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?

  • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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.

      • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.