Maoism-third-worldism?

[Comrade Jacob]

As we all know I am a Maoist and I sympathise with M3Wism but can someone unbiasedly explain in detail about it?

[Cliff Paul]

As we all know I am a Maoist and I sympathise with M3Wism but can someone unbiasedly explain in detail about it?

All you need to know about Maoist Third Worldism is that they believe that first world capitalists use the exploitation of third world workers to pay the first world proletariat more than they create in value. :lol:

here's a quote from "The Weapon of Theory: A Maoist Third Worldist Reader


One means which by which monopoly capital has maintained itself as such is to pay a small proportion of workers a price for labor-power above abstract labor’s exchange-value. At the same time, monopolies used a portion of surplus to create and maintain large unproductive economic sectors and social-democratic welfare states in ‘their’ base-countries. In effect, surplus is ‘invested’ into the wages of ‘its’ minority of workers. By elevating and embourgeoisifying ‘its’ workers with surplus, monopoly capital has created both a petty- bourgeois mass-base of support and another means to realize surplus (created in the world- economy) as surplus-value.

[Cliff Paul]

Parasitism and the wages of imperialism! Imperialism renders entire local, national, and regional economies of the core as primarily parasitic and dependent on the exploitation of the wider peripheral and semi-peripheral zones; and this necessarily alters the terrain of class struggle. Specifically, imperialism pays a qualitatively higher wages to a minority of workers. This has both an economic function in maintaining capital accumulation in the core at the expense of the masses of the Third World and an ideological function by ‘bribing’ these workers into supporting imperialism. First World and ‘middle class’ workers who receive wages above the abstract value of labor, i.e. above the value of the goods and services exchanged throughout the world-economy in a given period divided be the quantity of labor through which it is produced, are not part of the proletariat because the magnitude of their wages are dependent on imperialist exploitation and could not be maintained without it. Hence, Maoist-Third Worldism opposes all economism on behalf of workers in imperialist countries.

I can't edit my original post because the site is being weird but fuck all of you first world workers with your iphones and shit.

[Counterculturalist]

I have a couple of questions about MTWism, if anyone cares to indulge me. I've tried to read some articles on sites like MIMprisons and LLCO, and despite the fact that I'm generally pretty good at understanding complex texts, I can't seem to make heads or tails out of MTW theory.

I understand the whole "labor aristocracy" thing, but do MTWists actively campaign against first-world workers' rights? Some things I've read seem to suggest so.

Also, I read on one of those sites that MTW takes the line that all sex is rape, and as a result it is counterrevolutionary to punish "regular" rapists (i.e. those who rape by force) because they are no worse than those engaging in conventional sex. Really?

Would it be fair to say, then, that MTWism objectively leads to positions identical to those of ultra-right libertarians?

[G4b3n]

I have a couple of questions about MTWism, if anyone cares to indulge me. I've tried to read some articles on sites like MIMprisons and LLCO, and despite the fact that I'm generally pretty good at understanding complex texts, I can't seem to make heads or tails out of MTW theory.

I understand the whole "labor aristocracy" thing, but do MTWists actively campaign against first-world workers' rights? Some things I've read seem to suggest so.

Also, I read on one of those sites that MTW takes the line that all sex is rape, and as a result it is counterrevolutionary to punish "regular" rapists (i.e. those who rape by force) because they are no worse than those engaging in conventional sex. Really?

Would it be fair to say, then, that MTWism objectively leads to positions identical to those of ultra-right libertarians?

I don't know what you have been reading, but it has given you some misconceptions about Third Worldism. MTWs do not actively campaign against first world workers, (and how could they even if they wanted to?) it is simply their view that they are not a class which is capable of bringing about socialism and a revolution must necessarily begin in the third world.
Also, I have never seen a MTW, either individual or organization take that line, it sounds like a ridiculous anti-feminist slur created to insight false narratives to me.

[Counterculturalist]

Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression that at least some MTWists held the position that first world workers needed to be actively suppressed through things like dismantling unions and labor laws, etc.



Also, I have never seen a MTW, either individual or organization take that line, it sounds like a ridiculous anti-feminist slur created to insight false narratives to me.

Well, here's one of the articles I've read that I think is taking that line (it's weirdly convoluted, though.)

http://prisoncensorship.info/news/all/US/2170/

From the article:

The gender aristocracy cares about labeling and punishing rapists, again, because it distinguishes their good sex from others' bad sex. It is an exertion of their gender privilege. That is why most people in prison for rape in the United $tates are bio-males from the oppressed nations, and the dominant discussions about rape in the imperialist media are about places like India, Iraq, Mali or Nigeria. [...]In general, we are not interested in finding the "real rapists" as we don't believe there is such a thing. Rape is a product of patriarchy -- that is the essence of our line that all sex is rape. Imprisoning, beating or killing rapists will not reduce gender oppression in the context of a patriarchal society.

[G4b3n]

Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression that at least some MTWists held the position that first world workers needed to be actively suppressed through things like dismantling unions and labor laws, etc.



Well, here's one of the articles I've read that I think is taking that line (it's weirdly convoluted, though.)

http://prisoncensorship.info/news/all/US/2170/

From the article:

It is my understanding that the majority of Third Worldists do not uphold the notion of a "gender aristocracy" in which first world females are actually privileged by patriarchy above third world males.

This position is pure nonsense upheld by a handful of white kids who only find Marxist analysis fruitful when it fits their predetermined narrative.

[Counterculturalist]

Does Maoist Third Worldism have much of a following in the third world?

And in the first world, are many of its adherents actually workers? I mean, it's one thing for members of the working class to recognize that they are relatively privileged in comparison with third world workers; I would argue that it's problematic for more privileged academic types to tell people of lower socioeconomic status than themselves that they are "over-privileged," though.

[G4b3n]

Does Maoist Third Worldism have much of a following in the third world?

And in the first world, are many of its adherents actually workers? I mean, it's one thing for members of the working class to recognize that they are relatively privileged in comparison with third world workers; I would argue that it's problematic for more privileged academic types to tell people of lower socioeconomic status then themselves that they are "over-privileged," though.

I honestly don't know enough about the movement to answer these questions in detail. But from what I have read from popular theorists from the post-decolonization period, their party line (the MIM that is) is relatively contradictory to what has been accepted as leading third world theory. And like most radical parties, it has roots in the intelligentsia, but I don't believe the concept of being "over-privileged" is something they would pander to, even with the third worldist analysis of "super profits" and so forth, it simply necessitates a radically different understanding of where socialism is coming from and how it is brought about.

[Cliff Paul]

Also, I have never seen a MTW, either individual or organization take that line, it sounds like a ridiculous anti-feminist slur created to insight false narratives to me.

Most self-identified MTWists aren't really that crazy. I've met 2-3 irl (apparently they exist outside of the internet...) and they were basically just Maoists who believed that the revolution was only possible if it was led by workers in the third world.

On the other hand both the MIM and LLCO are actually that crazy that they assert that "all sex under patriarchy is rape" - http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/allsexisrape.html - and that first world workers are actually paid more in wages than they create.

[G4b3n]

Most self-identified MTWists aren't really that crazy. I've met 2-3 irl (apparently they exist outside of the internet...) and they were basically just Maoists who believed that the revolution was only possible if it was led by workers in the third world.

On the other hand both the MIM and LLCO are actually that crazy that they assert that "all sex under patriarchy is rape" - http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/allsexisrape.html - and that first world workers are actually paid more in wages than they create.

I was actually unaware that these organizations took that line seriously.
I have seen the notion exclusively quoted by reactionaries as a feminist strawman, and I have yet to see a highly regard feminist theorist take the notion seriously.

Like you say, the only MTWs I have met are just Maoists with a few mild twists, not lunatics.

[Luís Henrique]

As we all know I am a Maoist and I sympathise with M3Wism but can someone unbiasedly explain in detail about it?

