Maoism and Third Worldism

[Winter]

Okay, so I've noticed there seems to be two different types of Maoists. One group seems to be well spoken and believe that America has a working class, whereas the other group mispells words and believes everybody in America is a petty bourgeois or a straight up bourgeois. How did this division occur? What groups are associated with each stance?

[RNK]

lmao!

There is no division. The ones who mispell words (on purpose) belong to a small, insigifnicant internet sect which is given entirely too much attention by everyone, non-Maoists and Maoists alike. They call themselves, mainly, the MIM, Maoist Internationalist Movement, although there are offshoots like the Rural People's Party which act and talk the exact same but claim they are different people.

Basically, like I said, there is no division. Just a small amount of internet enthusiasts who make a lot of noise.

[Random Precision]

I of course hope the Maoists will speak for themselves, and I hope no one minds if I say my bit as well.

The main point of contention is the Maoist Theory of the Three Worlds. Maoist groups will variously reject this theory in the greatest part, like the US RCP, ignore it altogether, accept it tacitly, or absorb it and add their own implications to it, like MIM does.

While Mao seems to have been the source of this theory (see his interview with David Kanuda (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv10n1/mao.htm)) the first one to put in forth in a coherent manner was Deng Xiaoping, who most Maoist groups today see as a "revisionist", in his 1974 speech to the UN: http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1974/04/10.htm

Maoist groups have had a bit of trouble, as I said, coming to terms with the Three Worlds Theory. That's understandable, since it was never anything else than a justification for the CCP making common cause with reactionary governments in the third world, like those of Mobutu in Zaire and Pinochet in Chile.

But in any case, it today forms the main plank of MIM's theory, the second group you were referring to (along with their psycho splinter groups like IRTR and "Monkey Smashes Heaven"). I wouldn't advise you to pay too much attention to MIM, they're just a little group of crazies, who, the last time I checked their website, believe they are being followed by government helicopters and are offering deals to FBI agents in their organization in return for their help combatting the real threat, the CIA. :laugh: They also seem to have ceased all political activity, at least if we are to trust their website. Thank god. But to answer your question, they derive their own insane implications of the Three Worlds Theory along with Lenin's theory of imperialism to say that most every white first-world worker is a labor aristocrat.

My understanding is that MIM originated out of the Harvard-based grad student RADACADS (radical academics) organization in Boston during the eighties. Basically they saw revolutions in the "third world" (e.g. China) as the only source of revolution, and saw the lack of revolution in American workers as emanating from the workers themselves. So you ended up with a situation where you have a bunch of middle-class academics sitting around and talking about how lazy, bought-off and overpaid workers are, things have not improved for them since that time.

The other good reason not to pay attention to them is that MIM aren't anywhere near representative of the Maoist movement in general. I myself believe that Maoism is to be combatted ideologically as a fundamental departure from Marxism along the lines of substitutionism and class collaboration that is built into their ideology. As much as it would make our work as Marxists easier to point at MIM and say "That's what Maoism looks like", it's dishonest as it misrepresents the problem we have to deal with.

[Winter]

lmao!

There is no division. The ones who mispell words (on purpose) belong to a small, insigifnicant internet sect which is given entirely too much attention by everyone, non-Maoists and Maoists alike. They call themselves, mainly, the MIM, Maoist Internationalist Movement, although there are offshoots like the Rural People's Party which act and talk the exact same but claim they are different people.

Basically, like I said, there is no division. Just a small amount of internet enthusiasts who make a lot of noise.

What Maoist groups reject MIM's ideas of Third Worldism?

[RNK]

What Maoist groups reject MIM's ideas of Third Worldism?

I can say with almost absolute confidence that they all do. Fact of the matter is, no legitimate Maoist group pays any attention whatsoever to MIM other than as jokes. There's no "official line", as there's no need for it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

MIM is a CIA-front.

[Marsella]

Is third worldism related to the idea of 'labor aristocracy?'

I can't unbolden for some reason :(


MIM is a CIA-front.

:ohmy:

[Winter]

Thanks for all the information guys. Is there any Maoist organizations other than RCP and MIM? If so, what are they called?

[Dros]

Thanks for all the information guys. Is there any Maoist organizations other than RCP and MIM? If so, what are they called?

What's your problem with the RCP?

That is certainly the biggest (and the best imo).

[Winter]

What's your problem with the RCP?

That is certainly the biggest (and the best imo).

I have no problem with it. Just wondering if there were others.

