I have recently noticed a tendency on here, X, reddit, and other places to call any anti-Amerikkkan a "Third-Worldist". According to these people there exists a secret genocidal anti-white conspiracy to destroy the west (huh sounds familiar now that I think about it). And apparently it is a particular tendency of Maoism that is leading the charge of this crusade. Has anyone actually seen these so-called "Third-Worldists" advocate for killing all white people and their children? If so they should certainly be taken care of! We can't have a group of evil child killing zealots who are over-attached to a particular identity running around our proud leftist image board defending these things for literally no reason! Infact I really think we should be banning anyone who opposes the USA or the west in general because it's possible that anyone criticizing Amerikkka could be a ScArY "Third-Worldist".
But if indeed they don't exist, can someone kindly explain to me why Amerikkkan's seem to be so obssessed with calling everyone who point's out their benefitting from multiple historical and ongoing genocides one? Or really why westerner's in general are so insecure when you point out how their national self-conceptions in general are soaked in blood? Oh look at me going and strawmanning again, welp atleast someone on this board has some self-awareness.
Mostly it's just americans or americucks complaining about receiving pushback for supporting the genocidal american empire and having to create some kind of boogeyman/strawman to argue against as a cope. There's not really been any sort of real third worldist movement since the unaligned movement from the 70s
>>2557935
>utter lack of a proletarian base in the imperial core
yeah hot takes like this are why we call you lunatics
>>2557921>anti-AmerikkkanThat stupid spelling thing you're doing is literally called third-worldist newspeak or something like that. It's always hilarious when some clueless dude who is following some meme to a tee is like:
>No I'm not that name you're using, I'm just exactly the thing it's describing!What would you like to be called then?
this whole "third-worldist" debate is mostly between people who like social democrats from the walled world and people who like social democrats from the global south(both sides genuinely believe in clash of civilizations analysis despite nominally being materialistic marxist lmao). Its just "western leftists who complain about western leftists" part 58385623 of 673486507420
>>2557921>I have recently noticed a tendency on >hereLeftypol exists in the twitter periphery and worseningly so the longer Misato is allowed to keep shilling it to twitter users.
>XTwitter
>redditReddit is convergently evolved twitter
>and other placesIn the suburban area of twitter much like here, presumably.
This phenomenon only exists on twitter or effectively twitter. Go touch digital grass.
what country isnt fucking "soaked in blood", western wars and geoncides arent some special thing only white people were capable of. if anything western slavery was kinder to black than arab slavery where they would just cut off a guys balls.
Did you know rome started with a rape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_the_Sabine_women>>2558334Sir being better than the arabs is setting the bar in hell, nearly everything was better than muslim slavery/janissaries/whatever the fuck else they did
>>2557921Settler's Law
Anytime an argument on genocide is taking place on the internet the probability of those upholding proven genocide accusing critics of wanting to genocide them approaches one. Otherwise known as self-victimization, a common trait in settler states such as Isreal,the USA, Canada,etc…
>>2558894Another common feature of this behavior is attempting to normalize genocide by spreading narratives that settler-colonialism is very common in history. Or by accusing the victim's of having violence in their histories aswell. Such accusations are tone-deaf and begin with a privileged ignorance born from an inability to admit that if they didn't defend genocide they would lose their identity because all those stolen lands and wealth materially undergerds their existence and self-conceptions. The Mongols may have murdered millions but the people they conquered are still around and modern Mongolia is pretty peaceful all things considered, almost like the foundation of modern Mongolia isn't built upon the idea that murdering people wholesale and stealing their lands is appropriate.
>>2557921Because hocking Settlers, writing “Amerikkkan”, and ranting about settlerism and national liberation in like the USA as functionally the only issue you actually focus on is purely a maoist third worldist thing and isn’t really done by any other sect of MLoid or socialist in general
>>2558752The imperialist says the plebian gob isnt filled by imperialism. This is materially wrong
>>2558317Domenico Losurdo is another example of a western leftist whining about other western leftists
>>2557935
>Westoids love to invent new slurs
"Third worldist" isn't a slur, it's the term that third worldists adopted to describe their own movement.
>utter lack of a proletarian base in the imperial core
This is a third worldist position, in fact its the core of the third worldist worldview. If you express third worldist views don't be mad when people call them as such.
