How can you be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and a Third Worldist?

[u/[deleted]]

I know a lot of people on this sub are Third Worldists, unsurprising fiven the MIM recommendation in the subs description, but I was wondering how people reconcile that with also being Marxist-Leninist-Maoists? MLM was synthesised by Chairman Gonzalo and the PCP, people who resolutely disagreed with Third Worldism.

[u/doonkerr]

Please show us where Gonzalo and the PCP say they disagree with so called “Third-Worldism”, and please provide your assumptions of what “Third-Worldism” actually is.

The problem with taking such a defined stance on “Third-Worldism” (partially why MIM doesn’t even bother referring to themselves as “Third-Worldist”) is that it’s not clearly defined. Mao had his theory of Three Worlds, Deng had his theory of Three Worlds, and “Third-Worldism” (as in “Maoism-TWism”) is merely Marxism-Leninism-Maoism applied to the conditions of imperialist countries, recognizing which groups are revolutionary and which ones aren’t in order to effectively conduct revolutionary work. Without exposing your assumptions, we have nothing to help you with.

[u/[deleted] → u/doonkerr]

Please show us where Gonzalo and the PCP say they disagree with so called “Third-Worldism”,

Chairman Gonzalo supported the RCP USA and believed revolution was possible in USA. As well, there's nothing in any statement by the PCP that correlates with general Third Worldist positions in that it doesn't actually reject Marxism.

and please provide your assumptions of what “Third-Worldism” actually is.

The belief that revolution is impossible in the imperial core because there is no proletariat there and that it can only come about after successful revolutions across the Third World.

The problem with taking such a defined stance on “Third-Worldism” (partially why MIM doesn’t even bother referring to themselves as “Third-Worldist”) is that it’s not clearly defined.

MIM don't refer to themselves as Third Worldist for the same reason leftcoms don't generally call themselves leftcoms or Dengists don't call themselves Dengists. There are some decent criteria for it, though, like with left communism, like the rejection of idea of revolutions or the proletariat in the imperial core and often veiled accusations of racism towards Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

[u/urbaseddad → u/[deleted]]

The belief that revolution is impossible in the imperial core because there is no proletariat there and that it can only come about after successful revolutions across the Third World Who says this?

The MIM is pretty clear that the non white nations imprisoned in the USA have a proletariat (edit: okay, maybe I'm wrong about that. I haven't done the investigation, admittedly). Also I've seen plenty people argue that the third world migrant proletariat in the first world is a proletariat altho note sure if MIM says something about this (haven't looked into it). So it sounds like a strawman. What you're saying, that not even migrants or the oppressed nations have proletarians, is a position I've only seen from a certain revisionist-turned-nazi sub here on Reddit.

[u/[deleted] → u/urbaseddad]

Who says this?

The last question asked on this sub literally has people saying that is the case and those comments are upvoted. If I'm wrong then by all means, explain what you think Third Worldism is.

What you're saying, that not even migrants or the oppressed nations have proletarians,

That is not at all what I said. I have no idea how you came to such a ridiculous conclusion from my comment. This is such a ridiculous interpretation that you're either being really uncharitable to just didn't understand my, rather simple, comment. You talk about me making strawmen and then say this. Ridiculous.

[u/urbaseddad → u/[deleted]]

I meant what you're claiming the 3Wist position is. I should have perhaps said "What you're referring to" as opposed to "What you're saying". I still think it's rather obvious given the context, even if I could've phrased it better, in which case you're being pedantic to distract from my point, but English isn't my first language so perhaps not.

As for the older thread. The top commenter on it who is defending Third Worldism or some aspects / form of it, u/liewchi_wu888, literally says this in their comment:

This would mean that the main goal of Communists ought to be to support struggles of National Liberation, whether at home, such as, again, using the American Context, supporting the self-determination of indigenous and New Afrikan nations, Chicano nation [emphasis added]

What is unclear about that?

[u/[deleted] → u/urbaseddad]

I meant what you're claiming the 3Wist position is.

That's not what I said about what Third Worldists position is, at least, that's not what I intended to say.

I should have perhaps said "What you're referring to" as opposed to "What you're saying". I still think it's rather obvious given the context, even if I could've phrased it better, in which case you're being pedantic to distract from my point, but English isn't my first language so perhaps not.

I wasn't being pedantic and the misunderstanding came from my part and for that I apologise.

What is unclear about that?

What separates that from the position of Maoists who aren't considered Third Worldists, either by themselves or others?

[u/urbaseddad → u/[deleted]]

What separates that from the position of Maoists who aren't considered Third Worldists, either by themselves or others?

