Maoism-Third Worldism - A Brief Summary

[Victory]

The following is a brief summary of Maoism-Third Worldism.

The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the economic domination of Africa, Asia and Latin America, therefore it is not in the material interests of the vast majority of people in a country such as Britain to have a Socialist Revolution because the people's standards of living would significantly decrease directly due to a Socialist Revolution.

The only reason, for example, a welfare state exists in the United States and Britain is because of imperialism and how the US and Britain dominate the economies of the Third World and in-turn are able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production.
The Third World today is the productive force for countries such as Britain and the United States. There is little productive forces left in Britain anymore, so when Communists talk about 'taking the means of production from the ruling class in Britain", there is very little productive forces to actually take.


"Even the poorest in the First World, are net-beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system. In other words, even the poorest in the First World receive more value than they create. First World populations have no material interest in a socialist redistribution of the global social product. Under such a redistribution, they would lose out significantly. It is simply not possible to raise everyone up to the current level of the First World worker. It is not possible because to do so would far exceed what is produced. And, such a levelling-up is not ecologically sustainable." - (1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven


A Socialist Revolution will not happen in a country such as the United States or Britain until Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. When Socialist Revolutions do occur throughout the Third World, the cheap productive forces exploited by Capitalists such as the ones in Britain, would be forced back to the First World and thus, the people would no longer be able to live above the value of labour because Britain would no longer be able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production in the Third World, due to Socialist Revolutions occurring and thus, ending the imperialist and economic domination of those Third World countries.

Whilst the Third World remains a puppet and productive force for countries such as Britain, it is not in the material interests of the vast majority of people in first world countries to have a Socialist Revolution because the vast majority of people's standards of living would significantly decrease. Even if somehow a Socialist Revolution did indeed occur in a First World Country today, the vast majority of people would soon become disillusioned with Socialism and call for the restoration of Capitalism, because they would soon learn how Socialism brought lower standards of living for them than what previously existed in Capitalism.
Whilst the economic domination of the third world exists, the Ruling Class will always be able to afford to provide workers with high standards of living, and enable workers to live above the value of labour.


"In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American people who make up the overwhelming majority of the world's population." - Lin Biao


Although many Communists living in the British state will be disheartened by the following statement; it is important to understand how Revolutionaries can be of most benefit to Socialist world revolution and acting in the global interests of humanity. Due to the fact that world socialist revolution hinges on the successes of Socialist Revolution occurring in Africa, Asia and Latin America, it is of most importance to analyse the class situation existing in the world today.

Karl Marx died long before Capitalism had developed into the advanced state that it exists today. It also developed into a much more advanced state than Lenin ever spoke about. Marxism must not be regarded as a dogmatic static theory that is best suited to any situation or condition existing in the world, at any period, regardless of whether it is the 20th century or the 30th century.
The fact is; Capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries is very different to the Capitalism of the 21st century, and this must be acknowledged by all those who genuinely aim to fight for the liberation of mankind.
The world is ever-changing and will always remain this way. For this reason, Communists should fight for Revolution where they can be of most benefit, in the countries which makes world revolution most likely - the third world; the productive force and provider of high standards of living for people living in first world countries such as Britain.

With that said, revolutionary situations will naturally occur throughout First World countries once Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. For this reason, it is of little importance to fight for Socialist revolution in countries such as Britain at this particular stage.


(1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/

Credited and Recommended Websites relevant to Maoism-Third Worldism

Ahiman Malaya
http://amihanmalaya.wordpress.com/

Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement
http://raimd.wordpress.com/

[Victory]

I don't argue to personally 'rely' on revolution in the third world. We should struggle for Revolution, but in the countries where revolutionaries can be of most benefit.
Ultimately, world revolution 'relies' on revolution in the third world, but that doesn't mean as somebody who is born in the first world, you cannot go to the third world and meet your highest and most effective potential as a revolutionary. You can.
The important thing is to study and specialise in the skill in which you will use to help Third World emancipation.

Growing up in First World countries doesn't stop you from moving to the third world and struggling for revolution in those countries. - By that, I don't just mean the only means you should use when in third world countries is joining an armed struggle. - You could do many things in third world countries to help bring about the oppressed peoples emancipation, not just fight violently in an armed organisation - With that said armed struggle is the most effective weapon in bringing about revolution, and should be considered by all genuine revolutionaries.
There are countries throughout the world that need able determined revolutionary fighters, there are never 'Too many revolutionaries'.

Whilst in First World countries, it helps to try and educate people about 'Maoism-Third Worldism'. But ultimately, that will not serve as a means to an end. A revolution will not happen in a country such as Britain before revolutions have happened throughout third world countries.

Educate yourself in the short term, so you can be a bigger benefit as a revolutionary in the long term. But don't get hung up in using the excuse of remaining in the first world because 'you can be progressive in first world countries'.

This is often an excuse used by Communists all too often. I know 70 year old 'Communists' who have spent their entire lives as parasites benefiting off the rape and pillage of the third world, and watching people starve to death, whilst they attempt to justify it every single time by 'holding study classes', and saying 'it's important to study so we can understand how to change the world'. - We know how to change the world, by fighting for revolution in third world countries and killing the opportunist 'Communists' that use such a cosy first worldist parasital excuse.

So yeah, to summarize, don't rely on revolution anywhere, fight for revolution where you can be most effective as a revolutionary - In the Third World.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The following is a brief summary of Maoism-Third Worldism.

The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the
Third World and in-turn are able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production.
The Third World today is the productive force for countries such as Britain and the United States. There is little productive forces left in Britain anymore, so when Communists talk about 'taking the means of production from the ruling class in Britain", there is very little productive forces to actually take.


"Even the poorest in the First World, are net-beneficiaries of the capitalist-imperialist system. In other words, even the poorest in the First World receive more value than they create. - (1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven


A Socialist Revolution will not happen in a country such as the United States or Britain until Socialist Revolutions have occurred throughout the third world. When Socialist Revolutions do occur throughout the Third World, the cheap productive forces exploited by Capitalists such as the ones in Britain, would be forced back to the First World and thus, the people would no longer be able to live above the value of labour because Britain would no longer be able to benefit from cheap labour and cheap production in the Third World, due to Socialist Revolutions occurring and thus, ending the imperialist and economic domination of those Third World countries.


Whilst the economic domination of the third world exists, the Ruling Class will always be able to afford to provide workers with high standards of living, and enable workers to live above the value of labour.

"

(1) - Monkey Smashes Heaven
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/

I don't know where to begin with this.

"The vast majority of people in First World countries such as Britain are living above the value of labour precisely due to imperialism and the"

A massive exaggeration.The nuts and bolts of this were discussed (and refuted) by Thug Lessons in the OI section a few weeks ago.

MTWism disses First World struggles-African-American struggle, Native Americans, working class people in general.

I'll have to ask, what is your take on JDPON and the revolutionary Plan de San Diego? Do you uphold this?

Monkey Smashes Heaven

BTW, the burritos in Seattle suck. For authentic Mexican food, you'll have to go to Tacoma.Yummy yummy tacos, burritos, quesidillas! Yummy! Of course Tacoma is working class....

[M-26-7]

The fact is; Capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries is very different to the Capitalism of the 21st century, and this must be acknowledged by all those who genuinely aim to fight for the liberation of mankind.

You're right, except in the exact opposite of the way that you think you are:

This paper investigates the distribution of well being among world citizens during the last two centuries. The estimates show that inequality of world distribution of income worsened from the beginning of the 19th century to World War II and after that seems to have stabilized or to have grown more slowly. In the early 19th century most inequality was due to differences within countries; later, it was due to differences between countries.

From the abstract of a paper called "Inequality Among World Citizens: 1820-1992" by Francois Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson, The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4. (Sep., 2002), pp. 727-744.

Link

I suggest you read the whole thing, as your ideas seem to be based on your own speculation about what capitalism was like 100 or 200 years ago and how that compares to today, whereas this paper investigates the question empirically, and comes to the opposite conclusion: most inequality today is due to differences within countries. And I would add that this is actually not too surprising a conclusion, given what we know about how neoliberalism operates. Neoliberalism's prescriptions are very clearly not a case of "rich countries" versus "poor countries", but of "rich" vs. "poor" globally.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I agree with MSH on this issue. I think first world communist tend to be chauvinist towards MTWism because the communist is in first would nations argument is- 'nu-uh I am just as oppressed and someone living in slave like condition in a sweat shop.' (sarcasm) or that 'there are no different levels of oppression' And any active communist should tell you (if he/she is honest with him/herself) that the average worker in a first world nation is not very revolutionary.

In the USA communist think it is revolutionary to do acts of civil disobedience and protest using liberal slogans. Not to mention most communist in the USA think that by selling some paper that they are raising revolutionary working class consciousness. My least favorite part is how dogmatic everyone is. That is another good point brought up by victory is that Marx-Lenin etc are not alive today and to follow them dogmatically is silly and just plain goes against dialect materialism.

MTWism does not dis on anyone. The most oppressed people tend to be the most revolutionary.

[Sasha]

Ultimately, world revolution 'relies' on revolution in the third world, but that doesn't mean as somebody who is born in the first world, you cannot go to the third world and meet your highest and most effective potential as a revolutionary. You can.

as long as i see no proof that 3th worldists are writing their shit in an 3th world jungle with an AK on their shoulder i see no reason not to consider them posturing cowards.
the revolution is won in the 3th world? well fuck off to the congo or bolivia then and while your there ask about Che and how well that played out for him.

and if you now excuse me, i'm out to spend my labor arestrocratic inflated by raping the 3th world through imperialism wages on buying a new filter for my gas-mask.
Because contrair too you i bet i do sometimes spend my time behind burning baricades.

[Widerstand]

I think first world communist tend to be chauvinist towards MTWism because the communist is in first would nations argument is- 'nu-uh I am just as oppressed and someone living in slave like condition in a sweat shop.' (sarcasm) or that 'there are no different levels of oppression'

I for one am against MTWism because it states that the workers in the first world actively and willingly contribute to the exploitation of the third world, which is bullshit because there are very few non-3W alternatives to most products, let alone affordable ones; and that the proletariat of the first world is not a revolutionary subject, because it's material conditions are virtually better than those of the 3W-proletariat, even though being exposed to the same mode of production.

And any active communist should tell you (if he/she is honest with him/herself) that the average worker in a first world nation is not very revolutionary.

That's a failure of the communist movement (or a success of the capitalists, if you will), rather than a structural issue.

My least favorite part is how dogmatic everyone is. That is another good point brought up by victory is that Marx-Lenin etc are not alive today and to follow them dogmatically is silly and just plain goes against dialect materialism.

Mao isn't alive either. Whether or not a person is alive has little actual say on the value of their ideas.

Also, complaining about dogmatism on the basis that it "goes against dialectical materialism" is pretty ironic.

MTWism does not dis on anyone.

Except everyone not part of the third world.

The most oppressed people tend to be the most revolutionary.

Statistical evidence for this claim?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

MTWism does not dis on anyone. The most oppressed people tend to be the most revolutionary.

I would have to disagree with both of these assertions.Have you read this?

Monkey Smashes Heaven
I have proposed, in the past, that the JDPON should disperse the Amerikkkans throughout the Third World instead of allowing them to remain in occupied North America. Here are some of my reasons:

1) A geographic concentration of Amerikkkans would facilitate counterrevolution. It would also be difficult to exercise proletarian dictatorship over hundreds of millions of enemies: we would need to import a huge unproductive sector of police and such from the Third World. As a practical matter, it would be better to thin the Amerikkkans out, making them minorities in the Third World, where they could easily be controlled and supervised by the international proletariat.

2) Amerikkkans will need to undergo re-education. It would be very difficult to re-educate them in their own kkkountry. They need to be in a proletarian environment where they can learn from the masses.