We have discussed this more in length here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/third-worldist-economics-t182096/index.html?t=182096&highlight=automobile).

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm growing further into being a third-worldist but I don't like giving up on 1/3 of the world.

[Varroun]

Why? They have proven time and time again they are reactionary as mentioned above, and Lin Biaos theory goes against fundamentals of Marxism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Ahh the life cycle of an internet leftist. Liberal -> Marxist-Leninist -> Maoist Third Worldist -> Libertarian.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like you say, the only MTWs I have met are just Maoists with a few mild twists, not lunatics.

That's funny, all of the ones I've "met" (ie talked to on the internet...I highly, highly doubt that I'll ever meet one in real life) have been lunatics.

[Counterculturalist]

Hope this isn't old enough to count as "necro-ing," but I don't really think this quick question merits a new thread...

I've been torturing myself with MIM and LLCO propaganda lately... Don't ask why. It's some weird form of mental recreation. Trying to follow the twists and turns of MIM's ideology in particular is enough to tie my brain in a knot, but I enjoy doing that sort of thing. Sometimes.

Anyway, one thing about MIM is that there's a bunch of different pieces of the puzzle posted on various websites and blogs, and I'm wondering if this one is legit, or a parody:

https://mimdefense.wordpress.com/about/

Anybody know? Apparently Henry Park thought he was repeatedly being "lynched" by women who worked for Obama accusing him of rape, and that "99% of western women" were involved in this plot...

I knew he had issues, but this kind of takes the cake...

EDIT:He also claims that the RCP literally got Obama elected, and that the Washington Post and the New York Times were actively involved in shutting down MIM sites.

He also attacks "corporatism" and "crony capitalism," complains about use of "the race card" and denigrates "oreos, bananas and radishes," and even espouses MRA talking points. Infuckingcredible.

That said, I'm pretty sure the site is legit.

[Atsumari]

Yooooooooooooooo
https://mimdefense.wordpress.com/category/asian-unamerikkkan/

[John Nada]

Anyway, one thing about MIM is that there's a bunch of different pieces of the puzzle posted on various websites and blogs, and I'm wondering if this one is legit, or a parody: That person seems like they were having ideas of reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference). It's delusions where someone thinks a bunch of unrelated events have deeper personal meaning. Often the person with it thinks it's all a conspiracy. Even have whole sites about what they claim is "gang-stalking" and "mind control". Their sentence structure also reminds me of someone experiencing psychosis(though Third-Worldi$t likkke to $$pell word$ weird). It's called a "word salad".

Isn't MIM position on mental illness that it's just another form of control via psychiatry?

[Counterculturalist]

That person seems like they were having ideas of reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference). It's delusions where someone thinks a bunch of unrelated events have deeper personal meaning. Often the person with it thinks it's all a conspiracy. Even have whole sites about what they claim is "gang-stalking" and "mind control". Their sentence structure also reminds me of someone experiencing psychosis(though Third-Worldi$t likkke to $$pell word$ weird). It's called a "word salad".


Indeed, the more you read this particular site, the more that becomes clear. I have two friends who suffer from schizophrenia and they talk about very similar conspiracies, right down to believing that the newsmedia is sending them personal "coded" or "metaphorical" messages.

What's amazing to me is that there are people who find this guy's personal delusions to have some sort of theoretical significance.

[BorisBandit]

MTWs do not actively campaign against first world workers, (and how could they even if they wanted to?) it is simply their view that they are not a class which is capable of bringing about socialism and a revolution must necessarily begin in the third world.


Nations come & go, & rise & fall, but as long as capitalism is in effect, the working class everywhere it does is under the thumb of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Revolution is only possible when the proletariat organizes itself to move in that direction. It'll begin anywhere that condition is met & when the other conditions make it possible for the proletariat to seize power. If MTW opposes this in any way, then it's campaigning against workers everywhere.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What's amazing to me is that there are people who find this guy's personal delusions to have some sort of theoretical significance.

