Multipolar is so much more acceptable to the media than "Death to the Yankees" or "Frack the US", but they are synonyms.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
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
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. I strongly recommend that you read this: https://internationalmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/through-pluripolarity-to-socialism-a-manifesto-final.pdf
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.
Western workers' class interest is NOT socialism, their class interest is getting a bigger share of the imperial loot.
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 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. 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.
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.
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’s strategy for the 19^th^ century British Isles was never tested, so we’ll never know what would have happened. He also believed that socialism would begin in the most industrialized states, but it didn‘t. It started in a weakened, largely feudal, largely pre-industrial empire after the first inter-imperialist world war, through Lenin’s theory of revolutionary defeatism.
Marx advocated replacing the U.K. with a voluntary federation of nations, quite akin to the U.S.S.R.
I don’t know that anybody is arguing against such an outcome. The question is how to actually get there from here. You can’t have a voluntary federation of states until you have sovereign socialist states. For imperialized states, that means that they 1) have been freed from the imperial boot and become properly sovereign and then 2) have overthrown their bourgeoisie. For Imperialist states, they can’t realistically be overthrown until their empires collapse. It’s necessarily so that the intermediary stages between a unipolar, imperial hegemon world and a world federation of socialist nations would be multipolar ones.
Why would the british workers want to "liberate" themselves from their colonies' imperial loot?
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.
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.
- 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.
Because breaking American global hegemony inevitably leads to smaller blocs that are easier for communists to break up, its that simple.
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. :/
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.
Are you seriously expecting BRICS to come out and say "fuck America, we're de-dollarizing!" That would be fucking ridiculous, as much as I wish sometimes that would happen.
BRICS was also first theorized as primarily a trade/development bloc, but China is steering it into a vehicle for a new vision of the world, which is fervently anti-imperialist, and BRICS has allowed dozens of countries to dodge sanctions and get resources they would otherwise be locked out of.
BRICS collectively increases the GDP of all participating countries by multiple billions of dollars, and allows trade and exchange to occur faster and more effectively than anything the imperialists would allow.
To question if it's progressing at all, is fucking nuts.
Your comment doesn't really address most things I said and appears agitated. Please consider whether that comment is fair and comradely.
Are you seriously expecting BRICS to come out and say "fuck America, we're de-dollarizing!" That would be fucking ridiculous, as much as I wish sometimes that would happen.
No and I didn't say or imply that. You are exaggerating, really straw manning, what I sais. Though in BRICS' founding statements, they absolutely did prioritize holding each others' reserve currencies, which is of course the beginning of dedollarization. And most of their founding statements are a direct response to US / OECD domination of finance, trade, and international relations in general, calling for instead following international law and using the UN democratically.
BRICS was also first theorized as primarily a trade/development bloc
By some crackers that didn't actually found BRICS, sure. As actually envisioned via summits and documents it is not only economic, it also extends to cooperation on law enforcement, climate change, multipolar diplomacy, respect for sovereignty, etc etc. The economic is of course the driving force behind any of those things.
but China is steering it into a vehicle for a new vision of the world
How so? What has BRICS done in the last 4-5 years, as I asked and received no answer?
which is fervently anti-imperialist
BRICS is not fervently anti-imperialist by a long shot. It could become functionally anti-imperialist by way of forwarding multipolarity, but only with discipline.
and BRICS has allowed dozens of countries to dodge sanctions and get resources they would otherwise be locked out of.
BRICS itself, as an organization or strategy, can't take much credit for that. Causation here is reversed. BRICS and multipolarity and fueled by imperialist sanctions regimes and dollar hegemony. Direct trade in each others' currencies, for example, is a consequence of their own previous economic development and the sanctions regime itself, not the institution of BRICS.
BRICS collectively increases the GDP of all participating countries by multiple billions of dollars
GDP is a magical quantity that tends to mean different things for different countries. China's real estate bubble drove up GDP but was actually an economic drag, for example. Actual mutual development would be something to look for, and one would need to tie it to BRICS. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say BRICS itself increases GDP, anyways.
BRICS operates more like a parallel G20. It is a diplomatic vehicle and pulls on the same types of levers as international capitalism, but from the perspective of global majority states. Think tanks, lending bodies, friendly vision statement versions of cooperation agreements. The language is like you'll find from World Bank ghouls but from the (correct) perspective that it is unfair to the global south.
allows trade and exchange to occur faster and more effectively than anything the imperialists would allow.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you using BRICS as a stand-in for all direct trade agreements made between its members / other global south countries? That is of course a good development but again I think causation here is reversed.
To question if it's progressing at all, is fucking nuts.
I didn't do that. And please do your best to avoid ableist language.
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.
I think Brazil is currently an anchor pulling BRICS down. While most BRICS countries seek sovereignty by getting as far from US dependency as possible, even though not necessarily harboring anti-imperialist takes, Brazil is selling even more of its industry to other global powers, even defunding is military industry (Avibras and Embraer) and depending more on US and Israeli tech.
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.
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.
view more: next ›