Why do Whiteoids hate Maoist Third Worldism?

I am done sugar coating my hatred for fucking whiteoids. Especially whiteoids from America. You are all ultimately reactionaries who value your own creature conforts more than anything and the best you can do is become ironic shithead podcasters like chapo. Wherever you leftist American whiteoids are found I have to fucking police my rhetoric to not offend you cucks. Well fuck you! You need to be fucking removed and replaced so that the rest of the planet can take a breath of fresh air and begin to develop.

Attached: sarah-jeong235.jpg (800x420, 121.81K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6arNiQt-g
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch06.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

who could be behind this post

Attached: a043dfb503aa1dfbd51d6c3a9012120cd424fb283399fa4e656551754843ef0b.png (500x678, 109.17K)

What a funny way to call whites, Zig Forums

Go back to Zig Forums rat

Fuck you this is not a flase flag by Zig Forums. I sincerely fucking hate white people. Why is it so fucking hard to understand that all normal people don't like you. You are fucking opressors who want to control me and my ability to say what I fucking think. There are NO good white people out there and if there are it's only a matter of time until they cuck and turn reactionary just because someone pointed out your history of being shitheads. Your whiteoid shitheadidness needs to be policed and put in check because the only thing you understand is fear and intimadation I bet there were some Native American cucks who thought that NOT ALL whiteoids are bad NOT ALL there's this Nigga John Smith who seems ok no Fuck John Smith Fuck that whore Pocahontas and fuck you and your chauvinistic whiteoid cartoons look what the fuck happened to the native Indians this won't happen twice not on my fucking watch

It’s workers of the WORLD unite, not workers of the third world unite

Zig Forums please leave this board, you are the scum of humanity and we don't want to have any kind of contact with you

No workers exist in the first world, only labor aristocrats.

Pick one, le negro americano

I honestly don't think whiteoids deserve communism at this point tbh. China and the third world will destroy your pathetic whiteoid economies based on nothing but fake money and overconsumption of resources and exploitation and we'll just leave you there to rot in your own cesspool ruminating about being kangz once upon a time while everyone else goes to space. I hope Mexicans and and Africans oppress the fuck out of you whiteoids and your country splinters into many warring states.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

some real wild ideas you got there user

I know this is just a Zig Forums troll, but wanted to take the opportunity to say why Maoism Third Worldism is stupid anyway.

It's idealism at it's finest. The whole concept that you must be under some prerequisite amount of oppression or exploitation to be "truly revolutionary" is nonsense on par with some kind of ascetic religious practice. By this logic, the Roman Empire should have been overthrown by its innumerable slaves rather than the free Germanic tribes, the French Revolution should have been started by the French peasants, not the French bourgeoisie. Indeed, the Russian Empire was hardly the most exploited nation in 1917, if anything it was a fledgling imperialist power. The prerequisite has always been having a strong and organized revolutionary force and a weakened state to the point that the state's hegemony comes into question. What has defined revolutionaries has always been a dissatisfaction with the status quo combined with the ability to effectively organize, it isn't based on a prerequisite level of "oppression" or exploitation.

As far as I can tell, Maoism Third Worldism is just a permutation of the old imperialist attitude that's been around for generations. In its original form, non-Western people are childlike savages who need to be civilized by the colonial empires, best exemplified in the poem "White Man's Burden". Then you had the romanticists who flipped this on its head with the concept of the "noble savage", that non-Western people were childlike savages, but this was a good thing because it made them pure and authentic subjects with a more "organic" relationship to each other and nature, as opposed to "artificial" Western society. Maoism Third Worldism holds, again, that non-Western people live in absolute savagery, but this is a good thing because it puts them in tune with authentic struggle and gives them a pure revolutionary spirit, as opposed to Westerners who have been corrupted by creature comforts and therefore can never be authentically revolutionary.

good post

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1498x235, 77.74K)

youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6arNiQt-g

Its not that they aren't as oppressed its that by the oppression of the third world, first world workers become less oppressed, meaning that even if they rebel against first world exploiters they would have no economic interest to liberate the rest of the world.

you sound like a butthurt nigger. welfare check late this month?

By destroying the first world bourgeoisie, revolutionaries would destroy the very instruments of imperialism. The first world proletariat does not in any way directly benefit from imperialism, there is no sort of collective commons in the first world where people equally partake of the spoils of empire. Rather, the benefits of empire are wholly indirect like welfare states funded in part from corporations and financial instututions that profit from imperialism, or sometimes cheaper goods (though this is a double edged sword because said cheaper goods based at the cost of a devastated local industry.) Which is to say, empire is administered primarily by private corporations and the destruction of private corporations destroys imperialism.

excellent post, comrade.

As long as the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer, his lot is dependent upon capital. That is
what the boasted community of interests between worker and capitalists amounts to.
If capital grows, the mass of wage-labour grows, the number of wage-workers increases; in a
word, the sway of capital extends over a greater mass of individuals.
Let us suppose the most favorable case: if productive capital grows, the demand for labour grows.
It therefore increases the price of labour-power, wages.
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies
all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the
little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social
position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in
the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the
occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more
dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of
productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social
pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social
gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the
capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of
society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure
them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their
gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch06.htm

she's hot

would wife 10/10

"whiteoids from America"

nice dogwhistling there.

the only solution is for America to become an Aryan Third Worldist nation. besides, Chapo is lightweight compared to me.

A timeline in which she's actually a secret Juche sympathiser