I don't think anyone finds Henry Park's claims about "lynching" believable or of any theoretical significance. At the same time, I think it's lazy to dismiss his political statements as products of his mental state (and as odd as it sounds, I do have some sympathy for the fellow, whose health seemed to be bad and who was isolated for most of the period covered by that "MIM defense" blog - he died shortly after). No, they expressed a certain kind of politics, "radical" in the liberal sense but thoroughly anti-proletarian. Park was perhaps the most open exponent of such politics, but he's far from the only one. If Park were alive hearing this would kill him, but a lot of Trotskyist groups in the sixties basically took the same approach - that the workers, particularly in the "First World" are shit, and that the revolution will be started by peasant guerrillas in the "Third World". It's an old refrain, and it won't do to just dismiss it as the product of one crazy man.

[Comrade Marcel]

Hello there comrades, friends, enemies, haters, etc. :grin:

I would like to clear a few things up because obviously there is some confusion.

First, the term "Maoism Third Worldism" (MTW); who uses that anymore?

As far as I can tell there is no organization active that uses that term to describe it's ideology or even general line.

I know Maoist Rebel News (Jason Unruhe) still uses the term to describe his politics. I use the term sometimes to describe my general sort of line; though I more often use the term neo-Maoism. I now state that my politics is just Maoism with an emphasis on anti-imperialism, but sometimes it is helpful to use terms that differentiate from those of other so-called "Maoists" (or 1st worldists if you like).

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) never used the term MTW. They always described their ideology as Maoism and their contribution to it as "MIM theory".

It has been suggested by many including the Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO) that Henry Park may have experienced mental illness near the end.

http://llco.org/henry-park-founder-of-mim-dies-weightier-than-mount-tai/

But behind the paranoid posts that people mock and ridicule I personally speculate that there was some truth to some of Park's claims. There was a lot of fake MIMs popping up, making of fake websites (some that were clearly satire and others not so straight forward) and people pretending to be MIM members or even Park himself. Some people have speculated a lot about Mike Ely and RCP people "trolling" and certainly if this happened while Park was alive it could have put more stress on his illness (if he indeed was suffering from one).

Apparently Park was accused of rape at some point and that's why he went public. But details of this seem to be sketchy now and the original article that MIM posted about it doesn't seem to be on the MIM Prisons site anymore.

I'm not sure who runs MIM Prisons but they don't claim to be an active organization of MIM and seem to be mostly an archive of MIM stuff.

After MIM dissolved the forum It's Right to Rebel (IRTR) was around for awhile. Then eventually Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH) came about and the term MTW was used by people to describe their politics (as in being separate from 1st worldist Maoism and also not MIM) during these times.

MSH became LLCO (which now uses the term "Leading Light Communism" to describe their ideology) and the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism Movement (RAIM) was formed; RAIM later split off (and doesn't use the term Maoism at all, to my knowledge).

To the user Cliff Paul (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=193869) who asserted that LLCO has the same gender line that MIM had; this is incorrect. LLCO does not have the "all rape is sex, all sex is rape", "sterilize all men", "men are the main enemy", etc. and taking a "hard line" against patriarchy ultra-feminist politics that MIM picked up from rad-fems. Consequently MIM sort of created "wimmin" as a virtual stand in for the missing 1st world proletarian. There is a lot of things wrong with this line (and that would take up more discussion here) which is why LLCO never adopted it.

However since RAIM broke off from LLCO they have seemed to pick up very similar gender politics to the old MIM line and have been moving more towards trying to pick out various oppressed entities in the 1st world along those theories rather than sticking to the cardinal principle like LLCO has. There has been back and forth exchanges between the two on the subject that you can find if you look, for example "Who has happy sex?", here: http://llco.org/who-has-happy-sex/

LLCO also spells out much of it's position on gender here: http://llco.org/empire-gender-an-interview-with-leading-light-commander-prairie-fire/

Varroun (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=194673) made some rambling about Lin Biaoism. AFAIK none of these organizations ever claimed Lin Biaoism other than that "Long Live the Victory of People's War!" (LLVPW) was lifted as a slogan by MSH and used here and there. I have not seen it used in a long time and I don't think LLCO uses it anymore or even talks about Lin Biao all that much. LLCO did rehabilitate (as in saying "he wasn't a bad guy") Lin Biao, but that's about as far as it goes.