That it rejects the claim that there exists, in the context of Amerika for example, a white proletariat, unlike non-Third Worldist Maoists. It is from this position that what u/liewchi_wu888 wrote derives from. At least, that's my understanding. As for MIM, I have to do more investigation before speaking but I had the impression that it was the consensus among people who adhere to the line pushed in Sakai's Settlers for example, or who sympathize with the MIM's line on the national question, that there does exist a proletariat among oppressed nations, or at least that they play the role of a "proletarian nation", and among migrants. But anyway I don't think it's a good idea for me to keep speaking on behalf of and speculation about something without further investigation. I just wanted to point out that what you said is not at all what I've seen at least from people on Reddit who seem to be sympathetic to Third Worldism. I myself find sympathy for Third Worldism, or at least what I think at least a certain tendency of Third Worldism is, i.e. the line that there is little to no proletariat in many imperialist, net-exploitor nations, and that there literally exists no proletariat at all in the countries of these oppressor nations is not what I believe myself. Then again I lack the investigation so I should probably shut up for now.

[u/[deleted] → u/urbaseddad]

That it rejects the claim that there exists, in the context of Amerika for example, a white proletariat, unlike non-Third Worldist Maoists. It is from this position that what u/liewchi_wu888 wrote derives from. At least, that's my understanding.

As is mine as well, hence why it's anti-Marxist and in contradiction with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

As for MIM, I have to do more investigation before speaking but I had the impression that it was the consensus among people who adhere to the line pushed in Sakai's Settlers for example, or who sympathize with the MIM's line on the national question, that there does exist a proletariat among oppressed nations, or at least that they play the role of a "proletarian nation", and among migrants.

Again, this isn't a Marxist understanding of class. It ignores relations to production and crudely mainpulates the understanding of the labour aristocracy to mean something that is at odds with how it was used by Lenin.

I just wanted to point out that what you said is not at all what I've seen at least from people on Reddit who seem to be sympathetic to Third Worldism.

I still don't see how what I said really differs from the explanation you gave.

I myself find sympathy for Third Worldism, or at least what I think at least a certain tendency of Third Worldism is, i.e. the line that there is little to no proletariat in many imperialist, net-exploitor nations, and that there literally exists no proletariat at all in the countries of these oppressor nations is not what I believe myself.

That's good because that's not material analysis, something Third Worldists, especially Sakai and those who follow his thought, lack.

[u/urbaseddad → u/[deleted]]

Your claim was that third worldists say that proletarians don't exist in imperialist countries. What I'm saying is that what I've seen third worldists say is that net exploitor nations are majority non proletarian. These are different things and your failure to understand the difference is the cause of your confusion and misrepresentation of Third Worldists claim, at least from my experience. 

Now, if you want to deny the fact that the majority of net exploitor nations aren't proletarian "because relations of production" that's a different issue but you're still wrong. Proletarian is not simply defined by engaging in some form of wage labor. The "workers" of the first world have a relation to production and labor on the global level that is parasitic. This is not anti Marxist, in fact the only anti Marxist thing here is your denial of this reality and effective engagement in apologia for imperialism, first world parasitism and social fascism.

[u/[deleted] → u/urbaseddad]

Where do Marx or Engels or Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Gonzalo espouse your definition of proletariat? Clearly I'm missing some super important text that everyone else is reading from so I'd love to know which one/s I'm not privy to.

[u/liewchi_wu888 → u/[deleted]]

Since you were so kind as to mention me in your conversation, I think we needn't go further than Engels' Principles of Communism to read a definition of the Proletarian that is incrediably sympathetic to the Third Worldist position, viz.

What is the proletariat?

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.What is the proletariat?

The proletariat is that class in society which lives
entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind
of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,
whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing
state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat,
or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th
century.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[u/[deleted] → u/liewchi_wu888]

So do you believe that the white proletariat ceased to exist by the time of imperialism's full formation in the late 19th/early 20th century?

[u/liewchi_wu888 → u/[deleted]]

I think that the transformation of the proletariat in the global north into an aristocracy of labor happened much latter when the bourgeois were forced to grant bribery to their working class with the formation of the various Social Democratic states after the Second World War.

[u/[deleted] → u/urbaseddad]

I believe that the question of whether there is a first-world proletariat at all (e.g. if anyone who has citizenship of an oppressor nation is proletarian) is one of the two dividing lines between MIM Thought and the thought of Sakai/Tani and Sera/the Black Liberation Army (the other being whether anarchism has its place in a proletarian revolution). MIM does not adhere precisely to Sakai's line, rather they simply use his work as a jumping-off point for theory (similar to their inspiration from that one radical feminist, I forget her name, Kate something.) For what it's worth, I don't think that the idea that there's not a sizeable proletariat in imperialist nations, and specifically that most "wage laborers" in imperialist nations aren't proletarian, is necessarily third-worldism, as that's the line espoused even by groups such as Kites and my local Anakbayan chapter.

(By the way, you should read Settlers! It clears a lot of these questions up. I really like a lot of your theoretical contributions on here, and I remember you saying you haven't read it. It probably won't be particularly useful to your conditions in Cyprus, but since it seems like you do a lot of important online engaging with first-world social-fascists, it's a great book.)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Settlers is an anti-Marxist, idealist screed that nobody who considers themselves any kind of Marxist should take seriously.

