Talk:Three Worlds Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I recommend this article for deletion. Despite being a rabid anti-communist, I'm almost embarrassed for Mao on this one. It's poorly written, and I really doubt its subject matter constitutes a "theory." This just seems too lacking to remain part of Wikipedia. -128.101.53.240 08:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. This is not a theory, this is just a conversation.
- Not to wiki's standards. This is covered in the article on the Third World. - Andrew 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Needs lots of help, yes
As it is, certainly a snapshot of a point in time. Rather bad is that the context is really lacking, like 'Kaunda' is President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia. It needs to relate to issues and articles. Why is Deng Xiaoping mentioned? Shenme 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
the three worlds theory was a once popular theory of Chinese foreign policy in that they were particularly anti hegemonic (undermine the first world of CCCP and USA). it was explored by Chan s. in 1985 in his paper on Chinese foreign policy.
[edit] This article is strange
The last little excerpt at the end or "interview" if you will, is very off beat. It does not really contribute any knowlegable information other than opinion and is not even backed by the speaker, eg; Mao Zedong ending the interview with: "Mao: The U.S. and the Soviet Union have a lot of atomic bombs, and they are richer. Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada, of the Second World, do not possess so many atomic bombs and are not so rich as the First World, but richer than the Third World. What do you think of this explanation?" what is that all about?
[edit] Let it stand
I think this exposes the supposed theory for what it is, i.e. nothing more than a idle element of Mao Zedong Thought. Lycurgus 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. While exposing Maoism, socialism, communism—whatever flavor it is passing itself off as at a point in time—to be a moribund economic and social philosophy, why is it here? If anything this theory should be a footnote to the article on Mao, or Kaunde. It does not deserve its own page. Andrew 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge/Expand the article
I tend to agree that the article is awkward standing alone like this. It looks as if it was written in a hurry, which is a shame, because, although the theory is somewhat antiquated (the Cold War is over) I (and this is personal opinion) think that it remains relevant on some level(if only to students of Chinese History and Politics), and therefor ought to be preserved. with that said, the current article is unacceptable. I think that it should be expanded in its content and quality to deserve its own article, or re-written (in a more professional style) and merged with either the article on Mao or the article on the CCP. I'm not a regular user so i will not include a username 08:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be cleaned up and drastically. However, am I the only one who actually sees this theory as a relevant one in the future? As the Chinese used it to maneuver an Anti-Soviet alliance, it can also be used to maneuver an Anti-US alliance if it comes to it in the future. Also, ideologically it is still defended in China, unlike most contributions stemming from the Cultural Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.100.251 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recommended for deletion
Not only is this article inappropriate, but Mao never raised this two-minute conversation with the President of Zambia to the level of a "theory" -- this was only done by Deng Xiaopeng, who actually opposed Mao and was in back and forth struggle against Mao for decades (for those not so familiar with 20th century Chinese history). So it's not only not worthy of an article, but inaccurate. BandieraRossa (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] It's valuable & needs to remain (- but with improvements)
I'm doing an essay on China at the moment and whilst this 'theory' was briefly referred to in a book by Chris Alden on 'China in Africa' (Zed Books 2007) it was not elaborated on and little information appears available online. If it is the case that it doesn't warrant being called a theory - that can surely be mentioned and indeed the page needs some tidying - but the important thing is that this was a valid perspective of the CCP under Mao and apparent Deng during the Cold War and should not be erased from the pages of Wikipedia because of anti-communist tendencies or because from our perspective now it doesn't count or qualify as a theory. It's relevant now if only to give some background to the current Foreign Policy of China, particularly in Africa - where it frames itself as a country in solidarity with Africa's anti-imperial/colonial past Gazzelle (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)