Personally, I fail to see why many Marxist-Leninists support multipolarity. The primary goal of the Leninist movements has always been “workers of the world unite!” and not “non-US-aligned countries unite!”.
To be clear, in saying this, I am not endorsing US-led unipolarity. I am just saying that multipolarity is not inherently good as some MLs suggest. For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.
Could somebody explain why people support multipolarity so much?
Multipolar is so much more acceptable to the media than “Death to the Yankees” or “Frack the US”, but they are synonyms.
Multipolarity is not the end goal but it is a pathway to socialism because it represents the dismantling of the West’s unipolar imperialist hegemony which has been the greatest obstacle and enemy of socialist movements since 1945. I strongly recommend that you read this: https://internationalmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/through-pluripolarity-to-socialism-a-manifesto-final.pdf
Also, Multipolarity is emerging whether we as communists like/want it or not, because it is the result of objective processes of development that have been occurring for the past half century.
You cannot stop this process, and believe me the imperialists have tried very hard to do so by attempting to slow down, stop or even reverse the development of the global south.
So it is a reality that we have to acknowledge and understand how to make the best use of in order to further our goals.
- Unipolar American hegemony has been and continues to be a catastrophe.
- Multipolarity seems like the only achievable state of things that is not American unipolarity.
Ever heard of the concept of labor aristocracy? Western workers are getting paid like 11x as much as nonwestern ones. Its in their class interest to keep western hegemony. They are our enemies.
The global working class is outside the usa empire, not inside. “Workers of the world unite” is pretty much exactly the same as “Nonwestern people unite”
Replacing class struggle with national struggle is not going to better our movement. Western workers are still exploited and as proletarians (which is defined by their relations to the means of production, not their income level), their class interests remains in socialism.
I mean, labor aristocrats are still be proletariat. Socialism would be in the best class interest overall, but would cause a considerable decrease in the standard of living during the transitional state (I’d have to lose my treats during a revolution?
). Due to imperialism, the current unipolar order elevates entire nations to the level of labor aristocrats, meaning they have been sufficiently drained of revolutionary will. With this comes a destruction of solidarity with the rest of the proletariat. From my understanding, the idea behind multipolarity is that the ability to continue keeping the entire population of nations or international blocs in a state of labor aristocracy is vastly diminished or outright impossible in a multipolar world, as it gives nations who experience the worst of the exploitation bargaining power to uplift their nations and break away from the imperialists they are being subjected to. This would decrease the rate of profits, leading the group’s bourgeoisie to relocalize the formerly exported exploitation, rapidly deteriorating the standards of living of those at home. This would drop the standards of living to the point that the offerings of the bourgeoisie are no longer sufficient for that nation’s or nations’ masses, leaving them better primed for revolution.Edit: Sidenote: I don’t actually think it’s imperative for us Western Marxists to necessarily fully comprehend the idea behind it, as I don’t see what action we take that would call for pushing for multipolarity that isn’t already done under the banner of anti-imperialism.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is.
It seems as though you’re taking communism 101 theory and insisting that it be followed universally and by the book, regardless of history and material conditions on the ground, as if no further investigation were needed. Maoists wouldn’t be Maoists if they took Mao’s Oppose Book Worship seriously.
People have suggested to you several works on anti-imperialism from a Marxist perspective. Another important one, especially for those who live in a settler-colonial state within the imperial core, is Settlers.
deleted by creator
Western workers’ class interest is NOT socialism, their class interest is getting a bigger share of the imperial loot.
The only way to change this is to free all of the colonies of the usa empire. This way, the western bourgeois can’t continue buying off the local workers
I recommend this excellent video which refutes third-worldist narratives on the labor aristocracy.
I’ve never heard of Jason Unruhe. Apparently he’s a Maoist-Third Worldist, a tendency which almost never comes up on Lemmygrad.