>>2557921>X, reddit, and other placesstay there
>>2560042
It’s pretty sus as well that the response to
>imperialism is real, it does split the world, the proletariat of the imperialist states getting cheap plentiful bananas are more privileged and less likely to revolt against imperialism than the peasantry of imperialised nations farming bananas for nish
Is
<You think they’re all noble savages, don’t you? Well they’re NOT! Look how abiding they are to religion! Look how they don’t let western NGO-backed political opponents run a FAIR election!
With a rather fashy suggestion that the western proletariat are the only revolutionary class in the world based on better education and their states allowing anarchists to run soup kitchens.
>>2560069
I will say anarchists and libertarians are two sides of the same individualist coin, in abhorring collective responsibility and obsessively fearing being blamed for a situation than whether the issue itself ever gets resolved. Western leftists are absolutely on the side of global oppressed, so long as perpetually bored rentier barista is considered as equal to people who must harvest the coffee beans or else, you disagree with that then you’re collecting the CEO of Starbucks, the death squad paid for with profits as well as tax dollars and said bored unfulfilled barista as all equally responsible for the oppression.
So the discussion about resisting imperialism has to stop, the discussion can only be about establishing that stopping imperialism cannot be against mr and mrs bored barista because they are *not responsible* and treat reduction would be considered a punishment against those who did nothing wrong.
Meanwhile the sane people are looking at each other and asking who claimed bored barista is going to face the wall along side their CEO?
>>2560086>Meanwhile the sane people are looking at each other and asking who claimed bored barista is going to face the wall along side their CEO?Anyone claiming that there is no western proletariat, that the western working class are the enemies of the oppressed of the world, etc.
>>2560090Yeah well everyone can cherry pick retards, but the “third worldist” angle is a common one on leftypol and is generally shared with the wider western, individualist obsession about avoiding collective responsibility.
Claiming discussions about imperialism have been poisoned by a vulgar hatred of the west is essentially the same as when libertarians claim discussion about racism have been poisoned by a desire to have reparations paid by white people who never owned a slave.
>>2560042
>Who’s serious about what communism entails
<Curiously, however, this matches only the outlook of maoist third worldists and postcolonial theory types and literally no other marxist or socialist group, movement, or outlook at any point either now or in history 🤡
>>2560170I have seen "the western working class are the enemy of the oppressed people of the world" more times than I can count but the only time I've ever seen someone discuss "what can the western left do to help the third world" was
literally one time when it was a question directly asked like that, and the answers were a handful of things like "figure out how to give money to third world communist movements".
>>2560184have yet to see a "third-worldist" poster that isn't just a first worlder bitching and moaning when no one takes them seriously. It's just a cope for there inability to talk productively with there coworkers and peers about socialism where they decide there just some special indigo child trapped in a world of mindless NPC sheeple. They're basically the same as USian lolberts but with a red coat of paint in this respect.
>>2560182Confirmation bias because that’s not been my experience
>>2560193Youre going to tell me nobody looks at Israeli weapons discussion and says the western working class are willing agents of the imperial bourgeoisie?
>>2560206I’m going to tell you exactly what I just told you, western political theory is framed around the individual and against collective responsibility, the most popular and the most radical ideas in both right-wing circles and left-wing circles revolve around that. Anecdotal evidence about opinions you’ve heard that ought to justify a refutation of collective responsibility be damned
>>2560287>In every capitalist state, wherever it may be, and however democratic or progressive, there are oppressed and oppressors, there are exploited and, exploiters, there are antagonisms there is merciless class struggle. The varying intensity of this struggle does not alter this reality. This struggle has its ups and downs, but it exists and cannot be quelled. It exists everywhere, it exists in the United States of America between the proletariat and the imperialist bourgeoisie, it exists, likewise, in the Soviet Union, where Marxism-Leninism has been betrayed and a new bourgeois-capitalist class which oppresses the working people of that country, has been created. Classes and the class struggle exist also in the second world., as in France, Britain, Italy, West Germany, Japan. They exist also in the "third world, in India, Zaire, Burundi, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc.
>Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of "three worlds", classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development.
>To see the world as divided in three, into the .first world., second world. and the "third world", as the Chinese revisionists do and not from the class angle, means to deviate from the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle, means to negate the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for the transition from a backward society to a new society, socialist society, and later to classless society, communist society. To divide the world in three means failure to recognize the characteristics of the epoch, to impede the advance of the proletariat and the peoples towards the revolution and national liberation, to impede their struggle against American impenalism, Soviet social-imperialism, capital and reaction in every country and in every corner of the world. The theory of "three worlds" advocates social peace, class conciliation, and tries to create alliances between implacable enemies, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the oppressed and the oppressors, the peoples and imperialism. It is an attempt to prolong the life of the old world, the capitalist world, to keep it on its feet precisely by seeking to extinguish the class struggle.