MIM, on the other hand, denounced "Lin Biaoism" and more or less Lin Biao himself a long time ago and explained it's reasons: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/linbiao.html

If anyone is interested in more of the history in a bit more detail see: http://llco.org/quotes-from-a-recent-conversation-on-the-history-of-llco-and-other-fun-stuff/

[Guardia Rossa]

I am from Brazil, I can confirm there is much of nazbol and thirdworldism in the marxist-leninists here (I can identify 2 "factions" of stalinists, one more reactionary while the other is more true to marxism. How they coexist? I am studying it up, will have an answer in some months.), while trotskist is just a codename for "general revisionism that still call itself marxist" and democratic socialism is a codename for "general revisionism that doesn't calls itself marxist anymore"

EDIT: Worth noticing is that so far I discovered the less studied of marxism the stalinist is, the more probable he hugs nazbolism and thirdworldism.
I remember when one tried to convince me that middle-class = petit-bourgeois and that anarchism is petit-bourgeois and that anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism are the same shit and worse shit.

Another one was a "maoist" that also tried to convince me third-sector workers are not proletariat and not revolutionary, but they are something near lumper. He doesn't even knows what a precariat is.
Worse: After I said I wasn't a precariat (I work in services) in the sense in my job we get kind-of-good salaries, don't overwork, have the regular proletarian rights, he said that "then you are petit-bourgeoisie"

Or the "Orthodox Communism" facebook page that was a clearly a fascist page. Most stalinists were annoyed of my criticism towards it, until it fell and it's main CDC's changed "religion" and adopted fascism.

EDIT2: Whoa, I wanted to add a detail and I wrote a whole new post. This means I am a level 2 marxist, yay! (Joke)

[LeninistIthink]

From what I know of MTWism , the general view is that the majority of first world, what most would call proletariat, are actually paid above their surplus value or bribed massively with super-profits from the third world, this takes away their revolutionary potential and forces the first world MTWs to only conduct resistance and do as much as they can without engaging in a revolution as they view it wouldn't succeed. Most view that there is some genuinely exploited proletariat , but not enough for a revolution.

Good places to check: https://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2
http://llco.org/
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=revleft+maoism+third+worldism+site:www.revleft .com
https://onkwehonwerising.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/settlers-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat.pdf
http://maoistrebelnews.com/ideology/maoism-third-worldism/ <--- this is a link to some MTW works

[Comrade Marcel]

From what I know of MTWism , the general view is that the majority of first world, what most would call proletariat, are actually paid above their surplus value or bribed massively with super-profits from the third world, this takes away their revolutionary potential and forces the first world MTWs to only conduct resistance and do as much as they can without engaging in a revolution as they view it wouldn't succeed. Most view that there is some genuinely exploited proletariat , but not enough for a revolution.

Good places to check: https://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2
http://llco.org/
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=revleft+maoism+third+worldism+site:www.revleft .com
https://onkwehonwerising.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/settlers-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat.pdf
http://maoistrebelnews.com/ideology/maoism-third-worldism/ <--- this is a link to some MTW works

1.) I would just note that:
Maoism-Third Worldism is an unofficial name for what is theorized as the fourth stage in the evolution of Marxist theory. There is no official title, but Maoism-Third Worldism is the most common one.

2.) Settlers by J. Sakai has been described by some as a mix of Anarchism and Nationalism with some "Stalinism" thrown in. The term MTW was not even coined yet when he wrote it. And while MIM certainly promoted this as reading there isn't really a lot of Maoism in it.