3) There are land claims to settle, mainly for the First Nations, but also for Aztlán [occupied Mexico -- MSH) and perhaps the Black nation. Conceivably some other nations could be moved to North America if they wished to be, such as Nauru or the small nations in Ghana whose land has been ruined by imperialist corporations. Amerikkkans are going to have to move out of much of North America and make room for other nations.

4) Amerikkkan kkkulture is almost totally reactionary. There is little worth saving in Amerikkkan kkkulture. It would be better to force Amerikkkans to assimilate to the more culturally and politically advanced peoples of the Third World. There is also historic justice in forcing Amerikkkans to assimilate, just as they destroyed so many other nations and cultures.

5) In the early stages of socialism, the Third World will require skilled workers and technicians of various kinds, including medical personnel. These persyns are disproportionately concentrated in the First World. Moving them to the Third World will be a practical way to address an urgent need.

6) The Third World is also owed big reparations. An excellent way to make those reparations is to put Amerikkkans to work building infrastructure in the Third World: roads, housing, water supplies, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, schools. Amerikkkans can also work in Third World factories and fields to expand production for the benefit of the Third World.

7) Part of the process of civilizing and proletarianizing Amerikkkans will be putting them to productive work--for a change. Amerikkka has so little productive capacity that there may not be many ways to put all those people to work in occupied North America. They may have to go to the factories and fields of the Third World.

8 ) Amerikkkans will need to be reduced to a Third World standard of living. If they stay in occupied North Amerikkka, they will benefit from the vastly better infrastructure and all the stolen wealth that they currently hold. It would be better to move them to the Third World as a way of accelerating the process of re-education.

9) There are historical precedents for relocating large numbers of enemies. Millions of Germans were forced to move after the Soviet victory over fascism in World War II. Even enemies like the united $nakes and the "united" KKKingdom agreed that it was necessary to move Germans off land that was needed for Poles, Czechs, and others. Again, this is related to the national question of the First Nations, Aztlán [occupied Mexico -- MSH], and the Black nation.

Is this a good idea? What are its advantages and disadvantages? How can we improve upon it?

I am fiercely anti-American myself but there a difference between fighting imperialism and advocating genocide.

The research I've done on MTWists indicates that most of them are actually amerikkkan univer$ity $tudent$.They also have lousy taste in Mexican food. Their lack of a dialectical materialist analysis forces them to conflate burrittos, tacos, and quesdillas. Its all the same to them.

Kleber should pay me a commission for this

+ YouTube Video

[ZeroNowhere]

From what I recall, the last thread in the main Revleft forums on the subject dissipated after we actually looked at the amounts invested in various countries by capitalists. Given that they are supposed to be making a loss in the 'First World', it would seem strange that they invest there as much as they do.

[The Hong Se Sun]

My evidence is reality, just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations.

I know Mao is not alive but I'm talking about people that think if Mao, Trotsky etc didn't say for you to do it then it can't work.

Also I should say it is wrong to blame the first world worker for the exploitation of the third world but it is true that they are helping keep the third world shitty.

And dogmatism is actually against dialect materialism. Dogmatism fits better with historical dialect.

But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime. I'm not even a MTWist but I recognize the reality of a situation. But MSH takes it a little further than it should be because it tends to sound like the TW should hate the first world and it raises a type of nationalist like bullshit in the first world communist

[ZeroNowhere]

My evidence is reality, just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations.

While I'll admit that most 20th Century capitalist revolutions took place in 'ultra-oppressed nations', the ones before them did not necessarily do so.

[GreenCommunism]

MTWism disses First World struggles-African-American struggle, Native Americans, working class people in general.

total bullshit,they support those people, especially the native american.

I am fiercely anti-American myself but there a difference between fighting imperialism and advocating genocide.

The research I've done on MTWists indicates that most of them are actually amerikkkan univer$ity $tudent$

while deportation is not genocide but ethnic cleansing, i sure wouldn't be in favor of it either, problem is, they consider that america's counter-revolutionary movement will be too hard for the third world to control.

