Maoism–Third Worldism: Difference between revisions
Saul Wenger (talk | contribs) (Created article.) |
(Fixed grammar and made small revisions to the article structure.) |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Hatnote|Not to be confused with the | [[File:Settlers_Mythology_of_The_White_Proletariat_Cover.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Cover of "Settlers: The Mythology of The White Proletariat"]] | ||
{{Maoism sidebar}}{{Hatnote|Not to be confused with the revisionist political concept, [[Three Worlds Theory]].}} | |||
''' | '''"Maoism"–Third Worldism''' is a tendency that claims that the majority of the [[proletariat|working class]] in [[Imperialism|imperialist]] countries is "bought off" by its [[bourgeoisie]] from super-profits derived from [[imperialism]] and therefore no longer holds [[Revolution|revolutionary]] potential and are therefore [[Labor_aristocracy|labor aristocrats]]. It is loosely based on Lenin and Marx's formulations on the concept of a "bourgeois labor party;" and Mao's statement on the third world, composed primarily of countries within the global south.<ref name="Imperialism and the Split in Socialism">[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm ''Imperialism and the Split in Socialism''].</ref> | ||
== | == Sakaism == | ||
Sub-tendencies of this theory, such as '''"Sakaism"/"Settlerism"''' believe that [[Settler-colonialism|Settler Colonialism]] is a specific [[Mode_of_production|mode of production]] -- which emerges when a settler colony is established. This is defined by a non-proletarian working class that parasitically exploits the oppressed nations in the country. However, [[J. Sakai]] did believe that white people could work together with oppressed nations in a revolution. <ref name="When Race Burns Class">[https://kersplebedeb.com/posts/raceburn/ ''When Race Burns Class''].</ref> | |||
"Sakaists" do not necessarily believe in Third Worldism, and Third Worldists do not necessarily believe in "Sakaism." | |||
== Criticism == | |||
Third Worldism has been criticized and contested by many [[Marxism|Marxists]], [[Maoism|Maoists]], [[Hoxhaism|Hoxhaists]] etc... for "''needlessly dividing members of the working class, omitting their struggles, and propagating identity opportunism.''" <ref name="Against «Third Worldism», the False Anti-Imperialism">[https://tjen-folket.no/2019/08/30/against-third-worldism-the-false-anti-imperialism/ ''Against "Third Worldism", the False Anti-Imperialism"].</ref> It has also been considered vague and incoherently defined. | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[ | * [[Maoism]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Neo-colonialism]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Anti-imperialism]] | ||
== References == | |||
<references /> | |||
{{Stub}} | {{Stub}} | ||
[[Category:Maoism]] | [[Category:Maoism]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:30, 15 November 2025
| Part of a series on |
| Maoism |
|---|
 |
"Maoism"–Third Worldism is a tendency that claims that the majority of the working class in imperialist countries is "bought off" by its bourgeoisie from super-profits derived from imperialism and therefore no longer holds revolutionary potential and are therefore labor aristocrats. It is loosely based on Lenin and Marx's formulations on the concept of a "bourgeois labor party;" and Mao's statement on the third world, composed primarily of countries within the global south.[1]
Sakaism
Sub-tendencies of this theory, such as "Sakaism"/"Settlerism" believe that Settler Colonialism is a specific mode of production -- which emerges when a settler colony is established. This is defined by a non-proletarian working class that parasitically exploits the oppressed nations in the country. However, J. Sakai did believe that white people could work together with oppressed nations in a revolution. [2]
"Sakaists" do not necessarily believe in Third Worldism, and Third Worldists do not necessarily believe in "Sakaism."
Criticism
Third Worldism has been criticized and contested by many Marxists, Maoists, Hoxhaists etc... for "needlessly dividing members of the working class, omitting their struggles, and propagating identity opportunism." [3] It has also been considered vague and incoherently defined.