Wad-Mouth Paul Had Ought to Learn Some Theory

Since I’m already on a debunking attacks upon Third Worldism kick, I’d like to address Joshua Moufawad-Paul. I’ve taken to calling him Wad Mouth due to his interpretation of ideology he spouts being akin to that of someone talking with their mouth full. I think that with his rewording of my name in his homophobic post about me in the past it’s only fair. Him and his group the RCP have a history of homophobic attacks against myself[1] and engaging in baseless accusations which I have demanded evidence. That evidence has yet to be provided. They much prefer wreaking activity to honest debate. I think it’s important to understand the history between us before I give my response.

I was made aware of a post he made back in 2012 where he dispels some myths about Maoism.[2] A good work, he certainly does do so. However I do take issue with his misrepresentation of Third Worldism, and outright pettiness in his post. This portion of his work was clearly intended to serve as an explain of the difference between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and our Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Third Worldism. To those completely uneducated in Marxism it would be reasonable to confuse the two. So please allow me to respond to his accusations which lack an argument.

Let me begin by reviewing his section on Maoism-Third Worldism.

4. Maoists are third worldist layabouts.

Since we believe, following Lenin, that revolution is more likely to happen at the weakest link of world capitalism, and that a labour aristocracy is predominant at the centres of capitalism, we are often accused of being Third Worldists who are under the impression that revolution is impossible at the centres of capitalism.

Yes, there is something called Maoism Third Worldism, but it is an offshoot of “Mao Zedong Thought” that emerged before Marxism-Leninism-Maoism was theorized. In other words, most of the worldwide maoist movement doesn’t think that Maoism Third Worldism counts as maoism-proper and some of us find it as asinine as the rest of you. Truthfully, we don’t deny some of its claims; we simply feel that they lack nuance, are not the product of proper social investigation, are undialectical, and are generally the product of theoretical confusion. We generally respect, however, the willingness of Maoist Third Worldists to reassert the problem of the “labour aristocracy”; we just think that its belief in a global Peoples War––where there is no point at organizing at the centres of imperialism, where we should leave revolutionary praxis to third world movements, and where we should just provide these movements with our “brilliant” insights––is itself also a product of first world elitism.

(And again, I emphasize, “maoism” did not appear as a theory until after this “Maoist Third Worldist” ideology emerged. And the latter emerged only in first world countries whereas the former was promoted primarily by the third world countries the latter was supposedly theorized to support.)

Nor does the fact that Maoism Third Worldism is the product of our general theoretical tradition fill us with much trepidation. At least it is a theoretical trajectory that cares about world revolution and is less revisionist than the trajectories in other traditions… It is not, regardless of its problems, entryism.

When it comes to attacking Third Worldism he clearly wastes no time, he places an insult right in the title. I find calling Third Worldists “layabouts” to be an incorrect and rather hypocritical accusation. Generally speaking Third Worldists are actually organizing for revolution as oppose to First Worldists who pretend to be doing so.[3] I’ve spoken previously about the cosplaying of revolution carried out by his group the RCP Canada. (My short book on the subject is due for release next week.) They do profess to be carrying out Protracted People’s War while holding public potluck lunches. The group also doesn’t engage in revolution. Do I actively engage in revolution? No. But I am working with a group that is. I’m well aware that I am in a support position, a realistic description of what I do. First Worldists on the other hand have a narcissistic self-important sense of what they are doing. Groups who really only do meaningless liberal protests and pamphlet distribution claim to be doing People’s War. I think the accusation of layabout is rather funny coming from a White First World elitist academic. One could suppose he was carrying out combat against the government of Canada from behind a desk at York University, and not say, like the RCP merely trying to co-opt First Nations struggles for their own purposes.

Mayday in the LLCO Bangala Zone

Mayday in the LLCO Bangala Zone

By contrast I am proud to be working with a Third Worldist group who is actually carrying out action. The Leading Light Communist Organization has an entire zone in Bangladesh in the beginning stages of preparing to carry out People’s War… For real. Most of the LLCO leadership have actually fired guns in revolutionary acts which is 100% more than what can be said for any First Worldist group. I am proud to be affiliated with people who have revolutionary experience. I wholly acknowledge, as I always have countless times in my videos, that I am just a guy on the internet. I feel no shame in being in a support role for those who do real revolutionary work. My ego doesn’t push me to fake anything, unlike the RCP Canada and other First Worldist groups. One of the aspects of the LLCO line is, “Duty. Patience. We must be humble. We must find our roles. Learning to lead is also learning to listen and to follow.”[4] (None of these values can be found in the RCP, they prefer to be keyboard warriors calling people names, spreading falsehoods, and making memes to attack people.) I concede no pride in the work I do being education, spreading awareness, getting the message out, broadcasting news, giving support to those who do fight. I fell into this role by accident and am good at it. I feel no need to run around in liberal protest actions taking selfies wearing a red bandanna around my face claiming to be a revolutionary. I have found my role, and I carry it out to the best of my ability.

Moufawad-Paul asserts that Maoism Third Worldism is “undialectical”, yet he goes no explanation why that is. This is not uncommon, many First Worldists make this claim also without an explanation. On the contrary it is actually quite dialectical. In simple terms we can easily see a quantitative to qualitative change. The divide between the rich countries and the poor countries has grown. Since Marx’s time the wealth gap between The First and Third World has increased from 3:1 in 1820 to today at an astonishing 72:1.[5] Over time that gap increased going through quantitative changes. These increased until they forced a qualitative change. That qualitative change was the development of living conditions and benefits of imperialism that negated the revolutionary potential of First World people. This certainly does fall under dialectics, and is a correct understanding of the evolution of global wealth that First Worldists and Moufawad-Paul seem fit to ignore. Yes, they claim there have been changes, but they give no solid information on them, they merely assert that it changes nothing when it certainly does. Perhaps Moufawad-Paul would care to respond to this argument and show something that would demonstrate that this is undialectical?

Next he uses a very common false claim to attack us. We have never stated that there is no use in organization in the First World. We do say that there is no use in organizing revolution in the First World. We have often said and do hold that it should be resistance in the First World and revolution in the Third World.[6] First World’s people’s duty is to sabotage their imperialist nation and its military efforts. Most commonly this is carried out by opposing imperialism. I sincerely doubt Moufawad-Paul doesn’t know this aspect of our line, his dishonesty is palpable. This is an outright lie.

His claim of “elitism” is frankly false. He claims that Third Worldists produce theory and just provide these movements with our “brilliant” insights’. This is simply nonsense and obviously an ad hominem. If someone creates a theory that is correct, does it matter the class position of the person who created it? I don’t recall Marx or Lenin being lowest of the low in society. Actually they were well educated and well off. I supposed Moufawad-Paul’s criticism could be applied to them as well. He continues with such nonsense reasoning. ‘…”maoism” did not appear as a theory until after this “Maoist Third Worldist” ideology emerged. And the latter emerged only in first world countries whereas the former was promoted primarily by the third world countries the latter was supposedly theorized to support.’ Again he uses a total non-sequitur to simply dismiss the Third Worldist theory without intelligent criticism. In his mind apparently an idea can be deemed to be correct or incorrect based on who comes up with it. This is called a genetic fallacy[7], it is commonly used by creationists against evolution. A better use of the term elitism would be an ivory tower academic claiming they are right without producing an argument, replying on their authority as an academic to support their claim.

Finally, his claim of entryism doesn’t even make sense. We don’t advocate that people join other groups to spread our line. We advocate that people join us and carry forward real work, not imaginary work.

In the end Moufawad-Paul spreads the same nonsense about our line as all First Worldists do. They, no more than anyone else engage in honest debate over theory. They much prefer to tout themselves as a truly oppressed group and the wretched of the earth insisting they have revolutionary potential despite the fact they have never demonstrated it. All of history shows us the opposite of what they claim. It has always been the more backward, the impoverished section of the world’s population who have carried out revolution. Where has Marx been right about the industrial working class of the advanced nations bringing revolution? They haven’t, even Russia at the time of the Bolshevik revolution was the most backward country of Europe.

I’d welcome people to actually educate themselves on Maoist-Third Worldist theory before they spout such blog posts. Moufawad-Paul, if you’re so confident of Third Worldism to be incorrect, I’d welcome you to accept the challenge to debate I’ve left open to the public.

* * *


[1] Liberalism and Internet Leftism: the meltdown of “Maoish” Rebel News, M-L-M Mayhem
Falsely accusing a sexual minority of being discriminatory against their own orientation is pretty hateful.

[2] Misconceptions About Maoism, M-L-M Mayhem!

[3] I will however say there is at least one phony Third Worldist group with no connection to the Third World and merely prances around calling themselves “non-men”

[4] Must Watch: Our Day is Coming (Video), LLCO

[5] How Was Life? Global Well-being since 1820, Income inequality since 1820, OECD iLibrary

[6] Questions about Practice in the First World, LLCO

[7] Genetic fallacy, Wikipedia

One thought on “Wad-Mouth Paul Had Ought to Learn Some Theory

  1. I’m always astounded how First Worldist can be so dishonest.

Comments are closed.