this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23259 readers
101 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't really fuck with the first, second, and third world concept but everyone I have met who would call themselves a third worldist (even jokingly) was really cool. I think I also fall into this catagory but I want to make sure I am understanding it correctly.

Reading wretched of the earth rn

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Redcuban1959@hexbear.net 27 points 4 months ago

Maoist Third Worldism promotes the idea that workers in the First World are also imperialists, or at least take advantage of the systems created by imperialism, and that there is no revolutionary potential in the First World.

There is also Third Worldism, which was a vague set of ideas and ideologies promoting that Third World countries (underdeveloped countries and newly independent countries) should not align themselves with either the United States or the Soviet Union. It is also mixed with ideas of Pan-Arabism, Pan-Latin Americanism, Pan-Africanism, and Pan-Asianism. In real life, most of these movements and governments ended up gaining the support of the Soviets, while accepting some money from the United States to develop their economies.

There was a resurgence of this in the late 1990s and 2000s in South America, with the election of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and the eventual creation of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) in 2008. Although this ideology is often referred to as Socialism in the 21st Century or Progressivism (which in the Global South means a vague alliance of liberals, leftists, nationalists, and some conservatives against neoliberalism and the Global North), they don't really accuse China of not being truly communist, but rather they often use China and Vietnam as good examples of socialist or leftist governments, while claiming that both the United States and the Soviet Union are bad examples to follow and that their ideologies don't work in the Global South.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 25 points 4 months ago

the worlds framework made more sense 50 years ago and third-worldism was more coherent. if someone IDed themself to me as third-worldist today i'd need more information to know their deal.

[–] mattyroses@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Redcuban1959@hexbear.net 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] mattyroses@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Živio Tito, druže

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Usually some kind of Maoist. I treat the white ones with a healthy dose of skepticism and distrust. Perfect example being folks like BadEmpanada. There are some extremely chauvinist people that claim that label.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Some people seem to treat it like a "cure" for being white (weird mindset to begin with) and just do vulgar hatred on kkkrakkker kkkountries without proper analysis. Others just treat it as having a very heavy focus on imperialism and colonialism as the primary issue of the communist movement of our time, which I think is correct and good.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 12 points 4 months ago

Yeah the latter are cool.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The latter is what I have the most experience with fortunately

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Third worldist whites pretty much think they’ve found a loophole to being a bigoted piece of shit to those around them

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's also a weird reversal of white saviorism

They love to fetishize peripheral revolutionaries coming to save/overthrow their government to a degree that absolves them of not doing the work themselves.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's funny to say xi-plz, but if someone really believes that that's going to happen, and that even if it did it would be a solution, then they're believing some very strange, incorrect, and counterproductive things.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 13 points 4 months ago

I have been proven completely wrong and am now filling out my dual J. Posadas and L. Trotsky apology forms. blackbeard-writing

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly just a new form of orientalist fetishism and similar in essence to being a sex tourist

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It's definitely at least partially orientalism, but let's not exaggerate here. There's a serious coercive nature to sex tourism that shouldn't be minimized.

Edit: did you edit your comment? I didn't notice "in essence" the first time I read it before replying. It's possible I just missed it, apologies if so. I agree they can come from similar places, but I don't think it's fair to generalize that. Sex tourists are deeply malicious racist creeps trying to do an end-run around consent and get a spouse they have as much power over as possible (i.e. r*pists). Most of the vulgar "third worldists" are just deeply alienated (often young) people who aren't even interacting directly with the people they're fetishizing.

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago

Yeah, I was exaggerating quite a lot there lol

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, white people, especially from the global north, calling themselves Third Worldists tend to be weirdos.

Anyone remember Jason Unhrue? The communist Youtuber with no rizz, a bright red mohawk, and self published his writing as "The selected works of Jason Unhrue"? That guy was a Self described Maoist Third Worldist lol

[–] Des@hexbear.net 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

since others defined it better I'll just add my own (totally uneducated) opinion:

since only formerly "third world" nations have managed to survive into the modern era with socialist governments relatively intact I suppose it would be the leading Marxist thesis (?) right now

time will tell. I don't count anything out, though. revolutionary conditions are about to spread and intensify everywhere all at once and we'll be experiencing a sort of new global laboratory for applied Marxism, in both the core and periphery and colonial states. and i don't think even total AI hyper-surveilliance and push-button targeted drone assassinations are going to be able to clamp it down

i think the far right neo-fascist movements are blowing their loads early and are going to leave a vacuum that can only be filled with new, evolutionary models of socialism or absolute slop brained fringe shit like Yarvinist-adjacent nihlist crap that won't ever be adopted by the masses. you can't force your imperial core subjects into seige mentality to rally around the flag even you are also waging war directly on them as though they were no different then those in the colonies. the neo-fascists have been equally poisoned by liberalism so they are incapable of making any kind of call to collective action.

[–] BigWeed@hexbear.net 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The original term had a real meaning:

  • First world: Capitalist and part of NATO
  • Second world: Soviet countries
  • Third world: All other countries

So Sweden, Finland, and Ireland are all Third world because of their neutrality. The term has drifted to a meaningless term and usually just means 'poor' or 'evil' depend on context. I wish words still had meanings.

I have no idea what third-worldism is tho and I couldn't even begin to guess.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 8 points 4 months ago

The term has drifted to a meaningless term and usually just means 'poor' or 'evil' depend on context. I wish words still had meanings.

It just refers to the global south now. Unless it's a racist saying it (many such cases), then it means what you're saying.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

even back in the day, third-worldism was a political movement and not all the unaligned nations were -ist

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah even then there was a clear difference between say Sweden and Austria (de Facto first world), the Non-Aligned Movement (Yugoslavia, Libya, Ghana, India, Egypt under Nasser, Indonesia under Sukarno) and Maoist Third-Worldist Guerillas (across most of the world but with the Philippines, Peru and parts of India as well known centers).

That said evening calling yourself a Maoist had different meanings. It could mean a Maoist Third Worldist or just a communist party that aligned with the PRC in the Sino-Soviet Split.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sorry, what does being a “third worldist” mean? Like they’re from a country thats been labelled “third world”?

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My understanding of it was that third worldists believe world socialism will arise from the most oppressed portions of the imperial periphery because of the acute contradictions created by imperialism and colonialism but I wanted to ask to make sure it wasn't mistaken

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 10 points 4 months ago

That's correct AFAIK.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 9 points 4 months ago

loosely, third-worldism was a left-wing political movement in unaligned nations during the cold war (US sphere / soviet sphere / neither) and there was a bunch of international diplomacy happening. OP is asking about the contemporary meaning and that's fuzzier since it doesn't exist as a movement the same way it used to.

[–] Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The problem with third worldism is that it is kind of true, and that does present western leftists with something of a sick note — if there is zero revolutionary potential in the imperial core then why not just enjoy your treats until the global proletariat overthrow us? I struggle with this myself tbc

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's a problem of interpretation, not analysis. All accurate analysis is accurate concretely, not abstractly. It was true at the time it was articulated that there was no revolutionary potential and the reasons were specific and concrete. Those reasons still hold today, but hold less so than they did back then.

The interpretation is not, therefore, that we can just abandon the project but rather that the task of revolutionaries in the core is to analyze the core from the inside, understand how the conditions produce the resultant revolutionary potential, identify what conditions need to be met, and work towards bringing about those conditions.

[–] Enjoyer_of_Games@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 4 months ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: