No.1330597[Last 50 Posts]
Multipolarity is not something one should be for or against, because it really isn't something you can attach yourself to like some camp or some ideology.
Multipolarity, as an existent term, is just a signifier of the current global economic conditions of the world in regards to the current dominant powers that own and transfer capital whether within their borders or without. What it means as a definition is just that instead of a singular global hegemon influencing global affairs or a dual power struggle between two superpowers, it is a condition in which the world is divided amongst multiple powers influencing global affairs/capital/the market.
To be for or against it is the equivalent of going out in the street and declaring yourself as being pro-summer or anti-winterists. Its silly. Its just like the changing of seasons and people have to adapt to it. When its freezing outside, you change into something warmer. But even the hardiest winter clothing is not going to keep one warm against the coldest winter, and we are heading into a long hellish winter. A capitalist winter twilight.
One thing many who espouse the concept of multipolarism (attaching oneself to multipolarity as if it is an ideology) tend to forget (or just outright refuse to acknowledge) that this new multipolar world we are heading towards is a capitalist-centric multipolarity. History has shown that last time this world had gone through a capitalist-led multipolar age, it had unleashed two world wars and countless dead. This not to say that having a unipolar or bipolar world is any better. During the Cold War the champion of capitalist hegemony, the United States, through proxy wars as well as actual wars, coups, and assassinations/subterfuge helped/directly committed atrocities and war-crimes that make WWII pale in comparison. During the unipolar reign of neoliberalism after the USSR fell, the atrocities did not stop, it only continued. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the list goes on and continues to this day. All to reinforce capitalism and sustain imperialist expanse.
This is why one cannot attach themselves to a concept of multipolarity, or unipolarity, or bipolarity. The problem is not how many powers there are in the world. The problem is the global economic system that those powers exist under. Capitalism. Capitalism breeds competition. Nations or precisely the national bourgeoise of that nation compete for capital. They do not grow together in peace under capitalism as many proponents of multipolarism tend to espouse as a benefit of multipolarity. They head towards conflict, because capitalism breeds conflict. There is no multipolar peace under capitalism, only the prelude to war and destruction as nations compete for power.
Multipolarism does not care for the working class of those nations. It is just a changing of task masters. Nothing more, nothing less. Any boon for the workers borne from breaking away from the global hegemon is the equivalent of a heavy boot slightly being let off their collective necks. The fact is that they are still under the boot of their national oppressors. It is up to them and we as socialists to use that slight aside to break free from under the weight of that boot.
Many Multipolarists love to reference the how many of these budding capitalist nations have seemingly good standings with the few socialist nations of this world most predominantly Cuba and the DPRK as if that is a justification that multipolarity is a net positive. They tend to forget completely the this does not wash away the fact these countries are still capitalist and oppress their own working class. If anything this does not justify multipolarity at all, it only reinforces that we still currently exist under a unipolar hegemony front-manned by the United States. This is because most of these countries are aligned due to the economic pressure (sanctions and blockades) put forth by the United States as well as the EU NATO-bloc (which is by in large an extension of American power). When that pressure eventually fades only time will tell if that alignment of those interests between worker-led nations and the nations run by power-hungry capitalists continue or (as history has shown us many times) inevitably clash.
And what of the old lion in the room? The United States. It is a waning power there is no doubt of it. Mulitpolarists love to frame their idealist multipolar world as one in which the United States is practically a nonentity. That there will be new orders that rise in its stead. That same United States that has military bases all across the globe will somehow just cease to be a relevant thing. Or if anything it will turn a new leaf and just accept the changing of seasons. Iridescent foolishness. Capitalism breeds conflict and the United States has sustained itself off conflict, colonialism, and imperialism from its inception. The capitalists who run that country will be anything but docile when their grip on global power is threatened.
We see it today with the arming of Ukraine and the powder keg that is Taiwan. Global war is brewing, a prelude to the birth of a new multipolar world. If we even survive to see it.
And all for what I ask you? Another capitalist-led world built on the ruins of the last? This is not even capitalist realism at this point. It is just capitalist reincarnation. A continual recycling of the capitalist system reinventing itself at the expense of everything; our entire existence put to flame just to try and keep the old ways alive. That is the multipolar world we are heading towards. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The global workers movement has been gutted and kept down for decades especially in the west. This has led many to adopt a form a campism to cope with lack of a united global movement. Anti-americanism, eastern/western dichotomy, and multipolarism are offshoots of this void. It allows one to feel that are apart of something bigger than themselves that, in their minds, can lead to something different. A capitalist multipolar world will not change or fix the problems that affect this world (which are born from capitalism) only the amount of hands that hold power in it (hands which are almost all attached to the arms of each respective nation's capitalist class).
This does not mean there is no global proletariat or that workers movements have gone extinct. Capitalism proletarianizes the populace. Workers currently toil in hellish conditions all around the globe and they are aware of their position. They know they are mistreated. They are striking and protesting for better conditions all around the global south. Workers are fighting against their oppressors. There is class consciousness among the working class. We must push towards socialism. Not some distant idealist dream of a multipolar world which only continues the corrupt system of the past. We should not want a multipolar world in the yolk of capitalism. We must demand and bring forth a socialist world run by the workers not the national capitalist class of warring nations.
Global polarity feels like the changing of seasons and it seems we are heading towards a deadly winter. The best winter clothing may not protect one, but if we all get together for warmth, we'll persevere. And, if there is enough organization, maybe, just maybe, we'll realize that we are actually not in some freezing wasteland and at the mercy of the elements. We are actually Inside a constructed economic bubble (or cave if you prefer Plato) and the capitalists set the AC on way too fucking high and its about time we set the temperature ourselves or better yet just pop the bubble (or leave the cave).
>all these words to say shit virtually everyone supporting multipolarity is aware of
lurk more newfag
Saving to a text file in case jannies delete. Seems based so far.
>>1330605>all these words to say shit virtually everyone supporting multipolarity is aware of but don't seem to care about
OP was concise and someone that isn't that read on multipolarism would benefit to read it.
This isn't social media, people here read theory and it's not that fast of a board. This is an appropriate place for such walls of text.
sorry meant for >>1330611
(maybe I don't use head after all) anyway please feel free to give me valid counter points to anything I said in the OP.
Revisionists who repudiated class struggle see the salvation of their opportunistic movement in a promised geopolitical reconfiguration because they think workers can't rise up. It's really that simple. Of course they'll say the workers can't rise up because NATO exist, their solution being not proletarian uprisings in the heart of the empire or even in its tentacles, but conventional wars waged by, much, much weaker capitalist opponents against them. And damn if those extremely long odds involve a serious risk of a global nuclear conflict, because it's morally right for Russia to fight the "ukronazis", or for China to conquer "cuck island" after all.
The pro-RU circle jerking in the name of a new multipolar order is effective up to a point, and has more tactical than strategic value. This is the point that many young male leftists miss, which is that tactics cannot ever replace strategy. All of the tactical initiatives like trying to promote patriotic socialism to attract a slice of disaffected rural Westerners or relying on Russians to weaken NATO can only get you so far, and an obsessive focus on the right tactic causes you to lose sight of the bigger picture. In truth, the West is fucked with or without a Ukrainian victory.
The funny thing is that liberals think we're fighting WWII, but it's more like the interwar era right now. Japan BTFOd the League of Nations by invading Manchuria, and then got bogged down in China 7 years later. Did the fact that Western powers opposed the invasion of China mean that Imperial Japan was a based anti-imperialist power for the new multipolar order? Imperial Japan used anti-imperialist rhetoric in its propaganda, and Japanese nationalists still believe they liberated Southeast Asia from the UK, France, and Dutch.
🍪10/10 pep talk>>1330605
good troll anon, i salute you>>1330606
too bad NM is down. Actually there's communists.world still i'll see if it could be thrown up there
I think you do have to divert some energy towards rehabilitating Russia and China for 3 reasons.
1.If people do not see those countries as bastions of evil, they are less likely going to swallow the war-monger-bait.
2.Is throwing a wrench into neo-McCarthyism, if there is no devil you can't be accused of working for the devil.
3.If there is no ominous outside enemy that takes up all the attention, it's easier to get political energy for internal problems.
>>1330701>too bad NM is down.
I mean, you can try and make a last ditch effort to get them to publish this, as a last send off before they shut down. Would be a shame if new Multitude ended with a whisper.
Also important to crack liberal pseudo-internationalesque sentiment of being in favor of "the people of" X country against Y government that the US also conveniently wants gone.
Criticize your own government and leave other governments to people there.
>Multipolarity is not something one should be for or against, because it really isn't something you can attach yourself to like some camp or some ideology.
>marxism is to attach yourself to camps and ideologies
>you can not be for or against anything unless it's some ideological camp
>retarded cat image
>degenerate flag and name
Every single time, why?
Based Analysis Comrade Bloodgasm, ✊😜!
Honestly, the only “Progressive” aspect of Multipolarity is its potential to cause World War III, which would be a boon for the PPWs in India, Phillipines, Turkey, and Peru, along with causing PPWs in Russia and China once they were inevitably defeated in a Conventional World War III, and potentially a World PPW to create a Global USSR to put the Workers and Opresed Nations of the World on the Shining Path to Communism if it is a Nuclear War, ✊😜!
>>1330617>Revisionists who repudiated class struggle see the salvation of their opportunistic movement in a promised geopolitical reconfiguration because they think workers can't rise up
I can't speak for idiots on the internet, but prominent Marxist advocates for multipolarity like Vijay Prashad and Ben Norton have not repudiated class struggle. They argue that the destruction of unipolar hegemony would destroy the ability of 1st world governments to give their workers social-democratic concessions that are rooted in imperial plunder (as well as an endless supply of cheap goods and services). This would result in class struggle becoming more prominent in the imperial core because the workers in the imperial core would be left with no other choice but to confront their own imperialist governments. Prominent marxists who advocate multipolarity (i.e. the destruction of unipolar hegemony) don't think that the workers don't rise up, they think that imperialism has become such an important contradiction in the world economic system that it has become a barrier to the revolt of the 1st world proletariat as well as a barrier to the development of the 3rd world (held hostage by the world financial system, particularly the IMF and the World Bank).
I suggest reading Vijay Prashad and watching Ben Norton for a better understanding of multipolarity.
By the way, no prominent Marxist advocating for multipolarity actually thinks multipolarity is a cure for everything or a replacement for socialism. They think it is an important step in removing road blocks to 3rd world development and 1st world apathy. And they acknowledge the potential dangers and side effects.
Hope this helps
following up my previous post >>1330855
with some recommended reading
Good post but, first world workers largely don't get anything out of imperialism.
On the contrary first world workers are being forced to pay for imperialism, for things like imperial sanctions (via inflation) and imperial domination (via military budgets eating into the budgets of social welfare services)
The part of the first world that benefits from imperialism is just the top 10% of the population in the first world. And very few first world workers are part of that group.
Multipolarity does benefit most first world workers in the struggle for better wages.If the periphery-economies can develop more the wages in the periphery will also rise. That means that there is less pressure driving down wages in the first world, and of course there will be less labor migration that can increase the competition in the labor markets. All in all that means that labor in the first world will gain more leverage, not only for wages but also for social democratic concessions.
A more developed periphery can also defend it self better against imperial domination, that means that military-attacks or regime-change color revolutions are less viable and for the first world countries it becomes less profitable to invest surplus in those avenues, instead they have to compete on the bases of having a better infrastructure, better health and education service that make for more productive workers.
But wait there is more. For the class struggle it's also beneficial, because what makes the big bourgeoisie in the west able to overrule the democratic will in the west, is the tools of political domination that it can finance from imperial super-profits. If the western capitalists make fewer super-profits they will also have less resources for suppressing democratic politics. Democratic politics does lean towards workers interests because most of the Demos are workers.
However there is a lag-time, that means the benefits from multipolarity are not yet felt in the west, while the chaos from a changing world order is already felt.
War is the best lesson for why war is horrible. By the end of the US's occupation of vietnam, 30% of US deaths were friendly fire. Nothing in this world is without consequences. There's a reason why attempts at systems of perfect control and total rejection of class war could last not even half a century at most. And the more they push propaganda, the cooler it'll be to be against it. I remember the bush years. There's no reason to out yourself as an internet-indoctrinated ideological fanatic to everyone, at least hide your shame. Not saying to join in and poo all over the name of the "bad countries" with the chauvinists, but it's not so important to be a culture warrior fighting to defend a foreign country's honor. The criticism to nationalist fervor will grow in proportion to it. Don't get ahead of yourself, you'll only exhaust your energy trying to pull the whole proletariat forward. It's an impossible job.>>1330855
There's still no reason to cheer on the inevitable. Especially when you know it will bring war and economic pain to many, it's best to sit back and not look like you are cheering on the working class's suffering. It won't make it happen any faster anyways
>>1330597>Multipolarity is not something one should be for or against, because it really isn't something you can attach yourself to like some camp or some ideology.
it is an emerging counter-hegemonic reality resulting from decades of unrivaled US imperialism after the collapse of the USSR>Multipolarity, as an existent term, is just a signifier of the current global economic conditions of the world in regards to the current dominant powers that own and transfer capital whether within their borders or without. What it means as a definition is just that instead of a singular global hegemon influencing global affairs or a dual power struggle between two superpowers, it is a condition in which the world is divided amongst multiple powers influencing global affairs/capital/the market.
correct>To be for or against it is the equivalent of going out in the street and declaring yourself as being pro-summer or anti-winterists. Its silly.
considering humans can and do affect the climate through their activities, your analogy reveals something that it perhaps didn't intend to. >Its just like the changing of seasons and people have to adapt to it.
Part of this adaptation involves thinking about it differently, which is why there is push back against both those who drink the ideological kool-aid of unipolar imperialist hegemony and it's "civilizing mission" against the imperial periphery as well as those lukewarm ideologues who simply shrug and dismiss everything as "inter imperialist conflict" without any deeper geopolitical analysis.>When its freezing outside, you change into something warmer. But even the hardiest winter clothing is not going to keep one warm against the coldest winter, and we are heading into a long hellish winter. A capitalist winter twilight.
Agreed.>One thing many who espouse the concept of multipolarism (attaching oneself to multipolarity as if it is an ideology) tend to forget (or just outright refuse to acknowledge) that this new multipolar world we are heading towards is a capitalist-centric multipolarity.
Vids related. The socialists governments have all either been overthrown or embraced strategic realism over ideological purity. We live in what Stalin called the "Blackest Reaction." Multipolarity is a precursor to a reignition of class struggle in the imperial core, not the end goal. We have reached the point where the USA is trying to overthrow the very same governments it put in place to get rid of socialists. America wants to replace Putin with people like Navalny. Unipolar hegemony means couping reactionary capitalists and replacing them with even more reactionary capitalists. Multipolarity means the end of unipolar hegemony's ability to do that. Like you said, it's an emerging *material condition*, but understanding it is better than simply shrugging it all off as simply inter-imperialist conflict, because that ignores that there is an imperial *core* that the current system of world imperialism orbits around .>History has shown that last time this world had gone through a capitalist-led multipolar age, it had unleashed two world wars and countless dead.
America slaughtered a million in Iraq during "unipolarity". Millions die because of capitalism either way. I think people who prefer unipolarity prefer it because they usually live in the imperial core and they perceive it as "more stable." They perceive it as "more stable" because all the peace is in the imperial core and all the death and war is in the imperial periphery. It's a caste system where those at the bottom are tossed silently into a meat grinder every day and that is "stability." When this violence suddenly reaches the imperial core everyone starts whinging about how multipolarity is just the return of the inter-imperialist World War 1 type situation… i.e. the last time people in the imperial core were killing each other instead of just the poorest workers in the world, whose constant and countless deaths are viewed as unremarkable and an indicator of "stability" and "peace" in the imperial core. Reminder though that WW1 gave birth to the USSR and WW2 gave birth to the PRC. The two longest lasting AES nations. (inb4 this dissolves into a struggle session about the failure of AES to live up to the ideologically pure standards of those "leftists" in the imperial core who have yet to destroy their governments)>This not to say that having a unipolar or bipolar world is any better.
But you named this thread "Socialism! Not multipolarism."
for a reason… am I supposed to forget that because of the rhetorical padding about how bipolarity and unipolarity are also bad?
During the Cold War the champion of capitalist hegemony, the United States, through proxy wars as well as actual wars, coups, and assassinations/subterfuge helped/directly committed atrocities and war-crimes that make WWII pale in comparison. During the unipolar reign of neoliberalism after the USSR fell, the atrocities did not stop, it only continued. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the list goes on and continues to this day. All to reinforce capitalism and sustain imperialist expanse.
Glad you agree. Hope this admission will not be used as rhetorical padding for something reactionary. >This is why one cannot attach themselves to a concept of multipolarity, or unipolarity, or bipolarity. The problem is not how many powers there are in the world. The problem is the global economic system that those powers exist under. Capitalism.
Specifically, Capitalism in its imperialist form, where wealth from the periphery flows to the core, and development is arrested.>Capitalism breeds competition.
On the contrary, monopoly capitalism destroys the possibility of competition, and contemporary imperialism no longer takes the form of 19th century gunboat diplomacy which forces development onto the global south. It instead takes the form of holding development hostage through high interest loans and demands for foreign direct investment, leading to arrested development in those nations which have a unipolar-backed comprador bourgeoisie instead of a traditional national bourgeoisie. A national bourgeoisie develops the contradictions of capitalism noticed by marx and leads to socialist revolution. A comprador bourgeoisie instead funnels profits to the imperial core, leaving the periphery under-developed, over-exploited, and anemic. a multipolar world would replace comprador bourgeoisie with national bourgeoisie. It would also be very dangerous. But it's happening anyway whether defenders of imperialism like it or not.>Nations or precisely the national bourgeoise of that nation compete for capital. They do not grow together in peace under capitalism as many proponents of multipolarism tend to espouse as a benefit of multipolarity. They head towards conflict, because capitalism breeds conflict. There is no multipolar peace under capitalism,
No prominent marxist advocate for multipolarity says multipolarity leads to peace or that it's a cure for everything. It's just an emerging condition. The competition between national bourgeoisie leads in fact to economic development, monopoly capitalism, and, inevitably, class war. A unipolar-backed comprador bourgeoisie postpones class war by keeping development anemic. A national bourgeoisie lays the conditions for revolution while preventing development from being too asymmetrical (core-driven, anemic in periphery).>Multipolarism does not care for the working class of those nations.
Right. It is an emerging reality and a precursor to something else.>It is just a changing of task masters. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wrong. this ignores the geopolitical reality of unipolar imperialism and its economic hitmen. It ignores the difference between comprador bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie. There are important differences between those. Just because neither of them is socialist doesn't mean the difference is irrelevant.
A historical example: The CPC aligned with the KMT against the Japanese comparador bourgeoisie for a reason. But the 1940s Chinese equivalent of you would have scolded the CPC for being insufficiently Marxist and declared that the KMT were just as bad as the people running Unit 731, and that the CPC should instead fight a two front war against both simultaneously (and lose). Or even worse, that the chinese proletariat should fight a 3 front war against the KMT, the CPC, and the Japanese invaders. >Any boon for the workers borne from breaking away from the global hegemon is the equivalent of a heavy boot slightly being let off their collective necks.
You admit the truth but then downplay it as much as possible. Do you live in the imperial core?>The fact is that they are still under the boot of their national oppressors. It is up to them and we as socialists to use that slight aside to break free from under the weight of that boot.
Yes. That is precisely the point. Marxist advocates for the end of unipolarity agree!>Many Multipolarists love to reference the how many of these budding capitalist nations have seemingly good standings with the few socialist nations of this world most predominantly Cuba and the DPRK as if that is a justification that multipolarity is a net positive.
There is a reason that marxists in the imperial core like to be dismissive of this stuff while marxists in the imperial periphery are not. You should sincerely make an effort to figure out why that is and not dismiss it as unimportant.>They tend to forget completely …
So you insist.> … this does not wash away the fact these countries are still capitalist and oppress their own working class.
parenti quote> If anything this does not justify multipolarity at all, it only reinforces that we still currently exist under a unipolar hegemony front-manned by the United States.
you have taken the cause and made it the effect>This is because most of these countries are aligned due to the economic pressure (sanctions and blockades) put forth by the United States as well as the EU NATO-bloc (which is by in large an extension of American power). When that pressure eventually fades only time will tell if that alignment of those interests between worker-led nations and the nations run by power-hungry capitalists continue or (as history has shown us many times) inevitably clash.
the fracturing of the power of the unipolar imperial core will make it easier for proles in the imperial periphery to be revolutionary defeatists and advocates of class war against their respective national bourgeoisie because there will be no greater threat of unipolar imperialism to rally nationalist sentiment. >And what of the old lion in the room? The United States. It is a waning power there is no doubt of it.
But it's not going down without a fight. it is unipolar aggression against the rest of the world causing these contradictions and fractures in the left. The people pointing this out are not the problem. The problem is reactionaries in the imperial core who benefit from imperialism concern-trolling proles in the periphery for being insufficiently revolutionary.>Mulitpolarists love to frame their idealist multipolar world as one in which the United States is practically a nonentity.
More like a less significant influence because it will be unable to maintain its overstretched imperialist apparatus once the rest of the world begins fighting back.> That same United States that has military bases all across the globe will somehow just cease to be a relevant thing. Or if anything it will turn a new leaf and just accept the changing of seasons.
The idea that the USA will just turn a new leaf is exactly what the liberal imperialists who believe in the civilizing mission of NATO against the barbaric hordes of Asia argue.> Capitalism breeds conflict and the United States has sustained itself off conflict, colonialism, and imperialism from its inception
Nobody worth a damn disagrees.>The capitalists who run that country will be anything but docile when their grip on global power is threatened.
this is exactly what the people you are writing your screed against have been saying>We see it today with the arming of Ukraine and the powder keg that is Taiwan. Global war is brewing, a prelude to the birth of a new multipolar world. If we even survive to see it.
and so the solution is not to oppose imperialism but to scold those opposing imperialism as insufficiently marxist revisionists. if you live in the imperial core I encourage revolutionary defeatism. >And all for what I ask you? Another capitalist-led world built on the ruins of the last?
Do you have a working organization and a real plan of action to prevent this? Or just high sounding rhetoric about how people who agree with 90% of what you say aren't real socialists? >This is not even capitalist realism at this point. It is just capitalist reincarnation. A continual recycling of the capitalist system reinventing itself at the expense of everything
OK then maybe the imperial core proletariat should stop scolding the ruins of the Soviet Union and overthrow their own imperialist governments? Instead they want to play chicken and keep saying "I won't secure my oxygen mask until everyone else on the plane secures theirs first!" >The global workers movement has been gutted and kept down for decades especially in the west. This has led many to adopt a form a campism to cope with lack of a united global movement.
The lack of a united global movement is the problem, and the cause of that is unipolar imperialism strangling imperial periphery socialism in the crib and replacing it with a comprador bourgeoisie who funnel surplus value to the imperial core, performing double the parasitism. > A capitalist multipolar world will not change or fix the problems that affect this world
it won't *fix* the problems, but it will *change* the problems. Which is precisely the point. It is a precursor to new conditions that may or may not be more manageable. And no amount of rhetoric will prevent it from happening.>(which are born from capitalism) only the amount of hands that hold power in it (hands which are almost all attached to the arms of each respective nation's capitalist class).
continually missing the difference between national and comprador bourgeoisie.>This does not mean there is no global proletariat or that workers movements have gone extinct. Capitalism proletarianizes the populace. Workers currently toil in hellish conditions all around the globe and they are aware of their position. They know they are mistreated. They are striking and protesting for better conditions all around the global south.
yes>Workers are fighting against their oppressors. There is class consciousness among the working class. We must push towards socialism.
yes>Not some distant idealist dream of a multipolar world which only continues the corrupt system of the past.
missing the point. >. We should not want a multipolar world in the yolk of capitalism.
it doesn't matter what we want. Reality matters. the reality is that unipolar hegemony is fading. We can either deal with this reality by employing strategies tailored to it or we can continue to wax poetic like you're doing.>We must demand and bring forth a socialist world run by the workers not the national capitalist class of warring nations.
duh>Global polarity feels like the changing of seasons and it seems we are heading towards a deadly winter.
yes>The best winter clothing may not protect one, but if we all get together for warmth, we'll persevere. And, if there is enough organization, maybe, just maybe, we'll realize that we are actually not in some freezing wasteland and at the mercy of the elements. We are actually Inside a constructed economic bubble (or cave if you prefer Plato) and the capitalists set the AC on way too fucking high and its about time we set the temperature ourselves or better yet just pop the bubble (or leave the cave).
>>1330892>War is the best lesson for why war is horrible.
Only to the recipients of it, no?
Eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, even Russia for that matter. Not the US or anywhere else in the imperial core. Are you basically saying that anti-war "activism" in the imperial core is not a worthwhile endeavor? Maybe I didn't understand you.
White American libs being white American libs. Yawn. Yes I support Russia, yes I support China. Every alternative to Whitey NATO hegemony is preferable.
I'm probably less critical than you in all in a lot of ways because I don't care whatever these countries do as long as they stop fucking around with the rest of the world.
America is adventurist in the purest sense of the world. There is no rhyme or reason to American foreign police because they have no reason to engaged in any of the stupid projects they get involved in. They just do shit just to do shit. They are idiots. It's a revolving door of idiots. There is no consistency because it's a new idiot every few years.
American isolationism is for the good of the world. Getting America out of everyone's business is for the good of the world.
>>1330904>Labor aristocracy is real, and the most vocal opposition to it comes from people living in the imperial core.
(i mean the most vocal opposition to labor aristocracy as a valid concept, obviously labor aristocrats do not oppose the actually existing labor aristocracy that thrives from imperialism)
>>1330892>There's still no reason to cheer on the inevitable.
i'm tired of american imperialism and i'm tired of watching my fellow americans (even the proles) cheer it on with blind ideological loyalty. it pleases me mightily to see it crumble even though the end of the battle is not the end of the war.
>>1330892>War is the best lesson for why war is horrible.
We can't afford WW3 as a lesson.
Even if by some miracle it doesn't escalate into nuclear annihilation, just the Chinese industrial base alone (on full war-production mode) would result in the production of enough fire-power to unleash the WW2 equivalent of destructive power every 4-5 days.
Every aspect of a war with an industrial hyper-power is unimaginably cataclysmic, even just the burn-off rate from the release of chemical energy would speed up climate change by at least 50 years.
We had WW2, as a never again lesson. There's a sheer infinite amount of movies, books and video games that convey at least some of the horror. If that's not convincing enough, we have to consider it as a brain-defect, for the sake of species-survival.
I agree only partially with some of your points.
A key part here is that the US is involved in Ukraine and must
be opposed. Similarly to how it was opposed in Syria, or other places. The US must NOT be allowed to colonize the world. This is a very obvious demand.
Obviously the war is fucking brutal, but what the fuck did people expect? Before Russia can be condemned about anything, the US must get the fuck out.
>>1330914>We can't afford WW3 as a lesson.
too bad the imperial core is insisting on it
>>1330915>Obviously the war is fucking brutal, but what the fuck did people expect? Before Russia can be condemned about anything, the US must get the fuck out.
americans are blinded and don't see that america is even involved in the conflict. all they see is russia invading in february '22 and the entire reality between 1991 and february 2022 is ignored
I didn't read all that but my problem with multipolarity is that it's another mirage of a political project where you sit on your hands, spout a few spicy takes, and hope for China or whoever to solve your problems
when america fights people like putin, it's to replace them with someone even worse, like navalny. look at ukraine. They replaced Yanukovych with Poroshenko and his IMF goon Yatsenyuk. America was fine with Saddam hussein gassing Iranians, but the second he tried to nationalize oil he had to go. Venezuela has a big private sector, but America tried and failed to coup Maduro in 2019 because he was trying to place limits on that private sector. Opposing American imperialism often takes on the appearance of supporting the national bourgeoisie in the global south, but it is only so they don't get replaced with someone even worse. Without an actually existing revolutionary movement on the ground with a strong presence and a chance to win, it's the only real choice.
Even ignoring that, why is it America's business? The problem is that they're trapped in there "white savior" mindset. It's just none of your business, fuck off.
I like this idea I've read of WWII being the foundational myth of the modern world American hegemony. All the brainwashing about American isolationism and Chamberlain's appeasement and America riding to the rescue and saving the Jews.
Just fuck off America, you aren't the hero in the b-movie, mind your own shithole country.
>>1330921>The American underclass has similar living standards than third world countries, despite being "materially wealthy"
as you typed this post from your office job another child worker died in a cobalt mine
>>1330936>Even ignoring that, why is it America's business? The problem is that they're trapped in there "white savior" mindset. It's just none of your business, fuck off.
some of them have the white savior mindset, but a lot of them don't even think the intervention is happening at all. they're totally deluded about american intervention because it's such a default setting that it appears invisible to them. And that's the goal of the interventionists. To make life in the imperial core seem unaffected by imperialism when in fact it is totally dependent on it.
Multiploarity is not directly
a political project for people in the imperial core, since their role in multipolarity is still the same as it was and has been since before the 1900s.
Multipolarity is a shit name and should really be called "a new era of decolonialism". The project of decolonialism is a project of the periphery. Imperial core comrades need to support this project by sabotaging the colonialists at home!!!
It's as fucking simple as that, I seriously don't get why it's so difficult to understand.
>>1330943>It's as fucking simple as that, I seriously don't get why it's so difficult to understand.
the imperial core proletariat refuses to believe that they possibly could have any duty to help their comrades in the periphery because despite being beaten down they are told they are superior to their comrades in the global south
>>1330941> but a lot of them don't even think the intervention is happening at all. they're totally deluded about american intervention because it's such a default setting that it appears invisible to them.
Fucking this. American presence and intervention is part of the fabric of reality. Invisible only because it is like telling a fish it's surrounded by water. >>1330945
Imperial chauvinism I guess.
But why is it so hard to convince comrades, even well read comrades here, that the decolonial project is extremely important and first on the list? Why do well read comrades have this idea that "not taking sides in an inter-imperialist war" is in any way significant when the conflict itself is predicated on colonialism? What is this idea of siding with the international proletariat if it isn't first and foremost also a decolonial project?
I think these are so basic things, it is hard for me to understand how socialists don't see things the same way I do.
There is indeed a labor aristocracy in the first world, but it's rather small. Most first-world-workers do not get imperial kick-backs. Imperial gibs for the majority of first world workers ended in the 70s, after that came the period where the majority of first world workers neither gained nor lost from imperialism, and now we are in the phase where imperialism is a direct loss for most first world workers. Like the sanctions war against Russia that's draining the effective wages of first world workers through inflation. So the majority of first world workers are now imperialized and subject to imperial super-exploitation.
First world workers have much higher productivity, that's why they are richer. The reason why third world workers are less productive is because the development of their economies and societies are being actively throttled by imperialists. So we have a situation where third world workers are being held down for the benefit of the imperial bourgeoisie in the imperial core. The workers in the first world really do not benefit from low-wage competition of underdeveloped and over-exploited economies in the third world. If imperialism were to evaporate the wages of first world workers would rise faster than the prices of goods (becoming effectively richer), because their share on wealth would increase. Third world workers would obviously benefit more. The overall increase in global labor productivity would enable all workers to get more in exchange for their labor power. The is no conflict of interests between first world workers and third world workers.
You are a neo-liberal ghoul if you try to create a conflict between workers from different geographic locations.
Third worldist theories of unequal exchange have been refuted so many times it's not funny anymore.https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=JNIUK7d8bRM
I'm just gonna assume from the title this is more of "I don't know what a prerequisite is and this misunderstanding and making assumptions leads to me getting angry at other people"
A lot of third worlders have smart phones too. You have things like Tiktok becoming popular in Pakistan because the user experience is so dumbed down that even illiterates can use it, of which there are many in that country. Some smartphones are relatively cheap and bring large comparative benefits. I'm not saying that third worlders by large aren't poor and exploited (and that every dirt poor farmer has a smartphone), only that any country that got rich by industrializing in exchange for dollars used these blood-stained resources. You need dollars to import primary products, that is why dollars are sought after. Foreign investment for example is a different matter because it tends to involve a small amount of large projects and therefore can be done on a case-by-case basis. Any person that got rich up until now was in this way "exploiting" Africans people, including people Chinese workers. This is only beginning to change now with China making special deals with African countries to help them industrialize in exchange for natural resources.
There is no use in engaging in too much moralizing over such matters. The point is to help African countries industrialize so they can escape poverty, which shouldn't mean that first world workers should suffer (as shown by the win-win trade deals between Africa and China). Industrial development is a good thing without which is the most basic requirement for socialism. The real problems are the parasitic tendencies of imperialism which make it impossible for inequality around the world to be reduced with peripherial countries remaining poor and being ruled over by parasitic national traitors and core countries being unable shake off capitalist social stratification and moving towards third world levels of poverty because of deindustrialization (this something that was previously only applicable to the US but now Europe is following suit)
Based based based.
Multipolar pro-capitalist goons should be purged
>>1330935>when america fights people like putin, it's to replace them with someone even worse>worse>better
It is to replace them with a capitalist that works for their interested, instead of the interests of another capitalist clique (the russian bourgoiesie).
It is not "better" or "worse". Putin is not a socialist or quasi-socialist like Maduro or Ghadaffi. He isnt a progressive working on a working class project. He is a goon for the capitalist class in their country.
It is not "better" or "worse". Having 3 superpowers is not better or worse for the working class.
>>1330982>It is not "better" or "worse". Having 3 superpowers is not better or worse for the working class.
Then why are you so invested in defending American hegemony?
>>1330987>Then why are you so invested in defending American hegemony?
Saying that the US goon isnt better or worse than the russian backed goon, isnt being pro- us hegemony, you dishonest hack.
Bothsidsers really acting like "ziggers" are keeping them from unionizing a Starbucks, SMDH fam.
Nah. Im "acting" like you are supporting a capitalist power in a war of capitalist expansion, i am "acting" like you are supporting killing the working class, just like the traitors of social democracy.
>>1330989>Fuck [unionizing], praise [new capitalist imperialist power]
Go off I guess
Who is stopping you from communist revolution comrade? The ziggers are in your head.
Listen, the posturing about how Russia was only defending itself, that the war ackhually began in 2014 because of the United States and Ukraine is in all honesty horseshit. It's something edgy you say to give context to clueless western liberals who think it's a fight between good (democracy) and evil (dictatorship). But in the end it's stupid posturing, Russia did trigger a real war they could have avoided, they could have continued to trade with the EU while they were decoupling from the US, with some shrewd diplomacy it's even possible they could have kept Ukraine mostly neutral. But no, the very nationalist porkies up there thought Ukraine was rip for the taking and their bet utterly failed, and they brought the clock closer to midnight in the process.
If China attacks Taiwan, I'm calling it, the zigtards will explain us how akshually cuck island belong to the PRC because of righteous clay from the civil war 100 years ago, and after all the US is responsible because they have a base in Okinawa!!! Fucking retards.
>>1330617>Revisionists who repudiated class struggle see the salvation of their opportunistic movement in a promised geopolitical reconfiguration >implying
the EXACT INVERSE is true. All the serious marxists I know of are welcoming multipolarity. All retarded libs, anarkiddies and idpoler impotently seethe about it while loudly crying about "muh tankies supporting reactionaries" as if we we were relevant or had any hand in it and it wasnt just the historical product of globalization and weakening of the empire
so shut the fuck up retard
>>1330982>A colonized country is exactly the same as a non-colonized country.
Is this what you're ultimately saying? Russia isn't near being a "superpower" so that is a ridiculous strawman. Surely you don't think that just because they can somewhat resist colonization then that makes them a superpower, right?>>1330992
It is not
a war of Russian capitalist expansion. Are you purposefully forgetting the context of this war? I swear imperial apologists have the memory of a goldfish.>>1331015>what is minsk 1, what is misnk 2, what is peace talks, what is etc etc.
Imperial apologists with the memory of a goldfish.>>1331015
>If China attacks Taiwan, I'm calling it, the zigtards will explain us how akshually cuck island belong to the PRC because of righteous clay from the civil war 100 years ago, and after all the US is responsible because they have a base in Okinawa!!! Fucking retards.
You realize the entire world recognizes Taiwan as part of China
you fucking moron. Imagine being to the right of the entire world on the issue of Taiwan.>>1331022>All the serious marxists I know of are welcoming multipolarity.
If a marxist isn't welcoming a new age of decolonization, then be wary of them.
>>1330597>The global workers movement has been gutted and kept down for decades especially in the west. This has led many to adopt a form a campism to cope with lack of a united global movement. Anti-americanism, eastern/western dichotomy, and multipolarism are offshoots of this void. It allows one to feel that are apart of something bigger than themselves that, in their minds, can lead to something different<the unipolar empire killed any socialist power in the west<all socialist revolutions emerged from violent contradictions between big powers<welcoming multipolarity is cope
>>1331025>It is not a war of Russian capitalist expansion.
Oh yeah I must have missed the bit about invading Ukraine to try to install a puppet regime in order to gain control of the oil fields and other resources so that Russian bourgeoisie can buy it up.>inb4 ameriga
America is just as much engaged in a war of capitalist expansion. Thats the whole point of an inter capitalist conflict between superpowers staged in foreign nations. All their wars are wars of capitalist expansion, on both sides.
You are the imperial apologist if you deny that russia, a capitalist great power, invading a country to try and topple its government to install one it likes to open up trade and investment (remember, the whole thing in 2014 started because of trade deals with the EU on one side and Russia on the other side), is imperialist.
You are no different from the social democrats in germany supporting the german empire against the russian empire before ww1. You follow the same logic of "if we send workers to die in support of one side, then after it wins this war, it will be easier to overthrow it somehow because its better than the other guy". The whole point is, and Lenin made this explicit, that a communist should never support one camp in a capitalist power conflict. They should never support the death of workers in wars for the riches of one or the other side.
Could you explain how Minsk 1 and 2, Nordstream 2, etc etc fit into your narrative that Russia wanted to expand all along?
>>1331032>The whole point is, and Lenin made this explicit, that a communist should never support one camp in a capitalist power conflict. They should never support the death of workers in wars for the riches of one or the other side.
A fuck, you're right. Anti-war is cringe. Let America destroy the middle east. I will NOT
support the baby eating Sadam Hussein against America. They are both great capitalist powers.
Nor against Libya, nor against Iran, nor against Afghanistan, nor against Iraq (again), nor against Sudan, nor against Eritrea, nor against Zimbabwe, nor against Somalia, nor against Venezuela, nor against Bolivia, nor against Guatemala. They can fucking nuke Yemen for all I care.
I don't care if America expands all over the world, since it's all exactly the same
if it's the Guatemalan bourgeoisie or the American bourgeoisie. Daddy Lenin wrote in the leftist bible that we have
to do exactly as we did a century ago even though the situation is nothing similar.
And I, for one, don't want to be a dirty blasphemer and go against the Word of Lenin.
Thanks for clearing that up.
>>1331034>Russia knows it cannot outright conquer ukraine so it tries to implement a federal ukraine that will, at the very least, create a weakened central ukrainian government of which the east side (where all the oil and gas is, btw), being ethnically russian, will be more easily brought under the control of russia using soft power on part of the russians and the units smaller size.>This way russia has more control over the natural gas and oil near europe, and place for investment for its bourgeoisie>Russia builds energy pipelines to export hydrocarbons to europe to further increase Europes dependence on Russia, further separating the EU from US influence, securing Russian Sovereignty, opening up trade and investment relations for the oil and mineral oligarchs in the EU.>>1331037>A fuck, you're right. Anti-war is cringe
FUCKER YOU LITTERALLY SUPPORT A FUCKING INVADING ARMY IN A FUCKING PROXY WAR YOU ACTUAL BRAINDEAD IDIOT
Cont before i got distracted by el retardo maximo:
>USA pulls coup>USA does some excellent maneuvering on their part to gain the upper hand>Mades Europe play hardball and not enforce Minsk agreement>Putins government gets uppity and retardedly thinks it can just conquer ukraine and fails>Yanks bomb nordstream and blame it on the ruskis, so that europe now has to import US ligified gas
Go back to Twitter and take your liberal delusions about material reality changing based on what bourgeois government you, an anonymous worker, "supports" symbolically.
There's nothing worse than obnoxious
>Kazakh oil work
>boy howdy I am sure happy that China is building roads here and would never let me be slaughtered just to keep them going.
>I hope nothing whacky and uncharacteristic happens in early 2022
The UN, France, and Germany (and Ukraine) agreed to Minsk 1 and 2. You're pretending this only benefited Russia, which is dishonest.
Ukraine was already controlled by the US, which you fail to mention. It literally had US citizens as Secretaries of State. You can't make this shit up. You're Russia would conquer Ukraine by Minsk is totally and completely fallacious. >FUCKER YOU LITTERALLY SUPPORT A FUCKING INVADING ARMY [etc]
Strawman. Nobody supported the fucking invasion. You could've asked and you'd know this yourself. But now the cat is out of the bag, hence the situation has changed and needs to be re-evaluated. >>1331043
This doesn't follow, but thanks for the info.>>1331047
What we're asking for is the same fucking thing that has been asked of imperial core proles. Anti-imperialism. It is seriously that simple. Get the fuck out of Ukraine. Stop funding war. Stop waging war. Stop doing coups. This is the BASIC imperative of imperial core leftists. It couldn't get more simple than that.
Take your "obnoxious" ignorance bullshit and stick it your ass.
Dude:>Stop funding war. Stop waging war. Stop doing coups. This is the BASIC imperative of imperial core leftists
This is all possible, and widely advocated and acted upon by anti-revisionists, without obnoxious
, purely symbolic "sUpPoRt"
for capitalist powers
while under communist pretensions
Your position is that of a social chauvinist and thus anti-communist.
1. I don't "support" Russia. So it is neither symbolic nor material, nor anything else.
2. I'm not an imperial core citizen.
3. What I advocate for is basic decolonialism and in line with basically all communist organizations and Marxists around the world.
4. "My positions", which you constantly make up for me, are obviously wrong by construction. But at least it's not your position that beating women is acceptable.
Your position is that of an imperialist-shill woman beater, and thus anti-communist.
>>1331049>The UN, France, and Germany (and Ukraine) agreed to Minsk 1 and 2. You're pretending this only benefited Russia, which is dishonest.
No, dumbass. The whole point of an agreement is that it benefits at least 2 sides. It did not benefit the USA, which is why the USA fucked up its implementation. It also benefits europe because european bourgoies elements want stability in europe and its industrial capacity (look at us now) as well as integration with a bordering market to which to sell their end products.
>Ukraine was already controlled by the US
It wasnt before 2014.
>You're Russia would conquer Ukraine by Minsk is totally and completely fallacious.
Strawman. You are a retard of the highest order if you think a capitalist power like russia would actively work on an agreement if it didnt think it could use it to its advantage.
Russia had one big bargaining chip, and that was that european forces were unwilling to engage in an armed conflict, and that russia could fund seperatist elements in the east of ukraine. It use that after its attempts at soft power in Ukraine got overthrown by the USA in the 2014 euromaidan coup, which then installed a us-alligned fascist government. After that coup, they engaged their forces and alligned with them to take effective control of the east, and used it to force an agreement that would not be the one they had hoped for, but still allowed them to enact their future expansions.
How do you not see this? Stop thinking in this idiotic "oh there is one good and bad side" and strawmanning people you talk to. OF COURSE AGREEMENTS AGREED TO BY TWO PARTIES ARE IN SOME DEGREE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH PARTIES, JESUS CHRIST. Youre litterally being so falacious that you just look like a retard, accusing people of saying "oh so the bilateral agreement between two government only benefits one side because you explained how it benefits that side after i asked you to, is that what you say, huh?"
Supporting one side in an interimperialist conflict, a conflict between the USA and Russia, a proxy war for control over Ukraine, makes you a social chauvinist, an anti-communist, and puts you in the same line of actions as the SDAP, who supported the Kaiser in his war against another superpower and later used the proto-nazi freikorps to murder communist opposition. Your train of thought is one to one the same. Your justifications are the same. Supporting one capitalist power, instead of opposing both and opposing war in general, because "if this guy wins it makes building socialism easier, somehow", sending thousands and millions of our workers into the death for no victory at all.
No worker ever benefits from an inter imperialist war.
And all you can say in response is retarded shit like comparing the coup in Bolivia, where US forces overthrow a socialist local government, to a fucking imperialist proxy war between the USA and Ukraine.
>>1331062>What I advocate for is basic decolonialism
Russia is not a colonial client state. It already is the national bourgoies independent country you people who misinterpret mao and lenin say decolonialism will bring. And those independent nationally independenr poles will, as they are capitalist, fight other capitalist countries over capitalist expansions and control.
Thanks for conceding, now stop treating politics as a spectator sport and read Marx and Engels.
>>1331025>taiwan is righteous prc claim and risk of world good because uh international recognition by capitalist states ok
Damn you're retarded, I don't care if the entire world think capitalism is a good mode of production or their borders are real, it doesn't matter
>>1331063>to a fucking imperialist proxy war between the USA and Ukraine.
USA and Russia, obviously. Typing too quickly.
>>1331049>What we're asking for is the same fucking thing that has been asked of imperial core proles. Anti-imperialism. It is seriously that simple. Get the fuck out of Ukraine. Stop funding war. Stop waging war. Stop doing coups. This is the BASIC imperative of imperial core leftists. It couldn't get more simple than that.
This implies the average westerner actually has a say in what their government does, which is barely true. In irder to be able to push for things like that, there's a prerequisite for a larger, mobilized, and theoretically grounded communist movement. The immediate task for westerners is to achieve that. Even so, the idea that this would be able to assert the necessary pressure to stop or hinder the US from doing imperialism (short of physical disruption and sabotage) downplays the critical function of imperialism to rhe empire. The empire is going to struggle to keep going as an existential matter. The westerners opposing it need to be woken up to the reality that they are also facing an existential threat in capitalism and imperialism (as is everyone) before they are ready to fight with the vigor necessary to win meaningful victories.
Still not supporting far right capitalist regimes because they are "anti-imperialist".
I think we agree on more than we disagree. I still don't get your reservations about multipolarity. The main point here is that US/NATO needs to get the fuck out of Ukraine. By saying "both sides bad" you seem to be implying that the proletariat "should not take sides", which implies inaction. While Russia isn't necessarily colonized (at least not to the same degree as other countries), the decolonization project exits BEYOND the borders of Ukraine, with things like BRICS+, EU eating shit, etc. Resistance to the ONLY imperial hegemonic power in the entire world is necessarily progressive.
Imperial core leftists should obviously not take the side of Russia per se, and nobody is demanding that. The resistance of Russia against world imperialism is ultimately progressive, but nobody demands that you "support" Russia. Imperial core leftists need to take the side of getting the fuck out of Ukraine, even if it means that Russia takes the entirety of Ukraine for itself
. Something which they have largely NOT done, just like they didn't do for the invasion of Iraq, or Syria, etc.
Let me remind you that this conflict has been basically all America's making. >USA broke the USSR, reintroduced neoliberal capitalism to Russia and Ukraine, created oligarchs>USA made Ukraine a neoliberal hellscape>USA nazified Ukraine (Operation Aerodynamic, plus a bunch of other shit post 2014)>USA couped Ukraine and installed fascists>USA installed Putin>USA armed, trained, and funded Ukrainian forces >USA has been explicitly undermining Russia since 2008>USA has thwarted all talks of peace>USA forced Germany to stall, then cancel, then exploded NS2
Putin turned on the west rather recently.
Since you love to jerk off to Lenin, what the so called "multipolaristas" (read: normal communists) advocate for is basically revolutionary defeatism. It turns out, it is hard to do that when the imperial core governments paint Russia as a baby eating barbaric global superpower, and just like they paint every single imperialist military venture as some civilizing force of" progressive anti-imperialism", so does the same situation present itself with Russia.
Which is why it might appear
that people are praising Russia, but what is merely going on is people rejecting this narrative of Russia being an ontological evil that must be rooted out from the ground. Your politicized rhetoric of Russia being imperialist is precisely the same used by imperial chauvinists, which is why it is rejected. Do you accept that there is a possibility that pushing the narrative of Russia being imperialist could paint the incorrect picture for imperial core leftist? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/beyond-putin-russian-imperialism-is-the-no-1-threat-to-global-security/>>1331077
No one is asking you to support Russia, but good for you for taking a stand against a fake demand by God know who.
>>1331078>The main point here is that US/NATO needs to get the fuck out of Ukraine.
And Russia doesn't?
It is not your place to demand it.
>>1331049>people on this board actually think us burgers have any say over what our government does
Ah yes, I remember as a child when Bush Jr. asked us nicely for permission to level Iraq
>>1331078>By saying "both sides bad" you seem to be implying that the proletariat "should not take sides"
Correct>which implies inaction.
No. And if you ever actually fucking read Lenin you would know what that means, it means revolutionary defeatism.
>Resistance to the ONLY imperial hegemonic power in the entire world is necessarily progressive.
The existance of superpowers in opposition to the """only hegemon""", each with their own sphere of influence, proves there is no """single hegemon""". Opposition to the USA by Russia isnt neccecarily progressive, there is no reason to think that, its a baseless claim. The war in Ukraine is not a decolonial project. BRICS and not a decolonial project. Decolonialism is when countries under direct colonial of neocolonial control are fighting to break free, it is not when countries are so big and independent of colonial control they start to form their own spheres of influence and engage in great power competition.
>Imperial core leftists should obviously not take the side of Russia per se, and nobody is demanding that.>>>>>>>>>>>implying
The support of multipolarity as a goal implicitly encourages supporting any capitalist regime that is not the USA. Multipolar idiots constantly demand you support russia.>The resistance of Russia against world imperialism is ultimately progressive, but nobody demands that you "support" Russia.<Sure, anything russia does is objectively good, but that doesnt mean i support it
>Imperial core leftists need to take the side of getting the fuck out of Ukraine, even if it means that Russia takes the entirety of Ukraine for itself. Something which they have largely NOT done, just like they didn't do for the invasion of Iraq, or Syria, etc.
I will punch your teeth in if you ever show up in person, you lying, venomous piece of shit. Is has always been the fundamental position of any marxist to oppose all of those, they have always opposed all of those, they have always and continue to oppose arming and helping ukraine. Youre a lying piece of shit who is either so far stuck up his own ass trying to be the correct one that you dont even know how the real world actually is, or youre purposefully knowlingly lying through your fucking teeth to promote a pro-russian-imperialist policy that has poisoned too many online and real life marxist (or "marxist" at this point) circles.
>what the so called "multipolaristas" (read: normal communists)
Multipolar idiots arent normal communists. They only exist in online weird cults or in the heads of people who watch too much Haz and Maupin and bring that litteral propaganda shit to the real orgs.
>advocate for is basically revolutionary defeatism.
Supporting the creation of a multi polar world as a goal in itself is literally the opposite of revolutionary defeatism. Supporting a multi polar world is explicitly in support of, as you said, "The resistance of Russia (invasion of Ukraine to install pro-russian bourgoiesie government(s)) against world imperialism" because it "is ultimately progressive".
>Your politicized rhetoric of Russia being imperialist is precisely the same used by imperial chauvinists
I will not spit on the Marxist task of *actually understanding reality* and being *truthful to the working class* because of campist needs to defend "the other guy". Russia is imperialist. Just like the USA. Just like western Europe. This. Is. A. Fact. Without the correct understanding of the world, a marxist party, the working class, cannot enact the correct political decisions.
Understand that out parties are not going out the door with banners saying "russia is imperialist". We are going out the door with banners saying "stop the war for oil and gas". At no point to we as marxist make the mistake of amplifying bourgoies talking points.
Fuck it I'm saying it: Prashad is overrated
>Immediately after the conclusion of the Cold War, which was a triumph for the West and for the United States, Russia was in danger of becoming a colony. The massive privatization of the economy wasn’t only a betrayal of the working classes of the Soviet Union and Russia, but also a betrayal of the Russian nation, because the perspective was that the west wanted to possess the immense energy resources in the country. The US was on the brink of possessing these immense energy resources.>Yeltsin was the “great champion” of that colonization of Russia by the west. Putin, obviously, isn’t a communist, but he wanted to avoid that colonization and sought to reaffirm Russian power over its energy resources. In other words, in this context, we speak of a struggle against the new colonial counter-revolution; we speak of a struggle between imperialist and colonialist powers, principally the U.S. on the one hand, and on the other we see China—the third world. And of this greater third world Russia is an integral part, because it was at risk of becoming a colony of the West. That’s my philosophy of world history, so to speak.>[…]>Mao and Fanon are very different personalities, but both understood that the anti-colonial revolution has two stages: the first, the stage of military rebellion, the military revolution. The second: economic development. The so-called “Left” that didn’t understand this second stage is in no condition to understand the anti-colonial revolution. What we see now is the development of the third world, and that development isn’t only an economic event but also a major political event. The attempt by China, today, to break the West’s monopoly on high technology is the continuation of the anti-colonial revolution.>And I believe, in this sense I completely agree with you, that the Left that was able to understand the anti-colonial revolution when the United States bombarded Vietnam, but cannot understand imperialism’s pretension to exercise economic power worldwide—that Left can’t understand the second stage of the anti-colonial revolution, which is conducted through economic and technologic development.>>1331086>The existance of superpowers in opposition to the """only hegemon""", each with their own sphere of influence, proves there is no """single hegemon""".
Russia is a superpower? Or what are you implying with this line? Imperialists don't all sing the same tune. >To understand the profound division in the ruling class and within imperialism, maybe we should attempt another analysis. In the U.S. there’s a debate: is the United States in the position to fight Russia and China at the same time? Is it better for the U.S. to divide the China-Russia front? How can we divide that front? Maybe we can–and this is Trump’s position–make peace with Russia the better to fight China.
The imperial core is not unified in everything. Only in their imperial hegemony. >>1331091
Impossible. Multipolarity is basically strawman metropolis.
I'm all for multipolarity. I just think the Russian Federation is cringe shit. Their domestic policy appeals to trad right wing schjzos and their foreign policy appeals to CCCP nostalgiafags.
I thought Washington Bullets was over-rated, there are much better, more comprehensive books on the subject - which he must have read also, in fact there are several of them. I suppose it serves as a short pamphlet to kind of some up the idea, but ultimately if you've been into anti imperialism for a minute you're not going to learn many new things, compared to reading Killing Hope or something.
I like he news update channel and he is generally based. Although anybody who complains about Chomsky shouldn't be a Prashad head because they are good pals.
great post OP>>1330617>cuck island
I'm stealing this
Yeh except a huge amount of people who are not and literally think: Does business with China = Good no matter the conditions people work under.
There are people, on this board, who will literally uphold the line the Saudi Arabia is now and emerging anti imperial state or whatever.
Frankly, its one of those discourses I've seen a huge amount of bandwagon jumpers hop to and talk about, but really not a very large amount of proper analysis of the actualities of it, just a repetition of the vague idea 2 or 3 poles of power is good, and 1 is bad.
To me, that idea SEEMS good on its face, but as a universal rule that we should suddenly be guiding basically our entire politics by, and for some people it is now like this, I think it falls short, falls hard, and falls often.
Saudi Arabia, Israel, these are good examples of hints that the new emerging pole or poles of power may not be the Panacea it is claimed to be.
Another example would be the Phillipines, has its place between two empires lead to an upsurge in socialist politics? Or has it just given a comprador 2 avenues by which to enrich their friends?
In Latin America and other places we do see Chinese money helping out with development projects within leftist states, but at the same time, can we call this the undermining of the capitalist hegemon, or simply more shrewd capitalist business dealing. We notice too that, this arm of "fair finance" is only helpful to already fairly established socialist movements, as if it doesn't really matter to the new multipolar order who is in power, so long as business keeps on going.
Certainly, it is a fact that another pole, or multiple poles are emerging, and the western pole is in a state of death decline, only an idiot could think otherwise
But what does that boil down to for the average western leftist, which, most of us here are. You going to larp about how great it is that Modi and MBS are getting a greater market share? Gonna go round knocking on doors telling people the good word of Brics? I guarantee very few people give a fuck, unless you are going to put in terms of why the pay so much for heating.
We have no control over geopolitics, fan ficcing about how based large glorified oil refineries are won't bring you more control, building a disciplined mass movement will.
Further I'll guess this post was right on the money
The current Russian state capitalism is vastly preferable over a bunch of neoliberal vassal regimes that would split up the Russian federation.
I wonder how much the resurgence of socially conservative cultural values in Russia are influenced by liberals in the EU and US that combine their liberal cultural values with virulently anti-russian racism. The beginning of "rusofobic progracism" was in 2016 US politics when the Russia-gate conspiracies were adopted by the mainstream media. A lot of Russians can read English language western social media, so that's probably a factor.
>>1331136>my country's party is among the signatories on the left
based and not retarded pilled
Jokes on you, my country is on both of these lists… You may not like it, but this is what true both sidism looks like.
To add to this and more seriously, while ziggas are very vocal on this board and don't hesitate to resort to fedjacketting when people don't agree with them, the 2nd position is still shared by a small minority of commies world wide. That's because trotskyists, anarcho-communists, leftcoms, and maoists overwhelmingly analyze this conflict as an imperialist war between bourgeois blocs (basically they are in agreement with the first list) and parties of "AES" countries stay cautious because of geopolitical necessities.
sure but the right text acts as if the Russian Federation is in any way "anti-fascist" despite sending fascist freikorps (Wagner) to do whatever dirtyworks needs doing. if it were only geopolitical practicalities then they should outright say so, not pretend it's anything else
Did the Communist Party of Cuba not sign either of the statements?
Cool story, I still think Russian Mafia state goons suck at their jobs and the attendant oligarchs are even dumber than Western financial elites. All a Russian oligarch did to attain power was sell off a bunch of public utilities and lay off hundreds of thousands of workers. And they get the state they deserve, a totally gutted wonky apparatus only held together by the force of Putin's intellect. All of his henchmen fucking suck at their jobs.
Cuban socialists actually have fucking brains in their skulls, so they would sign the one on the left. But doing so would destroy their trade deals with Russia, which they cannot afford atm.
>>1331039>Russia knows it cannot outright conquer ukraine so it tries to implement a federal ukraine
already blatantly lying on the first line ? russia really didnt want to get roped into this at first. The US coup is what initiated the situation
>>1331146>The current Russian state capitalism is vastly preferable
why does it matter which porkoids exploit Russian workers?
Oh I must have imagined Russia trying to implement Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 after euromaidan for years on end. Yeah the coup in 2014 directly led to the Russian invasion in 2022. They had no choice but to invade immediately (after 8 years of literally trying to implement a federal Ukraine)
starting your narrative at minsk like it was initiated by russia is the issue I have with your framing. Federalization was seen as the easy solution to prevent a fully nato ukraine, but it was about investing as little as possible to safeguard their crucial security interests. Framing this as "they wanted dombass resources and federalization was their way of doing it" is either dishonest nafo tier bullshit or ignorance.
>>1331151>Maybe, we should all be pushing for socialism and standing in solidarity with the workers of all nations especially those in the global south instead of glamming on to the profit driven plight of the national bourgeoise of these capitalist nations and hoping everything will just work out in this budding multipolar world.
so, basically, already what we're doing aka "irrelevant people doing fuckall"
the only sane policy push socialist can have toward this war is leaving military alliances and stop exporting weapons, anything else is just shitposting, analysis or theory building with no effect on reality, except getting few irrelevant socialist to not support nato narratives and weapons export
This fake opposition between "multipolarista" and "pure true socialist" is the basis of your whole shit, and it's frankly retarded. Any socialist worth their salt know that multipolarity is just what the world is evolving into, and that its a more fertile ground for socialism, and thus the positivity. Seething because "BUT YOU SUPPORT A CAPITALIST, BUILD SOCIALISM INSTEAD" is just missing the point
>>1331167>the force of Putin's intellect.
Liberals do have a tendency to think that governments they don't like are masterminded by a single guy..
Putin probably is big brained, however from a practical point of view, it can't really be done.
Great intellect man of history isn't really plausible.
Prashad makes Chomsky better
No, you see, because imperialism is about gaining territory, and because Russia annexed territory in 2022, this means they were planning to do it since the fall of the USSR, because they want to steal oil since Russia is oil-poor.
>>1331234>imperialism is about gaining territory
A stance unironically defended by the KRPF and co when they talk about "NATO imperialism"
Well in that case they're wrong, obviously. It's not like the KRPF is a principled leftist org anyways.
Damn these fuckers don't even hold a vote to see if it's approved by majority or not.
What the fuck is the point of this meeting, they barely have any resolutions. Every party just published some self congratulatory message and there's barely, and sometimes none at all, resolutions. They're labeled as "solidarity statements"???
Why have this meeting if you're not gonna resolve any conflicts or provide anything of value to the movement? What am I supposed to do with these resolutions? There's not even good explanations for the 3 resolutions they did publish in the past 4 years.
Can you dumbfucks stop strawmanning? Holy shit.
I did not "start my narrative at Minsk". Russia and the west were ready using sponsoring and soft power before 2014 to get this or that group into power.
You guys are just dying to frame this entire thing as Russia who did nothing ever and is just an innocent bystander, acting as if Ukraine was already some integral part of the Russian state, and that everything here is only and only 100 procent the fault of the USA. It's borderline chauvinistic how much you infantalize non American states.
Imperialism is a system, a natural result of capitalism. Every capitalist power will become imperialist if they get sovereignty over their own domain and develop internal monopolies.
You guys can't fucking think or engage in honest conversations. Actual communists ought to just expell you all.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. At least one of these solidnet parties are KKE funded and affiliated "ghost" parties that do very little organizing if anything. Their primary activities is posturing.
No, Putin is a refutation of great man theories of history. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders of the 21st century yet it isn't enough to turn the ship around on a post-USSR mafia oligarch state with a shitty army. I guess the Russian military will become pretty decent in a few years but the tradeoff is squandering the lives of at least tens of thousands of young dudes who had more to contribute alive than dead.
>>1331494> He is undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders of the 21st century>The guy who spearheaded the collapse and privitisation of the soviet union
This is lefty-pol, not righty-pol.
In 1916, Lenin called imperialism the highest stage of capitalism. In 1965, Kwame Nkrumah said that neocolonialism is the last stage of imperialism. Both are obsolete.
<Since 1990, we’ve been in a new, even higher stage. A thread on debt, finance, the US, the Arab Spring and China. Lenin and Nkrumah were correct in their time. But imperialism keeps changing, so theory must change too. Clinging to old models despite new data is the essence of dogmatism.
>Nkrumah in fact predicted a new stage would result from the socialist bloc's collapse. Then it collapsed. I'll begin with some numbers showing the quantitative changes in how imperialism has been maintained and enforced since 1990.
>First, financial coercion by the IMF, honed during the 80s, tripled in the decade after 1990. From 1984-1989 the IMF loaned an average of $4 billion a year; in an equal period after (1990-1995) it averaged $8.2 billion a year. In 2020 it was $37 billion.https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/tad/extrep1.aspx
>The amounts are relatively small, but these loans come at a high price, and are often targeted at countries in crisis that are least able to refuse. Before a member country can even be considered for a loan, the IMF requires that its economy undergo "structural adjustment"
>These adjustments typically involve social spending minimums, the elimination of price controls, the devaluing of local currency, and refocusing industry on resource extraction and direct exports. Essentially, they are a weapon of class warfare against the peasants and workers.
>I've already written a little about how the IMF deployed this weapon against Sudan in the 80s. Similar schemes were targeted at Rwanda, Côte d’Ivoire, Mexico, Bolivia, and many others all over the world.
>Second, as an unchallenged superpower, the US became twice as warlike as before. The US has conducted 400 total military interventions in its history—50% in the past 70 years and 25% in the past 30 years. The rate of new interventions doubled after 1990.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220027221117546
>The US had always been relatively hesitant to wield its military directly, usually relying on the CIA and proxies such as the Nicaraguan Contras. But only a month after the Berlin Wall was broken, the US military openly invaded Panama.
>The US military transformed from a deterrent against the spread of socialism to a global occupying force. In 1989 it had bases in 40 countries; by 2021 it was 80 countries. In 2008 a new strategic command for operations in Africa (AFRICOM) was created.https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/auislandora%3A94927
>Third, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US govt's go-to soft-power tool for coopting revolution and sabotaging resistance to its system of exploitation, expanded by an order of magnitude. In 1989, it spent just $21 million; by 2008, it was spending $135 million per year.
>The NED's roster of "experts" have included former US government officials you may recognize, like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzenzinski, Elliott Abrams and Madeleine Albright. A co-founder of the NED told the Washington Post that "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
>The actual purpose of the NED and its sister organizations is to bring "democracy" to the enemies of the US empire. According to the NED's website, it is funded by an annual appropriation from Congress, and is answerable to it and to the Executive Branch.
>So it's probably no surprise a data regression analysis of all NED activity from 1990-1999 found that NED aid "neither produces democracy nor follows democratization" and that there was a NEGATIVE relationship between NED grants and democracy scores.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510340500225947
>These quantitative changes show that qualitatively, after 1990, the United States and its closest allies (the UK, France, Germany, Japan) gained a complete monopoly on political influence throughout almost the entire world.
>This has never before been the case in any stage of imperialism. Empires had always had competitors, whether it was another empire (such as how the European powers warred with one another in Lenin's time), or a competing economic order like the Soviet Union's. No longer.
>Resistance to imperialism thus became vastly more difficult. The Arab Spring of 2011 is a good example. Its major flash points—Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan—were praised in 1999 for "successfully" implementing structural adjustment programs.https://merip.org/1999/03/how-tunisia-morocco-jordan-and-even-egypt-became-imf-success-stories-in-the-1990s/
>In reality, this meant misery for the Arab worker. The Egyptian textile industry, for example, was privatized and its workforce halved. Wages stagnated as the cost of living increased. Things got worse throughout the 2000s, until many couldn’t afford food.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/25/imf-arab-spring-loans-egypt-tunisia
>Even Libya was duped into "reforming" to attract foreign investment. In 2007, one-third of all public employees were laid off; being the last bastion of Arab Socialism, the govt gave a generous severance of 3 years' full salary. It expired in 2010…months before the Arab Spring.
>On the eve of the revolutions, academics warned the US government that rising global food prices were correlated with social unrest and political instability. Action was not taken.https://web.archive.org/web/20130917002900/http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.2455v1.pdf
>At the same time, the NED sank its hooks into the region. The NYTimes later reported that "key leaders of the movements" had been paid by NED-funded NGOs. Western finance created the conditions for an uprising, and western soft-power stepped in to guide ithttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
>Overall, workers were left even worse off than before, in some places (Libya, Syria, Yemen) MUCH worse. The US and its allies—especially France—took the opportunity to militarily intervene and destroy the Libyan state, which had been an impediment to exploitation in the region.
>The US govt didn't necessarily know the Arab Spring would happen. But it didn't need to predict when or where revolution would occur; it just had to be ready. NED is active EVERYWHERE in the world—EXCEPT North America and western Europe.
>Democracy is already fine there, I guess.
>This is how the new stage of imperialism is maintained. But who benefits from it, and how?
>Lenin's 1916 definition of imperialism is still mostly relevant, in that he identifies the motor force of exploitation in the perpetually profit-hungry financiers of monopoly capitalism.
>It has two main deficiencies today, however. One is obvious—the world isn't divided into colonies anymore. Only settler-colonies (e.g. US, Canada) and a few direct colonies (e.g. Puerto Rico) remain. The exploited countries are now neocolonies.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm
>Nkrumah described further how neocolonialism operates in his book. There is a huge difference between colonialism and neocolonialism, which has serious implications for HOW the finance capitalist class profits from its empire.
>Before, imperialists could siphon money toward the core via colonial state taxation. This was a major mechanism of exploitation of India by the UK; economist Dr. Utsa Patnaik estimated the total amount extracted to be approximately $45 trillion.https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india
>But a neocolony is at least nominally independent and cannot be plundered so directly. The transfer of wealth from the global periphery to the core of empire now takes on different forms.
>One of them is the servicing of external debt. Countries the World Bank classifies as "Low & middle income" pay over $1 trillion a year to service external debts.
>Global debt has also vastly increased since 1990. For some, debt service is almost entirely to pay interest. But this isn't the primary reason why western banks lend.
>$1 trillion is a lot, but $10.8 trillion is a hell of a lot. That's the total drained from the IMF's "non-advanced" to "advanced" countries (US, Europe, Japan, &c.) via trade in 2015, per research by Jason Hickel, et al.
>This transfer is known as unequal exchange, and is now the primary imperialist mechanism of exploitation. It arises in a large part from a discrepancy between the high price of commodities in the core and the low cost of labor to produce them throughout the global supply chain.
>We now come to the second deficiency of Lenin's definition, which is the importance he gives the export of capital. This criterion is lacking in much less obvious way.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm
>It would seem the export of capital is still a key factor in imperialist exploitation. Loans are a form of capital export; and Marxian economist Arghiri Emmanuel, who first developed the theory of unequal exchange, considered the mobility of capital to be an all-important factor.
>So there's nothing new under the sun—yet MOST capital exports today do NOT play a role in either. MOST exported capital, in fact, is now exported from one western country…to another western country.
>UN statistics show that in 2021, 80% of the world's entire foreign direct investment stock was invested by "developed economies"—and an equal amount was also invested IN "developed economies"
>Since prices, incomes, &c. in western countries are mostly equivalent, they cannot (with some exceptions) be victims of each other's unequal exchange.
>Also, even during colonialism, most capital exports DEVELOPED a country, not keep it underdeveloped. Per research by economic historian @JayTharappel, 80% of the British Empire's capital exports were to settler-colonies (US, Australia, &c.), not India.https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.12.1.0027
>As a result, settler-colonial destinations of British capital advanced into the core, while India and other colonies languished in poverty.
>Lenin's definition isn't incorrect—it's just incomplete. Not all capital exports are created equal; some have positive economic effects while others have negative ones. The export of capital is therefore a NECESSARY condition of imperialism, but not a SUFFICIENT one.
>We can get a sense of this difference in type by comparing western and Chinese investments in African countries.
>$500 billion of the Belt and Road's $838 billion total investment stock was construction-related, while just 0.1% of US investments were in construction.
>The US exports five times as much capital as China, but US foreign direct investment is mostly in the "finance and insurance" category. The G7 member with the largest share of FDI stock in construction was Italy with 9%.https://data.oecd.org/fdi/outward-fdi-stocks-by-industry.htm
>According to the founder of urban planning research center MORE Architecture, "any big project in African cities that is higher than three floors or roads that are longer than three kilometers are most likely being built and engineered by the Chinese."https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2019/10/03/what-china-is-really-up-to-in-africa/?sh=7fbceaa65930
>The west is notorious for promising big initiatives to "counter" the Belt and Road over the years. So far, none of them have amounted to much of anything.
>A study by McKinsey in 2020 found that US investors had a greater potential "appetite" for infrastructure investment in Africa than any other country…yet only 10% of projects were actually funded.https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/solving-africas-infrastructure-paradox
>To get rich, first build a road. Western financiers had plenty of time and capital to fund African infrastructure, but largely chose not to—not only because the real money is in extracting rents, but because the more infrastructure you build, the harder it is to extract rents.
>The western press has excoriated the Belt and Road Initiative from many angles. One criticism is that some projects "fail" in that Chinese investors don't get a return on investment for the stuff they built. That happens to be true. Funding infrastructure in Africa is risky and not very profitable.
>China does it anyway. In fact, the average return on Chinese foreign investments is quite low, less than half the global average.
>Interest rates on Chinese loans to Africa are also half what is charged by western lenders, according to British NGO Debt Justice.
>This is screwing up the whole system. Western economists complain that China secretly gave billions in emergency loans to struggling countries in 2022, which "postpone[d] the day of reckoning" they thought poor countries deserved to face at the IMF's handshttps://fortune.com/2022/09/12/china-gave-tens-of-billions-in-secretive-emergency-loans-to-vulnerable-nations-emerging-as-worlds-major-creditor-and-imf-competitor/
>Worse still, if you don't pay back a Chinese loan, nothing bad happens. According to a comprehensive analysis by China-Africa expert Professor Deborah Brautigam, et al., Chinese lenders have never once seized assets or "structurally adjusted" anyone.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5652847de4b033f56d2bdc29/t/60353345259d4448e01a37d8/1614099270470/WP+39+-+Acker%2C+Brautigam%2C+Huang+-+Debt+Relief.pdf
>Chinese loans aren't for free. PRC advocates mention that China has forgiven many debts, which is not entirely accurate. It has, but those are a minority of its loans. Instead, when push comes to shove, the debt stays on the ledger, but Chinese lenders simply won't collect.
>The worst thing that may happen if you're in arrears, in fact, is that Chinese creditors won't give you MORE loans.
>If you don't pay back the IMF and the World Bank, they will take it from you in blood. Even the IMF's debt *forgiveness* brings pain.
>A debt isn't a debt if you don't pay it back. The discipline of Chinese international lenders in refraining from profiteering, in fact, is pretty remarkable. There's a good reason for it—just like the west, profiting from loans isn't their primary goal.
>China and the west have completely opposite ulterior motives in finance. The western empire uses debt as leverage to impoverish its victims so it can continue to make the real money through unequal exchange. China is there to make sure roads get built, even if at a loss.
>This benefits China in less tangible ways: its construction industry and its manufactured goods are ensured new markets, and it earns goodwill. It also undermines the west's exploitation, and maybe eventually, its hegemony. How is this acheived? Aren't Chinese lenders capitalists, profit-hungry by nature?
>Well, no, actually. A 2015 study published by Australian National University Press in found that 89% of China’s overseas direct investment came from state-owned enterpriseshttps://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16wd0dw.18
>The loans are issued by China Eximbank, which in 2007 became the world's largest export credit agency. It operates as a tool of the government, and is not expected to satisfy shareholders or turn a profit.
>In fact, China entirely lacks a financial oligarchy, another of Lenin's criteria for imperialism. It has many capitalists, and billionaires, but not financial billionaires.
>In China, the state owns the banks, the Party owns the state, and the workers and peasants own the Party. Unlike financial capitalists, they are not required by their class interest to super-exploit workers in other countries.
>Some modern Marxists err by considering the PRC an empire just because it exports capital. It's clear this isn't the case. Lenin's theory of imperialism must be updated and clarified based on new observations, just like many other scientific theories have been throughout history.
>This isn't a criticism of Lenin's reasoning. He couldn't know how things would change in the 20th century. If he were alive now, he surely wouldn't have identical takes on entirely new phenomena. He would make new observations and write more theory to explain them. So should we. https://twitter.com/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1612908057104908293https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1612908057104908293.html
World War II was the last inter-imperialist war.
<Those who believe we are currently seeing, or will soon see, a new inter-imperialist war are mistaken. If we ever do, it won't be soon.
A thread about decolonization, the USSR's errors, and the US-Japan conflict. 🧵
Before you can understand inter-imperialist conflict you need to know the difference between colonialism and neocolonialism from the imperialist's perspective.
The most crucial point: empires prefer neocolonies, because a neocolony is MORE PROFITABLE than a direct colony.
In 1991, Professor Giovanni Arrighi modeled the economic performance of the Global South by measuring their gross national product per capita in proportion to the imperial core’s.
He found that after decolonization, the income gap was wider than EVER.https://newleftreview.org/issues/i189/articles/giovanni-arrighi-world-income-inequalities-and-the-future-of-socialism.pdf
Due to length I didn't go into detail about colonialism vs neocolonialism in this earlier thread. I realize I should have explained why and how the western empires switched to neocolonialism. The answer isn't obvious.
Again I apologize for the length of this thread. It will be a few dozen tweets.)
Nkrumah is essential here. He considered neocolonialism to be the worst form of imperialism:https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm
An empire can absorb all profit extracted from a direct colony. But a direct colony is also expensive. It needs a bureaucracy, and must constantly subdue insurrections. That costs money.
Even more importantly, the colonial power must defend its colony from rivals.
If you're a capitalist, you're always looking for ways to lower expenditures and increase income. If it turns out to be cheaper to turn your colony into a neocolony, you'll do it.
The trouble is, if you do, another empire can easily take it over.
The capitalist class therefore faces a kind of prisoner's dilemma. If they all cooperate, they can SHARE a neocolony. The total size of the pie increases…but you only get a slice. Only if neocolonialism were UNIVERSAL is that slice bigger than what you'd otherwise get.
The Soviet Union's rise finally solved this conundrum. It was a competing social and economic order, and it promised to help oppressed peoples of the world throw off the shackles of colonialism.
This was an existential crisis for the capitalist class. So they HAD to cooperate.
In 1916, Lenin believed that inter-imperialist alliances could only be temporary. The trouble is, this take didn't factor in his OWN success in later creating the USSR!
After World War II, the USSR became a superpower, stronger than ever before.
Suddenly, the western empires found that it was becoming as hard to maintain direct colonies during the Cold War as it was to maintain neocolonies before it.
Portugal was probably the biggest holdout to decolonization, so its stubbornness is a case study. It tried to maintain its direct colonies as long as it possibly could.
In 1961, India seized Goa. The Soviet Union supported insurrections in Angola and Mozambique, which became Marxist-Leninist states. In 1974 there was a revolution in Portugal itself. Its capitalist class lost every single colony, for good.
The Soviet Union had always benefited from inter-imperialist war. World War I led to its existence; World War II led to a vast expansion of its influence. Between them, it played defense, making huge sacrifices to avoid becoming a target.
If inter-imperialist war was INEVITABLE, why not simply wait until the next one?
And so the Soviet Union adopted the strategy of "peaceful coexistence". It fought against the western empires only by proxy (and too timidly even then, in many cases), in Angola, Vietnam, &c.
This proved to be a long wait. The inter-imperialist alliance outlived the Soviet Union.
After it fell, western empires didn't reclaim their colonies. The new imperialism continued to cooperate to exploit the world through neocolonialism, because this yielded the most profit.
The PRC seemed to make the same error. Even as the USSR dissolved, it saw the US-Japan rivalry to be all-important. Wang Huning, now a senior Politburo member, wrote in 1991 that "Japan's aggressive katana has been pointed directly at the United States."https://archive.org/details/america-against-america/page/n345/mode/2up
But within a year, the Japanese stock market crashed. In the mid-90s, Japan's GDP growth plummeted. It’s stagnant to this day, limping along at under 3% per year. What some called the "Lost Decade" is now called the "Lost 30 Years". What happened?https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2021&locations=JP&start=1961
Economists generally consider the Plaza Accord of 1985—in which the second-tier empires (Japan, Germany, France, and the UK), agreed to appreciate their currencies against the dollar—to be a strong contributing factor in Japan’s asset price bubble.
The Accord was ostensibly designed to balance trade by protecting domestic US manufacturing, which was being undersold by cheap Japanese goods; as the Japanese yen strengthened, these goods became more expensive, allowing US industry to compete.
In the first quarter of 1986, Japanese companies began losing ground in the US market, threatening to send Japan into recession; to prevent it, the Bank of Japan increased lending by cutting short-term interest rates, leading to severe inflation of real estate prices.
Germany appreciated the deutschmark at the same time, and did not experience such a disastrous bubble. Another, unique provision of the Accord targeted Japanese real estate, obliging its government to increase private investment in mortgage credit markets.http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/finance/fm850922.htm
During the US-Japan trade war, Japanese companies found the deck stacked against them. “With increasing regularity,” said the NYTimes in 1992, “American companies are demanding, and winning, large royalty payments from Japanese companies for the use of patented technology.”
Hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, accumulated over years from the blood and sweat of wage-labor exploitation via the infamously harsh Japanese work ethic, were wiped out in instants as US courts sided with US capitalists almost every time.
In April, Sega was shaken down for $33 million by an LA jury; later two Japanese camera companies were made to pay Honeywell nearly $200 million. According to the BOJ, domestic corporations paid over $3 billion more in royalties than they received in 1991.https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/05/business/japanese-fight-back-as-us-companies-press-patent-claims.html
US arrogance regarding Japan reached new heights. In 1994, the NYTimes revealed that the CIA and State Dept had paid millions to the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party during the Cold War, financing half a century of LDP control of Japanese politics.https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html
The LDP's monopoly on power was briefly broken by the Democratic Party of Japan in 2009. The new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, pledged to close just one US Marine Corps airbase in Okinawa.
That base is still open. President Obama refused to even meet with Hatoyama to negotiate. He was forced, over the phone, to back down. After under a year in office, he resigned in disgrace. The LDP won the next election in a landslide. DPJ ceased to exist.https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Japan-greenlights-8.6bn-to-host-U.S.-troops
I've seen the idea floating around that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is an inter-imperialist war. I can't agree.
First of all, even if Russia were an empire, Ukraine certainly isn't, so the Russian intervention in Ukraine is still a proxy war, not an inter-imperialist one.
Second, I don't see how anyone can claim that Russia is an empire with a straight face.
I don't care if you agree with Lenin's definition of imperialism or not. Empires at ANY stage of history exploit. They TAKE. They don't just make war, they PROFIT from war.
The Russian Federation has expanded by 50,000 square miles…or less than 0.008% of its land area. Meanwhile its GDP shrank, its manufacturing declined, and the Russian ruling class hemorrhaged wealth.https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2022/02/24/russian-billionaires-have-lost-nearly-90-billion-in-wealth-amid-ukraine-invasion/?sh=61e37d253a60
Out of Russia's latest and greatest military SUCCESS, in Syria, has come…nothing.
The natural resources of Syria are still under the control of the United States, not Russia.https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210320-us-controls-90-of-syria-oil/
Russia can barely even profit from its closest NEIGHBOR. Kazakhstan has the world's second-longest border with Russia; yet Chevron and ExxonMobil have 75% ownership of its largest oil field.
Not much of an empire.https://jpt.spe.org/tengizchevroil-production-rebounds-after-antigovernment-protests-curtailed
Today, Germany's position is somewhat similar to Japan's. Chancellor Scholz became the first G7 leader to visit China since the pandemic, and wrote an op-ed saying they didn't want to “decouple”.
He even used the phrase “multipolar world”!https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-we-dont-want-to-decouple-from-china-but-cant-be-overreliant/
Right now, the energy crisis and US protectionist policies are working to deindustrialize Germany. German multinational BASF, the world's largest producer of chemicals, announced it would permanently shrink European operations.https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/11/24/europe-faces-an-enduring-crisis-of-energy-and-geopolitics
That's not in Germany's interest. But they can’t do a thing about it besides write op-eds. 40,000 US troops are in Germany, out of 100,000 in Europe total, nearly half of them deployed in 2022.
The knife at Europe's throat has not been sharper since 1991.https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/us-troops-in-europe/index.html
In 2017, a report published by the US Army War College advised a “wider and more flexible military force” that would allow “US decision-makers” to influence other countries through “the implied promise of unacceptable consequences”.https://web.archive.org/web/20170706040513/https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358
The inter-imperialist alliance is not one of equal partners. The United States is its unchallengeable leader, and holds ultimate sway over its subordinates. Whether it will ever fracture in the future is impossible to predict, but today it shows no signs of doing so. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613582558457106432.htmlhttps://twitter.com/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1613582558457106432
Great write-up. Really appreciate the economic breakdown of how Russia is not even able to profit from its neighboring states. Ukrainian farmland is owned by US, EU, and even Saudi investors, too
>>1331512>>1331511>NOOOOOOOOOO ITS NOT AN INTER IMPERIALIST CONFLICT NOOOOOOOO>IT CANNOT BE AN INTER IMPERIALIST CONFLICT BECAUSE THE COUNTRIES DONT EXPAND LIKE IN THE 1800S NOOO>RUSSIAS INVASIONS, PROXY WARS, SUPPORT FOR REGIMES THAT ALLOW THEM TO EXTRACT OIL AND SHIT ISNT IMPERIALISM BECAUSE THEIR CLIQUE ISNT VERY GOOD AT WINNING WARS NOOOO>LET ME SPEW RANDOM FACTS ABOUT THE SOVIET UNION FROM 40 YEARS AND THE JAPAN ECONOMIC BUBBLE IN THE 90s AS IF THAT PROVES ANYTHING
Somehow you made the most incoherent post in this entire thread, and thats saying something.
Just because the russian bourgoiesie sucks ass at winning from the americans, thus constantly losing, doesnt make imperialism not an inherent feature of monopoly capitalism. The fact they keep instigating attempts at expanding their sphere of influence and keep purchasing and investing in natural resource infrastructure in their sphere shows they are imperialist.
Imperialism isnt "when you win", its a tendency that all monopoly dominated countries show whenever there is another clique or area thats not them that they can try to take over.
anons on here think imperialism is a destination rather than a process
>>1331512>First of all, even if Russia were an empire, Ukraine certainly isn't, so the Russian intervention in Ukraine is still a proxy war, not an inter-imperialist one.
To all intents and purposes, Ukraine is the empire. Its military command and civil society is fully imperial. Strange take.
I think these two posts are an excelent example of why the left is terminally brain dead. Lemme run you throigh why. Rehabilitating Russia and China? Well, let's pretend for a second I am all-fours for this as well and don't believe both countries are imperialist hyenas. What we have here is both a goal and a steppingstone for your mentioned reasons. But what does a goal need to succeed? A plan. Also resources for that plan. Probably manpower. When we take into the account the specifics of our rehabilitation goal, we also should realize that we need platforms of propaganda and organization (institutions of counter-hagemony, one might say). I hope you start seeing the problem here. Now take into account that rehabilitating Russia and China is basically just a sidequest compared to everything else leftism needs to do. I think you should realize the same sort of issues of manpower and need for counter-hagemony also arises. So then answer me this - why do you not go and build socialism from the ground up, and instead try to waste your time on this intermediary goal where all your meager, barely organized attempts to turn the media concensus on Russia and China fall on deaf ears, or maybe just the ears of other irrelevant internet figures. We can replace China and Russia rehabilitation with USSR, Cuba, DPRK. We can replace it with making propaganda about working conditions or US imperialism. At the end of the day, all these goals won't succeed without the infrastructure. This is why I call of this just a one big cargo cult where one HOPES that the thing happens on its own, with twitter posts replacing ritual dances around wicker-made cargoplanes. To tie this back to multipolarity, same applies to it - another cargocult like China and Russia stanning, which serves only one purpose - to make you feel like you are doing something, when you are just sitting on your stool posting.
>>1331504>The guy who spearheaded the collapse and privitisation of the soviet union
that was gorbachev and yeltsin. i wouldn't say putin "spearheaded" that, though he was in a position to benefit from it
Putin was hand picked by Yeltsin to continue his counter revolutionary neoliberal policies.
This. As a wise man once said "capitalism produces above all it's own contradictions". Also very cute breadcat. Thank you
wow that is inspired!
So let's go through it step by step:
1. capitalism exists
2. this produces contradictions
Did I do that right?
>posts faggy epic reddit kitteh
>writes long faggoty stream of conscious garbage with no point
Why are Americans like this?
No education coupled with delusions of grandeur
The bigger question is how do imperial core leftists manage to be tepid or outright supportive of the anti-periphy foreign policy of their governments.
What imperial core leftists? Some people drink the kool-aid presented to them through their own country's superstructure. But plenty do not. And what can they do? Did the large anti-Iraq war coalition manage to prevent the war? No. The proletarian movement needs to build up alongside the peace movement. And it needs to be able to frustrate the designs of the MIC in order to gain and sustain the pressure necessary to frustrate and shut down these countries designs for war. That means being able to stop the draft, stop the mobilization of troops, sabotage supply chains and armament factories, assassinate local managerial personnel, spread agitprop among the military and civilians, strike and shut down the economy. Threaten the personal livelihood of the bourgeoisie. ETC. We need teeth if we expect people to fight with us. Pointing the finger is less than nothing.
My problem with multipolarity is that the analysis of multipolarity itself is often done through a western vantage point.
I don't mean that as being pro-western, but rather that "the world" is conceived in terms of the west, and what the west interacts with, positively or negatively.
So entities that have a more ambiguous relationship with the west get left out of the picture, and the things that the multipolarists say start sounding rather strange if you live in those parts of the world.
For example, Central Asia already exists in a kind of multipolarity between the west, Russia and China. If either Russia or China got the upper hand in the region, their local subjective multipolarity would more resemble a hegemony.
I'm not saying it would either be a bad or good thing. Just pointing out that not every region in the world fits into the simplistic "west vs periphery" framework.
You mean to say that in a world made up of a ruling hegemony, its vassals, and its enemies, people use the unipolar reality as a frame of reference?
I mean that if your theoretical model stops working properly once you introduce an unexpected variable, the model should be revised and improved.
It's only scientific.
>>1332042>My problem with multipolarity is that the analysis of multipolarity itself is often done through a western vantage point.
yeah i wonder what sort of situation could change that particular, uh, single-place-privileging situation
The issue isn't just that the world is in some vague "power sphere" of the west.
The problem is the US levies a tax on every single country in the world at the threat of holding the entire world's economy hostage. Every single country on the planet that participates in international trade, save for a very few issues and edge cases, pays effective tribute in real monetary terms to the US through its debt hegemony.
There is nothing whatsoever ambiguous about this.
>>1332061>yeah i wonder what sort of situation could change that particular, uh, single-place-privileging situation
Uh, reading more?
Like what, do you think there's a metaphysical force-barrier of unipolarity stopping you from reading about the economics, history and foreign policy of uzbekistan?
I'm just disappointed with imperial core leftists, tbh. My heart is sunk. But you're right. At least the ML orgs had the correct line on the US-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, although some like KKE took their time. >>1332042>>1332065>My problem with multipolarity is that the analysis of multipolarity itself is often done through a western vantage point.>Like what, do you think there's a metaphysical force-barrier of unipolarity stopping you from reading about the economics, history and foreign policy of uzbekistan?
My experience of so called "multipolarity" analysis, particularly from socialists, not Borell and Sholz, is completely the opposite. It focuses on the political and economic development of the periphery
. Putting less emphasis on the political economic situation of the imperial core. Maybe we consume different media, but multipolarity analysis has been all over the development of the African Union, recently of the SCO which was majorly important and includes Uzbekistan, BRICS and BRICS+, the ALBA, the Foro Saõ Paulo, etc etc. It is all about how the periphery is very quickly developing regional integration, regional sovereignty, national sovereignty, developing economically, etc etc. I am confused by your comment and would welcome an explanation on what you mean.
>>1330659>There is plenty of actual work to do wherever you happen to be.
Also if you live in a NATO country the only position that matters vis a vis Ukraine is that NATO is bad and your country should have no involvement in the conflict. You don't have to go around shilling for Russia to convince people to oppose their country's participation in the war, in fact most of the time it will probably be counterproductive. There are "both sides" mfs like the KKE that are doing far more to actually oppose NATO than the average leftypol Russia enjoyer.
>>1330954>chauvinist is a cuckshott fan
im not surprised. that video has been debunkedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQGG06-lB0U&lc=Ugxe0unqhBqWAssp0bp4AaABAg
ZulaDFA refuted him so badly that cockshott has lost all credibility.https://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/imperialism-and-the-transformation-of-values-into-prices/
heres an actual paper that goes into depth on unequal exchange.
There are competing views on unequal exchange. Micheal Roberts' analysis (which is often cited by multipolaristas to debunk the assertion that Russia/China are imperialist) says outright that no benefits accrue to workers in the imperial core as a result of imperialism.https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/hm2-the-economics-of-modern-imperialism/
The real question though is whether or not the standards of living of the average Western worker could be sustained alongside similar standards of living for the workers of the Global South, assuming that capitalists are removed from the equation.
>>1332007>The bigger question is how do imperial core leftists manage to be tepid or outright supportive of the anti-periphy foreign policy of their governments.
If this is what you fucking got out of my OP you need to get your head checked out anon. There is a huge ass section where I point out the inhumane and cut-throat foreign policy of the United States to keep their grip on power, which continues to this day and even in a multipolar world will continue if not only grow more desperate and volatile.
American neoliberal capitalism is in crisis. This can lead to a form of American fascism to take power. We have seem iterations of this rise. <Inb4 ohh ahh MAGA is dying out
No, this goes back long before MAGA. I'd say starting at the astroturfed libertarian Tea Party movement and MAGA is just another iteration of this and there is no doubt there will be one afterwards with an even more fervent reactionary base.
This leads to my argument in the OP that as we lurch more towards a multipolar world we lurch closer and closer to a larger and more dangerous conflict. And in the run up to that conflict since the rise of smaller capitalist blocs means very little benefit to the workers of those nations (especially those nations still under the grip of American influence) the band aid of just saying "ohh the world is kinda multipolar now so its somewhat better for these periphery nations (or precisely the national bourgeoisie of these nations)" is bullshit. It is not what socialists whether within the imperial core or without should aspire towards.
>its better to live under the boot of [x] capitalist pig than live in [y] capitalist country
That is the crux of my criticism, we should not stop at a capitalist multipolar world but keep pushing for socialism. And to do that we as socialists must form a foundation first in which to challenge the capitalist order because just sitting on ones hands and hoping that the system will just change on its own is a fool's errand. China is looking out for their own interests, they ain't coming to save everyone's asses. These periphery nations are looking out for their own interests on the world stage, they are not looking out for the worker's interests of their own countries or abroad. America is, well, the maw of hell, and will never give a shit about its workers let alone those beyond its borders. I see the core of multipolarism (not multipolarity) to just be campism that makes people think this is all a clash of nations and forget what this is all really about: class conflict. The workers must stand together, everywhere, and it is a primary task of socialists to help ferment that unity, because if you divide the workers among national lines and make them ignore their connection to the plight of other workers around the globe you only add fuel to the fire of reaction and only make it easier for the capitalists to unleash all the more atrocities upon the world.
>>1332203>I see the core of multipolarism (not multipolarity) to just be campism that makes people think this is all a clash of nations and forget what this is all really about: class conflict
A big part of the issue is basically what >>1331091
points out. People who view multipolarity as a good thing which we ought to be helping along fall across an ideological spectrum that includes principled communists who view it as a means to further class struggle, as well as a grab bag of reactionaries, opportunists, grifters, contrarians, campists, etc. Similarly, people who refuse to take a side in the Ukraine war include principled communists advocating revolutionary defeatism as well as closet chauvinists/imperialists. Part of the problem is that people are often talking past each other, assuming the worst motivations, and automatically lumping whoever they are talking to in with the worst representatives of a particular ideological spectrum. It's why both-sides people tend lump multipolaristas in with Duginites and Patsocs, while multipolaristas lump both-sides people in with liberals, socdems, or other crypto-NATOite "leftists." Discussions might be more productive if people treated them as a tool to arrive at a consensus of united action rather than a competition to banish and humiliate people who disagree with you.
I understand what you are trying to get at OP, and it's something some of the more smoothbrained multipolaristas (i.e. the ones that are not serious principled communists) definitely need to hear. At the same time, I think most of the Russia sympathizers here don't fall into this category, and understand multipolarity as a development which facilitates class struggle rather than a substitute for it.
>>1332220>Similarly, people who refuse to take a side in the Ukraine war include principled communists advocating revolutionary defeatism as well as closet chauvinists/imperialists.
The whole thing is no one even cares about those people. Nobody is asking you to take a side, just stay out of it is sufficient enough. Stop just trying to add white noise.
Case in point:>>1332203>That is the crux of my criticism, we should not stop at a capitalist multipolar world but keep pushing for socialism.
Do what you do. Nobody needs your stupid grandstanding. You think you're poignant but you're not. You act like people doing or saying X is stopping you from your own agenda when the two things are unrelated. You probably even argue they're unrelated.
You could make this argument about everything under the sun:>Why do people want to talk about the environment when capitalism and class conflict are the real issue?>Why do people want to talk about feminism when capitalism and class conflict are the real issue?>Why do people want to focus on advancement in science when capitalism and class conflict are the real issue?
And on and on.
One doesn't negate the other and it's trite to play this stupid game on and on too stop people from talking about whatever issue you find unworthy.
>>1332753>Do what you do. Nobody needs your stupid grandstanding. You think you're poignant but you're not. You act like people doing or saying X is stopping you from your own agenda when the two things are unrelated. You probably even argue they're unrelated.
Wtf are you talking about? My own agenda? The hell is this schitzo shit?
Feminism is a fucking thing.
Environmentalism is a fucking thing.
Scientific advancement is a fucking thing.
Multipolarity is a fucking thing.
And they all are affected by the economic mode of production of our time. Capitalism.
People talk about those things all the fucking time and that is a good thing dumbass. But sitting on one's ass and just thinking those things are just going to work out for everyone's betterment without understanding those things interact, how they work, and how they are affected by capital is fucking nothing because it amounts to nothing. This is the same with getting hung up with idpol or any other liberal smokescreen.
You wanna talk about feminism, capitalism's superstructures reinforced harsh gender roles that kept women shackled for centuries.
You wanna talk about environmentalism, well capitalist deregulation and overproduction is the root cause of climate change.
You wanna talk about scientific advancement, capitalists impede that in order to boost profits.
All these things are connected. They all exist in the yolk of our capitalist society. To truly address these issues we have to change the system, not just accept what we are given by our porky overlords. Fuck yeah I push for socialism and you should too. So stop browsing threads that make you angry, fucking read a goddamn book, and get organized you liberal shits.
>>1332772>muh cartoons and kitteh
You are a very emotional personchild
cyute, as your commentary and insights child.
I'll restart the debate for you:
How would you feel about the statement:
>Socialism! Not Feminism.
Lol, can't even answer a simple question.
It's called an analogy child, an analogy being useful to illustrate a simple concept I already tried to explain to you. One thing, doesn't negate another thing. You are exactly like every poster who rages over people caring about X thing and how it's not socialism. It says absolutely nothing.
I didn’t mean to reply to that lol someone linked me this thread on your post
>>1332783>Socialism! Not Feminism.
Liberation from gender roles is already assumed within socialism so sure.>>1332788>It's called an analogy child
Well damn it's a more potent one than you realized I guess because le ebin multipolaristas much like feminists are very often that and that alone. When you are supporting some cause like feminism or multipolarism without and undergirding materialism and an integration into a fully fledged political theory, you are not going to accomplish much other than be a useful pawn to the bourgeoisie.
Why is it not ok to root for a corporation while calling yourself a socialist, but ok to root for a nation state while calling yourself a socialist?
What if I'm rooting for an underdog corporation because I think economic multipolarity will advance workers' rights?
>>1332815>Well damn it's a more potent one than you realized I guess because le ebin multipolaristas much like feminists are very often that and that alone. When you are supporting some cause like feminism or multipolarism without and undergirding materialism and an integration into a fully fledged political theory, you are not going to accomplish much other than be a useful pawn to the bourgeoisie.
Fine at least you have a consistent opinion. OP will be the same type to say support NATO because Russia is more anti-gay.
>>1332818>Why is it not ok to root for a corporation while calling yourself a socialist
This is giving me an aneurysm because Second Thought literally just did this about muh small business vs Amazon in his livestream on Midwestern Marx.
Well for example, if you're rooting for nuclear tech, or fusion or whatever you think might have a positive effect in the world, you're by nature rooting for whatever corporation developing it right? Or if you're rooting for vaccination you're rooting for Pfizer, or Moderna, or whatever corporation right? I guess if you're principled FOSSist and root against all non-FOSS technology.
>>1332822>Well for example, if you're rooting for nuclear tech, or fusion or whatever you think might have a positive effect in the world, you're by nature rooting for whatever corporation developing it right? Or if you're rooting for vaccination you're rooting for Pfizer, or Moderna, or whatever corporation right?
>>1332822>it's the corporations developing technology, not the workers
lurk for a while before you post
this is a communist website
>>1332855>sophistic arguments and sloganeering to avoid every directly responding to a point.
Yupp it's /leftypol/ time.
Ok I'll make it really simple, it's possible to "root" for developments leading to multipolarity without endorsing the parties that are involved with those devlopments. "Rooting" for multipolarity isn't anti-thetical to socialism. One development can be a good thing for people without itself being socialism.
>>1332753>Nobody is asking you to take a side,
t. Has never set foot in the Ukraine thread.
Anarchists. unsurprisingly, prefer having a complete meltdown to actually reading Michael Hudson and understanding this subject.
Meaning you OP, with your little retarded flag and your false premises. Eat shit. You are not a serious person.
The primary contradiction is imperialism vs anti-imperialism. By not taking sides, particularly if you're in the imperial core, you side with the imperialists.
Anon if you had to pick the most anticommunist country in the world in terms of foreign policy what would it be?
Time is a factor in this test. If you don't reply immediately you are a bitchmade inbred imperial KKKore lapdog
This is what I don't get, you don't even need to be that educated on how the US controls institutions like the world bank and IMF to see the sheer bloodshed and military force the US is willing to commit to its paranoid anticommunist ideology.
You have somehow internalized the lie that the US is keeping the world more democratic. At the first sign of instability in its hegemony you've taken it upon yourself to fearmonger about the fascism of foreign AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES. I think it's a deliberate inversion of what you've been taught, and no substitute for really understanding the world. Git gud
US bad. US anticommunist. US losing good. Fuck you
Vatican. How about in terms of domestic policy?
uh, what if one of the empires in the multipolar world wins, and we have unipolarity again?
Historically? United States
Today? Idk, probably Turkey
>>1333075>this strawman again
mutlipolar means regional sovereignty. Tiny poles. Not big empires as this CIA agent is fearmongering about here >>1333053
Okay, that sounds nice. Now explain why you support 2 big empires overthrowing the biggest empire if your goal is for there to not be any empires. Also I am curious if Euphrates Shield and the Second Karabakh War is real existing multipolarity, then.
Shouldn't you be pro third position on the war in ukraine then?
Because ukraine switching hands doesn't increase the number of tiny poles, just makes one of the big poles bigger and another smaller.
NTA but if your nation goes communist the Southern bloc ie Africa South America etc the Eurasian bloc the east Asian and south east Asian and yuropoors that make up most of the world will trade w/ you still
Big improvement to prior circumstances
And do you ever calculate in the risk of the world just getting carved appart by a bunch of Turkey-like states? What, you think just because they trade with whoever they won't be the first to line up all the communists against the wall, while also commiting hundreds of unrelated to socialism crimes? As the saying goes - running from a wolf only to encounter a bear.
I'm totally anti-winter btw. You can call my stance futile, but the coming decades will prove you wrong.
Meanwhile in reality the Indonesia just apologised for the near genocidal mass killings of communists
Basically Chyna good stop freak
I was going to say stop freaking out but you're Balkan or Central euro?
>>1333080>Russia is an Empire… because… because it just is OK!>>1333085
The kinetic war is just a small part of the global shift. >>1333089
The fuck you one about?>>1333091
Well, just like multipolarity is a reality of the world stage, the end of winter seems to be a blossoming reality as well.
Decolonisation has already happened how many new capitalist competitors do you want?
All of them. The imperial core forces its imperialized countries in the periphery to be anti-labor as well as be underdeveloped. The development of the periphery means people in the periphery aren't subjected to the horrors imposed by the imperial core.
>>1333101> The imperial core forces its imperialized countries in the periphery to be anti-labor as well as be underdeveloped
All capitalist nations no matter how developed are anti-labor
Any development communist had to be concerned about were productive forces to meet societies needs. Sudan, one of the least developed nations on earth has a larger manufacturing industry and urbanised populace than england did when the communist manifesto was published. The goal is to develop the labour movement.
For example if Cameroon left frances sphere of influence and started developing its industry more it would not look like a burgeoning paradise, it would look like sections of Cameroonian security forces assassinating union leaders gunning down strikers forcing them back to work.
>>1333096>Russia isn't imperialist
Was Austro-Hungary imperialist?>Indonesia apologized
This is not about China. Rather the rise of, as you your self said, "tiny poles", aka like Turkey.
Wow you are a bunch of paranoiacs, I'll pretend to be surprised. I've been reading a lot about GLADIO and church history and Turkey so I'll give you that they are vile. Power is important here though.
Your gotchas and hypotheticals cannot explain what event could catapult any countries to colonial status in the world we now see emerging, let alone the position of the US post-WWII that makes it such a unique intercontinental anticommunist force.
>>1333111>Was Austro-Hungary imperialist?
I'd have to look at the figures again but for at least the decade preceding WWI no it wasn't imperialist it was a basket case
Talking oc turkey If you have a genzedong Libya or Ataturk style young officer communist coup they have better odds in this world than the unipolar world
>>1333111>Was Austro-Hungary imperialist?
Not really knoweledgeable about the history of Austria-Hungary, but I'm going to say that "no", it wasn't imperialist in the sense we're using the word, which is the marxist sense. It was in the common usage of the word "imperialism".>tiny poles like turkey
No. Regional sovereignty, national sovereignty, and multilaterialism is what characterizes multipolarity. Not Turkey being a world power or some shit like that. Tiny poles was a bad characterization.
Even if your ebil authoritarian imperialist land grabbers theories were close to reality a restored balance of power gets rid of the US installing Pinochets and bombing shit apart.
>>1333116>a restored balance of power gets rid of the US installing Pinochets and bombing shit apart.
And replaces it with another that will do the exact same thing
>>1333114>>1333115>Austro-Hungary was not imperialist
Leftypol is absolutely flooded with retards.
Why? You just made that up and decided it was true. The world that is emerging is precisely NOT that. Look at reality before saying stupid shit.
Explain why it was, then you fucking smug retard.
Are you making an american exceptionalism argument or something.
Because that's how capitalist imperialist nations work, why wouldn't it happen? Do you seriously believe that a capitalist nation wouldn't do everything it possibly can to assert and solidify its interests?
>>1333096>just like multipolarity is a reality of the world stage, the end of winter seems to be a blossoming reality as well.
Yea but since the dumbfuck reality refuses to simplify to fit itself inside our tiny brains we can hardly call either option a certainty. There is actual forces working for and against both, and arguing about shit on internet contributes to push/pull even if insignificantly. Treating multipolarity as predetermined is even more stupid than actively working to make it happen rather than going for the rational human choice and panicking, since such shifts are known to crush little humans such as me and yourself.
LMAO thank you I needed to reassure myself the reactionary "multipolarity scawy bad waah waah" posters are complete retards coping with their decay and you're doing a great job. Not to single you out.
You're not any better than the people claimimg Russia and China are imperialist. 2% less terrible at most
No. Regional sovereignty, national sovereignty, and multilaterialism is what characterizes multipolarity. Not Turkey being a world power or some shit like that.>>1333124
Look, I read what you're writing, and I agree with the idea of what you're saying. But reality contradicts your beliefs. So either your theory is wrong or you applied it wrong. Because reality is reality, and you can't change reality to fit theory.>>1333128>Yea but since the dumbfuck reality refuses to simplify to fit itself inside our tiny brains we can hardly call either option a certainty
The rise of multipolarity is
a certainty. The full blossoming of it and what it will look like is unknown. This is already a reality, it is already occurring. It can't not be a certainty because it is already true.
Nobody knows what will happen in the future and nobody is pretending to. We are seeing trends and making projections out of these trends. People are refusing to see these trends because "russia is imperialist and a global superpower" or some shit.
Go read Desert or something, you seem agitated lmao
>>1333133>Look, I read what you're writing, and I agree with the idea of what you're saying. But reality contradicts your beliefs. So either your theory is wrong or you applied it wrong. Because reality is reality, and you can't change reality to fit theory.
You said alot while at the same time saying absolutely nothing.>>1333132
You're not very smart are you?
Multipolarity is pushed by liberals with a marxist veneer who think the geopolitical manuevering of nation-states is more important than the international proletariat, who just need to wait until some fabled multipolar balance of powers is reached before they are allowed to rebel without being useful idiots for empire
they are completely serious, this is what happens when people have too much fun out of critical support for periphery nation-states fighting empires. theres no significant international communist movement so they put their hopes in emerging power blocs. they take the thesis that a multipolar world is more conducive to revolution & the incontestable truth that US empire is the single true global hegemon, and put them together to somehow get to a position where they think its just simply obvious that the russian federation, iran, the prc, etc are a meaningful stand-in for an international communist movement. Maybe it's just too scary for people like you to confront the fact that the labour movement is essentially starting at square one, even with the recent surge in rank and file organising around the world it's still in a very nascent stage of revival and still very weak and maybe that fact in itself scares people like you out of ever actually trying to develop the labour movement and instead you just settle for treating world politics as a spectator sport, or maybe you just do not care and use it as a way to deal with the ennui in your life. campists like you are like baby ducks whose mom was killed by a fowler so they start following around a goose instead. at best its going to ignore them and take care of its own goslings, and if the ducklings get too close the goose is likely to attack them.
>>1332815>Liberation from gender roles is already assumed within socialism so sure.
I don't know were you get that from but my advice would be to defer to people that know more instead of being publicly angry. On the geopol thing and the gender thing.
>>1333139>You said alot while at the same time saying absolutely nothing.
I'm saying that your theory is nice but it's irrelevant because reality rejects it.>Multipolarity is pushed by liberals with a marxist veneer
I've only seen marxist "push" it. Who do you think are these "marxist" posers who you are much better than. List them.>>1333140>strawmanning
>>1333145>I'm saying that your theory is nice but it's irrelevant because reality rejects it.
My "theory" that capitalist nations use their might to secure their interests doesn't stand up to reality?
China is socialist.
Russia is socialist.
Belarus is socialist.
Syria is socialist.
Iran is socialist.
If you oppose America, you are a socialist country. Simple as.
Was Tsarist Russia Imperialist?
>>1333133>People are refusing to see these trends because "russia is imperialist and a global superpower" or some shit.
Do you think that Russia tumbling over and giving more space to imperial expansion would be multipolarism? That's still an outcome on the table, business as usual, liberalism chugging onwards.
It's just a rhetorical style. 90% of leftypol users have a humiliation kink.
Imo, if you call yourself a socialist, it only makes sense to support explicitly socialist entities and causes.
Multipolarity is just cope for the fact that the left today is incredibly weak and almost non-existent, so there's no one out there to really back.
Which to me, only means that the entity worthy of uncritical support must be built first, rather than sitting around hoping that general geopolitical chaos somehow magically births socialism out of nothing.
No. I do not, as has been explained multiple times.
Do YOU believe this is what people are saying?
>>1333128>crush little humans such as me
You think you being put in the dustbin of history would be a bad thing but it would indeed be a good thing.
Who are some figures leading multipolarity?
Lula, AMLO, China.
Who are immediate beneficiaries?
DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia.
But who knows right? Maybe Cuba will become the next USA??? Because that's what the leftist bible said will happen. Which leftist bible? Idk lenin or something?
And the United States used to be peaceful (externally). It's almost like times change.
Well this ukraine-conflict seems to be the main evidence people use for multipolarism. If people were saying that multipolarism was inevitable somewhere in the far future rather than it being inevitable now, it would be as falsifiable as the second coming of christ.
Oh yes I want a humanity that gets dragged along with the geopolitical forces without any agency or need for self-preservation.
Humanity will be fine.
What would it mean for 8 billion people to have 'agency'?
>>1333174>Well this ukraine-conflict seems to be the main evidence people use for multipolarism.
Ok, would you like different evidence? This conflict merely accelerated the process that was already underway. >If people were saying that multipolarism was inevitable somewhere in the far future rather than it being inevitable now, it would be as falsifiable as the second coming of christ.
No one is saying that it is inevitable. The proxy war in Ukraine is a hot part of the equation because the stakes are very high. Particularly, some suspect, multipolarity itself. Meaning that if Russia loses the conflict then it might happen that multipolarity could be delayed significantly. Note that the conditions of defeat would go beyond Ukraine and might imply the end of the right wing anti-imperialist ruling party.
>>1333174>Well this ukraine-conflict seems to be the main evidence people use for multipolarism
I mean theirs signs of it in the conflict like Wagner being armed with quality Korean weapons but lolwut?
So what is the deciding factor between it being imperialist and Austro-Hungary not? The fact that Russia went further? Was more exploitative in its conquests of Central Asia than Austria in the Balkans?
Is imperialism a condition, a relation of production, or is it an action?
Brother it's Saturday night and my entire body hurts from stacking pallets and shifting them around will a hand pallet jack because the heavy machinery is broken
Could you go find the figures yourself and tell me
Economists Radhika Desai & Michael Hudson explain multipolarity, decline of US hegemony
The impression I got was that people see it as inevitable as they saw soviet communism prevailing to eternity and conquering the stars. I see multipolarity as subversion. Rather than waiting for inevitable revolution, now the left waits for inevitable multipolarism so they can start the preparations for revolution. Meanwhile they cheer every step the imperialist core takes to strengthen it's position as a sign of its downfall, while their time to take action before the posthuman capitalist machine solidifies. Now I can be wrong, but notice how my theory even if incorrect
urges people to action, while all this multipolarism talk is just a sorry excuse for people to sit on their asses until the conditions ripen. Your optimism sickens me.
Least bitter anarchist. Least delusional anarchist. Least incoherent anarchist. Least backbiting weird little anarchist.
