These folks don't understand basic Marxism, as pointed out by Questionable. Their brand of politics is totally unpalatable to real world workers, so they under in an intellectual circle jerk involving their fellow petit-bourgeois "comrades". They are useless with regard to any mass movement since they come off as self-haters. The good news is that in time they often change their politics. The bad news is that they sometimes swing to the right.

[cynicles]

MTW? Count this red boy out, mtw is just a stupid inversion of race war theory peddled by a bunch of white boys from the burbs who think they can speak on behalf of others. Frankly I'm surprised a sex equivalent hasn't popped up yet.

[Let's Get Free]

I accuse third-worldists of Americanocentrism. They can only see things in terms of their position in America, which must be a special case (along with Europe). As for third worldists who actually live in the third world (if any exist), they are simply bourgeois nationalists.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

At the same time, I think it's worth noting that, here on RevLeft and elsewhere, a whole wide variety of ideas are labeled and dismissed as "third-worldism" to avoid critical engagement. I think it's a great detriment that, whenever somebody points out that certain segments of the first-world white working class enjoy living conditions that are unprecedented in world history and utterly unsustainable, folks' response is simply to shove their heads up their asses as far as possible.

[Hiero]

a whole wide variety of ideas are labeled and dismissed as "third-worldism" to avoid critical engagement.

That is why I have started avioding this conversations. We just end up talking about boogey men.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

At the same time, I think it's worth noting that, here on RevLeft and elsewhere, a whole wide variety of ideas are labeled and dismissed as "third-worldism" to avoid critical engagement. I think it's a great detriment that, whenever somebody points out that certain segments of the first-world white working class enjoy living conditions that are unprecedented in world history and utterly unsustainable, folks' response is simply to shove their heads up their asses as far as possible.
Are you sure about that? From personal experience with the fucking supremacist ****s in real life (they were one of the first organisations I met up with), It's basically the opposite to what you've just said; apparently It's your skin colour and not your paycheck that makes you.

And that shit about 'luxury proles' is a fucking stupid generalisation, by the way.

[Questionable]

At the same time, I think it's worth noting that, here on RevLeft and elsewhere, a whole wide variety of ideas are labeled and dismissed as "third-worldism" to avoid critical engagement. I think it's a great detriment that, whenever somebody points out that certain segments of the first-world white working class enjoy living conditions that are unprecedented in world history and utterly unsustainable, folks' response is simply to shove their heads up their asses as far as possible.

As Choler said above me, I've encountered the opposite. Maoist Third-Worldists make these generalized claims about how this luxurious and awesome life the "first-worlders" are living, and then when you bring up evidence that all is not well in the West, they get pissed and call you a white supremacist for "defending white people."

I think a lot of Maoists have crypto-Third Worldist views that they won't act upon. In my own experiences, I've seen a lot of them use the bait-and-switch tactic. They'll say something like "Look at the world wide wealth distribution, are white workers being parasitic?" and then when you accuse them of third-worldism, they deny any connection and suddenly you're the bad guy for misrepresenting their viewpoint.

Anyway, you're probably right that some people dismiss third-worldism without any critical thought, but consider the tendency's bizarre platform and history, you can't really blame them. The idea that class is nonexistent in the modern era and we must now focus on race and/or nationality is an abhorrent concept to anyone who's read even a bit of Marx.

[Hiero]

As Choler said above me, I've encountered the opposite. Maoist Third-Worldists make these generalized claims about how this luxurious and awesome life the "first-worlders" are living, and then when you bring up evidence that all is not well in the West, they get pissed and call you a white supremacist for "defending white people."

I think a lot of Maoists have crypto-Third Worldist views that they won't act upon. In my own experiences, I've seen a lot of them use the bait-and-switch tactic. They'll say something like "Look at the world wide wealth distribution, are white workers being parasitic?" and then when you accuse them of third-worldism, they deny any connection and suddenly you're the bad guy for misrepresenting their viewpoint.

Anyway, you're probably right that some people dismiss third-worldism without any critical thought, but consider the tendency's bizarre platform and history, you can't really blame them. The idea that class is nonexistent in the modern era and we must now focus on race and/or nationality is an abhorrent concept to anyone who's read even a bit of Marx.

Where does this occur, in real life? Or on the interenet?

[Questionable]

Where does this occur, in real life? Or on the interenet?

Internet, but based on the stories I've heard from people who have really encountered them MWTists aren't much different in real life.

[Hiero]

Internet, but based on the stories I've heard from people who have really encountered them MWTists aren't much different in real life.