[bezdomni]

Deng Xiaoping, who most Maoist groups today see as a "revisionist"

Actually, Maoists have viewed Deng as a revisionist since the 1970s. Why do you think Jiang Qing and the gang of four were sentenced to death?

[Random Precision]

Actually, Maoists have viewed Deng as a revisionist since the 1970s. Why do you think Jiang Qing and the gang of four were sentenced to death?

Some Maoist groups did view him as a revisionist from that point, yes. Others, like one of the Freedom Roads (can't remember which) kept supporting his regime up to and past the Tiananmen Square debacle.

[bezdomni]

Some Maoist groups did view him as a revisionist from that point, yes. Others, like one of the Freedom Roads (can't remember which) kept supporting his regime up to and past the Tiananmen Square debacle.

They weren't really upholding what was the mainstream Maoist line, and, in my opinion, weren't upholding a Maoist line at all.

The Maoist faction was siding with Jiang Qing and the gang of four, the pro-soviet revisionist faction was siding with Hua, and the capitalist roaders were siding with Deng.

[Zurdito]

It's worth noting that not all third worldism is necessarilly Maoist. Degenerated Trotskyists such as Mandel and his Fourth International were also objectively third worldist. This is not necesarilly to do with "self-hating" as I believe that is an emotionalistic argument that ends up being used against any anti-imperialists within imperialist states. It is more to do with the view that the driving force of the revolution will be within the third world and that by squeezing the imperialists profits, these movements will develop the conditions for revolution withint he imperialist states - whose proletariat should be approached with internationalist solidarity.

I do not hold that position, but, third worldism is not necesarilly as bad as what the MIM conceives.

[RNK]

In the United States there is Ray O. Light, which I don't know much about. Internationally there are two broad Maoist organizations, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO). The former sees itself more as a legitimate International while the latter more of a conference for communication between different groups.

The most prominant Maoist groups and Parties throughout the world are probably, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal), Communist Party of India (Maoist), Communist Party of the Philippines, Communist Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso), RCPUSA and RCP/PCR.

[jacobin1949]

I don't see how any group that rejects developments in China since MAo's death can truly embrace the Three Worlds Theory. MIM seems to be the polar opposite of that theory. According to that theory the Second World nations of Europe and Japan can serve progressive roles at times.

[Dros]

I don't see how any group that rejects developments in China since MAo's death can truly embrace the Three Worlds Theory. MIM seems to be the polar opposite of that theory. According to that theory the Second World nations of Europe and Japan can serve progressive roles at times.

That is not the Maoist view of the Three World Theory as I understand it. That is the Dengist (read capitalist) view.

[Xiao Banfa]

the pro-soviet revisionist faction was siding with Hua


That's my faction. Jiang Qing was a nutter who used to obsess about minutiae in theater and Deng Xiaoping was devious bastard who steadily restored capitalism.

Anyone with half a brain knows that China should have sided with the Soviet Union.

[bezdomni]

Anyone with half a brain knows that China should have sided with the Soviet Union.

When Mao and the Chinese communists started departing from the Soviet model, and ultimately abandoned Moscow's line...the Soviet revisionists lined up their military along the Chinese border and made it very clear that they were not going to tolerate disobedience to their revisionism, which is precisely what Khruschev and Hua were - revisionists.

Hua represented a break with the anti-revisionist Maoist line, which would have subordinated China to soviet social imperialist interests.

[Xiao Banfa]

Hua represented a break with the anti-revisionist Maoist line, which would have subordinated China to soviet social imperialist interests.


Yeah bullshit, like the almost the entire communist movement were USSR stooges (I'm talking about the real communist movement not your comrades Savimbi, Mobutu, Pol Pot and Pinochet).

You sound like something out of time magazine except distorted by boring maoist bullshitese.

[Dros]

Yeah bullshit, like the almost the entire communist movement were USSR stooges (I'm talking about the real communist movement not your comrades Savimbi, Mobutu, Pol Pot and Pinochet).

You sound like something out of time magazine except distorted by boring maoist bullshitese.

You sound like a disorganized revisionist flamer who should pick up a history book and start reading.

Hua was a revisionist. China should not have subordinated the interests of the socialist revolution to the social imperialism of the USSR.

[bezdomni]

Yeah bullshit, like the almost the entire communist movement were USSR stooges (I'm talking about the real communist movement not your comrades Savimbi, Mobutu, Pol Pot and Pinochet).

You sound like something out of time magazine except distorted by boring maoist bullshitese.