“Premier Matthew” is claiming that the concept of a labor aristocracy dismisses the fundamental class relationship, but it doesn’t at all. The working class isn’t an undifferentiated horde, nor is the bourgeoisie, otherwise we wouldn’t distinguish between petite & haute. In Marx’s Capital volumes, he distinguished British proletariat who’d become “bourgeoisified.” Was Marx making a fundamental error as well? AFAIK, Lenin himself coined the term labor aristocracy, which Stalin quoted.
Maybe Maoist-Third Worldists make such a fundamental error; I wouldn‘t know.
I have become more and more convinced—and it is only a question of driving this conviction home to the English working class — that it can never do anything decisive here in England until it separates its policy with regard to Ireland most definitely from the policy of the ruling classes, until it not only makes common cause with the Irish but even takes the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801 and replacing it by a free federal relationship. And this must be done, not as a matter of sympathy with Ireland but as a demand made in the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain tied to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because it will have to join with them in a common front against Ireland. Every one of its movements in England itself is crippled by the strife with the Irish, who form a very important section of the working class in England. The primary condition of emancipation here—the overthrow of the English landed oligarchy—remains impossible because its position here cannot be stormed so long as it maintains its strongly entrenched outposts in Ireland. But, once affairs are in the hands of the Irish people itself, once it is made its own legislator and ruler, once it becomes autonomous, the abolition there of the landed aristocracy (to a large extent the same persons as the English landlords) will be infinitely easier than here, because in Ireland it is not merely a simple economic question but at the same time a national question, for the landlords there are not, like those in England, the traditional dignitaries and representatives of the nation, but its mortally hated oppressors. And not only does England’s internal social development remain crippled by her present relations with Ireland; but also her foreign policy, and in particular her policy with regard to Russia and the United States of America. —Marx, Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover
In other words, for the British workers to liberate themselves, they must fight for the Irish workers and support them in both words and deeds. Marx advocated replacing the U.K. with a voluntary federation of nations, quite akin to the U.S.S.R.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Because breaking American global hegemony inevitably leads to smaller blocs that are easier for communists to break up, its that simple.
Multipolarity is the only option by which to transition away from unipolarity, US domination. Any alternative will look fairly multipolar, even one with two main rivals, as other countries position themselves relative to them (like when the USSR existed and there were aligned/“non-aligned”).
Multipolarity as advocated by e.g. BRICS envisions multiple counties holding to mutual win-win pacts to have non-US-based economic ties. The feasibility of this is a materialist question, it will be about economic and military outcomes over the next few years and arguably BRICS is not living up to its potential at the moment. But as a goal or organizing principle it is a good strategy when no other countries are ready to become an opposite pole to US imperialism. Instead of going it alone, it is better to foster mutial ties and interests and devise strategies by which they could, if necessary, decouple from the imperialist countries. US domination, and therefore imperialist domination, is not just wars or the IMF, it is also the many economic tendrils weighing on your country and people for attempting to have sovereignty. The imperialists will pull and pull and pull with thousands of strings. If a country achieves a greater degree of sovereignty, what allies can they depend on if they are also subject to those strings? Integration with many counties is a way to create an intertwined economic world order that can (I think, at least) resist imperialism from a single country or even a bloc.
I think it’s extremely premature and unfair to say that BRICS isn’t living up to it’s potential at the moment. But on further thought, I think you have a point. I read “multipolarity” when you said BRICS.
BRICS started as an actual organization in 2009, but the organization arguably didn’t truly start until just around a decade-ish ago.
Institutions typically take years, if not decades, before they become recognized names and begin to truly change things on a large enough scale.
I wish that BRICS was more firmly anti-capitalist, but I could see how that could alienate millions of people.
I think it’s extremely premature and unfair to say that BRICS isn’t living up to it’s potential at the moment.
Why? They have slow-walked (and to am extent, reversed) dedollarization and excluded countries like Cuba, indicating a lack of commitment to multipolar ties (it indicates the opposite trend - pro-imperialist concerns). It is a truly barebones “this is purely for our own trade interests” show at this point and has done very little compared to its founding statements and theory. What positive progress has it made in the last 4-5 years?