>But the class struggle, the struggle of the proletariat and its allies to take power and the struggle of the bourgeoisie to maintain its power can never be extinguished. This is an irrefutable truth and no amount of empty theorizing about the "worlds", whether the "first world", the "non aligned world", the third world., the nonaligned world., or the umpteenth world., can alter this fact. To accept such a division, means to renounce and abandon the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on classes and the class struggle.
>After the triumph of the October Revolution, Lenin and Stalin said that in our time there are two worlds: the socialist world and the capitalist world, although at that time socialism had triumphed in only one country. Lenin wrote in 1921:
<" … there are now two worlds: the old world of capitalism, that is in a state of confusion but which will never surrender voluntarily, and the rising new world, which is still very weak, but which will grow, for it is invincible". Lenin
>This class criterion of the division of the world is still valid today, regardless of the fact that socialism has not triumphed in many countries and the new society has not supplanted the old bourgeois-capitalist society. Such a thing is certainly bound to happen tomorrow.
>The fact that socialism has been betrayed in the Soviet Union and the other former socialist countries does not in any way alter the Leninist criterion of the division of the world. Now as before, there are only two worlds, and the struggle between these two worlds, between the two antagonistic classes, between socialism and capitalism, exists not only on a national scale but also on an international scale.
>The Chinese revisionists, who do not admit the existence of the socialist world under the pretext that the socialist camp no longer exists as a result of the betrayal by the Soviet Union and the other former socialist countries, deliberately ignore one thing, namely, that the emergence of modern revisionism does not in the least alter the general trend of history towards the revolution' towards the collapse Of imperialism, regardless of the fact that capitalism still, exists. At the same time, they ignore the fact that the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism exist, are developing and triumphing, that the Marxist-Leninistsm parties exist, socialist Albania exists, the peoples fighting for freedom, independence and national sovereignty exist, and that the world proletariat exists and is fighting.
>The Paris Commune did not triumph, it was suppressed, but it gave the world proletariat a great example. Marx said that the experience of the Commune revealed the temporary weakness of the French proletariat, nevertheless it prepared the proletariat of all countries for the world revolution and provided a great lesson as to the conditions necessary to achieve victory. Marx raised
>this great experience of the communards who "stormed the heavens" to the level of theory and taught the proletariat that it must smash the apparatus of the bourgeois state and its dictatorship with revolutionary violence. >>2557921>resorting to "no we didn't say that" gaslighting>meanwhile the average TWist post is about as bloodthirsty as a khorne bezerkerkek
>>2559025The imperialist westoids slander marxist leninism as third worldism
>>2574288>3-worldist nationalism liberalism is marxism-leninismNope.
>Settler
Stopped reading lmao
>>2560057>imperialism is real, it does split the world, the proletariat of the imperialist states getting cheap plentiful bananas are more privileged and less likely to revolt against imperialism than the peasantry of imperialised nations farming bananas for nishBut that's false
>>2560266
See, that's a double standard.
Third-worldists will gladly go into the nuts-and-bolts of how movements rise, fall, or fail to get started in the periphery, but never extend the same rigor to thinking about the core - they default to a reactionary idealist voluntarism where suddenly structural disincentives stop mattering, and nothing happens because the baristas didn't want it bad enough or whatever.
>>2560086>Meanwhile the sane people are looking at each other and asking who claimed bored barista is going to face the wall along side their CEO?my brother in christ people spam the entire board with these posts all the time
>>2557921> According to these people there exists a secret genocidal anti-white conspiracy to destroy the westfind a post that say this explicitly
>>2574501I was gonna say, saying shit like
> According to these people there exists a secret genocidal anti-white conspiracy to destroy the westIs why people *actually* can't stand third worldists. Third Worldists constantly strawman criticisms of their position in bad-faith, where anyone who disagrees with them is assumed to be on the same page as a racist or pro-imperialist and therefore must be killed by JDPON, and then pull a motte-and-bailey fallacy where they claim they're not actually saying that.
And here's the thing - christian reactionaries in the imperial core act the *exact same way,* which is why westerners call third-worldists closeted libs/reactionaries.
