Marxism-Leninism without a third-worldist corrective is just Trotskyism.

Marxism-Leninism with too much third-worldism is just Maoism.

In all seriousness I think it’s an analytical mistake to assume the proletarian identity or category is homogenous, and the most stark differences you’re gonna find are between imperialist-proletarians and colonized-proletarians. Trotskyists imagine some revolutionary essence that they think exists equally in an Israeli worker as a Palestinian worker, for example.

It would be an overcorrection, though, to then essentialize the category of imperialist-proletarian as homogenous and static. A corporate worker with a home and 401(k) benefits more from imperialism than a service worker that rents. And the first subclass is shrinking while the second is growing.

Maybe the settler-colonial or imperial incentives played a part in revolution failing in the West (for now), but it’s an influence that ebbs and flows among other influences that ebb and flow.