It’s important to compare the material base to the theory and see how it is measuring up. One can’t build expectations too much from the theory, only the concrete actions can provide hope and analysis.
Cuba is in the “partner state” category, not a full member state, for which it has been applying. The category was created about 2 months before this. The partner state category furnishes very few benefits. It is basically being a “candidate” allegedly in the running, like being in a later stage of an interview.
Edit: I should note that Brazil fairly publicly blocked Venezuela from becoming a member of any kind in just the last year, citing their elections, i.e. the most lib PR possible.
Ah, you’re right, unfortunately. They are only a Partner State. Hopefully they do get added as a full member soon, along with Vietnam.
That was super fucked of Brazil though, I remember.
Yes, I’m still optimistic for BRICS and want to see it succeed with more members! It would be great to establish stronger lines of trade, hopefully leading to US embargo-proof shipping routes.
For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.
Yes, and both those wars resulted in massive gain for socialism.
The two European civil wars are better since they stopped the one-sided massacres against people of color by the European empires. It also allow me to describe the full horror of Indian Residential fake schools in the British diaspora by simply saying that it inspired the Nazi death camps. Anyway, if you seriously think that absolute authority by one person is the only way to peace, then I suggest that you put all of the Western European diaspora under the rule of Communism. The Pax Americana had been complaining that the Communists are so hard working and innovative that the invisible hand is employing scary red masterminds in key positions of British diaspora and Western European countries. They think that Communists have the best chance to stop brutal wars by establishing mono-polar control over the world.
I feel like this question can only come from someone in the imperial core. The global south wants multipolarity because we want to be the masters of our own destiny and not subjects of the US, we want to establish relations of mutual prosperity not of tribute.
I feel like this question can only come from someone in the imperial core.
I am trying to understand this question as a Marxist through a Marxist lens. Marxism has the same answers to questions regardless of where you are.
But Marxism is decolonial and multi-polarity is essentially decolonization by another name.
In a multipolar world without imperialism the different states will mostly naturally move towards socialism. In a multipolar world where there are some capitalist states living peacefully alongside socialist states, the capitalist states will eventually have to become socialist out of efficiency because they ironically won’t be able to compete with a developed socialist state. Since military intervention at the scale it exists now won’t exist, by definition of a multipolar world, then their only competition will be economic and capitalism is a very inefficient system in some ways compared to socialism. So, it will happen much more naturally with probably few exceptions.
different states will mostly naturally move towards socialism.
No offense, but this sounds very similar to the notion of “peaceful transition to socialism” advocated by Khrushchev. Socialism is done through revolutionary violence (a universal law), not peaceful growth.
Socialism as it stands is almost always done through violence, yes. But that’s primarily due to circumstances outside of anyone’s control, I.E. surrounded by imperialist/capitalist powers in a hypercapitalist world.
Theoretically, in a world with no imperialist superpowers, there would be less of a threat for countries to become socialist.
Well, I never said it would be peaceful. Haha
But imperialism wouldn’t exist to enforce its will militarily. I do believe that isolated capitalist states wouldn’t be able to prevent socialism, with few exceptions. They prevent socialism through a unipolar domination of power.
I don’t support multipolarity as a concept necessarily, but in the current material conditions, it is an absolutely necessary step for overthrowing capitalism.
The US and its system of vassals, world organizations, economic strangleholds, networks of operative and political/military/economic violence have been suppressing socialist projects all around the globe since WW2. That is the main priority of the world hegemon, as the aim is to prop up the US empire, and by extension its capitalist system, as long as possible and at any cost.
We should not forget that there’s been multiple attempts to dismantle capitalism at various degrees, in many different countries, in the last 80 years, but they’ve all been squashed by the US or its proxies. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that these attempts will continue occurring in the future, and if the reach of the US is diminished, then many of these attempts will survive and probably succeed.
