Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

1417 readers

1 users here now

The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

I don't understand the appeal of "multipolarity" (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

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.