So would you conclude the constant talk and accusations of "MTWists" does not reflect in any way to a reality outside of interenet conversations? That there is, in compasion to real life politics, no such thing as "MTWism" as it is conceived on revleft?

[Questionable]

So would you conclude the constant talk and accusations of "MTWists" does not reflect in any way to a reality outside of interenet conversations? That there is, in compasion to real life politics, no such thing as "MTWism" as it is conceived on revleft?

I figured this is where you were going with this, and I can't say I understand what you're trying to prove.

Not really, no. I've spoken to third-worldists outside of Revleft, and they've all been the same. I can't say I like this accusation some may throw around that Revleft is some all-powerful propaganda machine that's stomping out new ideas unfairly. I seem to remember reading that even the leader of LLCO blamed Revleft for third-worldism not picking up success, as if Revleft is the apex of the Left and all discussion and events travel through it (I'm not saying you're doing that here, but I've seen it happen).

Are you trying to suggest that third-worldists are actually a really intelligent bunch and that Revleft is misrepresenting them? Because maybe the majority of Revlefters haven't, but I've gone as far as to look at the official websites of third-worldist "parties" and read their writings, and I'm still not impressed. In fact, they're usually exactly what Revleft describes them as; strawman arguments coupled with moralism and bad economics. If the source material doesn't appeal to me, why would it make any difference if I met a third-worldist in real life or on the internet? I don't need to meet an anarchist in person to know I don't like anarchism.

Although once again I'm having trouble getting your point. I assume you're trying to say that since I haven't met a third-worldist in real life I have no right to speak ill of them. If that's not the case, feel free to re-explain what you're saying.

The reason most Revlefters have a kneejerk reaction to dismiss third-worldism is because third-worldism comes off as being, excuse my crudeness, a dumb idea. If third-worldist groups don't want to be rejected immediately by leftists, they should stop making videos calling for the dispersal of white workers into concentration camps for slave labor purposes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, maybe I don't know my third-worldism very well, but has anybody else on here read Butch Lee or J. Sakai? Would their writing fall within what you consider the third-worldist "cannon"?

[Grenzer]

Hiero is, as usual, entirely full of shit. There is certainly such a thing as Maoism-Third-Worldism off the internet. While perhaps not falling entirely in line with the batshit insanity of the LLCO, a good real world example of this ideology may be the Maoist Internationalist Movement. The MIM did have a real world presence, though it was unsurprisingly primarily comprised of well-to-do ivy league college students. You could call them proto third-worldists, but early on at least their politics weren't too crazy(but normal "anti-revisionist" standards). As time passed their positions became more illogical, even by Maoist standards. Their leader supposedly had some mental health issues, but Ismail knows the solid details about that. Today, the organization is defunct more or less. Still, it's a practical example of Maoism-Third-Worldism "in the real world".

Feel free to check out their website for details: http://www.prisoncensorship.info

Don't bother continuing this, Questionable, it's perfectly clear what Hiero is going on about: providing uncritical covering fire for anyone so long as they are a Mao-worshipping goon. I do think there are some who have a tendency to overstate the influence of Third Worldism. It's very difficult to exaggerate how negligible this ideology is in the real world. There do seem to be quite a few Maoists who, while not really qualifying as Third-Worldists in a technical sense, do have some positions that are heading in that direction. I guess that this shouldn't be too surprising given the prevalence of anti-Marxist deviancy in the Maoist movement, even by Stalinist standards. This is not to say that there are not "orthodox Stalinist" Maoists, but they seem to be increasingly rare these days.

[Ismail]

So, maybe I don't know my third-worldism very well, but has anybody else on here read Butch Lee or J. Sakai? Would their writing fall within what you consider the third-worldist "cannon"?Sakai's book Settlers was promoted by the MIM and definitely qualifies as a "third worldist" work considering its claim that pretty much every white person in the USA is an exploiter from the American colonies onwards.

I think "Maoism-Third Worldism" as an offline ideology has always been negligible. The MIM weren't internet-based in the 80's and 90's, but they were never a large group and in the 2000s were reduced almost exclusively to an internet presence. That being said, the roots of "MTW" are in Maoism itself, in the peasant-based theories of Mao and Lin Biao.

And yes, the MIM's leader Henry Park had mental health problems, which is apparent when you look at the MIM's materials in the last years of its existence. Back in 1987 he wrote a good article on Soviet state-capitalism: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/USSRrestCapitalism-ParkH.pdf

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sakai's book Settlers was promoted by the MIM and definitely qualifies as a "third worldist" work considering its claim that pretty much every white person in the USA is an exploiter from the American colonies onwards.