Indeed, even in places where no attempts at socialism have been made, the local socialist groups and parties have all become extremely weak and diluted, to the point where some are even considered centrists nowadays. The reason for this is not just infiltration, or a “Western mindset”. A big motivator is the hopelessness they feel, as they consider that anything they do outside the permitted structure, will be doomed to fail due to US intervention.
Capitalism’s decline is inevitable. We are already experiencing it, and it is only kept alive by the exploitation of the imperial core population (which before largely enjoyed the fruits of imperialism) and the massive efforts at suppressing any form of dissent (which are becoming increasingly more and more direct and obvious). So if peoples are left alone to dictate their own future, it is very likely that much of the world will progressively abandon capitalism, particularly if PR China is around to help them.
As a recent example, look what happened in the Sahel in 2022-2023. With the US overstretched and its attention consumed by what was going on in Ukraine and Gaza, they couldn’t do anything, as Burkina Faso and others were throwing French and US soldiers out of their countries. They threatened, they sent some money to certain dubious groups and individuals, they tried couping the governments multiple times. But when all failed, the US could only just shrug and put a pin on it. Whereas before, you can be sure there would be deployments of fleets and possibly troops, bombing missions, drones visiting houses and weddings, operatives preparing assassinations, sabotage and coups, etc. And so, the Sahel countries kicked out the colonizers and are now on track on nationalizing the mines, eradicating imported western-sponsored jihadists and strengthening their independence.
On the other hand, if the US declines, but the world remains unipolar, i.e. another hegemon takes over, then that might not be ideal for Marxists around the world, especially considering all the top world powers, bar PRC, are capitalists. And also, most of them, bar PRC and Russia, are happy participants in the current US system. The ideal scenario would perhaps be PRC becoming the new unipolar hegemon, and they could certainly pull it off. But China itself does not seem interested in this future. They themselves promote multipolarity, which means they’ve probably come to a similar conclusion as what I describe above.
So, to summarize, multipolarity is good because: a) Socialism can take root more easily around the world, b) Nobody will oppose it, c) There’s no apparent scenario for a Marxist unipolar world right now, as the only nation capable of creating it does not seem to want it.
I think that China would be interested in being a unipolar power if the world/situation truly called for it, but I think that the PRC is rightfully hesitant, and would prefer not to. Due to a combination of historical memory/trauma.
The PRC has also said many times, that the time to strike against the U.S./global capitalist order will come eventually. And given the events of the past few years, I get a feeling that “eventually” will be coming sooner than any of us think.
There’s also the attached costs that come with the position of global hegemon. The US has been basically eating itself for the past 50 years to maintain power projection through military might. I think this is something China is acutely aware of. Even though they are spending a lot of treasure and manpower on building up their military force, they are doing it only as a deterrent to an ever-increasingly belligerent US (and this is obvious if one looks at what capabilities they are putting on their new hardware, that are primarily designed at defending and operating in Chinese space). They’ve stated many times that they’d rather be building commercial ships than aircraft carriers.
A multi-polar world would allow more unfettered development of the economies of the global south. Over time, this would allow more and more of the population to become proletarianized which should enable more opportunities for the Communist parties of these countries to organize.
A multi-polar world would also disrupt the flow of super-profits from imperial periphery to core which would necessitate a deterioration of the standard of living of the working class in order to maintain the rate of profitability. This would hopefully shake the American working class out of complacency and give more opportunities for mass work by Communists.
Yeah, good addendum to my point.
For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.
Do you want to know why? The main contradiction of those world wars right now, was imperialist western multi-polarity, competing to swallow the other over, (with the exception of the USSR and the then-imperial-occupied global south)
The multipolarity we have right now, doesn’t contain as much of those contradictions, but, in fact, is more ripe to anti-imperialism, including opposition to comprador capital, capital which not only penetrates, but rather make ravage and dependent a periphery nation to a core empire for its own designs, like with West Africa and France.