>>2557921OP, the reason you people get criticized isn't for opposing imperialist governments, it's for picking fights with comrades in the core constantly while strawmanning their criticisms of your position.
No, leftists in the core who think you're wrong aren't "Being mad that you want to take their treats away," they think your analyses regarding the labor aristocracy and the reasons revolution hasn't happened yet are wrong, because they fly in the face of their own experiences.
>>2574512This needs to be stickied. The perfect rebuttal
>>2574513third-worldists treat their theory the way bourgeois economists treat orthodox economics - if the facts don't fit their theory, then it's assumed that reality is in error, not the theory!
Same
The Iron Law of USApol:
Anyone who does not lick the ass of Americans is a Third Worldist and is an avatar of The Real Iron Felix.
I'll say this again: i sympathize with the third worldist position but i dont think there is any political future in Third Worldism because hardly anyone in the third world wants communism! What they want is a social democratic state that directs bourgeois production and use them to promote growth and industrialism. In short: the China model, and not the Maoist one. A social democrat is the true Third Worldist
I'm a third worlder and I always assume the libs I'm talking to are third worldist
>>2558264>AmerikkkanIs pretty funny thoughbeit fam
>>2604478yeah, sometimes its good to remember the context where the maoist TWist position came from, there was an important revolutionary communist movement in the third world but they got killed, and in the imperial core quality of life was better than it is right now
>>2574295>No they don't because Marxism-Leninism and third worldism are mutually exclusive. Neither Marx, Lenin, Stalin, nor any prominent third world ML revolutionaries expressed third worldviews<This is, in my opinion, the stark reality facing Latin Americans. In the final analysis, the economic development of the United States and the need of its workers to maintain their standard of living means that our struggle for national liberation is not waged against a given social regime, but rather against the whole nation, bound as a bloc by the iron-clad supreme law of common interest, over their domination of the economic life of Latin America.
<Let us prepare, then, to fight against the entire people of the United States, for the fruit of victory will be not only economic liberation and social equality, but the acquisition of a new and very welcome younger brother: the proletariat of that country.https://redsails.org/amiga-o-enemiga/are these not third worldist views?
>>2604513Why would a lib be a TWist? Libs are pro treats
>Settler
Stop reading lmao
>>2604531A statement made by Che in 1954 when he was not a Marxist, later contradicted by statements he made when he was one.
You know I hate that not a lot of leftists realize this but I have to fucking say it, the difference between the first world and the third is not as hard (especially in a US context) as people think. That's not to say that there's no difference or that there's no impact from imperialism on the global south but way too many people on the left and right have such an oversimplified view of what "third world" means to the point that they think everything outside of their country is just slums and everything inside of their country is affluent and going great.
The truth is this varies widely from country to country and region to region. A good example of this would be Mexico because a lot of gringos have this fucked perception where they think that the entire country is just slums and cartels when there's very nice parts of the country that's on par with "first world" countries. Does that mean those problems don't exist or there aren't places that are slums or problems with inequality or violence? No, those do exist but way too many people in the global north think that everyone outside of their sphere is living in fucking mudhuts and starving to death and thus will be a breeding ground for revolution while their own workers are "living like kings" when ironically that ends up actually being a kind of just straight up racist view of the third world that paints every country as being the same.
In fact, one thing that has been really interesting in talking to people from Mexico as well as other "third world" countries is how many come to the US and become instantly really fucking disappointed to the point that many decide to make as much money in the US as possible and then head back so the money they make actually counts. Honestly, I don't blame them because even though it does have the side effect of raising the cost of living in the home country it's closer to the dream they originally came to the US to achieve.
As a side note though gringos do need to stop moving to Mexico City while working remote jobs, that's fucking things up more because a lot of the money is not going back into the community in comparison to the example I provided.
That said I do acknowledge this is partially from a US point of view but like I said way too many people think that the entire global south is just all poverty and suffering when the reality can be way more complex. Even in Africa, a continent that a lot of people think is completely destitute can have some places that are much nicer then westerners would expect. Don't get me wrong you do have examples of really extreme poverty such as in many of the countries on the Congo river but you can also find some cities that look nicer than some in the west such as Kigali, Rwanda or Gaborone, Botswana. Added to that too the southern part of the continent is a good example of development =/= quality of life. South Africa is the most developed country in Africa but because of the after effects of apartheid, extreme wealth inequality, and Government corruption it has one of the highest rates of violence even compared to its neighbors.