3.) Divided World, Divided Class by Zakk Cope is along the lines of what Settlers is only it's written much better, has better sources and is more up to date. I have the .PDF and neither Mao nor Maoism is mentioned even once in the entire document, with the exception of a footnote that points to a url with the word 'maoist' in it: "Anonymous 2007, Draft: Examining the export of capital and parasitism today,” December, <http://maoist.ws/theory/economics/ecdraft.html>, currently unavailable.

4.) Aside from Cope and Amin none of the authors MRN listed were even alive during the time that the term MTW has been used.

5.) LLCO's roots are MTW (see my previous post) but they now use the term "Leading Light Communism" to describe it's ideology.

[QueerVanguard]

From what I know of MTWism , the general view is that the majority of first world, what most would call proletariat, are actually paid above their surplus value or bribed massively with super-profits from the third world, this takes away their revolutionary potential and forces the first world MTWs to only conduct resistance and do as much as they can without engaging in a revolution as they view it wouldn't succeed. Most view that there is some genuinely exploited proletariat , but not enough for a revolution.

Good places to check: https://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2

when googling about this Maoist Rebel Jason dude I found a site claiming to be Marxist critiquing his MTW http://commonruin.wordpress.com/ Does anyone know if Jason responded to this? I checked the YouTube site Jason runs and found a few of his videos problematic w/ regard to Feminism, so I don't know how much I'm willing to buy the rest of his premises

[Comrade Marcel]

when googling about this Maoist Rebel Jason dude I found a site claiming to be Marxist critiquing his MTW http://commonruin.wordpress.com/ Does anyone know if Jason responded to this? I checked the YouTube site Jason runs and found a few of his videos problematic w/ regard to Feminism, so I don't know how much I'm willing to buy the rest of his premises

I know he responded to the first one and it can be found here:

http://maoistrebelnews.com/2015/06/13/accepting-the-3rd-worldist-debate-with-self-serving-dishonesty/

A lot of people are attacking Jason, but as we say when you are attacked by the enemy it's a good thing.

In terms of his position on feminism, you would have to be more specific about what you find problematic.

I would say I have some disagreements with him myself as he has a hard line against porn, which I don't share. I'm not 100% sure what his position is on sex work but he did make a video against Amnesty International's recent call for legalization. I'm not sure if Jason is leaning toward the rad-fem / Nordic Model of criminalization... I don't support AM nor am I for legalization but I am in favour of decriminalization and definitely am not in favour of the rad-fem / Nordic Model.

Other than that our politics are pretty close on most things.

[QueerVanguard]

I know he responded to the first one and it can be found here:

http://maoistrebelnews.com/2015/06/13/accepting-the-3rd-worldist-debate-with-self-serving-dishonesty/

That was OK but did he ever respond to the second one? how would you respond to it?


In terms of his position on feminism, you would have to be more specific about what you find problematic.

Like I saw a video he made recently where he was basically telling feminists to "fuck off" cuz we criticize macho brocialist horseshit from time to time. there's other shit but I don't feel like looking it all up right now.

[PhoenixAsh]

While I hate to post anything to do with JU.

Here is a link to his page with articles on feminist issues...and I think it would be wiser to go see and judge for yourself than to rely on anybody else's word...either pro-MRN or anti-MRN:

http://maoistrebelnews.com/category/feminism/

[Aslan]

Most of what I got was from Jason Unruhe. However I don't really trust him.

[ChangeAndChance]

There is not, nor has there ever been anything to take seriously about MRN. Jason "Unruhe" (zomg best pseudonym ever) Caden has always been nothing more than a Peter Pan playing the scary subversive third-worldist commie in his parents' suburban cozy basement. A third-worldist who wrote a book about the economics of Fallout and routinely makes videos discussing the Marxist political ramifications of Dragon Ball Z and Mortal Kombat. A free-thinker who denies the Katyn Massacre, the dictatorship of North Korea and thinks all of the people who died in 9/11 deserved it.

Also I love how he calls himself the #1 Marxist on YouTube when he barely scrapes above 1500 views on most of his videos.