This anti comprador stance coincides with not only national bourgeois interest to making their own hegemony, but proletariat, peasant-esque subsistence farmers, and even temporarily-allied petit bourgeois seeking to break their own chains and make their own working class path, the latter who are most beneficial of anti-imperialist efforts. (though national bourgeoisie is definitely a force to vanquish, yet only dissolve when all of the world’s capitalists falls with it as well)
That is why we support multipolarity against U.S unipolarity; it challenges, for example, the status quo of dollar domination, with its stranglehold of balance of payments, that force these working class elements in the periphery countries to work to the bone, for not only profit, but give off their trade surpluses to the U.S empire, for U.S prosperity.
Even if Russia is not an imperialist power currently, the nature of capitalism (constant consolidation into fewer and fewer entities, competing over the division and redivision of resources and land) demands that in the absence of an imperialist power, a new one will form. Marxists hold that the dialectical framework understands things to be in constant movement and change over time.
What is to say that the anti-imperialist Russian Federation will not simply take the place of the United States upon its defeat?
What is to say that the anti-imperialist Russian Federation will not simply take the place of the United States upon its defeat?
Historical and material reality.
The US didn’t appear as a magician on the scene out of nowhere. It invaded western Europe not to defeat Nazis but to ensure the survival of western European capital, under new management of course. With US troops and guns at their backs they were spared their people being liberated by socialism, in exchange fealty was given to the US.
Quite honestly the US is a product of and beneficiary of CENTURIES of European colonialism. Russia cannot reproduce that in a day or a decade.
The wealth, power, geopolitical control, cultural dominance and propaganda hegemony the US enjoys was built off those European empires, their looted wealth, and their influence. Was built off cooperation with the British who in the post-colonial moment of WW2 still had deep penetration of many societies, governments, etc.
Even assuming the US suffers a huge fall in a few years the lingering tendrils of its cultural influence and dominance will be fighting it out with Russian and Chinese influence for many years if not decades to come.
In other words Rome was not built in a day, the US did not morph magically into an omni-power empire in a year or a decade out of nowhere. And Russia cannot do the same.
Western Europe did not resist US imposition as it came as a rescue, they will likely resist joining with or being dominated by Russia to form a new bloc to subjugate the world.
One strong, all-powerful enemy or a bunch of enemies in disarray with shifting alliances, backstabbing, and various weaknesses and uncertainty. In the latter situation one can even bargain with imperial powers scrambling for influence a socialist in some cases because of their weakened state being but one of many smaller fish.
Nobody is suggesting that Russia will become an imperialist power in the course of a day or even a few years. Rather, what is being suggested is that Russia will become one after a difficult series of armed conflicts, annexations, etc. etc. Looking at Nazi Germany, it went from being a defeated imperialist power with practically no sphere of influence to one which conquered nearly all of Europe and waged war in multiple continents in the course of a few years.
Let us no forget that the Russian state was born out of reaction to a similar extent the EU countries were, coming out of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and rise of the new Soviet bourgeoisie, its undemocratic and illegal dissolution, the rapid introduction of neoliberal “shocktherapy” under Yeltsin, the events of 1993, etc. This state is obviously and backwards force with horrible origins and so it becoming imperialist is not far away to say the least.
For me, Russia is more likely heading back to Socialism rather than turning imperialist if you check the material conditions within the country and external. Some internal conditions mentioned in this post are the following:
-
the share of supporters of socialism has grown from 26 to 43%, while support for the capitalist model has fallen to 15%
-
Despite the fact that they only know the pioneers from the stories of the older generation, two-thirds of young people are in favor of their return.
For Russia to turn imperialist lots of conditions(happy paths if we use the programming meaning) have to happen before we even consider this a possibility. For me, it is harder to see these possibilities come true knowing that the better route of socialist development is a more favorable view for the common Russian citizen.
Also, let’s be real here… If we have the time to only think in the worst possible scenarios, we should also give ourselves time to think in the other more realistic scenarios which is socialism returning to Russia.
