In conditions of intensified imperialist competition—characterized by wars, realignments, and shifts in the global balance of power—the need for theoretical clarity becomes more decisive than ever.
However, it is precisely under such conditions that ideological confusion often appears in the form of radicalism. One of the most characteristic expressions of this confusion today is what is commonly referred to as “Third Worldism”, a current that claims to defend anti-imperialism while deviating from the fundamental principles of Marxism–Leninism.
Marxism–Leninism proceeds from a different foundation. As Lenin established, imperialism is “capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established.” It is not a policy choice, but a system rooted in the concentration of capital, the export of capital, and the struggle for markets, resources, and spheres of influence. This system is global. It encompasses all capitalist states, regardless of their relative position in the international hierarchy. It does not divide the world into “imperialist” and “anti-imperialist” camps of states, but into a network of unevenly developed capitalist powers in constant competition.
From this standpoint, the notion of a unified and inherently progressive “Global South” is not supported by material reality. It is contradicted by the actual movement of capital. States such as India, Brazil, and Turkey, which are often presented as part of an “oppressed” bloc, actively participate in international competition, expand their economic influence, and pursue their own strategic interests. Their bourgeois classes act according to the same laws of capitalist accumulation as those of the more developed capitalist states. Capital does not carry a national or moral character. It operates according to its own objective laws.
The division of the world into “Global North” and “Global South” therefore does not correspond to the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It replaces the contradiction between labor and capital with a geographical scheme. From a Marxist–Leninist standpoint, the decisive and universal antagonism of our epoch remains that between capital and labor, which cuts across all countries and determines the character of every social formation. In doing so, the “North–South” schema diverts attention from the reality that workers in all countries confront their own bourgeoisie, their own monopolies, and their own state power. To obscure this reality weakens, rather than strengthens, the struggle against imperialism.
At a deeper level, this approach reflects a method that is incompatible with Marxism. It treats social formations as fixed and externally defined, rather than as processes shaped by internal class contradictions. It substitutes static categories for dialectical analysis. In this sense, Third Worldism constitutes a regression from a Marxist–Leninist to a non-dialectical method. It does not deepen the understanding of imperialism; it simplifies it in a way that distorts its content.
These theoretical deviations have direct political consequences. When the world is divided into opposing geographical blocs, the independent role of the working class is undermined. Instead of confronting its own bourgeoisie, the working class is called upon to align with one or another group of states. The principle of proletarian independence is set aside in practice, even if it is not openly rejected.
This orientation leads to positions in which forces are supported not on the basis of their class character, but on the basis of their geopolitical alignment. For example, this can be seen in the tendency of certain political currents to present forces such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as components of an “anti-imperialist axis.” This distortion reaches even further. There are opportunist currents (especially within the so-called “World Anti-imperialist Platform”) that go so far as to elevate the 1979 Iranian Revolution above the great socialist revolutions of the 20th century (Great October Socialist Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution)! Such positions do not simply misread history; they invert the fundamental criteria of Marxism. A bourgeois revolution that leaves capitalist relations intact cannot be equated—let alone placed above—revolutions that overthrew them.
This approach is totally incompatible with Marxist analysis. The opposition of a force to a particular imperialist power does not determine its class character. These forces are integrated into specific state structures and class relations, and their activity reflects those conditions. Their political elevation as “anti-imperialist” actors represents a departure from class criteria and leads to the erosion of theoretical clarity.
A similar problem appears in the concept of a “multipolar world,” which is often presented as a positive alternative to existing conditions. From a Marxist–Leninist standpoint, this view is unfounded. Multipolarity does not abolish imperialism. It reflects the reorganization of competition within the imperialist system. The emergence of multiple centers of power intensifies contradictions and can lead to new conflicts. It does not change the class character of the system.
Lenin’s analysis of war remains decisive. Wars under imperialism arise from the contradictions of capitalism and express the struggle of competing bourgeois classes. They are not anomalies, but regular features of the system. For this reason, the working class cannot adopt the standpoint of one or another bourgeois camp without abandoning its own independent interests. The experience of recent conflicts confirms that alliances shift rapidly and are determined by strategic calculations, not by principled opposition to imperialism.
The reappearance of stage-based approaches further deepens the problem. The idea that there must first be an “anti-imperialist” stage, based on alliances with sections of the bourgeoisie, before the struggle for socialism can be posed, has repeatedly led to the subordination of the working-class movement. In practice, such strategies delay and ultimately weaken the struggle against capitalism, while strengthening the forces that maintain it.
This has been demonstrated in various historical and contemporary cases, where support for governments managing capitalist development in the name of anti-imperialism did not lead to a transition toward socialism, but to the consolidation of capitalist relations and the eventual strengthening of reactionary forces.
The issue is therefore not secondary. It concerns the strategic orientation of the communist movement. As long as anti-imperialism is detached from its class content, it will be interpreted in a way that allows for alliances with bourgeois forces and for the abandonment of proletarian independence.
A consistent Marxist–Leninist position begins from the recognition that imperialism is a global system of capitalist relations. It rejects all forms of campism and insists that the working class must maintain its own political line in all conditions. It evaluates all political forces on the basis of their class character, not their geopolitical position.
No bourgeois force can serve as the agent of socialist transformation. No reconfiguration of the international system can eliminate imperialism without the overthrow of capitalist relations. The struggle against imperialism is inseparable from the struggle for socialism.
Third Worldism, despite its anti-imperialist rhetoric, does not lead in this direction. By replacing class analysis with geopolitical categories, it obscures the real dynamics of capitalism and weakens the ideological and political preparedness of the working class.
The task remains the same. To analyze reality on the basis of Marxist–Leninist theory, to maintain the independence of the working-class movement, and to struggle against imperialism as a system—not as a selective characteristic of certain states.
The choice is not between competing imperialist centers. It is between adaptation to the system and the struggle to overthrow it.
* Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of In Defense of Communism.
Also Read:
There Is One Marxism: Against “Western”, “Eastern” and “Third-World” Marxism
