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?
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.
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.
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.