Where I have indicated any solidarity with Pol Pot or Mobutu or Pinochet? I suggest you do something like...study history or something, rather than accuse me of being a qausi-fascist for no reason.

[RNK]

The reason is pretty clear; he obviously suffers from the rampant USSR-fetishism that plagues the leftist movement. Nothing but a bunch of shallow-minded adolescents clinging to obscure notions of rebellion against mainstream society.

Here's news to you: the USSR was not the end-all and be-all of revolution for much of its existence, particularly after the various Kruschev-sparked reforms which degraded it into mixed-market economic garbage and imperialistic global power-gaming. I suggest you take a step back from your romanticism and confront historical fact.

[Xiao Banfa]

The reason is pretty clear; he obviously suffers from the rampant USSR-fetishism that plagues the leftist movement. Nothing but a bunch of shallow-minded adolescents clinging to obscure notions of rebellion against mainstream society.


Bwahaha! USSR fetishism? What a pile of rot.

The 'bunch of shallow-minded adolescents clinging to obscure notions of rebellion against mainstream society' is fortunately very much the antithesis of my demographic. Ironically these are the very people I get most frustrated with.

I used to be entirely against the USSR, and I still recognise it's failings.

I don't see China as completely black. And you obviously are not familiar with my perspective if you consider it shallow.


Here's news to you: the USSR was not the end-all and be-all of revolution for much of its existence, particularly after the various Kruschev-sparked reforms which degraded it into mixed-market economic garbage and imperialistic global power-gaming.

Oh really? Dear God! I'd resigned myself entirely to bureaucratic rule.
You mean that's not what communism is about? Surely not.

Oh well I'll have to go join the third positionists.:crying:


Where I have indicated any solidarity with Pol Pot or Mobutu or Pinochet?

I don't think you would be rash enough to do that. But if you were a maoist back in the day, they would have been your comrades.

And this ridiculous notion of "social imperialism", does it correspond with lenins theory of imperialism?

Because the ingredients weren't there. Where was the finance capital?
The giant monopolies? The capitalist government (not manager-based government)?

Yes specialisation was a mistaken system. But it was that, a mistaken system not a conspiracy.

[jacobin1949]

Hua Guofeng was Mao's chosen succesor

[Xiao Banfa]

Hua Guofeng was Mao's chosen succesor

And your arsehole mate Deng buttfucked him and scared him away from any serious involvement in politics.

It could be argued that Deng lost us the cold war.

[Hiero]

When Mao and the Chinese communists started departing from the Soviet model, and ultimately abandoned Moscow's line...the Soviet revisionists lined up their military along the Chinese border and made it very clear that they were not going to tolerate disobedience to their revisionism, which is precisely what Khruschev and Hua were - revisionists.

Hua represented a break with the anti-revisionist Maoist line, which would have subordinated China to soviet social imperialist interests.

I would like to add, even before the military line up, the USSR was responsible for killing farmers who were in Soviet-Chinese disputed territory. This is not something a friendly nation should do.

[Winter]

I'll end this argument once and for all. YOU ARE ALL REVISIONISTS! *stomps away*

...yea, so...I'm obviously joking.. :laugh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You could use a little more sophistication in your description. :(

[Winter]

^^^ You could use a little more sophistication in your description. :(

Sophistication is for revisionists! :w00t:

[Xiao Banfa]

Revisionists are complete scum. Don't they know that Mobutu was the shit.

Man if I was back in the day I'd advance the glorious three worlds theory to victory by denying those chilean "leftists" asylum in my embassy too.

Man, revisionists are such douchebags. Don't they know that the South African defence force was totally revolutionary.

Revolutions are counter revolutionary man.

Long live comrade Nixon.

[twiggy11]

Third Worldism makes a lot of sense. I think there is actually a document that mentions "Maoism-Third Worldism" put out by one of the online Maoist groups. I don't have the link, but you can probably google it.

[TC]

'Third Worldism' and Mao's particular Three Worlds Theory are two distinct (if overlapping) positions.

Third Worldism is merely the recognition that the economic relationship between imperialist states and colonial states creates what Lenin called a 'split in socialism', where the "workers" of the first, imperialist world, have objectively differing interests to the industrial proletariat of the third world, and the later are objectively more revolutionary and exploited, the former objectively more opportunistic and bourgeoisified. This is because the superprofits from the third world subsidize the living standards of the first world as a whole, including most of those who consider themselves part of the "working class" in the cultural sense.