It’s more likely that Russia is heading in short term not to socialism but to something reminiscent of July Monarchy, where it remains capitalist, but allows significant concessions for socialism.
If we weigh correctly all of the internal and external conditions within Russia, the possibility tilts much more favorably to Russia returning to Socialism than to a reminiscent July Monarchy as you suggested. Capitalism by nature is unsustainable and a monarchy even more. Adding to that, comrades in Russia are working hard to raise the class consciousness of their people and we are seeing plenty of qualitative changes mounting up.
Anyway, Russians are more warm to the idea of returning to the USSR rather than a Tsarist regime. If people wanted a Tsarist(monarchist) regime again, we wouldn’t have beautiful pictures like this one:
I’m not saying literal monarchy, but similar uneasy compromise with “accepting the revolution of the past” made by reactionaries to stave off a new revolution.
Exactly. Our goal should be world socialist revolution, not capitalist multipolarity.
“You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society. But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.” —Joseph Stalin, Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard
To reach that world socialist revolution, there is a process that has to be taken in order for that to happen. Lots of comrades here have shared good answers to explain that throughout this thread.
Just as I described for Russia, the same is true for the rest of the countries in the global south. In a multipolar world, their interests are directly aligned with their mutual development and fair trade. This is a far cry to what the west offered through imperialism which exploited the global south.
Please, don’t dismiss the comrades that have eloquently explained why it is important to have a multipolar world first to jump to socialist world revolution.
I am not being dismissive.
That is unquestionably the end-goal. But you can’t always skip ahead, directly to the end-goal. Sometimes you even have to seemingly go backwards to get there. Take for instance China’s reform and opening up.
-
What is to say that the anti-imperialist Russian Federation will not simply take the place of the United States upon its defeat?
Because China is going to eat both their lunch and there’s nothing that can be done, short of the U.S. and Russia coordinating nuclear first strikes that somehow decapitate China’s own nuclear capabilities, that would prevent it
We’re already in a multi polar world, China just hasn’t swung its dick around yet.
deleted by creator
We’re already in a multi polar world,
And its a world mired in conflict, oppression, disease, anti-communism, and fascist tyranny. I’m not sure what the appeal is.
What is worse, neoliberalism or fascism?
literally all of that is a result of U.S. and declining European influence. You don’t see the appeal to an emerging communist superpower? Okay then
Socialist states do not take on the form of superpowers.
Okay whatever you wanna believe hun. You literally answer your own question with “why would people find a multi polar world appealing” in the same breath as you list a mass of horrors perpetrated by the U.S. and which rising Chinese influence is already mitigating so you’re either a moron or here to concern troll.
Everyone considered the USSR a superpower.
deleted by creator
The world was no less mired in those things during unipolarity, they just seldom affected people in the imperial core, so to us it looked like peace & prosperity.
deleted by creator
I feel like its happening anyway regardless of my (or my local party’s) opinion of it, so might as well make the most of it. :/
Because socialist movements how a far greater chance of succeeding in a world where major powers are divided rather then the US/NATO having absolute dominance and control. If the US has no major rivals they are free to use their resources on playing world police and smother socialist country or movement before it has the chance to get off the ground. Obviously, worldwide socialism is the ultimate goal, but multipolarity is the most feasible next step towards that.
But isn’t having major powers divided going to cause yet another world war which will kill millions or perhaps billions? Wouldn’t the end result be Russian unipolarity and thus the same issues you mentioned?
This premise is so disingenuous, the world has been at war for most of the period of US hegemony and it will never end as long as this unfair world system continues to exist, the world is not just Europe you know.
While multipolarity isn’t inherently socialist or anti-capitalist, the current/coming form of multipolarity seems to be anti-capitalist, and a pre-cursor to countries becoming socialist.
The primary problem in the world right now, is the Amerikkkan settler-colonialist, white supremacist, fascist global imperialist dictatorship. Every single capitalist country on Earth, knowingly or unknowingly (most of the time, knowingly) is a lapdog of the U.S. or followsd in it’s cultural, political, social, and economic footsteps and imperial order.
