Wow, comrades were really upset by my comment. It was used in the past so it means it's still relevant?
Fair point, I was being purposefully blunt. Still, feel you're mixing a bunch of things. Don't know if NAM necessarily equates to "third world". Also dunno if "third-worldism" (as you're using it) equates to countries that are currently categorised as"third-world", even more so since the 90s and the decline in the Eastern bloc, pan-africanist, pan-asian, ect. political movements.
And I'm down if we're using Mao's interpretation, but it also contradicts what many people on this site advocate for: that the working class in the "first world" don't actually belong to the proletariat. And if you're saying its appropriation by libs doesn't change its theoretical basis, I'd say that China is no longer part of the "third world" (not trying to be a Hoaxist) according to its own theory (even more so if we're considering post Dengist China and present day China). And if we're being faithful to Mao's thoughts we're also claiming the USSR was part of the "first world" and imperialist, which lots of people seem to be reticent to.
So, to me, it seems it wasn't wrong in reacting like I did, since there was a lack of specifity concerning what you were referring to as "third world". Again, you can argue against me saying we don't have to agree with its contemporary use; but "third world" is generally used differently and doesn't mean the same thing it used to politically. And its wasn't clear what particular theory you were referring to in the first place.
Aight, you got me, i like Fanon too much to disagree
Self crit:
I let lib ideology convince me out of the definition rigorous theorists gave of the third world. In doing so I'd lost a useful framework to analyse global capitalism that guides us how to organise a pragmatic anti-imperialist political project.
Therefore I will downvote all my previous posts.
Wow, comrades were really upset by my comment. It was used in the past so it means it's still relevant?
Fair point, I was being purposefully blunt. Still, feel you're mixing a bunch of things. Don't know if NAM necessarily equates to "third world". Also dunno if "third-worldism" (as you're using it) equates to countries that are currently categorised as"third-world", even more so since the 90s and the decline in the Eastern bloc, pan-africanist, pan-asian, ect. political movements.
And I'm down if we're using Mao's interpretation, but it also contradicts what many people on this site advocate for: that the working class in the "first world" don't actually belong to the proletariat. And if you're saying its appropriation by libs doesn't change its theoretical basis, I'd say that China is no longer part of the "third world" (not trying to be a Hoaxist) according to its own theory (even more so if we're considering post Dengist China and present day China). And if we're being faithful to Mao's thoughts we're also claiming the USSR was part of the "first world" and imperialist, which lots of people seem to be reticent to.
So, to me, it seems it wasn't wrong in reacting like I did, since there was a lack of specifity concerning what you were referring to as "third world". Again, you can argue against me saying we don't have to agree with its contemporary use; but "third world" is generally used differently and doesn't mean the same thing it used to politically. And its wasn't clear what particular theory you were referring to in the first place.
deleted by creator
Aight, you got me, i like Fanon too much to disagree
Self crit: I let lib ideology convince me out of the definition rigorous theorists gave of the third world. In doing so I'd lost a useful framework to analyse global capitalism that guides us how to organise a pragmatic anti-imperialist political project. Therefore I will downvote all my previous posts.
deleted by creator