Given this, the third world industrial proletariat must liberate themselves first in order to break the imperialist system that simultaniously exploits them and co-opts the first world service workers, before the first world can have revolutionary classes. It is as Lenin envisioned revolution from the margins of capitalism rather than at its core.

This is an internationalist position contrary to the rightwing Trotskyist version of internationalism which presumes first world leadership conducting monolithic internationals presuming that everyone who fits into a cultural working class has identical material interests everywhere. People who take a "third worldist" position see this as first world national chauvinism and workerism rather than Marxism-Leninism.

It should also be noted that while this position is often called "third worldist" the term is primarily derogatory, just as "stalinist" is. People who hold this position would likely describe themselves as revolutionary marxists, leninists, or marxist-leninists. Although people on revleft associate this position with MIM, because people on revleft are on average very poorly educated, it is the position of the bulk of the fourth international (not the British section), of most of the New Left and Frankfurt School and virtually all Maoists, as well as clearly being Engels and Lenin's position.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

Mao's Three Worlds Theory is distinct from this. The traditional definition of First Second and Third world comes from the cold war usage of it, where the First world is the American bloc of industrialized "liberal democracies" or the imperialist world (such as the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, UK, France etc) with common economic and defense interests, the second was the Soviet and Chinese blocs of industrialized socialist countries (such as east Germany and north Korea, but sometimes excluding Vietnam and Cuba), and the third was the unindustrialized world with neither industrial capitalism or industrial socialism.

Mao offered an alternative definition after the sino-soviet split as part of his anti-soviet propaganda. Instead Mao claimed that the first world was the US and USSR which he considered to both be imperialist, the second consisted of their dependent allied states such as the UK, both Germanies, Japan, etc, and the third were the Non-Aligned Movement countries and developing world including China. Essentially it was a special version of the "third worldist" position, positing a second "imperialist" bloc except, stupidly, without any of the economic characteristics that Lenin identified with imperialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I must say that Lenin had a lot of theoretical mistakes in that particular work and onwards, including overemphasis on colonialism (he said in his "popular outline," that political imperialism under capitalism need not be colonialist, whereas afterwards he said otherwise). :(

[Winter]

Third Worldism makes a lot of sense. I think there is actually a document that mentions "Maoism-Third Worldism" put out by one of the online Maoist groups. I don't have the link, but you can probably google it.

Uhm, I'm am American worker and I sure as hell am not a bourgeois or petty bourgeois.

[twiggy11]

It should also be noted that while this position is often called "third worldist" the term is primarily derogatory, just as "stalinist" is.

That is probably true for many, but I have heard some Maoists, Guevara-ists, and others, describe themselves as "Third Worldist." Third Worldism or something close to it seems to be the main (only?) form of intellectual Maoism -- Samir Amin, for example.

[bezdomni]

^^^ I must say that Lenin had a lot of theoretical mistakes in that particular work and onwards, including overemphasis on colonialism (he said in his "popular outline," that political imperialism under capitalism need not be colonialist, whereas afterwards he said otherwise). :(

This is what I mean when I say that Trotskyists don't consider Lenin's theory of imperialism to be one of his fundamental contributions to Marxist theory, and instead look at Leninism as being a set of organizational principles (which even then they seem to have trouble understanding) rather than a higher synthesis of Marx's theories.


Uhm, I'm am American worker and I sure as hell am not a bourgeois or petty bourgeois.

Another thing they do is dilute the Marxist materialist conception of classes with liberal identity-based classes. Being a "worker" isn't a cultural identity, it's something based around your relation to the means of production. Furthermore, there are lots of "workers" who are non-proletarian. People who make hundreds of thousands of dollars building airplanes or something, for example...are not proletarians, although they *do* sell physical labor.

The important thing is if surplus value is being extracted from a person's labor, not if a person is simply doing labor. I've worked (on and off) since I was 15, but I'm definitely not a proletarian.

[Great Helmsman]

Tragic Clown did a good job of explaining third-worldism. I find it astonishing when so-called Leninists and Marxist-Leninists openly reject many of Lenin's ideas about the character of imperialism and how revolution grows from the third world. These sorts of things aren't controversial among important Leninist thinkers, yet I frequently see individuals (and their parties) dismissing it as reactionary or MIMite. Frankly, I don't mind the the term 'third-worldist' if that's what distinguishes Maoists and real Leninists from the pretenders.

[Winter]

'Third Worldism' and Mao's particular Three Worlds Theory are two distinct (if overlapping) positions.

Third Worldism is merely the recognition that the economic relationship between imperialist states and colonial states creates what Lenin called a 'split in socialism', where the "workers" of the first, imperialist world, have objectively differing interests to the industrial proletariat of the third world, and the later are objectively more revolutionary and exploited, the former objectively more opportunistic and bourgeoisified. This is because the superprofits from the third world subsidize the living standards of the first world as a whole, including most of those who consider themselves part of the "working class" in the cultural sense.

Given this, the third world industrial proletariat must liberate themselves first in order to break the imperialist system that simultaniously exploits them and co-opts the first world service workers, before the first world can have revolutionary classes. It is as Lenin envisioned revolution from the margins of capitalism rather than at its core.

This is an internationalist position contrary to the rightwing Trotskyist version of internationalism which presumes first world leadership conducting monolithic internationals presuming that everyone who fits into a cultural working class has identical material interests everywhere. People who take a "third worldist" position see this as first world national chauvinism and workerism rather than Marxism-Leninism.

It should also be noted that while this position is often called "third worldist" the term is primarily derogatory, just as "stalinist" is. People who hold this position would likely describe themselves as revolutionary marxists, leninists, or marxist-leninists. Although people on revleft associate this position with MIM, because people on revleft are on average very poorly educated, it is the position of the bulk of the fourth international (not the British section), of most of the New Left and Frankfurt School and virtually all Maoists, as well as clearly being Engels and Lenin's position.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

Mao's Three Worlds Theory is distinct from this. The traditional definition of First Second and Third world comes from the cold war usage of it, where the First world is the American bloc of industrialized "liberal democracies" or the imperialist world (such as the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, UK, France etc) with common economic and defense interests, the second was the Soviet and Chinese blocs of industrialized socialist countries (such as east Germany and north Korea, but sometimes excluding Vietnam and Cuba), and the third was the unindustrialized world with neither industrial capitalism or industrial socialism.

Mao offered an alternative definition after the sino-soviet split as part of his anti-soviet propaganda. Instead Mao claimed that the first world was the US and USSR which he considered to both be imperialist, the second consisted of their dependent allied states such as the UK, both Germanies, Japan, etc, and the third were the Non-Aligned Movement countries and developing world including China. Essentially it was a special version of the "third worldist" position, positing a second "imperialist" bloc except, stupidly, without any of the economic characteristics that Lenin identified with imperialism.

Thanks for this post. It actually clarified many things. You got to understand, what I've heard about Third Worldism is from videos from irtr.org and they really present there views in a very immature fashion. They make it sound like American workers should be considered evil, I really don't want some guy from a third world country to come here and kill me because he was subject to this presentation of this theory!

[twiggy11]

Thanks for this post. It actually clarified many things. You got to understand, what I've heard about Third Worldism is from videos from irtr.org and they really present there views in a very immature fashion. They make it sound like American workers should be considered evil, I really don't want some guy from a third world country to come here and kill me because he was subject to this presentation of this theory! I am not sure what videos you are talking about, I could not find irtr.org online. Is it down? Are the videos still available? I wish to view them. I have been looking for Third Worldist organizations.

There is a logic to the position of being hostile to American wage earners. It is undeniable that American workers have more wealth and higher standards of living than much of the bourgeoisie in the Third World. It makes sense that they are bigger enemies than much of the Third World bourgeoisie.

[Winter]

I am not sure what videos you are talking about, I could not find irtr.org online. Is it down? Are the videos still available? I wish to view them. I have been looking for Third Worldist organizations.

There is a logic to the position of being hostile to American wage earners. It is undeniable that American workers have more wealth and higher standards of living than much of the bourgeoisie in the Third World. It makes sense that they are bigger enemies than much of the Third World bourgeoisie.

These videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/shubelmorgan

As for irtr.org, it is down. I guess it was somekind of forum for Third Worldist.

[twiggy11]

Thank you for that link. Some of those movies were really great. Never seen anything like that.

[Random Precision]

I am not sure what videos you are talking about, I could not find irtr.org online. Is it down? Are the videos still available? I wish to view them. I have been looking for Third Worldist organizations.

There is a logic to the position of being hostile to American wage earners. It is undeniable that American workers have more wealth and higher standards of living than much of the bourgeoisie in the Third World. It makes sense that they are bigger enemies than much of the Third World bourgeoisie.

Then you're not a Marxist, congratulations!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

third worldists conflate the regional group or national group in oppressed countries as having the capacity to overturn the bourgeoisie.

When what we have seen, is they co opt to the bourgeoisie eventually.

This is because of the Stalinist politics of the communists, who work with the bourgeoisie and don't opt for an independent working class alternative.

The Stalinist, including third worldists and Maoists have ruined the 20th century chance for socialism and have totally betrayed (consistently) and failed the international proletariat.

If revolution is to begin in the third world where conditions are lowest, and the local bourgeoisie cannot grant anything to them, then supporting bourgeoisie alliance against imperialism is hopeless.

The third world working class need to reject a bourgeois Maoist and Stalinist ideas of working with the local bourgeoisie. The 20th taught us this! Bolshevism and working class independence vs Stalinism and unity with the bourgeoisie, thats the choice the third world working class has.

[RNK]

So how do you suppose that unindustrialized and often semi-fuedal countries attain socialism?

[twiggy11]

Then you're not a Marxist, congratulations! Whether or not I (or, you for that matter) am a Marxist is debatable. "Marxism" is a contentious label because Marx said different things at different times. And, it is, frankly, beside the point. The question is whether or not Third Worldism is true or not. The question is not whether it conforms to some sacred text, be it Marx's or the Bible.

It is obvious to just about everyone outside of very small ideological corners of the world that there is no great wave of first world revolutions on the horizon.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So how do you suppose that unindustrialized and often semi-feudal countries attain socialism?

I agree with Lenin and Trotsky in that backward nations are dependent on the success of spreading the revolution to the core imperialist countries.

Just as Russia was dependent on a German revolution, and a counter-revolution took place because of the inability on the German workers to break with reformism.
Socialism in one country is not an option for the proletariat.

It is a conservative idea, and a lack in confidence in the proletariat that led the Stalinist camp to support alliance with the bourgeoisie.

the bourgeoisie are too powerful and side with western imperialism always. They are too powerful for the proletariat, who in the periphery suffer from poor 'culture'.

Only an independent workers movement, that seeks to combat imperialism and the bourgeoisie is the real solution.

[Comrade Qwatt]

I disagree with Third Worldism and always have, it strikes me of more reactionary 'slippery slope' arguments. As people have said, it equates regions which share material similarities as being the same thing, this is dangerous because it imposes a singular theorem on all struggle, and ignores that their are major differences in the Third World. Marx himself said that the class struggles of different countries will take different forms depending on the development of the bourgeois (and thus the proletariat) in those countries. Also it breeds a pan-African or pan-Arab culture, where 'anti-imperialist', 'anti-colonialist', and thus 'national struggle' takes the place of class struggle, that itself is a dangerous idea which can lead to fascism.

[Great Helmsman]

twigy11:
If you're interested in the relationship between unequal exchange and labour aristocracy parasitism, I suggest MIWS's Draft: Examining the export of capital and parasitism [http://miws.ws/theory/economics/ecdraft.html]

As far as I know, IRTR shutdown mid-2007 and there's only the very limited amount saved on google cache and internet archive.

[jacobin1949]

This is the current Chinese government;s position:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ziliao/3602/3604/t18008.htm


Chairman Mao Zedong's Theory on the Division of the Three World and the Strategy of Forming an Alliance Against an opponent


2000/11/17 http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/images/c.gif

The 1970s witnessed significant changes in the international situation. The balance of military forces between the two super-powers of the Soviet Union and the United States developed in a way favorable to the former. While the U.S. strength was weakened and its status as a hegemonic power met with challenges as a result of its long years of overseas expansion, especially it was deeply bogged down in the war of aggression against Vietnam, the Soviet Union, by capitalizing this opportunity and intensifying its arms expansion, stretched its hands everywhere on the strength of its rapidly expanding military might. There emerged in the Soviet-U.S. rivalry a situation with the Soviet Union on the offensive and the United States on the defensive. In order to maintain its global hegemony, the U.S. made readjustments in its foreign policy and carries out a strategy of retrenchment in Asia and opened the door to Sino-U.S. relations with the aim of freeing itself from indo-China and concentrating its efforts in the defence of Europe which is its key area.


To continuously promote the world situation so that it moves in a direction conducive to peace and stability and favorable to the people of various countries, Chairman Mao Zedong pointed out during his meeting with Henry Kissinger in 1973 that as long as we share the same goal, we will not do harm to you nor will you do harm to us and we should work together to counter Soviet hegemonism. We hope the United States would strengthen its cooperation with Europe and Japan and draw a parallel line linking the United States, Japan China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Europe. This is unity against the Soviet hegemonism or the "Strategy of forming an alliance against an opponent".