Not only that moving back to the west not every rich country is going to be completely nice. There are quite a few bad areas of United States famously but even in Europe a continent with less wealth inequality there are a lot more examples of bad areas people realize. Famous cities such as Paris or London have pretty bad areas that while not the worst in the world are not exactly paradise.
That's not even mentioning a lot of places in Eastern Europe have some pretty bad fucking areas too. It's not all doom and gloom but especially the areas which had been hit by post industrialization aren't the nice, clean streets people think that all of Europe is.
Also, it should be pointed out that in the case of poor areas in Europe a lot of what creates these conditions is a combination of deindustrialization and marginalization of minorities. As much as right-wing shitheads like to say "import the third world and get the third world" it just does not work like that. If that was the case of the third world would be completely bad off when that's not the case and like I said that varies country to country and region to region but it is an important factor to keep into mind.
TLDR: The divide between the global north and global south exists but it is not nearly as neat of a divide as a lot of third-worldists and other leftists make it out to be. While the global south does get fucked over by the north it's not a post apocalyptic hellscape all across the board, and the global north is not all rich and decadent either. It's a lot more complex than that and the way leftists treats the global south ends up ironically being really fucking insulting to it to the point of being on the verge of a white savior complex.
My biggest complaint about the whole settler narrative that some one the left likes to use is that the US is unironically one of the least racist white country i've ever been too, i was cursed by
taxi drivers and i could visibly see passer-bys frowning and turning away from me when i was visiting Warsaw to attend a conference, but when i visited evil settleroid US, outside of the overbearing airport security every white person i've met are kind and charitable to me and i remember a random white boomer in the airport helping me when i couldn't find my luggage. Obv systemic racism exist in the US, and black people to this day suffered greatly under the American system, especially now under Trump rule, but i think American leftists really sell their people short when they paint all Americans as evil racist settlers who want to lynch every poc
>>2604632It is the dream of every person in Africa to live in the USA. American drama queens just need to complain about something all the time.
>>2604632Also, too as much as I hate to say it, a huge part of the reason that it's like that is because it is a settler colony… the majority of people have no ties to the land which makes it much harder (though people still do) to argue that people should be kept out just sheerly due to the fact most people are not originally from there.
I don't like the fact that the native population was killed off and forced into shitty reservations which are basically third world conditions but at the same time as uncomfortable as it is to admit the whole idea the United States is a nation of immigrants isn't completely wrong even if it's that way for really fucked up reasons.
I think a lot of leftists need to take this into account when talking about social dynamics of race but especially with immigration because it is a huge reason why a lot of European countries like France and the UK can be statistically more racist than the US because those Europeans think they're going to become the colonized even though it's not the same because those moving in aren't violently taking over by force and making the locals second class citizens.
Ironically, in the case of Europe the idea of making immigrants assimilate culturally or get out makes them less likely too while in the US there's much more of a lenience towards letting people their own culture which ends up with them ironically becoming more Americanized over generations due to not feeling as forced to fit in. While the Irish and Italians were discriminated against a lot of elements of the old country ended up being brought over to the point that it's just a part of the fabric of American culture. Think folk music in terms of the Irish (also the Scots-Irish too) or food in terms of the Italians, it's not the same but it wouldn't be a part of American culture if those groups didn't bring those things with them.
Obviously, there is discrimination against immigrants but in the US it's much hypocritical due to being stolen from native people so anti-immigrant rhetoric gets more push back.
It's not a fun thing to acknowledge but it's definitely needs to be taken into account. It doesn't make killing of the native population good nor justify Europeans being racist towards immigrants but so many leftists overlook that to the point that it's such a large factor in American social dynamics.
>>2604665 Also, ngl it was hard writing this post given that I am of partial Irish ancestry so it's kind of uncomfortable to know that I exist in a country that was founded on settler colonialism due to the fact that huge swathes of my family had to escape from settler colonialism which meant that they ironically participated in the system that they had to escape from. I'm not the kind of person to have white guilt but the fact that a lot of Irish people immediately threw other minorities under the bus to assimilate into American society is really messed up/tragic given how hypocritical it is and I should have also mentioned that's also another reason people who immigrate to the US are more assimilated than immigrants in Europe. You still see this with some groups such as Asian Americans who hope they'll become white if they throw black people under the bus even though the white people they suck up too will praise them one minute before deciding that they're spreading COVID because of what they eat the next.
Unique IPs: 42