I mean, I feel like that's a pretty simplistic reading (especially if you also read "When Race Burns Class" - an extended twenty-years-later interview on the subject). I also feel like a lot of what's being said in this thread doesn't correspond with what I've read by Sakai or Butch Lee (whose writing is very similar in some ways), and it follows that maybe folks' grasp on what their critiquing is pretty weak.
I am, of course, only speaking to these two authors. If folk want to point me to some concrete sources where some of these less coherent positions (e.g. uncritical alignment with hella sketch bourgeois nationalists in the third world) come from, I'd be curious to see them.

[Ismail]

If folk want to point me to some concrete sources where some of these less coherent positions (e.g. uncritical alignment with hella sketch bourgeois nationalists in the third world) come from, I'd be curious to see them.One of MIM's lines (albeit developed in the "Park went crazy" period) was that all communists must defend Osama bin Laden as an objectively revolutionary figure. To give one quote (in the context of a review of a CIA biography of the man (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/panislamic/biography.html)):

Osama Bin Laden's individual leadership skills do matter, because he is leading struggles in Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines and other places with semi-feudalism still in place. The capable bourgeoisie can lead those places forward, because those agrarian countries do not have fullblown capitalism yet. A consequence of Scheuer's work that he may not have intended is that one can read it and start to hope that Osama Bin Laden and his comrades can lead the anti-feudal and anti- slavery struggles. In any case, the maximum contribution to the struggle in those places requires an interaction with the proletariat, not just the bourgeoisie.

... The proletarian scientist is an intelligence analyst without concern except for answering to God as Osama Bin Laden would put it. In other words, the proletarian scientist answers to the good of the species without any entrenched interests to answer to, because the proletariat "has nothing to lose but its chains." Such an intelligence practice is not possible within capitalism's state and it can only be approximated by the vanguard party at this current moment. Bin Laden has literally agitated for the freedom of the slaves, and it is what those billions of slaves think, for whatever reason, by whatever spin they received, that matters. The truth could be that Osama Bin Laden sits in a cave watching Paris Hilton videos, but the oppressed masses revere him as a symbol of resistance to U.$. imperialism.Acting as if Osama bin Laden and Co. could fulfill a bourgeois-democratic revolution is bad, but the MIM then proceeded to go even further: http://www.revleft.com/vb/mim-endorses-osama-t65655/index.html (where they also try to rehabilitate Sultan-Galiyev (http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLRB/Sultan-Galiyev-FINAL.htm), a bourgeois nationalist opposed by Lenin and Stalin)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

^
So, based on this, I guess most of the "Thirdworldism! That's crazy!" line is coming from is based on MIM?

I think I can agree with that - MIM upholding Osama Bin Laden sounds fucking hella sketch.

[Ismail]

^
So, based on this, I guess most of the "Thirdworldism! That's crazy!" line is coming from is based on MIM?

I think I can agree with that - MIM upholding Osama Bin Laden sounds fucking hella sketch.MIM was the only notable group in the 80's-2000s with the line that the American working-class are actually exploiters of the third world. After Park stopped taking his medications or something a new group emerged called Monkeysmashesheaven, which was not long afterwards turned into the Leading Light Communist Organization, and which is pretty much entirely internet-based. LLCO does not support the whole "Osama bin Laden could have led an anti-feudal revolution" viewpoint, but they're still Maoists and still maintain the whole "US working-class are exploiters" line. IIRC they actually go further than the MIM, which subscribed to "Chicano liberation" and whatnot, by arguing that all Americans are exploiters whether white, black, red or yellow.

Also since MIM was founded at Harvard they were actually able to get the English-language editor of the Black Book of Communism (published by Harvard University Press) to admit a mistake: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/blackbook/blackb3.html

Closest thing LLCO has got to anything influential is some guys from Denver arguing with Alex Jones in person.

Also to reply to an earlier post of yours:

At the same time, I think it's worth noting that, here on RevLeft and elsewhere, a whole wide variety of ideas are labeled and dismissed as "third-worldism" to avoid critical engagement. I think it's a great detriment that, whenever somebody points out that certain segments of the first-world white working class enjoy living conditions that are unprecedented in world history and utterly unsustainable, folks' response is simply to shove their heads up their asses as far as possible.The concept of a labor aristocracy is not new. I shall give two quotes to this effect:

"They [Social-Democrats] are just as much traitors to socialism... They represent that top section of workers who have been bribed by the bourgeoisie... for in all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting 'gain' from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of 'their own' country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain superprofits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution."
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 28. Progress Publishers: Moscow. 1974. p. 433.)