In February 1974, Chairman Mao Zedong set forth his strategic thinking of the division of the three worlds. He observed, "In my view, the United States and the Soviet Union belong to the first world. The in-between Japan, Europe and Canada belong to the second world. The third world is very populous. Except Japan, Asia belongs to the third world. So does the whole of Africa and Latin America". At the 6th Special Session of the UN General Assembly held in April 1974, Deng Xiaoping expounded the strategic thinking of Mao Zedong on the division of the three worlds. He pointed out that after protracted trial of strength and struggles, the various types of political forces are currently undergoing drastic division and realignment. "From the perspective of the changes that have taken place in international relations, the world today in fact has three sides or three worlds in existence which are mutually related as well as contradictory. The United States and the Soviet Union belong to the first world. Developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other regions belong to the third world. And the developed countries in between the two belong to the second world". Deng Xiaoping also expressed that China was a socialist country, a developing nation, and it belonged to the third world. The Chinese Government and people firmly supported all the oppressed peoples and nations in their just struggles. He declared that China was not and would never be a super-power in the future.


Mao Zedong's strategic thinking shed light on the fact that the two super-powers were then the main source of instability and turmoils in the world. Their acts of pursuing hegemonism, power politics, the big bullying the small, the strong bullying the week and the rich oppressing the poor gave rise to strong opposition and resentment by countries of the third world. As a member of the third world, China firmly supported the third world countries in their struggles against hegemonism and struggles waged by countries of the second world against interference and control by the super-powers. China was firmly opposed to the policy of expansionism pursued by the super-powers and carried out the policy of uniting with and struggling against the United States with emphasis on striking at Soviet hegemonism thus effectively restraining the expansionist forces of the Soviet Union.

[John Rap Brown]

I disagree with Third Worldism and always have, it strikes me of more reactionary 'slippery slope' arguments. As people have said, it equates regions which share material similarities as being the same thing, this is dangerous because it imposes a singular theorem on all struggle, and ignores that their are major differences in the Third World.

I would contend that this is a mis-characterization of an advanced third worldist line. The TW isn't regions which share material similarities {That's a liberal line btw}. Instead, in today's world the 'TW' is defined primarily by its relation to the First World, to imperialism.

But for the sake of argument lets just leave it the way you stated. You basically say the TWism diminishes the very real differences prevalent within the TW. First, where are people saying that contradictions [and complex ones at that] don't exist within the TW?

Even if you are correct, that TWism ignores the contradictions within the TW, I could easily make the same case about 'marxists' and other 'revolutionary' trends. Does the 'bosses' vs. 'workers' outlook not paint over the differences between FW workers and TW workers? (and more importantly their relationship to imperialism- the dominant system today)

So the question really becomes, which is more accurate in terms of a primary contradiction- that between imperialism and oppressed nation proletarians, or 'workers' vs. the 'bosses.' {or men vs women, or youth verse their parents, or the people vs the state, or man vs nature, etc etc etc} The point being no-one denies that these contradictions exist but we have to identify which is primary.

Our outlook should conform to reality, not what makes us feel good or the Marx quote of the week or the latest issue of the Militant. In this case you say that I am glossing over the differences between "classes" and homogenizing "regions." This is just dogmatic.

Taking the Americas alone, if "class" was truly paramount, then we would not see large migrations of workers to the North. Why would they migrate is "class" was the dominant feature that defined their existence...afterall they'de be just as exploited in the U.S.


Marx himself said that the class struggles of different countries will take different forms depending on the development of the bourgeois (and thus the proletariat) in those countries. So what? This literally has no substance. You aren't actually quoting, there is no citation and this saying can be taken to mean any number of things. Hell, I could even use it to buttress my own arguments to say that the primary form of class struggle in the third world is against the imperialist mode of exploitation- attacking comprador capitalists and other agents of imperialism. But I'll get to that in a second.

My assumption is that you are here "quoting" Marx to negate Lenin's more definitive thoughts on imperialism. From the outset, not even an effective way to argue for marxism leninism....