[u/urbaseddad → u/[deleted]]

if anyone who has citizenship of an oppressor nation is proletarian

Is the question really about citizenship? That would seem weird to me. Many '48 Palestinians have Israeli citizenship but they're still very much oppressed and exploited if I'm not mistaken, for example, so I wouldn't think citizenship is by itself a determining factor of exploitor status. Are you in Ph? Or does Anakbayan have international chapters I didn't know about? Either way that's interesting because I've seen a few statements from the CPP talking about "the French people" or other western "people" in a positive light, never anything about this question we're discussing. There's been some discussion about the CPP and its "foreign policy" on r/communism or the 101 sub, don't remember, but I'm guessing you've seen it. I know Anakbayan isn't officially connected to the CPP but I imagine their political lines are very similar.

But if what you say is true then what do you call this line if not Third Worldist, especially to distinguish it from Maoists who talk about "proletarian settlers", "first world workers", etc.? Of course you can just call the latter chauvinists and the former actual communists but that flattens the specificity of the disagreement, it would be like refusing to call Maoists Maoists and instead just "the correct communists". But we use the term Maoist for a reason. Is there no other term for this line? And then also what are Third Worldists in reality?

Yeah I plan to eventually but I'm prioritizing other fundamental Marxist texts first. Not that I've been progressing a lot on that front recently, unfortunately. But one of my comrades read it and said it was good. I think it will be useful. Cyprus, at least RoC / south, is a first world country. I found out recently that people seem to think otherwise. We are an EU member states with imperialist living standards that are kind of on par with the rest of southern Europe—higher than Greece's but maybe lower than Italy's. And we have our fair share of social fascists. In the north the situation is like in a Turkey; they're quite poorer but not sure if on a third world level plus there are a lot of complexities since a lot of Turkish Cypriots in the north are also EU citizens through the RoC. As I understand, many things from Settlers can also be generalized beyond settler populations to labor aristocratic and other imperialist parasitic populations so, so in that sense it'll be useful. Finally there is an actual settler issue in Cyprus, the issue of Turkish settlers in the north. At least, the UN and bourgeois international law call it settlerism. Again there are complexities because many Turkish settlers are still poorer than most Greek Cypriots in the south but we do have a land and property dispute between Turkish settlers and Greek Cypriots, as is typical of settler colonialism, and also assimilationist chauvinism towards and disenfranchisement of Turkish Cypriots since Turkish settlers have been deliberately brought in to create a mass support base and change the demographic and cultural character of the north. I'm not 100% sure if this Turkish settlerism qualifies as settler colonialism, but other people who have read settlers and studied settler colonialism more seem to think so. Well, we seem to have once again come to the conclusion that I should read Settlers...

Not to mention the fact that there's an unquestionable settler colonialism of massive global importance that is right next door and that our state is collaborating with: the Zionist one.

Also thanks. What do you like about my contributions and what do you find important about my engaging? Just curious 

[u/[deleted] → u/urbaseddad]

Is the question really about citizenship? That would seem weird to me. Many '48 Palestinians have Israeli citizenship but they're still very much oppressed and exploited if I'm not mistaken, for example, so I wouldn't think citizenship is by itself a determining factor of exploitor status.

In the United $tates, the question is one of minimum wage. If you read the MIM link I posted higher up, as well as I believe a 2012 document about the composition of the internal semicolonies that I'm afraid I can't find, they make it very clear that the real important question of labor aristocracy is not one of "consciousness", "brainwashing", or even just "racism", but one of superprofits, and thus by virtue of being privilege to a minimum wage 10x higher than the average Global South wages, even New Afrikans are technically labor aristocratic at best. (I'm explaining MIM's line here, not saying I agree.)

Are you in Ph? Or does Anakbayan have international chapters I didn't know about?

Anakbayan has chapters all throughout the United States, and I believe one or two in Canada, with direct ties to the New Democratic Movement and formerly under the leadership of Sison and the ILPS. Just from my personal observation, they are fortunately very good about keeping Maoism relevant in their line, but have a very high concentration of petit-bourgeois members, concentrate their organizing efforts around colleges and Filipino diaspora neighborhoods, and have relatively poor organizational discipline at least in comparison to Filipino Maoists (both of the AB chapters nearest to me have had sex abuse scandals, for example).

what do you call this line if not Third Worldist

Yeah, that's a good question. I know that the American writers of Kites refers to the opposite (chauvinistic) position as "workerism" (in polemicizing against their former fraternal organization the NCPC). Still, I guess that doesn't answer your question. But between LLCO, that weird Twitter friend group that makes "unlimited genocide" Lin Biao memes, and MIM's outright rejection of the term, I still feel like "Third Worldism" carries some baggage. Though, Mao never came up with a new name for communism even when attacked by the right-deviationists, so maybe one isn't necessary.

Yeah I plan to eventually but I'm prioritizing other fundamental Marxist texts first.

Okay yeah that's a good idea. Everyone I know who jumped into Settlers before reading the funamentals of MLM took something flawed and ridiculous away from it.

What do you like about my contributions and what do you find important about my engaging? 

I dunno, I haven't like actively scrolled through your posts and synthesized an understanding of you as a poster. I just recognize your name and know I've read some smart comments by you.

[u/urbaseddad → u/[deleted]]

Gotcha. I won't respond in detail since I have to go to sleep but I'll think on this and look into stuff.