"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.)

There's also the 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on it:

Labor Aristocracy

the stratum of workers that the bourgeoisie bribes by means of superprofits from the export of capital to the colonies and semicolonial territories and also (especially after the disintegration of the colonial system) by means of superprofits obtained as a result of the redistribution of a portion of the national income and the exploitation of newly independent countries. Under conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, which began in the second half of the 20th century, the supplementary surplus value obtained as a result of the introduction of advanced technology, while maintaining monopoly prices, has become an important source for the bribery of the labor aristocracy.

The labor aristocracy emerged in Great Britain in the mid-19th century. According to the definition of K. Marx and F. Engels, it consisted of privileged strata of highly paid, skilled factory workers turned bourgeois, who were organized in exclusive, closed-shop trade unions and who advocated a reformist policy of compromise. The source for the bribery of the labor aristocracy was the British commercial-industrial and colonial monopoly, a monopoly that made it possible to allocate a portion of the enormous superprofits to the elite of the working class with the goal of splitting the class and retarding the workers’ movement. With the onset of the era of imperialism, the labor aristocracy, which had formed in a number of imperialist states, including Germany, the USA, and France, became the social base for opportunism in the working-class movement. During World War I, the labor aristocracy was the bulwark of social chauvinism. “This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy,” wrote Lenin, “who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook, is the principal prop of the Second International, and in our days, the principal social (not military) prop of the bourgeoisie. For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class” (Poln. sobr. soch, 5th ed. vol. 27, p. 308).

The influence of the labor aristocracy in various capitalist countries differs, since it is dependent upon relationships between class forces and the nature and political maturity of the workers’ movement. In Russia the bribery of the elite of the proletariat was carried out on a considerably smaller scale. The labor aristocracy was much weaker there than in the USA and Western Europe and exerted no significant influence on the working masses, a fact that was pointed out by Lenin (ibid., vol. 26, p. 331).

After World War I, the position of the labor aristocracy weakened owing to new socioeconomic, political, and ideological factors. Changes in capitalist production and in the structure of the working class narrowed the traditional range of the labor aristocracy: the widespread use of the conveyor belt and production-line method resulted in a decrease in the role of skilled labor. The labor aristocracy suffered greatly as a result of the world economic crisis of 1929–33. Its positions were further undermined by the growth of the influence of industrial trade unions involving broad masses of workers, a growth accompanied by the weakening of the old closed-shop unions.

Since World War II, the internal processes and policies of imperialism have been influenced to an ever greater extent by the might of the socialist system, by the liquidation of colonial regimes, and by the pressure of the workers’ movement. Because of this, the monopolist bourgeoisie now disseminates its ideology by new methods and means, including “human relations,” the demagogic propaganda of the “equality of all the employees of the enterprise,” the “introduction to ownership” through the distribution of “workers’ stocks,” and the introduction of “profit sharing.” By such means, the monopolist bourgeoisie attempts to draw the most varied strata of the working class into “the collaboration of labor and capital.” The old stratum of the labor aristocracy has decreased sharply as a consequence of the development of the scientific and technological revolution, which has led to profound changes in the structure of the working class and has produced detachments of workers with a higher level of general education and professional training. Since labor aristocracy’s role as a vehicle of the bourgeois ideology serves as the major criterion for defining the labor aristocracy, the term cannot be applied to contemporary skilled, highly paid workers, who take an active part in the antimonopoly struggle and are members of progressive trade unions and mass democratic organizations.

The existence of a labor aristocracy, however small, promotes the preservation of reformist illusions among a certain portion of the working class and among routine office workers and members of the intelligentsia close to the working class. On the whole, however, the rise in the workers sociopolitical consciousness and the formation of a broad front of anti-imperialist forces attest to the crisis in bourgeois ideology and the decline in the influence of the labor aristocracy. Because of the conditions indicated, the concept of labor aristocracy is no longer widely used in sociopolitical literature. This is all much different than "the USA is so imperialist all its workers are necessarily taking part in the exploitation of the third world and are therefore not proletarians."

[hetz]

It's a radical petty-bourgeois "ideology" that doesn't exist outside some dark corners of the Internet.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'll have to reread it, since it's been a while, but what do folk feel about David Gilbert's Looking At The White Working Class Historically (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/profiles/lwwch.html)?

[l'Enfermé]

^Wait is that written by that lunatic that's in prison for killing a bunch of security guards and cops?