But to the point, Marx didn't really study Imperialism as the main phenomenon of his day. However, he did dedicate much time to the "Irish Question" (in relation to English proto-imperialism). Engles apparently studied Irish history so that he could better understand the relationship between the two. And since you yourself seem fond of their thought, here are a few quotes by the duo

Marx in 1869

I have become more and more convinced — and the thing now is to drum this conviction into the English working class — that they will never be able to do anything decisive here in England before they separate their attitude towards Ireland quite definitely from that of the ruling classes, and not only make common cause with the Irish, but even take the initiative in dissolving the [B]Union established in 1801, and substituting a free federal relationship for it. And this must be done not out of sympathy for Ireland, but as a demand based on the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain bound to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because they will be forced to make a common front with them against Ireland. Every movement of the working class in England itself is crippled by the dissension with the Irish, who form a very important section of the working class in England itself.{1} italics and bolds not mine

Marx again in 1869:

For a long time I believed it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English working class ascendancy. I always took this viewpoint in the New-York Tribune. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. This is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general.italics added by me{2}

Marx in 1870:

After studying the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland.{3}

And finally, and this is a good one, Engles in 1882:

I therefore hold the view that two nations in Europe have not only the right but even the duty to be nationalistic before they become internationalistic: the Irish and the Poles. They are most internationalistic when they are genuinely nationalistic.{4}

The point here isn't to convince you that Third Worldism is some sort of marxist orthodoxy. It's clearly not. But the idea of revolution emanating from the periphery and engulfing the core is not new- in fact it goes back to Marx and Engles.


Also it breeds a pan-African or pan-Arab culture, where 'anti-imperialist', 'anti-colonialist', and thus 'national struggle' takes the place of class struggle, that itself is a dangerous idea which can lead to fascism.What's to say that in the age of imperialism things like "anti-imperialist", "anti-colonialist" "national struggles" are not a fundamental part of class struggle against imperialism?

And for the record, the most visible forms of fascism have come from Western Countries under the auspices of "socialism." But that's another discussion.

{1}{2}{3}{4}
Since revleft doesn't allow links, I can't cite these quotes. Anyone is free to message me for them

[A.J.]

'Third Worldism' and Mao's particular Three Worlds Theory are two distinct (if overlapping) positions.

Third Worldism is merely the recognition that the economic relationship between imperialist states and colonial states creates what Lenin called a 'split in socialism', where the "workers" of the first, imperialist world, have objectively differing interests to the industrial proletariat of the third world, and the later are objectively more revolutionary and exploited, the former objectively more opportunistic and bourgeoisified. This is because the superprofits from the third world subsidize the living standards of the first world as a whole, including most of those who consider themselves part of the "working class" in the cultural sense.

Given this, the third world industrial proletariat must liberate themselves first in order to break the imperialist system that simultaniously exploits them and co-opts the first world service workers, before the first world can have revolutionary classes. It is as Lenin envisioned revolution from the margins of capitalism rather than at its core.

This is an internationalist position contrary to the rightwing Trotskyist version of internationalism which presumes first world leadership conducting monolithic internationals presuming that everyone who fits into a cultural working class has identical material interests everywhere. People who take a "third worldist" position see this as first world national chauvinism and workerism rather than Marxism-Leninism.

It should also be noted that while this position is often called "third worldist" the term is primarily derogatory, just as "stalinist" is. People who hold this position would likely describe themselves as revolutionary marxists, leninists, or marxist-leninists. Although people on revleft associate this position with MIM, because people on revleft are on average very poorly educated, it is the position of the bulk of the fourth international (not the British section), of most of the New Left and Frankfurt School and virtually all Maoists, as well as clearly being Engels and Lenin's position.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

Mao's Three Worlds Theory is distinct from this. The traditional definition of First Second and Third world comes from the cold war usage of it, where the First world is the American bloc of industrialized "liberal democracies" or the imperialist world (such as the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, UK, France etc) with common economic and defense interests, the second was the Soviet and Chinese blocs of industrialized socialist countries (such as east Germany and north Korea, but sometimes excluding Vietnam and Cuba), and the third was the unindustrialized world with neither industrial capitalism or industrial socialism.

Mao offered an alternative definition after the sino-soviet split as part of his anti-soviet propaganda. Instead Mao claimed that the first world was the US and USSR which he considered to both be imperialist, the second consisted of their dependent allied states such as the UK, both Germanies, Japan, etc, and the third were the Non-Aligned Movement countries and developing world including China. Essentially it was a special version of the "third worldist" position, positing a second "imperialist" bloc except, stupidly, without any of the economic characteristics that Lenin identified with imperialism.

An excellent post!

I've never really understood how what's termed "third worldism" is considered by many to be something specific to Maoism.
It is derived from Lenin's original analysis of imperialism in 1916.
In fact the observation that a stratum of the working class in the first world have been bought off and thus provide the basis for right-opportunism in the labour movement can gleaned from comments from Marx and Engels decades earlier.