Talk:Maoism–Third Worldism

There is some subtle lying going on in this article, which is typical.

What was originally termed "Maoism-Third Worldism," let's call it "Maoism-Third Worldism" 1.0 did not refer to MIM Thought for the most part. The whole point of the new term was that the new line was a break with MIM Thought in important ways. Specifically, the line saw MIM's emphasis on First World oppressed nations and gender as a kind of First Worldism. Hence the rejection of MIM's JDPON concept by post-IRTR. There were other differences also, like rejection of MIM's First Worldist gender line and Pantherism. If there was no difference between the new line and MIM, we would have simply used the term "MIM Thought," which was in common usage in those days. The term originally referred to a body of articles mostly written by IRTR and then LLCO Chairman PF and the body of posts on the IRTR forum by its leadership, PF and STP in particular, but a few others. After LLCO dropped the term, others picked up the term and reinvented it. However, the this "Maoism-Third Worldism" 2.0 was really a regression to MIM era politics, it was basically MIM Thought in a more opportunist package. In fact, "Maoism-Third World" 2.0 has moved even further away from "Maoism-Third Worldism" 1.0 than MIM Thought in some ways. For example, there seems to be an openness amongst some calling themselves "Maoist-Third Worldists" today (2.0) to support wage struggles and even greater emphasis on First Worldist gender struggles. This First Worldist emphasis of "Maoism-Third Worldism" 2.0 is something that MIM would have not tolerated. In other words, "Maoism-Third Worldism" 2.0 is less "Third Worldist" than MIM Thought as a whole and even less "Third Worldist" than "Maoism-Third Worldism" 1.0.

Although the term was invented by the post-IRTR leadership group, the term's meaning change. A more honest approach would simply redirect "Maoism-Third Worldism" to "MIM" or "MIM Thought." It would not be accurate to classify LLCO with the trend as a whole. In addition, LLCO could not be further from the MIM/MTW in terms of concrete practice.

The most thorough telling of the history written by someone who was actually there from the MIM era through the IRTR era to LLCO is here: http://llco.org/quotes-from-a-recent-conversation-on-the-history-of-llco-and-other-fun-stuff/ --Unsigned

Alright so, because the persyn who wrote the above paragraph has used acronyms that no one is going to understand, I'll clarify them:

• MIM (Maoist Internationalist Movement)
• JDPON (Joint-Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Oppressed Nations)
• IRTR (It's Right To Rebel)
• PF (Prairie Fire), the moniker of a persyn involved with IRTR/LLCO
• STP (Serve The People), the moniker of another persyn involved with IRTR/LLCO
• LLCO (Leading Light Communist Organization), a post-IRTR project, which split from MIM and thereafter, spawned RAIM

--99.245.227.252 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also, the term was not originally "Maoism (Third Worldism)," the original term was "Maoism-Third Worldism." The term originated in an IRTR or post-IRTR committee. RAIM later began using the term "Maoism (Third Worldism)" and gave it their own meaning, which seems to be a less clear version of MIM Thought. The RAIM meaning is not same as the earlier formulation used by LLCO very briefly. Since LLCO barely used the term, it is hardly worth mentioning LLCO here. Also, LLCO was not a MIM split. IRTR was not a MIM split either. You can even go to the MIM archives: "MIM opposes the use of this forum. It takes too much time for MIM to monitor the provocations there. The leaders there are Fdapatriarchy and Prairiefire. MIM has never led the IRTR forum." Source: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/links/irtr.html) LLCO describes the relationship: "IRTR was think thank that was loosely tied to MIM, although there was no organizational link or centralism" and "I never identified as a MIM cadre or as upholding MIM Thought." Source: http://llco.org/quotes-from-a-recent-conversation-on-the-history-of-llco-and-other-fun-stuff/ So you have both MIM and LLCO saying that IRTR was not a MIM project. So to call IRTR a split is wrong. Who is misrepresenting the history? Basically some newer activists who were not involved who have an interest in misrepresenting the history in certain ways for their own silly, sectarian reasons. In any case, those using the term "Maoism (Third Worldism)" today borrow a lot from others, including the term itself. Terms like "First Worldism," "Global People's War," etc. were coined in PF's works, but were later appropriated and changed by others. Just because there is some superficial overlap does not make the concepts the same. Mao's Three Worlds Theory, for example, might superficially seem similar to "Maoism (Third Worldism)," but they are totally different. Despite the origin of the term with post-IRTR, it is really not appropriate to lump LLCO in with this rebranded MIM Thought stuff.

Honestly, I don't think this topic is noteworthy enough to have its own wiki article. I have never heard MIM or its rump prison organization calling itself "Maoist (Third Worldist)" and LLCO vigorously opposes the term. RAIM upholds it as its official ideology. As far as I know, RAIM is the only group that does claim to uphold it. And what is RAIM? I don't care if RAIM wants to hype itself on Wiki, I just don't see why they have to drag others into it. I am going to remove the mention of LLCO as part of the trend because it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.107.248 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is also odd that opening paragraph defines MTW by using a MIM quote. If this is your definition, then would it not be appropriate to simply have MTW redirect to an article on MIM Thought? If your definition of MTW is basically from MIM and MIM called its ideology "MIM Thought," then what justification is there for inventing another term except self promotion? Perhaps I am missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.107.248 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, only Jason Unruhe AKA Maoist Rebel News uses the term, as well as myself; Marcel the Maoist. Though I generally use the term neo-Maoism as well. I think for both of us we us the term as a general description of our line to set ourselves apart from other (1st worldist) Maoists. Both of us support the LLCO to some degree and officially their ideology is called "Leading Light Communism". Mista-X (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, Jason Unruhe (a self-described Maoist Third-Worldist) has several pdfs of the books mentioned in the "Further reading" section. Am I allowed to post link them or would that be copyright infringement?--Somenolife (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Somenolife: yes you can. Unruhe is the copyright holder and has himself posted the books on his website. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

He is certainly not the copyright holder for any of the works that were currently listed. He's also just not the author of any of them, and even if he was, the publisher typically has copyright. I've removed all the links except the two to the Marxists Internet Archive to two works that are potentially out of copyright (not certain, but I believe they more than likely are).

The whole section still needs to be sharply examined - the point of further reading is not to list every work that can be considered relevant to "Maoism–Third Worldism", but rather works that examine the tendency from a secondary perspective (essentially a list of works that could be used to expand the article in the future, but currently aren't). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone still watch this page? I’d like to improve the article but am about to rest, so as of right now my concern is the Further Reading section. All the readings seem relevant to the topic, the section just seems unusually long. If this is acceptable/common practice, no worries, I’m just wondering if it is. Thanks, postleft on mobile! 03:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why this is here, quite honestly. It's not sourced, its comparison to sultan-galiev's is basically original research. The first paragraph of the JDPON section also seems, well, fallacious. Though this is also original research on my end, I haven't seen anything basing the JDPON within theory of any kind. All there is attesting that it exists as a concept are memes and this wikipedia page… I would personally remove/delete that section, but don't want to unilaterally do so. I find it difficult to keep it up when it's so bare citation wise and so hardly mentioned (if at all) in mainline theory. Thank you for those who do respond. Lexoomfie (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm also not sure whether this (and other maoist ideologies) should be in the totalitarian ideologies category and by i'm not sure i mean i don't think it should be. Lexoomfie (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree either, the pages tagged with "Totalitarian ideologies" seem like they were added to fit a specific viewpoint (Putinism specifically comes to mind). LemurianPatriot (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply