February 27, 2010

Refuting Maoism Third-Worldism

Introduction: Against Chinese Revisionism and the "Three Worlds Theory"
 In the 1970s, when the Chinese Communist Party put forward the so-called “Theory of the Three Worlds,” Albanian leader Enver Hoxha denounced the anti-Marxist nature of the theory, labeling it as a new form of revisionism. Such a division of the world into three, Hoxha said, liquidates class struggle within nations and instead focuses on their level of development. In February 1974, Mao Zedong set forth this theory. At the 6th Special Session of the UN General Assembly in April 1974, Deng Xiaoping expounded the strategic thinking of Mao Zedong on the division of the three worlds. Briefly, what does the Three Worlds Theory mean?
According to Mao's theory, the “First World” consisted of the leading imperialist powers, the imperialist USA and the social-imperialist USSR. The “Second World” was formed by capitalist states that were lower on the global rank, such as the European states. Finally, the “Third World” consisted of poor, underdeveloped colonial and semi-colonial nations. In this theory, the “Third World” is seen as the spearhead of a global revolution against the “First World,” or more specifically, the Soviet Union, which was spuriously seen by China as the stronger of the two “First World” superpowers. As Hoxha stated in his volume Imperialism and the Revolution:
“The Chinese revisionists claim that there is only one contradiction in the world of today, and that this puts the 'third world,' the 'second world' and half of the 'first world' in confrontation with the Soviet Union” (Hoxha 278).
The "Three Worlds Theory" as applied by Mao stated that United States imperialism was less of a danger than Soviet social-imperialism, attempting to justify an alliance with the US. The anti-Marxist nature of the “Three Worlds Theory” should be obvious, as well as its break from the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. These days, the Maoists marginalize the struggle of the developed countries' proletariat by pointing to the “Third World” as the only struggle currently existing. This formulation today makes the “First World” proletariat the conscious and willing accomplices of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the rape and exploitation of the “Third World.” Essentially, this theory completely destroys and ignores class struggle. Hoxha states that:
“The Chinese leadership takes no account of the fact that in the 'Third World' there are oppressed and oppressors, the proletariat and the enslaved, poverty stricken and destitute peasantry, on the one hand, and the capitalists and the landowners, who exploit and fleece the people on the other. To fail to point out this class situation in the so-called Third World, to fail to point out the antagonisms which exist, means to revise Marxism-Leninism and defend capitalism. In the countries of the so-called third world, in general, the capitalist bourgeoisie is in power. This bourgeoisie exploits the poor people in its own class interests to make the largest possible profit for itself and to keep the people in perpetual slavery and misery” (Hoxha 261).
Despite these warnings, the “Three Worlds” became official Chinese foreign policy. The practical consequence of this “theory” was the formation of alliances with the most unsavory elements worldwide, justified because they were in the so-called “Third World.” Enver Hoxha denounced the support of the Chinese government gave to the world's worst reactionary and pro-US regimes:
“Social-imperialist China, too, is making great efforts to penetrate into the former colonial and semi-colonial countries. An example of how China intervenes is provided by Zaire, a country ruled by the clique around Mobutu, the wealthiest and most bloodthirsty clique on the African continent. In the fighting which flared up in Zaire recently, the Moroccans of the Sherifian Kingdom of Morocco, the French air force, and China, too, all rushed to the aid of Mobutu, the murderer of Patrice Lumumba. […] What do the Chinese revisionists want in [Zaire?]” (Hoxha 208)
He continued,
“Even the United States of America dare not assist Pinochet, the fascist hangman of Chile, so openly as China is doing” (Hoxha 209).
Indeed, most of the states supported by China have not any shred of a claim to being even progressive, much less opposed in any way to American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. Another consequence of the “Three Worlds” was seeking to establish China as a superpower. This culminated in Mao meeting with Nixon and Kissinger in China to discuss plans:
“Chairman Mao Zedong pointed out during his meeting with Henry Kissinger in 1973 that as long as we share the same goal, we will not do harm to you nor will you do harm to us and we should work together to counter Soviet hegemonism. We hope the United States would strengthen its cooperation with Europe and Japan and draw a parallel line linking the United States, Japan China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Europe. This is unity against the Soviet hegemonism or the 'Strategy of forming an alliance against an opponent'” ("Chairman Mao Zedong's Theory on the Division of the Three World and the Strategy of Forming an Alliance Against an Opponent").
Mao once declared that China was not and would never be a superpower in the future. China's acts of pursuing hegemonism and power politics speak otherwise.
“There Are No More Classes”
To this day there is still a small faction of the global communist movement that upholds this theory, now called “Maoism Third-Worldism,” as the highest stage of revolutionary science that has been achieved. Despite fierce line struggle against such gross revisionism, this tendency continues to assert its anti-scientific and anti-Marxist claims about “global class analysis” and in addition now “parasitism” by “First World” workers and bourgeoisie alike. Essentially, as this version of the theory argues, “all First Worlders are bourgeois.” The claim has been made by Maoist Third-Worldists that no one has been able to scientifically prove anything about the question of the existence of a proletariat in the “First World” countries, such as the United States, to justify rejecting the Three Worlds Theory.
The American Party of Labor thinks that these statistics point to the correctness of the analysis that there is a multinational proletariat including a lower section of workers, numbering some 30 to 40 million, whose conditions of life and work are those of an oppressed proletariat and that large sections of the proletariat work in segregated, caste-like conditions. They are slotted into and stuck in low-paying and less desirable occupations and jobs. Owing to the history of oppression by the American ruling class, in various forms down to today, Black, Latino and other oppressed ethnic groups and immigrants are disproportionately represented in the lower rungs of the proletariat and suffer high rates of unemployment, including high levels of more long-term unemployment.
Poverty Level & Occupation
(Sources for the following are Stephen J. Rose, the United States State Department, the Census Bureau and Marian Edelman.)
In a 2000 Census in the United States, out of 193 million white people, 7.5 percent or over 14.5 million people live in what the census defines as poverty. 18% of white households that are headed by a woman are below the poverty level. Over 8 million white people live in extreme poverty, making only 50% of the poverty level income. The poverty level income is low—$17,000 for a family of 4 with two children. This is equivalent to an $8.17 an hour wage for a full-time employee working a 40-hour week.
African-Americans and Latinos in the United States have much higher poverty rates than whites—22.1% for African Americans and 21.2% for Latinos. Out of 35.7 million African Americans, 7.9 million are in poverty and out of 33.7 million Latinos, 7.1 million are in poverty.
For white people, 11.6% are in less skilled blue collar and service jobs, 16.6% are skilled blue collar and supervisors, 10.7% are in clerical or sales occupations, 24.5% are doctors, lawyers, managers or other professionals, 1% are farmers or farm laborers, 2% are unemployed and 33.6% are not in the labor force.
For African-American people, 23.3 are in less skilled blue collar and service jobs, 12.2% are in skilled blue collar and supervisors, 14.5% are in clerical or sales occupations, 14.4% are doctors, lawyers, managers or other professionals, .1% are farmers or farm laborers, 4.8% are unemployed and 30.7% are not in the labor force.
For Latinos, 25.6 are in less skilled blue collar and service jobs, 15.4% are in skilled blue collar and supervisors, 10.4% are in clerical or sales occupations, 11.6% are doctors, lawyers, managers or other professionals, 1.7% are farmers or farm laborers, 4% are unemployed and 31.2% are not in the labor force.
Facts About Poverty in the US
 44.3 million (16.3% of US population) are without health insurance. Another 50 million are under-insured, the worst performance since records have been kept.
Child poverty has increased 33% since 1970. In the U.S. today, 1 out of every 5 children are poor – almost 2 out of every 3 poor kids are white, 3 out of every 5 Latino kids are poor and nearly half of all Black children are poor.
Suicide rates among the young are 36% higher than in 1970, and triple the rate in 1950. Suicide rate between 1984-1996 for those aged 15-19 years old increased 95%.
The wage increase of 1996 up to $5.15 an hour made up slightly more than half of the ground lost to inflation in the 1980s. Thus the real value of the minimum wage in 1997 was 181% less than in 1979. Full-time minimum wage earnings currently equal 84% of the estimated poverty line for a family of three. 71.4% of minimum wage jobs are held by people age 20 and over.
A survey of 30 US cities found that almost 1 in 5, homeless people work full-time (in one county in the San Francisco metropolitan area, over 50% of people in the homeless shelter work full-time). Black people make up 12% of the US population but are almost 50% of the homeless, followed by whites at 32%, Latinos at 12%, Native Americans at 4%, and Asians at 3%. About 40% of the homeless are veterans. The fastest growing segment of homeless are women and their kids—they’re 40% of the total homeless population. 45% of homeless have earned more than a high school diploma.
34 million people in the US are regularly hungry or are “food insecure,” with 32 million seeking emergency food assistance during the course of a year. In the US 1 out of every 3 people seeking food relief has had to make a choice between buying food and paying rent. The director of a major free food assistance outlet that feeds 300,000 people a day in a major city explained “What we are seeing is more and more what we call the working-hungry—families with children who don’t make enough to eat…” 70% of poor families with children include a person who works, and 2/3 of those who are unemployed are actively looking for work.
Class Analysis
Many of those examining Maoism Third-Worldism have identified some of the false methodological assumptions of their arguments, in particular that they seem to define the Marxist perception of class only in relation to income. For a Marxist, the key factor to look at in doing a class analysis is position in the relations of production.
The entire argument of Third-Worldism rests not on a material analysis, but rather on two false assumptions. The first false assumption is that one can tell the revolutionary potential of a class or section of a class merely by studying their income and position within the international income ladder. In fact, revolutionary potential is determined by specific conditions and history. Some predictions can be made, but not based merely on statistics.
The second false assumption is that “benefits” from imperialism are like a “taint,” where even a small amount sends one to political hell. Class interests are more complicated than that. That is why Marxists talk about some privileges being “crumbs” from the table – in a scientific sense, that popular phrase means that there are benefits, which come to sections of the masses by virtue of their gender, nationality, skills, etc., that are very small by comparison to their larger, historic interests.
In short, the Maoist Third-Worldists insert income“data” into a framework built on bourgeois logic—where a false verdict arises from false assumptions. A homeless person in the U.S. gets to pick through better garbage than a homeless person in Manila. Does this mean the homeless have a material interest in defending the society that makes them homeless?
This is quite an anti-materialist and anti-Marxist analysis. There are poor and exploited people in the US, and even the employed ones also have miserable working conditions and, most importantly, are not paid the full value of their labor. Coming from a rich or imperialist country does not automatically make one worker “bourgeois,” just like a capitalist exploiter coming from an exploited country does not make him “proletarian.” Classes exist between people, not between countries.
Liberal Critiques of Consumerism
Third-Worldism is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology. As such, they share much in common with common liberals when it comes to the fixation with “consumerism.” Frequently, Maoist Third-Worldists condemn “First-Worlders” for buying decadent products produced by capitalism, sliding into the camp of Eric Schlosser and Naomi Klein. This is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois guilt. It is not an accident that Maoist Third-Worldists, anarchists, primitivists, hippies, social democrats and basically all of the “left” who become political within a country under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and are not members of a party of the working class, share common features. Paramount among them is a feeling that “consumerism” is the enemy.
A scientific communist understands that “consumerism” is not the issue. Only the most foolish person would deny that the working class (and all human beings in general), require food, clothing, medical supplies and other items. Under capitalism, these items and all fruits of social production are manufactured by private companies and distributed through private retail outlets. One must buy or starve—there is no alternative mode of accumulation and distribution, and upstart Utopian projects of idealistic survival agriculture by the petty-bourgeois, who feel guilt for consuming such products, always lead to ruin.
The conclusion that the petty-bourgeois comes to is that it is the fault of the workers for gathering the goods that they need, and that the “solution” is limited to lifestyle choices: boycotts or a bright new world of survival agriculture. Meanwhile, the conclusion that the revolutionary workers and communists come to is that the blame lies upon the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, for appropriating the products of social production and distributing them in this way, and that the solution is to mobilize the working class to overthrow capitalism, and replace it with a new kind of socio-economic mode of production and distribution, socialism and communism.
Here is Marx on the subject:
“We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it” (Marx, Engels 236).
And again:
“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations” (Marx, Engels 238).
 Criticizing “consumerism” is idealist nonsense that ignores the real needs of the working class and humanity, and ignores the fact that commodities and materials necessary to the sustainability of human life have to be procured somehow, ignores the class relations to political power, the underpinnings of why the dominant system of accumulation and appropriation is capitalism, and substitutes lifestyle choices and personal whims for dialectics and material conditions.
On top of all of this, from the binary “First Worldists are parasites and Third-Worldists are revolutionary” outlook, need we remind the various petty-bourgeois ideologues that being as almost the entire world is currently capitalist, the same mode of accumulation and distribution is employed in the First World and also in the Third World. There are markets in Seirra Leone where the third-world proletariat exchanges currency for commodities, otherwise known as “consumerism.” The fixation on “consumerism” does not challenge class relations, address why the current modes of production arose in the first place, or address the practicalities of meeting the needs of sustaining humanity. It is pure petty-bourgeois idealism without material basis.
Exploited Groups in the “First World”
The most significant political line of Third-Worldism varies somewhat among factions, but most either argue that “there are no exploited social groups in the first world,” or argue that “there are no white exploited social groups in the first world.” The former is the one that we shall address first, as it is the most absurd. There are clearly oppressed Native American and Aboriginal peoples in the “First World” countries, particularly the US and Canada. In the US alone there are 2.5 million registered, with perhaps as many as 4 million existing. There are also many temporary foreign workers and immigrants, workers who have come over to a program of indentured labor. The population of “illegal” immigrants, who are targeted for the worst exploitation by the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, number an estimated 11 million in the US alone.
Ethnic minorities, including millions of Black people, must also be added to this list, since the number of African-American bourgeoisie in the US must be considered relatively low. According to Third-Worldists, “non-white” proletarians born in the “First World” are just as bourgeois as the actual imperialist bourgeoisie. This is nonsense if one looks at the racist oppression and terror built into the imperialist system in the US, and yes, in the “First World.” Prisoners must also be added to this grouping of the exploited, last numbering over 7 million on probation or parole and over 2 million behind bars, again in the US alone. Homeless people number in the millions in the US, perhaps up to 3.5 million, and trafficked sex slaves are estimated to be around 600,000 to 800,000.
The “Woman Question” must also be touched on here. Despite what the Third-Worldists say, women are still nowhere close to equal with their male counterparts anywhere on the planet Earth, but certainly not in the “First World.” Even Third-Worldist grandaddy MIM recognized the social gender inequality, which lead them to take the extreme stance that “all sex is rape” under capitalism. The average American woman earns 32% less than the average man. 1 in every 6 women is regularly attacked or raped in North America. Every single minute there are 1.3 forcible rapes of adult women in the United States. Women are continually objectified and forced into positions of servitude (Kilpatrick, Edwards, and Seymour).
Despite many of these facts, some Third-Worldists take the standpoint of enlightened patriarchy:
“In the First World, gender is less and less connected to biology. Due to the high standard of living made possible through imperialism and advances in technology, First World women are less and less confined to traditional social and reproductive roles. First World women have access to a high degree of life options that are not strictly limited by reproduction as has been the general situation for women in the past. For this reason, inequalities between First World men and First World women should not be confused with traditional patriarchal oppression which is centered around biology and reproduction. [...] It is likely that over time, these echoes of traditional oppression will become less pronounced” (“MonkeySmashesHeaven”).
As to the charge of there being no white proletarians, the American Party of Labor does not have the time or resources at this moment to do an exhaustive research of the racial makeup of American workers. We can only say that 35 million Americans faced hunger in 2006 (Doering), proving that not all “First World-ers” benefit from imperialism. Third-Worldists have actually argued before that going without food is much worse in the Third World than in the First World. To some extent this may be true, but starvation is starvation. From these facts alone we can see there are many millions of proletarians, oppressed people and oppressed ethnicities, even within the US borders.
Liquidating Class Struggle in Favor of the National Struggle
Third-Worldists claim that the principle contradiction of today is not between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but between the First World and the Third World. So in essence, there are no classes, only countries. According to the Third-Worldists, the “Third World” countries have no national bourgeoisie, and the “First World” countries have no working class. It was this anti-Marxist line that lead the People's Republic of China to support Mobutu Sese Seko, Augusto Pinochet, Suharto in Indonesia and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. This theory manifested itself as shameless proliferation of weaponry and aid in the aim of expanding the social-imperialist sphere of the People's Republic of China. Like the Chinese revisionists who came up with the “Three Worlds Theory,” Third-Worldists see the world revolution happening as a flood of Protracted People's Wars to encircle and surround the “First World” from the “Third World.” This is a misinterpretation of legitimate national-liberation struggles, padded with the hopes and dreams of the guilty petty-bourgeoisie. Expanding on this, we move on to one of the fundamental Third-Worldist concepts.

International Joint-Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The imposition of a “joint-dictatorship of the exploited nations” and their allies over the exploiter populations of the First World is the latest theory coming from the Third-Worldist camp. As was previously stated, to the Third-Worldist there are no classes, only nations. This is akin to the fascists, who see “race” as a unifying bond. If any of these petty-bourgeoisie ever found themselves in a revolutionary situation, they may be disappointed to see that national identity counts for very little.
Some even embrace the concept of a “white nation” in addition to a “black nation” and call for the disbanding of the “white nation” as a whole. To demonstrate the absurdity of this, in Canada there are two distinct “white” nations, one of which is subservient to the other, even though the Maoists take the line that the Quebecois were also a settler state (ironically, they only seem to recognize “nation on nation” clashes, but not in this case). While it is true that they were a culture that settled from across the ocean, and under different circumstances they also could have been genocidal conquerors, in Anglo-Canada they were generally referred to for the longest time as “white niggers,” much like the Irish in the US and abroad, which speaks volumes about the socio-economic position they occupied in their home country.
As well, Canada and the USA do not have a homogenous ethnic makeup in their population. There are millions of non-white people in the First World who, by Third-Worldist standards, are also guilty of the Maoist “Original Sin” (aka, living in an imperialist country), and therefore also profit directly from the exploitation of countries by imperialism. What happens to them when the “Global Peoples' War” comes? If they fit the same “exploiter” criteria as the “white” proletarians, why are they spared the impending genocide that is apparently reserved for millions on the basis of skin pigmentation?
It is next to impossible to examine the Third-Worldist's views and not conclude that national identity determines whether or not a people is revolutionary. On the one hand, Third-Worldists preach from a pulpit of “one nation politics” and class conciliation, while on the other hand they embrace convenient amnesia, pay lip service to Marxism-Leninism, and all of the sudden acknowledge class divisions after attributing all struggle in the world to narrow national identities and the political boundaries of countries.
Overall Analysis of Third-Worldism
The American Party of Labor does not deny that to some extent the peoples of the advanced imperialist countries do live off of the backs of the “Third World”; this is imperialism. The ruling class does part with some of its profits to create an environment where they won't get lynched in public. However, there are many flaws with the Maoist Third-Worldist outlook on this.
1) Proletarians in imperialist countries have no say in this. Proletarians can't exactly refuse the bribe, or else they would starve. If you acknowledge the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat, conversely you must acknowledge that a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie exists in the imperialist countries and most countries today. If you acknowledge the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, you need to acknowledge that workers in imperialist countries have no say in the politics and governance of a country.

2) What today an imperialist country might be a “Third World country” in a century or less. A neocolonial possession can also become an imperialist power in its own right in a century or less. Turkey used to be the pinnacle of a powerful empire up until 1923. Now, they are an impoverished country with mandatory military service and a minimum wage of €302.61 per month (around 474$ US). As with the fallacy of Third-Worldists refusing to acknowledge dialectics, they cannot understand that the economic situation and balance of geopolitical power is constantly in motion, hence using nations and countries as a basis for class struggle is flimsy.
As Enver Hoxha said,
“Marxist-Leninist dialectics teaches us that there is no limit to development, that nothing stops changing. In this process of unceasing development towards the future, quantitative and qualitative changes occur. Our epoch, like any other, is characterized by profound contradictions which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin defined so clearly. It is the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, hence, of great quantitative and qualitative transformations which lead to revolution and the seizure of power by the working class in order to build the new socialist society” (254).

3) Revolutionary content is not based on skin color, nor race, nor geographic location. Tin-pot dictators like Pinochet and Mobutu were from the glorious “Third World,” and Maoist hero Norman Bethune was from the “First World.” Whether or not you are a revolutionary has nothing to do with racialism or geographic location.

4) No proletariat is “more deserving” of revolution than others, and it is not “national-chauvinist” to have a revolution. Here is an excerpt by Hoxha from Imperialism & the Revolution:

“Marxist-Leninists always bear in mind that in all countries, with the exception of those where. the revolution has triumphed and socialist order has been established, there are the poor classes with the proletariat at the head, and the wealthy classes with the bourgeoisie at the head. In every capitalist state, wherever it may be, and however democratic or progressive, there are oppressed and oppressors, there are exploited and, exploiters, there are antagonisms there is merciless class struggle. The varying intensity of this struggle does not alter this reality. This struggle has its ups and downs, but it exists and cannot be quelled.
It exists everywhere, it exists in the United States of America between the proletariat and the imperialist bourgeoisie, it exists, likewise, in the Soviet Union, where Marxism-Leninism has been betrayed and a new bourgeois-capitalist class which oppresses the working people of that country, has been created. Classes and the class struggle exist also in the second world., as in France, Britain, Italy, West Germany, Japan. They exist also in the "third world", in India, Zaire, Burundi, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc.
Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of "three worlds", classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development...But the class struggle, the struggle of the proletariat and its allies to take power and the struggle of the bourgeoisie to maintain its power can never be extinguished. This is an irrefutable truth and no amount of empty theorizing about the "worlds", whether the "first world", the "non aligned world", the third world, the nonaligned world., or the umpteenth world, can alter this fact. To accept such a division, means to renounce and abandon the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on classes and the class struggle” (Hoxha 255-257)

5) “Why won't the First World workers rebel then?” asks the Third-Worldist. His/her answer is that they must benefit from imperialism and be a huge bought-off labor aristocracy. The true answer to this lies in basic Marxism-Leninism. On the one hand, workers work, hence the reason for a vanguard party. The most advanced elements of the working class are generally those who have a bit of time to acquire the consciousness to play a leadership role. The rest are stuck in the daily grind, and when you are consumed with your material existence, social change is rarely on the radar. On the other hand, as Marx said, “the ruling ideas in society are the ideas of the ruling class.” National-chauvinism, racism, sexism, homophobia...these are learned behaviors propagated by the dissimenators of bourgeois ideology.

The same reason many “First World” workers display jingoistic imperialist support and ethnocentrism is the same reason that I have met other women who aspire to be submissive housewives—they have no “stake” in being a housewife, it is simply the dominant ideology and social norms that they have been indoctrinated with.

The entire theory of “Third-Worldism” is ridiculous. While the American Party of Labor acknowledges that exploitation and oppression is relative, one has to keep in mind that even in the dawn of the industrial revolution the oppressed and starving masses of Dickensian England were living in a country that was profiting off of undeveloped colonies abroad. In the Third-Worldist's opinion, that would make even the most wretched of English street paupers a “labor aristocrat,” because they live in an imperialist country. The theory strikes one as the Maoist version of “Original Sin.” Just as a Catholic baby is born “sinful,” a child born in the first world is a “parasite” in the eyes of the petty-bourgeois ideologues of Third-Worldism.
In the end, it becomes an issue of tactics, because while recognizing imperialism, the question becomes, “what are we going to do about it?” Now, we can either join a Marxist-Leninist party and prepare the workers for revolution, or we can follow the lead of MIM, MonkeySmashesHeaven, IRTR, Shubel Morgan, etc., and simply sow defeatism and disorient the revolutionary movement rather than build it. Imperialism will be smashed by the working class rising up and defeating their imperialist governments, not by saying a few “hail Mao's” and seeking forgiveness for being born in an imperialist country.

"Clarity On International Women's Day." MonkeySmashesHeaven. 08 Mar. 2009. MSH, Web.
"Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China." Chairman Mao Zedong's Theory on the Division of the Three World and the Strategy of Forming an Alliance Against an Opponent. 17 Nov. 2000. Communist Party of China, Web. .
Doering, Christopher. "Over 35 million Americans faced hunger in 2006: USDA." http://www.reuters.com/. 14 Nov. 2007. Thomson Reuters, Web. .
Edelman, Marian Wright Edelman. A Children's Defense Budget. 1st Ed. Children's Defense Fund, 1989. Print.
Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana, 1979, English edition, p. 208-278.
Kilpatrick, Dean, Christine Edwards, and Anne Seymour. Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Center for Victims of Crime, 1992. Print.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York, NY: Penguin Classics, 2002. 236-38. Print.
Rose, Stephen J. Social Stratification in the United States. 2nd Ed. New Press, 2007. Print.
United States State Department, Web.