>>458659If Third Worldism was true, a) there would be much larger and more prolific revolutionary movements in the periphery, and b) there would be much more clear cut pro imperialist policies advanced by the west.
I'd propose Anti-Maoism - First Worldism:
Here's a few thesis:
A) Third World movements won't gain any ground unless the First World classes are massively divided. This was effectively the case with every revolution in the periphery.
B) Even in the case of the revolution in the Third World, it won't amount to much, except in cases where large cohesion territories are liberated, owing to the under developed means of production.
C) Communism is a dopey utopian fantasy that even communists in power aren't seriously pursuing. Right wing, nationalist, uniparty quasi-fascist social democracy (basically what you have in today's 'actually existing socialist countries) is pretty based and a worthy goal.
D) Maoism is incredibly cringe. 'Muh we're just going to keep have civil wars every few decades until our utopia somehow comes to fruition.'