While capitalism will likely continue to exist even after the U.S. empire falls, the fall of the U.S. will likely be a major death knell or the first major domino of a very long chain of events.
With the largest/most powerful stronghold of capitalism/imperialism being dethroned, as countries across the world are rising up against their neocolonial overlords, and supporting each other, they are and will be increasingly turning towards/socialism, bit by bit.
Rather than being dominated by a single unipolar global dictatorship, multipolarity will mean that the countries/continents of the world will finally have a much larger say in their own affairs, and the institution/enhancement of democracy (actual democracy, not capitalist lies sold as democracy) will mean that socialism will be even more on the rise again.
Nobody (or almost nobody) is inherently/blindly supportive of multipolarity, or multipolarity as an end goal. It’s just a major step.
There will no doubt be all kinds of horrific suffering and oppression and death, as human civilization enters a new era. But that will likely, eventually, stabilize.
The shift from Unipolar to Multipolar is a clear indication that the Western focused world order is ending. As that becomes a reality it means the contradictions in the west are the sharpest they’ve ever been. These conditions will only strengthen the movement. A multipolar world was the inevitable outcome after repeated recession.
The only way these countries could unite they way they have is directly a result of the failing empire strategy by the US. Having injected itself into nearly every international financial transaction via the ending of bretton woods and the beginning of globalization, the US bit the hand that fed it by weaponizing the SWIFT system to seize Russian assets at the start of the Ukraine/NATO war. Now that system is tainted and driving membership into BRICS.
All of this signals to me to be a death spiral for the imperial core. This is what creates the conditions for a rise in the demand for socialism. These events are also driving the fascist moment happening in the US and other imperial states.
This is a historically progressive moment. There was a long debate during the cold war between the Soviet and the Sino revolutions. The debate was between how to export revolution. Mao believed that the 3rd world states needed to develop capitalism before they could eventual transition to Socialism. The Soviet Union believed that with experienced technicians and loans you could skip capitalism and leap forward into socialism.
As the cold war marched on it became clear that Mao was right. The Soviet strategy yielded resistance from national bourgeois figures and compradors because their solution would result in removing them from power, so they stopped taking the loans.
I think we can see Mao’s vision in action from the Belt and Road initiative. Bolstering infrastructure for developing nations, regardless of mode of production, which hardens the nations against imperialism from the west. This is the results of combined and uneven development. Now we see African states building regional self determination, places like Burkina Faso building socialism.
As the empire weakens it allows for other nations to build themselves up. These nations are seizing production lines for national interests, while China is diversifying its economy globally. They support national development and supply chain development. We’re looking at decades of development ahead of us in some of the most resource rich portions of the globe.
This will naturally build conditions in the west to develop class consciousness. It also builds the productive forces in the global south that benefits those nations instead of western capital. This eventually allows for sharpening national contradictions that could lead to local development of socialist parties and demands.
As I understand it, Mao held that “3rd world states” (a term he never used), or bureaucrat-capitalist nations, must undergo a period of New Democracy.
Enterprises, such as banks, railways and airlines, whether Chinese-owned or foreign-owned, which are either monopolistic in character or too big for private management, shall be operated and administered by the state, so that private capital cannot dominate the livelihood of the people: this is the main principle of the regulation of capital. —Mao Zedong, On New Democracy
Where did Mao Zedong state that to build socialism, a country should mass-export private capital abroad?
Maybe I’m miss attributing this to Mao. However, the strategy employed by the Sinos is described by historian Jeremy Friedman. He described it as a Moa position if I recall. You can hear him talk at length about the Sino Soviet split here:
Part of the split according to Jeremy was due to this conflict in strategy regarding the third world and developing nations.
I have his book about the split, Shadow Cold War: The Sino-Soviet Competition for the Third World, in my reading list, but haven’t gotten to it yet.
That said, the belt and road sounds very rooted in what you quoted from Mao.
