Maoism-Third Worldism is somewhat of a rejection of unqualified Third Worldism from the Western perspective generally because whether a nation had ML government or was aligned in the "East-West" dichotomy & Communist spheres influenced whether they were considered "Second World" or Non-Aligned. Third-Worldism on its own tends toward social imperialism even on its face, because it has a hard time recognizing the Janus-faced nature of American hegemony. Obama having a personal connection to both CIA-led anti-communism in Indonesia & crushing marginalized radical groups in the imperial core outlines the myopia of that first generation "Third Worldism" fairly well.
Maoism-Third Worldism recognizes proletarians in every marginalized group both in the periphery and in the parasitic core. But it rejects the specific globalized relation to the process of production as being the same
Third Worldism without reference to those important determinations about class & relation to production & imperial resource extraction gives rise to ethnocentric Pan-Asianism & Pan-Arabism & Pan-Americanism that often eventually dissolves in further ethnosupremacist Balkanization and self-annihilation
Maoism-Third Worldism is more principled internationalism & attempts to bridge that gap. Many groups in America are exploited and oppressed, but generally the colonizers are beneficiaries of that superexploitation & oppression occurring domestically and at many levels abroad.
No, Mao's three world theory is different materially from third worldism. Maoist third worldism builds on his ideas but is not purely Mao. (Hence why it's not just "Maoism").
Mao specifically and repeatedly referred to the proletariat of the first world (Which he defined as the US and the USSR)
americans are not part of the international proletariat :mao-aggro-shining:
Is the bit that you're posting a mao emote on a post Mao would call you a fucking lib for?
no, Mao created Third-Worldism
Maoism-Third Worldism is somewhat of a rejection of unqualified Third Worldism from the Western perspective generally because whether a nation had ML government or was aligned in the "East-West" dichotomy & Communist spheres influenced whether they were considered "Second World" or Non-Aligned. Third-Worldism on its own tends toward social imperialism even on its face, because it has a hard time recognizing the Janus-faced nature of American hegemony. Obama having a personal connection to both CIA-led anti-communism in Indonesia & crushing marginalized radical groups in the imperial core outlines the myopia of that first generation "Third Worldism" fairly well.
Maoism-Third Worldism recognizes proletarians in every marginalized group both in the periphery and in the parasitic core. But it rejects the specific globalized relation to the process of production as being the same
Third Worldism without reference to those important determinations about class & relation to production & imperial resource extraction gives rise to ethnocentric Pan-Asianism & Pan-Arabism & Pan-Americanism that often eventually dissolves in further ethnosupremacist Balkanization and self-annihilation
Maoism-Third Worldism is more principled internationalism & attempts to bridge that gap. Many groups in America are exploited and oppressed, but generally the colonizers are beneficiaries of that superexploitation & oppression occurring domestically and at many levels abroad.
No, Mao's three world theory is different materially from third worldism. Maoist third worldism builds on his ideas but is not purely Mao. (Hence why it's not just "Maoism"). Mao specifically and repeatedly referred to the proletariat of the first world (Which he defined as the US and the USSR)