[Althusser]

Though I don't agree with it, I am sympathetic to the third worldist way of thinking. It obviously arises out of frustration from the apathy and lack of revolutionary action where they live in the first world. They can't get through to the people where they live, so they imagine they are fighting for some fantasy third world revolutionary communist miner or factory worker who are more intelligent than every one here in the first world and are in a better position to fight for revolution. Tbh, I tilt that way in moments of frusteration. Dealing with some of these fucking people at rallies is so unbearable. Fucking egotrips...

[Hiero]

Although once again I'm having trouble getting your point



Hiero is, as usual, entirely full of shit.


My whole point was proven through your posts. This accusation of a Maoist Third Worldism as you guys describe is limited to small internet groups and randoms rocking up to political rallies. This MTW theory grew out of statements by real world leaders and intellectuals like Lin Biao (Military leader in China, prominent figure in China's Cultural Revolution), Kwame Nkrumah (First President and Prime Minister of Ghana) and Samir Amin (Economist). MTW has nil effect on an already small Communist presence in most first world countries. So it is interesting that often we spend so much time talking about such small and insignificant abomination of a real 3rd world politics. What the fuck is the point?

Really the works by Sakai and others are absolute shit compared to Amin and others. There is a lot to be done by done around wage differences between workers in first world countries and the hierarchy of labour. Accusing people of being an MTWist is merely a distraction.

This shit is getting done over and over again, and it is quit boring and predictable. It is almost a ritualistic cleansing of the humiliation of the political failures of Communist like groups that were meant to take control of leadership of the mass of workers (which they thought was their god inherited right). As if for a while we can make fun of others, instead of being made fun of.

What next, should we talk about technocrats, Sparts, grungy anarcho-hippies?

[Questionable]

My whole point was proven through your posts. This accusation of a Maoist Third Worldism as you guys describe is limited to small internet groups and randoms rocking up to political rallies. This MTW theory grew out of statements by real world leaders and intellectuals like Lin Biao (Military leader in China, prominent figure in China's Cultural Revolution), Kwame Nkrumah (First President and Prime Minister of Ghana) and Samir Amin (Economist). MTW has nil effect on an already small Communist presence in most first world countries. So it is interesting that often we spend so much time talking about such small and insignificant abomination of a real 3rd world politics. What the fuck is the point?

Really the works by Sakai and others are absolute shit compared to Amin and others. There is a lot to be done by done around wage differences between workers in first world countries and the hierarchy of labour. Accusing people of being an MTWist is merely a distraction.

This shit is getting done over and over again, and it is quit boring and predictable. It is almost a ritualistic cleansing of the humiliation of the political failures of Communist like groups that were meant to take control of leadership of the mass of workers (which they thought was their god inherited right). As if for a while we can make fun of others, instead of being made fun of.

What next, should we talk about technocrats, Sparts, grungy anarcho-hippies?

Comrade, I'm a bit surprised by this hostility. I can't speak for others but I took extra care to be polite and I'm genuinely interested in understanding where you're coming from. My understanding thus far is that you're accusing people of crying "Third-worldist!" when they really just don't want to talk about difficult subjects, but I find that to be a flawed perception because I see plenty of people talking about race/gender divisions within the working class. Am I missing your point?

[Hiero]

Comrade, I'm a bit surprised by this hostility. I can't speak for others but I took extra care to be polite and I'm genuinely interested in understanding where you're coming from.

If I come across as hostile it is because I have done this a lot (compare our politics). I am sure your objections and concerns are valid. However in the past I see people attack MTW to cover up their own shity politics, very few posts, no real ideological grasp of whatever they professed to believe. At the same time lots of posters here who held a very general Lin Biao line (outlined here in his Report to the Ninth National Congress) (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1969/04/01.htm) which is sort of a proposed two stage theory for world revolution, first revolutions in the third then in the first world. These people were accused of being "MIMist" or MIMite (back in the day for MTWist). Even mentioning labour aristocracy, even in the Leninist sense earned you the title MIMist.

There was always a process of criticising MIM and labelling the poster as a MIMite. So someone would mention the labour aristocracy, and a usually retort "oh so you believe all white workers exploit poor black workers in the third world". Many times I had been labelled a MIMite, but when I have had one on ones off the forum and talked about the hierarchy of labour and wage differences no one has seriously labelled my a MIMite. So that process used to go around in around in a circle. So I am general suspicious when someone wants to talk about MTWism. I think part of the problem is here, lots of people talk like it is 1916 and to propose anything other than we are not on the eve of revolution is like your betraying the working class.