I for one am against MTWism because it states that the workers in the first world actively and willingly contribute to the exploitation of the third world, which is bullshit because there are very few non-3W alternatives to most products, let alone affordable ones; and that the proletariat of the first world is not a revolutionary subject, because it's material conditions are virtually better than those of the 3W-proletariat, even though being exposed to the same mode of production.

??? i don't understand, the cheapest goods will be bought no matter if it is produced in the first or the third world.

as long as i see no proof that 3th worldists are writing their shit in an 3th world jungle with an AK on their shoulder i see no reason not to consider them posturing cowards.
the revolution is won in the 3th world? well fuck off to the congo or bolivia then and while your there ask about Che and how well that played out for him.

and if you now excuse me, i'm out to spend my labor arestrocratic inflated by raping the 3th world through imperialism wages on buying a new filter for my gas-mask.
Because contrair too you i bet i do sometimes spend my time behind burning baricades.

i really hate this mentality. first off third worlders would have a hard time buying gas mask, secondly, mtw could use their wealth as first worlders to finance third world revolutionary movement, and to be honest, this should always have been what communist do, support a movement which actually has momentum though i personally don't know which one should be supported right now.

also i hate how primitivist can't use their computer to talk because it's hypocritical or any idiocy like that, this is another way to attack people instead of attacking ideas.

[Kiev Communard]

As someone who is living in the country that is probably the closest to the Third World conditions one may find in Europe (even Romania is not that impoverished), I have to say that the "Third Worldism" is deeply misguided. If their idea of automatically "revolutionary" character of all "Third Worlders" were true, then why it is "evil social-imperialist labour aristocrats" of France and Spain marching against austerity programmes, while most Ukrainian workers are, sadly, completely passive and apolitical?

In fact, the basic mood of the most "Third World" of all Ukrainian population (denizens of Volhyn and Halychina) is extremely right-wing and national-conservative. The impoverished and economically backward province of Ternopil is the only one where the Neo-Nazi "Freedom Party" got a near-majority in local elections. If the "Third Worldism" were correct, they must have been instead the most left-wing due to the poverty and economically backward (de-industrialised) state of the region, yet they were behaving contrary to such scenario. This, and many other facts, show the utterly oversimplistic and reductionist character of "Thrid Worldist" ideas.

Besides, by focusing on praising each and every nationalist movement in the global South, regardless of its political and socioeconomic programme, the "Third Worldists" play the role of "useful idiots" for the Western capitalists, who may use them as the example of "irrationality" and "traitorousness" of the revolutionary socialists by associating socialism with "Third Worldism".

[Widerstand]

My evidence is reality, just look at every revolution ever. Always in ultra oppressed nations.

You mean like, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, China and such?

Also I should say it is wrong to blame the first world worker for the exploitation of the third world but it is true that they are helping keep the third world shitty.

How do they do this?

And dogmatism is actually against dialect materialism. Dogmatism fits better with historical dialect.

I don't exactly give a shit about dialectical materialism.

But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime.

Location: Illinois

"Okay..."

[Widerstand]

??? i don't understand, the cheapest goods will be bought no matter if it is produced in the first or the third world.

Your point? I was arguing against the notion that workers in the first world act as a second bourgeoisie to the third world proletariat, because they extract surplus value from workers in the third world by buying products produced in the third world.

[ZeroNowhere]

But wait and see, all the first world people on here will start with their dogmatic chauvinist statements anytime.

Yes, down with all of the brown people. Indeed, my brown head is currently going down onto my brown desk

[Dimentio]

The problem with the Third World (unless you count countries like China to it) is that most of those countries are so weak that they will either be defeated or isolated if going in an anti-western route.

If the United States wanted for example, they could go all Timur Lenk and exterminate the entire populations of Afghanistan and Iraq. If the World Revolution is going to be wielded by an army of 120 million AK47-wearing guerillas marching into Europe and North America, you would soon see mushroom clouds engulf them.

[Obs]

Didn't we use to restrict these guys?

[4 Leaf Clover]

I hate that people attach term third-worldism to maosim like they are something inseparable. and please people stop playing cowboys , like who is a bigger revolutionary and who spends more time smashing windows

[28350]

I just wish you guys would spell shit right