The growing trend of Third Worldism on the internet is funny. On one hand, its adherents come off as deeply nihilistic and militant, but on the other, they resort right back to moralism and reluctance to engage in actions of any kind.
This appears whenever a critique of their much-underdeveloped ideology poses the question on all of our minds: "If Third Worldism is correct, and it's impossible for a successful and legitimate socialist revolution to occur in the First World, what do we, as First Worlders, do?" The overarching idea is, the West (or "First World") has lost its chances for revolution, or was never revolutionary to begin with. Revolution in the so-called "First World" is impossible, or, if it were to occur, would only shine as a beacon of social imperialism and Western chauvinism to nations that are much more in need of one.
The Third Worldist sees zero space for any kind of resistance in the "First World". When workers in the "First World" go on strike for higher wages, the workers in the "Third World" pay via higher rates of exploitation. But this isn't limited to the workplace. The "First Worlder" lives in a state of perpetual colonization through immersion in bourgeois ideology.
Everything a Westerner does furthers the colonial relationship between "First" and "Third" Worlds. We go to the store to buy mangoes grown in the Philippines and toothpaste made from minerals stolen from Mali - imperialism. We get prescribed modern medicine that comes from plants found in the Amazon - imperialism. We go to university and proceed to be indoctrinated with imperialist paradigms - imperialism. We go to work in retail where we sell cheap clothing made by Indonesian and Salvadoran sweatshop labor - more imperialism. We drive a car with oil stolen from Who-Knows-Where - imperialism. Even when we shop at hippie grocers ("good capitalists") and take the bus we are still reproducing the cycle of exploitation either physically or mentally by wallowing in imperialist culture.
The Third Worldist says this is exactly why organic radicalism can never come from the West. On the other side, the post-leftist would contend that within the consumer culture small kernels of resistance can form. They realize in this atmosphere of meaningless they search for new forms of existence. In both cases, the solution is to divorce yourself from capital as much as possible. Squat your next home, dumpster dive, and refuse to work or study. Throw off the rationalist paradigms that keep us glued to the social order.
The Maoist obsession with maintaining strict self-discipline would see the act of "dropping out" as a means of achieving a more radical and less degenerate mindset. Today, Western Maoists emphasize the much-needed escape from identities that condition one into maintaining an oppressor status. If you are white, you must rid your mind of "whiteness" as a vital act. If you were born into any other kind of privilege, you must proverbially self-flagellate until the reminiscence of your privilege is gone. Can one be expected to do so when they're actively participating in a culture that does nothing but reproduce imperialism?
The post-leftist willingly makes their life an expression of anarchy. They see the old anarchist strategies as useless in today's world. Much like Diogenes of old, they construct their lives outside the mainstream as much as they can. Bourgeois culture in total is something that ought to be rejected, as it is not only oppressive, but creates the aura of meaninglessness. Little acts of rebellion create a mental shield against the dominant culture. It is the outright refusal to be assimilated into capital that has the means of breaking the social law.
Post-leftists genuinely take up the paradigms and rituals of the outsider cultures. For them, it is not so much a fetish, but a learning experience. Third Worldists state the moral need to do so, as "Third Worlders" are, in their view, in possession of a metaphysical essence which propels them spiritually over their "First World" exploiters. Rather than insisting their (bastardized form of) Marxism ought to learn from them, Third Worldists insist on shoehorning the "paradigms of the oppressed" into a Marxist framework, where they naively insist that they're already on the same page.
From a Marxist perspective, it makes sense to reject the (non-)strategies of post-leftism. They are idealist, Utopian, romantic. But if one does accept the new narratives put forth by internet Third Worldists, would taking up a "lifestyle anarchism" be the only means left for "First Worlders" to weaken imperialism? Complete rejection of bourgeois culture means you eventually have nothing left to lose. Your dependence on the system for your experiences of life is gone, as is the state of mind which keeps you attached to it.
Perhaps the LLCO should collaborate with CrimethInc.