Alan Freeman (a marxist) discusses multipolarity in this video
"The marxist theory of imperialism".>>1333194>The impression I got was that people see it as inevitable
Well you got the wrong impression. Multipolarity is not a done deal, far far far from it. It is on the edge of a knife. The situation isn't "good", it's better than it was, but that can change at any second and multipolarity might be squashed like a bug, or the world thrown into a global war.>Rather than waiting for inevitable revolution, now the left waits for inevitable multipolarism so they can start the preparations for revolution
This meme of "waiting for multipolarity" is wrong as well. We're not waiting. We're organizing, getting Lula elected, protesting against sanctions, protesting against funding the proxy war, striking and demanding better wages, etc. We're moving the conditions forward as best we can. >Meanwhile they cheer every step the imperialist core takes to strengthen it's position as a sign of its downfall,
lies.>Now I can be wrong, but notice how my theory even if incorrect urges people to action
It is incorrect. But even if it were correct, it does not "urge people to action". That is a falsehood that you want
to be true, maybe because you feel it should be true.>while all this multipolarism talk is just a sorry excuse for people to sit on their asses until the conditions ripen
projection.>Your optimism sickens me.
not optimism nor pessimism, it is the current unfolding of the world. You can cheer it on or not. You do you.
It's more like a giant boulder that has been rolled a hill at great effort of masses of people
Now it's over the top there's a sense of relief as it inevitably starts rolling down towards the target on the other side
>>1333203>We're not waiting. We're organizing
If you're organising then why don't you organise the working class to build their own power? Why are you exclusively just helping the bourguosie?
it's more like the giant boulder has been lifted and for the first time we've seen above the trees. We're still far from the summit. The boulder analogy implies that if left alone, the boulder will roll down the hill to our favor. There is still so much work to be done.>>1333208>Why are you exclusively just helping the bourguosie?
Why are you having sex exclusively with your mother?
All three? Its a condition inflicted upon its victims, a relation of production in the sense of how it relates to the economies of the imperialist and the opressed and an action because it can only be enforced and kept via activity of the imperialist. >>1333187
I am sorry for your hard labours, hope you get some rest. But what data? I assume you mean economic figures of Austrian GDP and average income vs the other regions of Austro-Hungary? I would then assume you define imperialism by the existence of superprofits? If so, wouldn't modern Central Asian statistics implicate RF as imperialist as well?
The correct answer was: a condition, a relation of production. Imperialism is not an action.
That's like saying the capitalist mode of production is an action. It isn't an action, it is an arrangement of production.
For retards: the comparison is like saying "alphanetical order". Alphabetical order is not an action, it is an arrangement of something.
>>1333221>But what data? I assume you mean economic figures of Austrian GDP and average income vs the other regions of Austro-Hungary?
Correct>I would then assume you define imperialism by the existence of superprofits? If so, wouldn't modern Central Asian statistics implicate RF as imperialist as well?
Also correct but there is a massive difference between being a bit naughty and being a major contradiction
The ultimate problem is that imperialism maintains global uneven development and fetters development
Interestingly Kautsky's conception of super imperialism seems to have turned out incorrect unless you consider China to be practicing super imperialism contra Hudson I think it was his conception of super imperialism
Multipolarism is a modern version of the three worlds theory that was once rejected by the vast majority of the communist/working class movement but made some sort of a comeback in north america after the 90s.
The inabillity of the left in america to find stable ties with the masses along with the historic cheerleading tendencies revesionists and anti revisionists shared in regards to AES(also the weird self hatred a lot of white americans have for being settlers, there is a reason the only thing american leftists know from the post war left is the bpp, despite being a shit load of communist groups in america at the time)
The main ideas are the same ,you completly dismiss the main contradiction of capitalism(workers vs capitalists) ,you lionize patriotic bourj regimes even when they dont offer anything for the international leftist movement and in general a complete defeatism that excuses the fact that so many people itb have little irl organizing experiance
Promoting this as part of the general stench of demise emanating from all burgerstahni institutions is 'very' good for the rest of us proles outside burgerstahni
The propaganda writes itself
That cesspit is what capitalism is
Capitalism is disgusting
Should the periphery be condemned to underdevelopment until the moment of International Revolution? I don't get it.
Why are you against the development and sovereignty of the peripheral countries and regions, and against the decline of the hegemony of the imperial core?
In my understanding, the list of nations that will see development from real existing multipolarity will be rather small compared to the nations that will merely trade one master for another.
Regional powers will develop. The regions themselves, though, tough luck.
Oh they don't offer you anything? You must be in the wrong restaurant. Maybe they don't like americans.
I'm saying the people under the hill just walk out of the boulders way and the sisyphus crew will avoid the feelings of inadequacy by trying the same thing all over. This isn't the first time.
>>1333238> the list of nations that will see development from real existing multipolarity will be rather small
Well that is already false in the conditions of today, of rising multipolarity. How do you reconcile this with your ideas?>>1333239
The international proletariat is just american citizens, everyone knows this.>>1333241>This isn't the first time.
It literally is the first time.
>>1333242>It literally is the first time.
Sure, with this specific boulder.
I like multipolarism because as a third worlder, it allows me to be a socialist and a nationalist at the same time.
Especially since I own a business in a sector that would see massive growth and profits if the west loses its influence in the region.
No more contradictions, multipolarity ties it all together.
my god, the westoid projection
Time and time again, when confronted with the question of socialism, China responded with eclectic national exceptionalist rethoric and vague third position esque idealism about how "well our capitalists are very well groomed and socially responsible and we even take them into our party so you can trust them". The only question, which is still up in the air in my view, is if China is historically progressive, because it certainly is not socialist, and unlike USSR, I would and will not turn a blind eye to its mistakes just because "there is no one else yo".
National bourgeoisie centered on productive sectors of the economy is more progressive than bankers and globalist shits. How's that controversial at all for workers in the third world to support creation of jobs in their regions - given that those jobs come from developing productive forces, from creating new factories where there were empty land before? Meanwhile, westoids want Third World to remain poor and resource-oriented.
Think about that this way: you can increase profits by increasing the workload of workers by 2 times. This will mean that you'll need to somehow secure twice as much resources, however - so, your way of expanding your production will mean that you'll need more of the third world in poverty to keep on going your way. So, while in the West you get end-product producers having higher workloads year after year, it necessary requires that Third World remains poor and easy to exploit. Third World developing, however, will destroy through competition First World's production chains, simultaneously incentivizing automatization and a decrease in workhours in the First World - to compete with the Third World which will use their own resources at home instead of sending them to the First World.
Third World's development directly benefits workers in the First World.
>>1333242>Well that is already false in the conditions of today, of rising multipolarity.
Based on what? It seems like the only emerging country that's having a positive developmental effect on the Global South is China.
>>1333250>China responded with eclectic national exceptionalist rethoric
They didn't respond with that. You are fighting a strawman.
>>1333251>National bourgeoisie centered on productive sectors of the economy is more progressive than bankers and globalist shits. How's that controversial at all for workers in the third world to support creation of jobs in their regions
Capitalist development does not look like a burgeoning paradise, it looks like sections of the state security forces assassinating strike leaders and forcing workers to get back to work at gunpoint.
Define periphery ,a lot of times development is a facade look at Greece for example or many african nation who seem to be developing but arent
But as far as i(a marxist) am concered in the long term the intrest of the bouj will never align with intrests of the lower classes >>1333239
First of all i am not an american
Second of all at least Saddam invited leftist youths prior to the iran iraq war (although russians to a smaller extent appeal to anti imperialist leftists,well the antifascists in the democratic republics do not Putin)
I dunno if I'll find it now, but in one of his articles Cockshott tears appart a promenant Chinese thinker whose main argument literally was "well China is 4000 years of single, unbroken civilization ergo we need not worry about the naysayers.
You are talking about some nonsense. Most of national bourgeois development looks like trade unions getting used as a battering ram against globalist shits. And when globalist shits get into power, basically everyone in that country oppose them.
>>1333258>promenant Chinese thinker
It was one random Chinese guy who doesn't represent anything. And it wasn't Cockshott who reviewed his opinion.
Oh and as for the second part about class collaborationism shit, that literally is from one of the official CCP decrees outlying a new Xi era programme for how to deal with capitalists. It was posted a few years ago and the thread was celebrating the name until I pointed out what it actually said.
>>1333238>the list of nations that will see development from real existing multipolarity will be rather small
Just wanted to exemplify how disconnected from reality these people are.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALBA>>1333253>Based on what?
see attached pictures of developing multi-lateralism and beneficiaries of development.
Also the war against China has forced development in other areas of SEA.>>1333250>China speaks with a single voice because it's a monolith and everyone thinks exactly the same. Just look at what this rando said!
Half your country is nazi. By your same standards, that makes you a nazi too.>>1333257
Periphery is basically the global south, the countries not in the imperial core.
>>1333251>National bourgeoisie centered on productive sectors of the economy is more progressive than bankers and globalist shits. How's that controversial at all for workers in the third world to support creation of jobs in their regions - given that those jobs come from developing productive forces, from creating new factories where there were empty land before? Meanwhile, westoids want Third World to remain poor and resource-oriented.
Cause this is the same argument used to justify foreign investment as well
>>1333259>Most of national bourgeois development looks like trade unions getting used as a battering ram against globalist shits.
Capitalist development, be it by the national bourgeoisie or international bourgeoisie relies on the exploitation of the working class, a exploitation that the working class will try to resist and the state will respond to that resistance with force, this is how capital works.
Btw this "small list of nations" represents like 75+% of the population of the world.
>>1333261>This dude is holding judgement over the nation of China in his mind
Don't involve us in your fantasies at least. That's unseemly
You are mixing up actual popular regimes who just profit off imperialists fighting each other with corrupt compradors like turkey ,pakistan,india etc
>>1333268>You can't criticize Chaynah cuz you just a single dude!!!!
??? I guess you can't criticize US either, chum. Who the hell are you, some failed libtard who dropped out of his commieversity?
>>1333264>Capitalist development, be it by the national bourgeoisie or international bourgeoisie relies on the exploitation of the working class, a exploitation that the working class will try to resist and the state will respond to that resistance with force, this is how capital works.
If it was like that there would be no capitalist revolution in the first place. Workers saw benefit in capitalist mode of production, therefore they supported it - even if revolution didn't go all the way in bringing about freedom to the working class. It was still better than feudal shit.
So, NO, workers totally can support capitalist development. It IS, after all, more productive than feudalism.>>1333263>Cause this is the same argument used to justify foreign investment as well
When was the last time Western investment has built new factories anywhere lmao
Ok, where are the numbers on living conditions and economic growth and shit? Those are just maps.
I live in one of those countries.
Ironically, the economic conditions did improve for me after Feb 24, but that's because western sanctions forced many foreign businesses to relocate their economic activity from Russia to our country lmao.
You constantly go on about it to what end?
Actually it's always china and russia, never the US
World if no Sino-Soviet split
>>1333274>Workers saw benefit in capitalist mode of production, therefore they supported it
Can you show me workers who are okay with having no access to the means of production thus having to rely on selling their labour for starvation wages since they have no other means to support themselves?> It IS, after all, more productive than feudalism
Sudan, one of the least developed nations on earth has a larger manufacturing industry and urbanised populace than england did when the communist manifesto was published. Feudalism has been dead for decades, there is no point in trying get more capitalist development when it already encompasses the world. As a communist your goal is the organisation and victory of the working class in overcoming capital, that's it.
>>1333262>see attached pictures of developing multi-lateralism and beneficiaries of development
The only pic actually relating to development is the BRI, which is entirely dependent on China. China may be having a positive developmental role on the Global South, but I see no reason why their bourgeois counterparts in BRICS wouldn't pursue their own predatory behaviors towards their weaker neighbours.
Tbh I almost never touch on China, and when I do, I never claim that its bad, merely time will tell. I call it Socdem UK 2.0 as both a praise and a condemnation. All my criticisms of China are only those I can firmly varify, eg Xi promoting class collaboration (you can't deny that), Deng destroying the western working class via opening China's labour markets (also undenyable) and China promoting nationalist values (again, undeniable). I did insinuate here that this nationalism also influances the higher ups of China with exceptionalist idealism, however this was based solely on Cockhotts article.
>>1333281>Can you show me workers who are okay with having no access to the means of production thus having to rely on selling their labour for starvation wages since they have no other means to support themselves?
Can you not be an ultra shit lmao
>Sudan, one of the least developed nations on earth has a larger manufacturing industry and urbanised populace than england did
It's about society, not raw output. How much of Sudan is agrarian and how much is Urban?
>>1333273>one chinese person said this, therefore all of china believes it<bro that's retarded>OMG WHY CAN'T I CRITICIZE CHINA! THEN PLEASE DON'T CRITICIZE USA EITHER!
retard strikes again>>1333277
I don't have numbers, but you can look into the development projects of China in Africa for example, or the infrastructure plans of any LATAM country pictured there. >but that's because western sanctions forced many foreign businesses to relocate their economic activity from Russia to our country lmao.
That's part of it! As I mentioned that some SEA countries are developing due to the war against China.>>1333286>The only pic actually relating to development is the BRI,
Notice how I said:>developing multi-lateralism and beneficiaries of development>multi-lateralism
The key here is this nice word that you seem to have missed. Many of these treaties are about multi-lateralism.
>>1333289>It's about society
The world lives in a capitalist society, thus the only next step to to move to a higher form of social organisation which is communism which can only be done by the organisation of the working class.
Yes you are ,your post is the only evidence needed to proove how multipolarism is just three worlds theory class colaborationism >>1333274>When was the last time Western investment has built new factories anywhere lmao<what is the automotive industry<what is privatizing and selling off ports<what is the mining industry
>>1333287>western working class >imblying>promoting nationalist values
Is there a nation on this godforsaken earth that is not promoting nationalist values? You undeniable faggot
What even are you some flavor of anarcho
My god you are dim
>>1333293<what is the automotive industry<what is privatizing and selling off ports<what is the mining industry
So, automotive industry isn't real in the Third World, selling of ports and mining is literally the expansion of resource extraction in order to make possible giving higher workload to workers in the First World.
Good job owning yourself, lmao>>1333292>The world lives in a capitalist society
It doesn't, though. Majority of India is still in half-feudal state and agrarian, same for Africa and Asia (although China makes Asia's half-fedualism a minority).
Again, it's not RAW OUTPUT, it's MENTALITY OF POPULATION. Conditioning, if you will, of the populace to act in a specific way for economic purposes. Peasant mentality is half-feudal, hired worker, proletarian mentality starts under capitalism. You can have a minority vanguard class force a revolution and develop a country, but the whole development will revolve around CREATING THE PROPER PROLETARIAN MENTALITY IN THE PEOPLE through ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jesus christ how far leftists have fallen
Plz Gods send us death https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/lom-3.htm
>>1333292>The world lives in a capitalist society
debatable, but yea.>thus the only next step to to move to a higher form of social organisation
not necessarily, we can try for example extinction. Societies don't actually develop in a linear fashion.>which is communism
I don't think communism is a good word to talk about post-capitalism anymore, since the concept has collected so much already falsified baggage along the years.>which can only be done by the organisation of the working class.
As said, tunnelvision on working class isn't exactly useful since we don't even know all the escape trajectories out of capitalism, nor which of them are even preferable to capitalism.
>>1333300>automotive industry isn't real in the Third World
Mexico,Brazil,Turkey >selling of ports and mining is literally the expansion of resource extraction in order to make possible giving higher workload to workers in the First World.
The argument they use is the same as yours ,expanded ports and new mines create more jobs
inb4 accusations of idealism
>>1333296>>western working class >>imblying
Yeah, because after deindustrialization, the working class went up in somke. Funny how that happens. But I guess we need to victimblame them instead for being darn evil Labour Aristocrats. >Any country that doesn't promote nationalism?
There is a differance between nationalism and patriotism.
jfc, so you are telling me you are a patriot or whatever. Oh poor westoids>>1333303
I hope you will get your wish or whatever I dunno
>>1333305>The argument they use is the same as yours ,expanded ports and new mines create more jobs
And their argument for pro-imperialist coup is that they bring freedom. So fucking what, am I using literally their argument when I talk about emancipation of workers through revolution, lmao?
Hello, what year is this? They don't invest into automotive industry anywhere anymore. China is investing now in productive sectors, not Western capital.
>expanded ports and new mines create more jobs
Yeah, because they need more resources because they want to force Western workers to work more shifts. >>1333306
Whenever you say "you should work as a steel worker to understand their troubles" or something similar you engage in the kind of idealism I've said, right?
>>1333300>It doesn't, though
Yes it does, i have literally just shown you that the least developed nations on earth sport more productive forces than the great powers or europe did in marxs time. Pining for any more capitalist development is genuinely retarded, the tasks of communist is to organise the labour movement, the indian subcontinent currently has one of the best labour movements in the world right now, india and every nation on earth run on capital. > Again, it's not RAW OUTPUT, it's MENTALITY OF POPULATION.
Capitalism is not a fucking "vibe" you retard. The world is already going through a surge of rank and file organising from the developed world like the us with its strikes an tenants unions and third world like iran with its workers councils and india with its strike. The "mentality" of the working class right now is rebelling and associating against capital because capital does rule these nations.
The only reason you would prefer to side with capitalists is because it the easiest thing to do.
Poor or not poor, the best chance to dismantle the US empire was via its working class demanding a peace dividend. Its death directly caused Reagonomics and Thatcherism. I mean fuck, maybe Britain would literally be Dengist-lite (or couped by US) right now if not for deindustrialization. And all of that hapened why? Because deng sold out Chinese workers to western firms. And I am sorry, but stick your "broductive forces" up your ass. I'd rather be impoverished Mao era worker in a co-op than a modern Chinese worker in extended shift hell, so don't pretend that "Deng good cuz he helped the Chinese workers!".
>>1333310>Yes it does, i have literally just shown you that the least developed nations on earth sport more productive forces than the great powers or europe did in marxs time.
They don't, they don't have the same level of development of productive forces - biggest part of which is WORKERS. Those are called FORCES for a reason
>Pining for any more capitalist development is genuinely retarded
Yeah, totally! Wanting more of the agrarian people to migrate to cities and better jobs through improving agrarian sector's productivity is sooooo bad and retarded!
>Capitalism is not a fucking "vibe" you retard
Capitalism is a specific organization of a society, so to say. It's relationship between people, split into classes, with means of production.
>The only reason you would prefer to side with capitalists is because it the easiest thing to do.
Upper management in industrial companies is a vanguard class in Russia right now, lmao. >>1333312
West doesn't do anything good, though. China does invest (more like gives loans so that other countries buy Chinese factories and expertise, and then China has controlling share for X years to set up production properly) into the Third World, and West doesn't, West demands structural changes in the economy and a controlling share in perpetuity.
No. Opinions and thoughts don't exist and people are automatons following only material conditions. Propaganda is fake and doesn't work, it's just a trick opportunists use to redirect money from military spending. Wtf is even superstructure, people keep using that word but it doesn't make any sense to me?
>>1333317>They don't, they don't have the same level of development of productive forces
You can literally compare the levels of urbanisation in the least developed nations on earth with the fucking british empire when the communist manifesto was written and england falls short. > Wanting more of the agrarian people to migrate to cities and better jobs through improving agrarian sector's productivity is sooooo bad and retarded!
Do you know why ghettos are formed? because people move from they country to the cities to look for work and they can't afford rent so they live in slums, like is said earlier, capitalist development does not look like a burgeoning paradise. >Upper management in industrial companies is a vanguard class in Russia right now, lmao.
are you autistic?
So, what exactly does development of productive forces entail?
One of the things, for example, is fertility rates and urbanization. Similar conditions of the working class create similar demographics, isn't it? It's a stage society has to develop through. It is a specific mentality, created by social and economic conditions, and which in turn creates those social and economic conditions.
>>1333321>You can literally compare the levels of urbanisation in the least developed nations on earth with the fucking british empire when the communist manifesto was written and england falls short.
Why are you even using this retarded rightoid argument, anyway? It's a wrong argument, regardless, with Western society of those years being better developed than today's poor countries'. What the fuck is wrong with you if you are denying this, lol?
>Do you know why ghettos are formed? because people move from they country to the cities to look for work and they can't afford rent so they live in slums, like is said earlier, capitalist development does not look like a burgeoning paradise.
And they flock to cities because it's all slums and shit and always was slums and shit and not because cities offer a shot at a better quality of life. And it's not like our ancestors pulled themselves up by the straps out of poverty, amirite. Oh, and worker militancy of those generations was totally a result of… PLAIN ORGANIZING and not of particular socio-economic conditions which enabled them a proletarian mindset and a will to fight for better wages and a better society.
Multilateralism doesn't mean that there won't be a continuation of cross border exploitation by emerging regional powers.
>>1333203>Multipolarity is not a done deal, far far far from it. It is on the edge of a knife. The situation isn't "good", it's better than it was, but that can change at any second and multipolarity might be squashed like a bug, or the world thrown into a global war.
Multipolarity is not something that can be "squashed". It is not a movement. It is just a shifting of the global power dynamic into multiple camps. No one built multipolarity, it is just a way to describe the current conditions.>We're not waiting. We're organizing, getting Lula elected, protesting against sanctions, protesting against funding the proxy war, striking and demanding better wages, etc. We're moving the conditions forward as best we can.
Listen, I'm happy Lula got elected and is now purging the reactionary Bolsoheads too, but I don't think it was just multipolarists who got the man in office.>protesting against sanctions, protesting against funding the proxy war, striking and demanding better wages, etc. We're moving the conditions forward as best we can.
And that is a good thing. Keep it up. But let me ask you. Do you think that is because of multipolarity, or is it actually just class struggle? It could be class struggle instigated by the shift towards multipolarity, I am not one to doubt that. But why not just push for socialism while the wind is at your back and not towards this multipolar dream that if reached doesn't offer the workers nearly enough as socialism? (If you do that already, then great I have nothing else to say, except that is awesome!) Or, even if you do reach that dream of a multipolar world, why stop there? The struggle should continue. That is all I'm saying. All this pissy fucking butthurt and useless sectarianism directed at my OP and myself just shows you assholes are terminally stuck in your own little geopol bubble.>>1333206>>1333208
You are both wrong, multipolarity is not the boulder. The boulder is liberation being pushed by the workers of the world who unbeknownst to themselves are all contributing to that effort towards socialism. Sitting atop that boulder are the capitalists who wish to divide the workers and will be more than happy to kick the boulder down the mountain once we all reach the top.>>1333309>pic
I am appropriating this image btw.
Will multipolarity fix global warming?
>>1333344>Multipolarity is not something that can be "squashed". It is not a movement. It is just a shifting of the global power dynamic into multiple camps. No one built multipolarity, it is just a way to describe the current conditions.
Wrong.>but I don't think it was just multipolarists who got the man in office.
There are marxists in his cabinet. Marxists worth their salt are """""multipolarists""""" (meaningless term). Lula was involved in Foro Saõ Paulo, and BRICS.>Do you think that is because of multipolarity, or is it actually just class struggle?
One implies the other. Anti-imperialism is an important component of the international class struggle (shouldn't have to say this).>But why not just push for socialism
??? where? When? How? By whom? To whom? Meaningless when suggested in a vacuum. The work of socialists around the world has not changed. It is the same as before. Each specific to the specific conditions.>Or, even if you do reach that dream of a multipolar world, why stop there? The struggle should continue. That is all I'm saying.
We're not engaged in utopianism here. Where did this happen? How did it happen? Who is doing the struggle? Where? How is the struggle continuing? What are the conditions of the organized labor in this imaginary scenario? Too many questions and also irrelevant since it's an imaginary scenario. >>1333346
To a much lesser degree than what exists now. The development of the productive forces of the periphery, multilaterialism, and the end of unipolar imperial hegemony also accelerates the TRPF greatly.
Yeah, development will fix all issues. Eventually
Chinese domination of the economy will ensure that the "rising powers" will always prefer development within their borders instead of predatory capitalism onto other nations
Under capitalism, no it'll accelerate it. More wasteful manufacturering, more fuel usage, and perhaps significant idk gunsmoke and bombs.
Do you think imperialism is a result of preferences? Because it isn't, it's a result of the imperatives of capitalist accumulation reaching their logical conclusion. If China becomes a barrier to the expansion of Indian, Russian, etc. capital, then this will mean the end of their partnership.
>>1333361>Because it isn't, it's a result of the imperatives of capitalist accumulation reaching their logical conclusion. If China becomes a barrier to the expansion of Indian, Russian, etc. capital, then this will mean the end of their partnership.
And it won't become a barrier because communist China grows faster than all of those states combined - due to communism. China totally can buy all their extra and grow on it's own on top of that, creating a boundless market for those countries. Thus, it's always more profitable to trade with China rather than go conquering
Lmao you sound like some lib economist. Boundless markets don't exist. Capital's hunger for profit always outstrips domestic sources of it, and even what can be acquired through equitable trade. This is the entire basis of Marxist concepts of imperialism. You're peddling liberal delusions of capitalism without imperialism, and ironically showing why OP's post is more necessary than people ITT are giving it credit for. Multipolarity is a positive development to be sure, but it's only a stepping stone to socialism, not a substitute for it.
>>1333361>If China becomes a barrier to the expansion of Indian, Russian, etc. capital, then this will mean the end of their partnership.
This is technically true but India and Russia are at least 100 years away from reaching the imperial stage of capitalism.
At worst this is the problem of future-people. A century from now, capitalism will likely be on the way out because the majority of countries are at least in the lower stage of socialism.
>>1333368>You're peddling liberal delusions of capitalism without imperialism
Why do you think that it's impossible for communism to outproduce capitalism? Just like feudal states saw capitalist states as boundless markets for themselves, similarly communist states can be boundless markets for capitalist states.
>>1333349>When? How? By whom? To whom? Meaningless when suggested in a vacuum. The work of socialists around the world has not changed. It is the same as before. Each specific to the specific conditions.
Now why would I (an imperial core dweller) tell you that or what to do? I am no Agent Kochinski. You seem to be well more aware of your own conditions than I ever would be and vice versa. There is no disagreement here.>We're not engaged in utopianism here.
Socialism is not utopianism. Its workers owning the means of production. And that can be achieved. >Where did this happen? How did it happen? Who is doing the struggle? Where? How is the struggle continuing? What are the conditions of the organized labor in this imaginary scenario? Too many questions and also irrelevant since it's an imaginary scenario.
It is a scenario that can only be applied to ones own conditions. You can answer each of your questions yourself as they apply to you. It seems that all we really disagree with is the definition of multipolarity. My point is not directed at you or other Marxists who see things this way, my argument is directed to the idiots who just glam on to the vestige of multipolarity as though it is the end all goal. It is those very same idiots who end up getting swayed into reactionary viewpoints and forget about the workers and class struggle and devolve into arguing about nations rather than class. If that is not you and you are actually getting shit done irl, then this does not apply to you. We see eye to eye on most things probably. Simple as. Stop being such a petty ML. Or perhaps that itself is utopic thinking. lel
No, it's comrade climate change who caused multipolarism in the first place.
>>1333314>>1333314>financiarization of the economy is because of deng
cant expect much from one of the resident retard, but thats an especially dumb take
China is not communist nor socialist. They have repeatedly said that they will become socialist by 2050.
Communist country is a country that moves towards communism, deliberately. Also, it necessarily requires a communist party in power. Stalin has said so
And consciously moving towards communism requires implementing automatisation and labor saving measures as the top priority of economic development. Just like in China.
>>1333310> the least developed nations on earth sport more productive forces than the great powers or europe did in marxs time
the level of development for communism is not an absolute value but relative. states have to bring themselves to a level that will allow defense against capitalist reaction, which means they need a level of production equal to or higher than the imperialist bloc or the will be couped invaded and overthrown
74%+ of French population approve of Louis Napoleon according to election results
by being anti-Napoleon, you are quite literally against the will of world's peasants, e.g. the people actually valuable to the global economy
e.g. not montagnard intellectuals
except way more people talking about emerging multipolarity are close to the Prashad spectrum of this. This image implies that 2/3 of all people talking about this are clowns like Haz or reactionaries like Dugin, but the truth is Prashad is much more representative here. Even among the non-communists talking about multipolarity, you have people like Michael Hudson, who has been talking about US monetary imperialism for decades, and should be taken a lot more seriously than the likes of Haz.
Dodged the argument entirely, evidently not out of malice.>>1333382
wrong.>>1333460>semantic wankery for anti-communist purposes.
What I don't get is why these two bothered voting against it. Cartoonish
120 more posts and none of you have read SuperImperialism LMAO>>1333214
You're just making it harder on yourself when you find out this isn't Vladolf's plot to emasculate you
With names like "bloodgasm" and "grillpilled schizo" I can tell way more about what you're like than I want to.
Thank god nobody needed your consent to develop lmao
Just the idea of a "grillpill" who stays tuned into geopolitics and an anarchist who warns people about foreign governments. Classic shit
Don't bother, the fact that they put a Twitch stream on there indicates they are a shamelessly unserious internet addict.
Seeing this as your effort post is honestly really sad. Like, knowing that you actually tried your hardest and this is what you came up with, 'intellectually'.
I wish I could write like this
Oh yeah no kidding that's a lot better than my reeeeeeing in this thread>>1330901
>>1333238>In my understanding, the list of nations that will see development from real existing multipolarity will be rather small compared to the nations that will merely trade one master for another
you really dont understand shit do you ?
>>1334016>Even among the non-communists talking about multipolarity, you have people like Michael Hudson…
Is Micheal Hudson not a communist?
>>1334016>This image implies that 2/3 of all people talking about this are clowns like Haz or reactionaries like Dugin
That's not even close to how a spectrum works. Those are just the relative poles.>non-communists like Michael Hudson
Bros I'm scared of going to the toilet. My fear is that while I'm sitting on the toilet trying to take a shit, bloodgasm will barge in and start shouting at me: "Why are you pushing shit out of your ass? Start pushing for socialism instead!!" and I would answer "But I'm already politically engaged! If I empty the contents of my bowels into the toilet, I will be better able to wage class struggle because then I won't shit myself during party meetings!" and bloodgasm would retort by saying that "NO NO NO YOU ARE NOT DOING SOCIALISM START PUSHING FOR SOCIALISM NOW".
Well, I wasn't worried about that before but now I sure am
https://gowans.blog/2023/01/18/whats-wrong-with-the-argument-that-russia-isnt-imperialist-a-critique-of-desai-et-als-the-conflict-in-ukraine-and-contemporary-imperialism/What’s Wrong with the Argument that Russia Isn’t Imperialist? A Critique of Desai et al’s “The Conflict in Ukraine and Contemporary Imperialism”>Abstract
>Two years after Russia annexed Ukraine, Radhika Desai, Alan Freeman and Boris Kagarlitsky argued in “The Conflict in Ukraine and Contemporary Imperialism” that while the term imperialism continued to be an appropriate description of the pattern of Western actions, it was not so for that of Russian ones. In their paper, the trio drew on thinking about imperialism that comported with the views of Rudolph Hilferding and Nicolai Bukharan, popularized by V.I. Lenin, that imperialism is competition among capitalist states to impose their respective wills on other territories and populations in response to the needs of their capitalist class. However, they abandoned this thinking when they set out to answer the question: Is Russia imperialist? Rather than following the Hilferding-Bukharin view to its logical end, an exercise that would have identified Russia as a participant in a system of rivalry among capitalist states for economic territory, they constructed a scale of capitalist powers from weakest to strongest and then drew an arbitrary dividing line to separate imperialist capitalist states from a class of non-imperialist ones, which included Russia. The approach, based on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, conformed to no external standard, except the authors’ acknowledged desire to arrive at a characterization of Russia that avoided demonizing Moscow or giving “theoretical dignity to the ambitions of US-policy makers.” In doing so, the authors went to the opposite extreme of offering an understanding of the world that dovetailed nicely with Russia’s denial of its imperialist aims and gave theoretical dignity to the ambitions of Russian-policy makers. The role of Marxist scholars is not to act as court philosophers for one bourgeoisie in its confrontation with another, as Desai and her coauthors did, but, as Lenin argued, to assist in the project of using the struggle between competing capitalist classes to overthrow all of them.
And yet you could not muster anything but this sad vapid reply
The poles are DSA International committee, a twitch streamer who makes a living by annoying Breadtubers etcetera, and literally Dugin
This is the most retarded, burgered-out political compass I have ever seen in my entire life.
I love this image because it makes me so confident the only people who lack common sense on this topic had it driven out of them by psyops.
It shows me I am many, many steps ahead of the DSA Breadtube faggots, and I know exactly what propaganda to expect out of them
If this is the best burgers can muster to convince us their fall from grace will be something we all regret, I am relieved.
>>1335164>>1335182>Is Micheal Hudson not a communist?
it was anti-bait. I knew some people would get butthurt and call him a trot, so I got out ahead of it by sidestepping it
OP is a burger with a ton of new preconceptions after hearing about multipolarism later than everyone else. That anon who insulted him and ditched the thread is smarter than you or me
You are taking a pic made in 20 seconds in paint (which is about the discussion happening on this website) weirdly seriously for some reason while also seeming to not understand how poles on a spectrum work.>>1338554
Communists being aligned with the workers of the world is not exactly a revelation.
I am taking it seriously as a map of the burger brain of the one who made it with zero connection to reality. Again is literally the dumbest political compass post I have ever seen. Log off, touch grass, call your mother.
>>1338537>If this is the best burgers can muster to convince us their fall from grace will be something we all regret, I am relieved.
Literally not what my OP was about btw. Perhaps take the campist glasses off and reread it.>>1338549>OP is a burger with a ton of new preconceptions after hearing about multipolarism later than everyone else.
Yeah, so are a lot of ppl not just burgers. Also, how does this refute anything I posted? Just because I live in the imperial core means capitalists will not inevitably clash with one another?>>1338554
Ugh. I never liked the original image, this just makes it worse. Why not put all the faces of all the capitalists who would "benefit" from a multipolar world? It doesn't matter. Its all a muddied well filled with good and bad. The only small piece of actual merit this and the original image has is the fact that there are communists, reactionaries, and opportunists within the multipolarist sphere as well as capitalists and warmongers and oligarchs and internet trolls. It only adds weight to my argument, there should be more of a push for socialism rather the changing of seasons. Why share the merry-go-round with those reactionaries, opportunists, and capitalists? Its time to get off that ride losers and get on the armored train of communism and no there aren't going to be any stopping at rest stops so shit yourselves now that you got the chance.<inb4 nooo u don't understand, marxist multipolarists have been laying the foundation for all this to happen as court advisors to liberals this whole time trust the plan two more weeks blah blah blah
This is asinine and cope. Stop fooling yourselves into thinking this is some sort of master move on the chessboard of geopolitics or that multipolarity is some weapon that can slay the dragon that is capitalism. Its not and never will be. It makes you look incredibly condescending choosing sides in inter-imperialist wars and using the complicated reality of what is happening to inadvertently (or purposely) push for campism rather than support socialist movements. For all the bitching you guys do about muh e-celebs, you all sound like liberal keyboard warriors nonetheless.>>1338484
Good shit, everyone bitching about how multipolarity is le good should just read the whole damn article.
Communist Party of Pakistan is based and schizo pilled at 13 and 15, apparently.
>>1338616>I live in the imperial core
ah so that explains why you think optimistic discussion of multipolarity is "campism"
the most thorough response to you ITT still looms like a 800lb gorilla >>1330901
Read Michael Hudson that's not what multipolarity means retard you're playing with definitions
>>1333371>This is technically true but India and Russia are at least 100 years away from reaching the imperial stage of capitalism.
M8 Japan went from agrarian feudalism to winning direct confrontations with European empires in the span of 35 years. India, Russia, and Brazil are already modern industrial states and major regional powers. If there was a serious collapse of Western power they would be able to fill it quite rapidly. Multipolarity by definition refers to a state of affairs where these emerging powers are competing with the West on a relatively equal footing. That means a multipolar world is necessarily one in which there is a space for such states to develop their own imperialism, unless you're seriously suggesting that the bourgeoisie in these countries will not use their increased international power to seek profits outside their own borders. It will almost definitely become a problem within our lifetimes.
ALL workers benefit from a multipolar world because dollar hegemony is used for enforcement of austerity! A mere 10% of US workers are beneficiaries of Imperialism! We are their subjects! The cops, the military, the surveillance system coders, the finance freaks, you can figure it out!
You've been getting more and more smug about your false premise that people think Multipolarism is an alternative to building socialism in their country like it won't actively make it easier. LMFAO. THE BIGGEST ANTICOMMUNIST EMPIRE IN HISTORY WILL FALL. AND YOU WILL LEARN TO LIKE IT WORM!!!!!!
Even the ones who get tortured to death in the process?
pearls = clutched
yeah this is taking too long for me as well
IATA (i am that anon)
Thinking back on times innocent workers have been tortured to death and I recall the US in Chile, Indonesia. THE US MUST FALL.
>just push for socialism OK?
Meaningless. All socialists push for socialism already. Multipolarity is a coming condition (Allah willing) that will affect the practice of socialism. Anti multi polarity people are seriously the weirdest. How dare they lecture us into promoting socialism when they don't even do that and on top reject the end of american imperialism? It reeks of imperial chauvinism.
>>1338484>Rudolph Hilferding and Nicolai Bukharan, popularized by V.I. Lenin
This is wrong, Hilferding was one of the subjects of Lenins critique>that imperialism is competition among capitalist states to impose their respective wills on other territories and populations in response to the needs of their capitalist class
This is also wrong, Lenin's conception of imperialism is that at a given stage of technological development the falling rate of profit drives capital expansion in to undeveloped markets. >they constructed a scale of capitalist powers from weakest to strongest and then drew an arbitrary dividing line
This is not true either, the line between core and periphery, developed and underdeveloped is not arbitrary its based on whether there is a net loss or gain from participating in global trade. Only western countries have a net profit from trade and this is by design. > It is surely this view of imperialism—in contemporary terms, one of G7 countries, led by the United States, jointly enslaving and exploiting the rest of the world—that is generally understood by the term ‘imperialism’ today.  In Lenin’s time, the very suggestion that capitalist states could settle into a Kautsky-style ultra-imperialism
This is also wrong, super-imperialism is not Kautsky-style ultra-imperialism, it is financial imperialism. >"The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agricultural regions but even highly industrialized regions"
The key point Lenin is making here is not that imperialism is when someone does annexation it is that the annexation is driven by necessity of the capitalist mode of production because of the way monopoly, technology and the falling rate of profit interact. None of this is happening in Russia.
>NOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO LET EUROS GET CHEAP NATGAS
The problem is that multipolistas base their theories off Mao's(Deng's) three world theory not any marxist thinking
I don't care anon. You won't thwart the third world's development. You can't thwart shit. You're rejecting an opportunity to anticipate a positive global trend and you reject it out of chauvinism, pseud shit, campism. Kill yourself
Oh stfu, such generalizing statements are gateway fascism and you know it.
>>1338570>You are taking a pic made in 20 seconds in paint (which is about the discussion happening on this website) weirdly seriously for some reason while also seeming to not understand how
You are taking a pic made in 20 seconds in paint (which is about the discussion happening on this website) weirdly seriously for some reason while also seeming to not understand how jokes work
says the person who claims US unipolarity is protecting workers from being tortured to death. you ought to have your tongue taken out.
your entire understanding of state violence was constructed BY the united states, and now it is used against you. their thumb is securely up your ass
>>1338961>says the person who claims US unipolarity is protecting workers from being tortured to death
I never said such thing. US unipolarity may even lead to more workers being tortured but as long as the set of tortured workers under unipolarity differs from that under multipolarity the sacrifices retain their right to complain.>you ought to have your tongue taken out
You should have hot lead poured in your ears since ypu don't seem to be using them anyway.>your entire understanding of state violence was constructed BY the united states
What do you know about my understanding of state violence? I'm sure I've been exposed to some american propaganda like every other contemporary human, but I refuse to uphold a view where US was so all encompassing that you couldn't have thoughts originating from the outside.>now it is used against you
How? I'm just opposed to the idea that the shift to multipolarism will be a joyful walk in the park where every worker only benefits and none suffer. It may be necessary, but occluding reality like that has never led to good outcomes.>their thumb is securely up your ass
Is there any better place to store severed fingers?
Better a devil that you know than one you don't. By that same logic then we should never do socialism.
Nobody said it was going to be peaceful. The empire will do whatever it can to remain an empire.
Dear, I'm all for new devils, I just want us to be careful with the summoning process. Liberals keep making the mistake where they triy to do a big shift that benefits "everyone" and forget to take into account the groups that are hurt by the process, ending up turning them against the liberals and making the shift take more effort. Don't be like liberals and lie about the outcomes if you don't want to split the working class.
>>1338997>I just want us to be careful with the summoning process
This is beyond us beyond thwarting the attempts to dominate by the imperial core and the coups in the periphery of compradors (which are usually backed by the imperial core). Which are already a core part of leftist praxis since forever.
lmao that retard was the one denying israel lobby influence and shitting on fellow marxist journalists investigations in the name of "muh antisemitism", a classic glowie tactic
>arbitrary dividing line to separate imperialist capitalist states from a class of non-imperialist ones>arbitrary
dishonest little bitch
You don't think the way we think and speak have any effect on the shape of coming things?
It is not possible to have a coherent leftist/socialist position on any event that does not have a materially existing, explicitly leftist/socialist entity in the theater.
All else is cope.
You can't have a coherent leftist opinion on what's better for socialism between bourgeois nation state A vs bourgeois nation state B, any more than you can have a coherent leftist opinion on what's better between Google and Amazon. The only coherent socialist position is a material one: start a union.
Socialism is a strictly materialist framework, which means that it only works if the things you are analyzing are real materially existing things. And that's a Good Thing (tm). It demonstrates that it's a real scientific system that has constraints and a scope, so that you can't feed it arbitrary bullshit, get an outcome then hallucinate a conclusion.
If you have no constraints in the form of real, materially existing things, all you have is ideologies and hypotheticals. "If weaker empire wins B against dominant empire A, it makes socialism more likely to happen" is a cope hypothetical. And sometimes an excuse to have reactionary positions while dressing them up in a leftist guise.
If there's not an explicitly socialist, materially existing position/entity you can "support" (we all know """support""" here means internet shitposting), the answer is to build one. Not to cope about which entity maybe coulda shoula woulda result in one being built without your involvement.
someone call mao and tell him that imperialism stopped changing after marx so any theory that takes reality into account is wrong because anon said so
yeah, really grasping at straws lmfao>>1338973
like I said pearls = clutched
your instincts are meaningless. multipolarity will free other countries from the specter of our military adventures, and prevent our ability to ENFORCE AUSTERITY on anyone in the world via the IMF and World Bank, the former is so damn EXPENSIVE we have to fund it with infinite money cheats, I won't smarten it up because there's no point, this has been well-studied since the early seventies. As long as the dollar is the world's currency we have infinite money cheats. K?
other countries continue to actively repress their leftists and WE FUND THOSE REACTIONARY GOVERNMENTS!
THE US IS NOT HOLDING BACK ANY STATE VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY LE REGIMES! YOU HAVEN'T EXAMINED THE PREMISES OF YOUR BABBLING!
The dishonesty of your position shows just as you opened your mouth. The fuck is even "the underclass," you stupid shit? We are using Marxist terms here. The fact that the lumpen proletariat exists by no means refute the existence of the labor aristocracy.
And here's some newsflash to you, faggot. Even the lumpen proles in America benefit from imperialism. As we are speaking the USA is plundering Syria of its oil and wheat, where do you think those cheap resources will go? The modern US economy was always based on artificially cheapened fuel prices, because it's one heck of a way to boost an economy.
So guess who benefits from the USA looting Syria? Even the fucking bum who pays for a bus ticket to travel from one city or another, since he'd have to pay more without the plundering.
Literally everyone who buys anything in the US benefits from imperialism. You are a new Mexican immigrant in the USA? Congrats, you benefited from US imperialism when you bought a loaf of bread whose price includes transportation costs being lowered by plundering the rest of the world.
And this is just ONE aspect of how it's beneficial to live in the belly of the beast. The fact remains that it is infinitely better to be homeless in the USA than in Nigeria.
>Material wealth means jack shit
>>1339318>since he'd have to pay more without the plundering
Slow your roll there chief
no it isn't this is about the global financial system under the dollar
god all you people feeling this out without doing any research piss me off
also why the casual shitting on Nigeria 🤨🤨🤨🤨
What's hard for you to understand? Every ingredient you have in a loaf of bread needs to be transported several times until they arrive on your table and the final price contains the cost.
What would happen to the price of bread if oil became scarcer in the USA? Want me help you figure that one out, chief?
I love when costs drop and the prices immediately go down, it's my favorite thing about living here
It's already lowered, Einstein. You Americans think labor aristocracy is when you get a monthly check from the government, "Here's your share of the plunder, good sir!"
And it's not just oil, either. The cost of a shitton of foodstuffs from cocoa to coffee, through anything having rare metals in it are lowered through the Empire maintaining itself through any means possible, be it installing warlords to employ slave labor, through corrupting local officials, debt trapping entire countries to maintain low wages, or just outright stealing shit like covid vaccinees from supposed allies or wheat from Syria.
how is pointing out that imperialism makes it harder to be homeless in Nigeria than in the USA "casually shitting on Nigeria?" It's casually shitting on IMPERIALISM.
he's right you know. Americans don't want to admit this. I was in a hosptial recently with my wife when she gave birth. We're both proles. It was incredibly expensive to have a kid in the USA, but still I could feel the effects of imperialism and labor aristocracy. We had several lactation consultants visit us. We received pamphlets and advice. We received tons of free diapers. Nearly all medical equipment from gloves to syringes is made from plastic, which is a petroleum product, and American petroleum is plundere from the global south through the machinations of imperialism. It's hard to get people in America to see labor aristocracy and imperialism because they're uniquely sheltered from the effects of imperialism by the atlantic and pacific and also by the most sophisticated propaganda apparatus in the world (the 24/7 bourgeois media cycle ignores imperialism as a rule) and we're all uniquely oppressed by our godawful deregulated privatized decentralized austrian school neoliberal economy. So the internal economics of the USA are so oppressive that it actually masks the effects of imperialism. There's a great infographic that sometimes gets posted that shows that even though America is the leader of global imperialism it is actually NATO, EU, Canada that benefit the most from the plunder. America still gets the plunder, but it's more unevenly distributed than in the rest of the imperial core. It's complicated!
The people primarily benefiting from imperialism include the military, cops, think tank weirdos, FIRE sector, etc. It does not trickle down. 😂😂😂
You've got this early 20th century mindset get fucking real lmao.
A homeless man benefits from the war in Syria directly, because if we lost cheap energy the economy would explode. You say this with zero irony.
This is like saying everyone with a 401k is part of the investing class. Saying people with mortgages are real estate moguls. You're insane, retard. Split hairs next time, please.
You have any idea how many people are homeless because Wall St. is running out of places to stuff their piles of cash!?
>>1339318>As we are speaking the USA is plundering Syria of its oil and wheat, where do you think those cheap resources will go? The modern US economy was always based on artificially cheapened fuel prices, because it's one heck of a way to boost an economy.>So guess who benefits from the USA looting Syria? Even the fucking bum who pays for a bus ticket to travel from one city or another, since he'd have to pay more without the plundering.>Literally everyone who buys anything in the US benefits from imperialism. You are a new Mexican immigrant in the USA? Congrats, you benefited from US imperialism when you bought a loaf of bread whose price includes transportation costs being lowered by plundering the rest of the world.>>1339334>What would happen to the price of bread if oil became scarcer in the USA? Want me help you figure that one out, chief?
Lmao wtf is this "analysis"? The US is the world's #1 top oil producer. It doesn't depend on "Middle East oil". The US state secures Middle East oil supplies in order for US petroleum corporations to profit, not because the U.S. domestic economy "needs" Middle East oil in order to function.https://gowans.blog/2015/11/28/aspiring-to-rule-the-world-us-capital-and-the-battle-for-syria/Aspiring to Rule the World: US Capital and the Battle for Syria>Rarely, if ever, is it said what these “vital interests” are. They simply exist, and must be defended. Occasionally, their nature is at least superficially glimpsed, as in the idea that the Middle East is a vital US interest owing to its vast reserves of oil, and that if these reserves were to come under the control of a “hostile” power, the world could be held to ransom. Elements of this view can be traced to the Carter Doctrine and form much of the basis of what is presented as US strategy in connection with the Middle East. >To members of the general public it is likely that this thinking translates into the idea that the United States must interfere in the Arab world to guarantee the security of oil supplies, and thus the US way of life. What this overlooks, however, is that Canada is by far the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States, accounting for 43 percent of all imports , versus just 22 percent in 2012 from six Persian Gulf suppliers,  and that the United States itself, is a major producer of oil, third ranked in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia . Moreover, the United States is on track to become the world’s leading oil producer in just five years . “[I]ncreasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources” . “The chimera of ‘energy independence’,” observes The New York Times, has begun “to look more tangible” . >As a major producer of oil, the United States has never been as dependent on Persian Gulf oil as it is popularly believed—and indeed, has never been dependent on the Persian Gulf for supplies of oil to any significant degree. It wasn’t until the mid-1970s, when consumption began to outstrip domestic supply, that the United States began to import oil from the Persian Gulf. An observation made by the sociologist Albert Szymanski in 1983 is still relevant today. “Much has been made of supposed US reliance on the Persian Gulf area for petroleum. But while tremendous profits are made by US-based petroleum corporations that continue to dominate the petroleum industry in this region, the United States is not in fact especially reliant on petroleum imports from the Gulf.”  Indeed,>“until the mid-1970s, very little Middle Eastern petroleum was imported into the United States, even though US transnational corporations had controlled the petroleum consortiums in the area for a generation. During this time, US transnational corporations took the oil out of the ground and sold it to Europe and Japan (as well as to the less developed countries) making tremendous profits, which they in good measure repatriated to the United States. >“In 1976…US petroleum companies in the Middle East exported less than 7 percent of their output to the United States while selling 82 percent to third countries.”  >Despite the minimal role the Persian Gulf has played in satisfying North American oil requirements, figures central to US foreign policy have justified US military intervention in the Middle East on the grounds of safeguarding security of supply. Bernard Lewis, an intellectual attached to the enormously influential US foreign policy organization, The Council on Foreign Relations, outlined the reasons for the US military intervention in the Persian Gulf in 1991 in the Council’s magazine Foreign Affairs, with reference to the need to protect the security of the world’s oil supply:>“If Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue unchecked he would have controlled the oil resources of both Iraq and Kuwait. If the rest of the region observed that he could act with impunity, the remaining Persian Gulf states would sooner rather than later have fallen into his lap, and even the Saudis would have had either to submit or be overthrown. The real danger was monopolistic control of oil—which is a very large portion of the world’s oil.” >Richard B. Cheney, then the US vice-president, invoked a similar rationale in August 2006 to explain the US invasion of Iraq in 2003: “Armed with an arsenal of…weapons of mass destruction, and seated atop 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East [and] take control of the world’s energy supplies.”  (Note the false conflation of Persian Gulf oil with the “world’s” energy supplies.)>Since not all of the world’s oil lies in the Persian Gulf, and much of it is found in Russia and North America, the idea that Saddam Hussein could control the world’s oil supply—and threaten the economy and living standards of North Americans—is transparently false. Lewis and Cheney had engaged in deliberate fear-mongering to mobilize public support for illegitimate interventions in the Middle East to bring about the political and economic domination of the region by the United States. The real motivation was not to safeguard the security of energy supplies, but to eliminate a threat to the profits of US petroleum corporations posed by Arab nationalists. In his book Devil’s Game, Robert Dreyfuss paints a picture that doubtlessly agitated the minds of US foreign policy planners.> “The oil monarchies are ruled by royal kleptocracies whose legitimacy is nil and whose existence depends of outside military protection. Most Arabs are aware that the monarchies were established by imperialists seeking to build fences around oil wells. Arabs would gain much by combining the sophistication and population of the Arab centers, including Iraq, with the oil wealth of the desert kingdoms. At the center lies Egypt, with its tens of millions of people and Saudi Arabia with its 200 billion barrels of oil. Uniting Cairo and Riyadh would create a vastly important Arab center of gravity with worldwide influence.”  >It is fairly certain that were Arabs to unify, overcoming the artificial political divisions imposed on them by the British Sykes and French Picot after WWI, and overcoming the sectarian cleavages that outsiders have sought to deepen, that more of the benefits of the sales of their petroleum resources would be retained at home, available for their own development, and less would be transferred to accounts of the capitalist class in the United States. There’s no danger that a pan-Arab power in possession of its own resources would blackmail those countries that depend on Middle Eastern oil. Cutting off the supply of oil would destroy the economy of the pan-Arab state, since it would depend on oil sales to earn revenue to import goods and services from the same countries it would presumably be seeking to hold to ransom. Because underdeveloped countries typically rely on the developed world to supply them with a wide range of goods and services, which they pay for with a few agricultural or resource goods, “historically it has been the advanced countries that have been able to effect disciplined boycotts against the poorer countries, far more than the reverse.”  What “the less developed countries…are interested in,” observed Szymanski, is “securing significantly better terms of trade for themselves.”  But, of course, significantly better terms of trade for themselves means leaner profits for US shareholders and investors. And therein lies the motivation for the United States’ hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East, namely, preventing the natives from throwing off their exploitation by US corporations.
groveling freak thanks imperialism for his wife receiving medical care in the United States for a mere $4 million dollars
>>1339349>I was in a hosptial recently with my wife when she gave birth.
Congratulations, btw. Boy or girl?
who cares it's just another member of the AmeriKKKan labor aristoKKKracy
It's incredible how despite all the shit heaped on them Americans still think they're getting a good deal.
Dude's literally in the hospital looking at syringes thinking "wow im so glad we invade other countries or we couldn't have the best medical system in the world , I feel soooo remorseful about it though" while his wife is giving birth, you can't make this shit up.
It doesn't trickle down lmao.
Are countries trading with the US also labor aristocracy because the goods they're buying would be more expensive if costs went up in the US?
you're not even responding to what blog schizo is saying
>>1339352>It does not trickle down.>>1339368>It doesn't trickle down lmao.
you are fighting a strawman of your own making
Because Gowan is a complete hack I don't need to address as if he was some kind of authority figure ON ANYTHING.
You're literally saying being a consumer of US products makes you a member of the labor aristocracy because the cost reductions trickle down.
At least BTFO someone if you're gonna, reply you didn't respond to what I said either.
I'm not thankful to imperialism or capitalism. Things would be a lot better without them, but obviously the reason I get to change my kid's diaper with plastic gloves on while a baby in a yemeni village doesn't get a diaper at all is obviously a byproduct of capitalism and imperialism. Recognizing this isn't "groveling".
lol, being in Amerikkka doesn't make you bad by default, I just wish there was less false consciousness about labor aristocracy. Labor aristocrats would be better off without capitalism and imperialism, in general, but if only imperialism in its current form is abolished (i.e. the imperial core moves from america to china or something) while capitalism remains in tact, then the "labor aristocracy" would be "worse off" in the sense that they would no longer be the labor aristocracy. People like >>1339357
confuse recognizing that second reality with "groveling."
>multipolarity roughly means less disparity between more and less powerful nations, but this is unattached to political projects and ideologies
mhm. not sure that I am interested in this thread
is that the brand of baby you wanted?
Most of the people who bring up the labor aristocracy don't have a point that goes any further than "labor aristocrat = bad." It's one of those concepts that is important and has utility but "leaked" from a more academic discourse into lay discourse online and became warped into something almost unrecognizable.>So the internal economics of the USA are so oppressive that it actually masks the effects of imperialism. There's a great infographic that sometimes gets posted that shows that even though America is the leader of global imperialism it is actually NATO, EU, Canada that benefit the most from the plunder. America still gets the plunder, but it's more unevenly distributed than in the rest of the imperial core
Not only what you said but that the average USian actually gets less than their share if the wealth was divided globally. Despite being better off than most of the world, still not as well off as would be the case in socialism. Which means that while some of the specifics like medical equipment might be imperial plunder, this is offset so much by the general economic situation that the US is actually worse off. And I doubt this information accounts for costs of living, which can reduce the benefits of the relatively greater wealth. How far your dollar would go in the third world doesn't really matter if you're not in the third world.
indifferent. both have their ups and their downs
>>1339529>Most of the people who bring up the labor aristocracy don't have a point that goes any further than "labor aristocrat = bad."
I mainly point it out to show it as a major source of false consciousness and to demosntrate that things will get worse before they get better. Things would be better under socialism, but things will be worse when the standard of living built up by imperialism rapidly declines during a transitional phase where the imperial core moves from west to east. I also bring it up to show how social democracy is not enough, since it only redistributes wealth in the imperial core, while ignoring how much of that wealth was gotten.
>It's one of those concepts that is important and has utility but "leaked" from a more academic discourse into lay discourse online and became warped into something almost unrecognizable.
yeah, that's most things, unfortunately.
yes, that's the one
>Not only what you said but that the average USian actually gets less than their share if the wealth was divided globally. Despite being better off than most of the world, still not as well off as would be the case in socialism
>>1339529>Which means that while some of the specifics like medical equipment might be imperial plunder, this is offset so much by the general economic situation that the US is actually worse off. And I doubt this information accounts for costs of living, which can reduce the benefits of the relatively greater wealth. How far your dollar would go in the third world doesn't really matter if you're not in the third world.
forgot to quote this part, also agree
It makes perfect sense to be anti-winter, are you a child? Seasons aren't aesthetics, buddy.
You ever heard of a growing season?>>1330597
you're so right anon, if you live in the west you should just kill yourself immediately
>>1339594>non sequitur strawman
yup, I'm detecting american presence
If you live in the 1st world the ONLY productive praxis you can do is a mass shooting.
so what should i do then? just kneel for people like you?
I'm entirely familiar with your line of inquiry here. It basically boils down to you needing the revolutionary hope in order to go on. Yours is a religious attitude, not unlike saying "if God isn't real, why bother living?" Replace God with revolutionary potential, and that is what you are asking me.
And I'm not playing your game. For me revolutionary potential is a scientific inquiry, not a religious one, and history shows us that sometimes, no matter what you do, there is no revolutionary potential in a country thanks to a series of reasons all present in contemporary USA.
>so what should i do then?
Don't know. Don't care. A lot of burgers end up sacrificing their entire lives on pseudo-politics. I would honestly pack my things and leave ASAP because what's coming isn't gonna be pretty, to put it lightly.
Multipolarism is superior to unipolarism
good joke, everybody laugh, roll on snare drums, curtains
>>1339623>there is no revolutionary potential in a country thanks to a series of reasons all present in contemporary USA.
uhh…. the black nation?????
I swear America gets uprisings from black people every 4 years and all communists can do is bitch about it because they're not the ones leading it. How about instead prepare the necessary organization so that the next time black people riot you can actually lead them???
Because it would turn into TPLF style nonsense that would balkanize the country when what the continent needs is a truly multiethnic centralized proletarian state, you cannot get that with ethnic minority grievance politics, if it were possible it would have happened already
>>1339727>ethnic minority grievance politics
it isn't simply grievance politics, it's unique to the historical development of this nation, just like the caste systme was unique to India or the struggle of the Russian serfs was unique to Russia. The legacy starts with the translatlantic slave trade, continued through the antebellum south, the civil war, reconstruction, segregation, jim crow, sharecropping, chain gangs, and continues today in the reduced but still significant forms such as police brutality, racial profiling, sentencing disparities, asymmetrical police jurisdictions, and the awful feedback loop of the profiling and sentencing disparities being used to justify further targeting and crackdowns and militarization.
inb4:>you're just dividing the working class based on race
no, the ruling class was already doing that, and some people happen to notice that there is a "4th world" embedded in the "1st world"
The exact dynamic happened in Cuba but the revolution didn't call itself black or fight on behalf of black Cubans specifically, your view is in ironically US centric and essentializing. The vanguard will not look like the BPP no matter how much you want it to for aesthetic and moral reasons.
What people seem to miss when they say that US standards of living are only possible thanks to imperialism is that this only makes sense if you assume a capitalist context. The USSR had top notch medical care, education, infrastructure, etc without imperialist exploitation of other countries. What we should be pointing out is that it's only thanks to imperialism that the West can sustain relatively high standards of living and
insanely high profits for the ruling class. Periphery countries by contrast can only do one or the other, and of course their local porkies choose profit. If you remove those parasites from the equation then it becomes possible to support a decent life for ordinary people without exploiting the rest of the world.
>>1339756>The vanguard will not look like the BPP no matter how much you want it to for aesthetic and moral reasons.
Also the BPP had a Marxist outlook rooted in class that emphasized the need for a multi-racial working class coalition. They even stopped considering themselves "Black nationalists" as their analysis developed.
That is a more lucid read than mine
Not to diminish the big progress of the Soviets in provision of public services but the quality still had issues due to equipment supply shortages, at least so Ismail had said. Like Japan had far more tomograph machines, compared to the USSR, available for use, even though the pair of them allegedly had similar GDP increase rates. And the former nation, Japan, has most definitely benefitted from the American imperialist hegemony, unlike the blockaded Soviet Union.
I’m really pissed that the highly informative article “Marcysim is Crypto-Fascism” has been deleted from the internet due to the permanent shutdown of Struggle Sessions (an amazing Maoist Blog), as I planned on linking this article as it is a very pertinent takedown of the Revisionist/Tankie/Dengist Marcyite Campist arguments against the highly informative OP of this thread, 😢😞🤢🤮!
>>1339352>The people primarily benefiting from imperialism include the military, cops, think tank weirdos, FIRE sector, etc. It does not trickle down. 😂😂😂
this is true (the first part), but that is it trickling down, and it has other ways as well (e.g. selling shit to the people getting paid off for their loyalty with higher wages - this is in parentheses but it's a very important point, this is the primary way money does in fact trickle down!). Just taking what you named, already this reduces the burden on labor, increasing our bargaining power. But it doesn't do only that, it creates avenues for generational wealth to form, springing up new capitals, sending people to school, creating the circumstances for constant suburb construction, etc. This is creating more jobs, providing for the increased consumption of the labor aristocracy (the military, cops, think tank, FIRE, etc). Competition of capitals means working class strength.
>This is like saying everyone with a 401k is part of the investing class. Saying people with mortgages are real estate moguls. You're insane, retard. Split hairs next time, please.
Literally yes to the first, most people can't tie their earned money to economic productivity and see it keep up with inflation over decades. It's definitely a luxury to have a savings.
But on the second point, this one is actually interesting, because there's nothing inherently valuable about someone's house, like they live in it, you wont necessarily ever sell it. Obviously lots of labor goes into a house, and that counts for something, but the fundamental thing making home ownership bourgie vs mundane is that in the US there's has been consistent housing demand. A lot of this is because of the wealth pulled in from the rest of the world, not only through our domestic capitals acting internationally, concentrating capital here - tho that's a huge factor, but also because foreign capitals locate real estate investments (or just relocate here). As long as the US is so attractive for foreign business, and supporting a class of business/accounting/etc paper pushers who see to the needs of international businesses, this provides a huge benefit to relieve pressure from the working class. Obviously things are fucked here, so imagine how much worse it would be if like 50% of people lost their jobs because theyre just catering to bourgies or involved in long-term pyramid schemes.
Since I can’t post the Article from Struggle Sessions, I decided to link a highly informative video from the Maoist YouTuber Marxist Paul that explains the dangers of Campism and why Russia is not Anti-Imperialist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTmnVJxrsAQ
>>1339354>The US is the world's #1 top oil producer. It doesn't depend on "Middle East oil".
delusional>The US state secures Middle East oil supplies in order for US petroleum corporations to profit
yes, but not through ownership or production, it comes through monopoly control by which it can set prices because of the lack of competition, this is exactly what petrodollar hegemony means. the purpose of overthrowing iraq is not to privatize the oil and profit directly but to shut down production eliminate competitors and then profit off existing stock by being the only supplier. >not because the U.S. domestic economy "needs" Middle East oil in order to function
it absolutely does without the leverage of the petrodollar that is predicated on a global monopoly backed by imperial violence the us can't print infinite money and the domestic economy would collapse
The “Petrodollar” is an asinine LaRouchite Conspiracy Theory, especially considering the aforementioned fact that the U$ is complete Energy efficient (it has the Worlds largest Oil/Gas reserves) and Fossil Fuels are going to be completely replaced by Green Energy over the next few decades (Petrostates like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are going to be completely broke soon), 😂🤣!
I meant Energy “Independent” not “efficient”, 😂🤣!
>>1339895>the U$ is complete Energy “Independent”
this has nothing to do with global shipping being dependent on oil and all commodity prices being set by that dependency which is dictated by US monopoly control of energy globally
But the petrodollar and the prevalence of the dollar as a "reserve currency" is key to the power of US sanctions. "Dedollarization" is big threat to US soft power, the more credible the alternatives to western international finances the more the sanctions need to be backed with hard militarism(or glow), or the target would simply go to the better emerging alternatives.
This is really expensive to do, which in turn demands higher returns on investment , which demands more brutal enforcement of Atlanticist interests over national ones everywhere under US control, which in turn further alienates potential targets to run while they can and this goes in a circle.
The US/NATO likely needs to arbitrate
(hydrocarbon) trade and finance on a global scale to maintain their hegemonic power. That's why NATO is leading in the cold war partition, while BRICS is averse to escalation. The US camp is the one running against the clock.
Nobody is going to use Dinosaur Juice by 2050, so anyone dependent on selling that shit is going Broke, 😂🤣!
Your future predictions really have no bearing on the current reality of the US position in the world.
Anyone that thinks the Chinese/Russian Imperialists are in a stronger position then the U$ Imperialists is really huffing a lot of Copium, 😂🤣!
By the way, what do you think of the video from Marxist Paul I linked above https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTmnVJxrsAQ
This is so delusional 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 just to pick a random dumb thing out, China is helping the entire world switch to green energy and infrastructure that resists climate change
undialectical. imperialism is not a checklist it is a stage of capitalism. lenins five points were descriptive of imperialism in his time not an eternal law.
title is bait and switching "russia is NOT Anti-Imperialist" with "russia IS imperialist". russian expansion is not driven by the internal contradictions of capitalism, like it is in imperialism. by contrast, imperialist expansion is driven by necessity when monopoly technological development is completed and there is no room for investment opportunities which forces expansion into new markets of lower development. the rate of return simply doesn't exist when there is nothing to build or improve and all resources in a given territory are already developed to the fullest extent.
V*ush will be president one day.
Oh wow, another pedo president?
i really don't know how people can read lenin and not understand this. monopoly and imperialism are directly tied to technology and capitalist development. when one capitalist has a steam engine and another does not, the other buys a steam engine or is eventually bought out by someone who does have a steam engine. the economy is like a war of attrition and industries consolidate into monopolies over time by this mechanism, with the capitalists that have higher technology over time undercutting prices on their competitors and then expanding until eventually one person owns everything in the country. then they go from steam to internal combustion and on to nuclear or whatever and when everything under there control is at the highest level of technological development the rate of profit drops to zero and they have to expand into another countries territory in order to maintain their quarterly portfolio.
>Advancing this definition of imperialism brings us into complete contradiction to K. Kautsky, <who refuses to regard imperialism as a “phase of capitalism” and defines it as a policy
imperialism IS NOT a policy or a set of policies or a checklist or when big country is mean to small country it is a historical and materialist necessity of actually existing capitalism
nah gowans is absolutely cringe
the way the USA acquires oil for domestic use is of little importance, what really matters is the global hydrocarbon trade which you can/could only conduct in dollars
the deals made with the gulf states are the most important factor behind the endurance of the dollar hegemony, not fracking within the US itself which is only possible because of dollar hegemony in the first place
Yea i agree that's why i called that other guy "blog schizo"
>>1339935>the way the USA acquires oil for domestic use is of little importance
tell that to the Syrians
The claim at first was that the USA is energy self-sufficient (despite achieving this through using an unprofitable and environmentally harmful technology). American imperialism isn't about directly seizing resources, no army in the world is so powerful that it can just keep directly robbing the plethora of resources from rare earth minerals to cash crops that a modern economy requires. The point is to exercise control over a number of key resources (hydrocarbon) and use it to prop up monetary hegemony and then start endlessly printing money and let other countries absorb the inflation. This then allows them to import whatever resources they want, not just oil, effectively draining those countries that still effectively function as extractive colonies.
After a decade or so of quasi-parliamentary rule the military, at risk of losing further political clout, couped the liberal government (which still oversaw the Rohygina genocide that was carried out by the military in the hopes that allowing it would satiate them). Now the traditional liberal bloc is joining up with longtime guerillas and ethnic militias to launch a broad united front against the Junta and is doing surprisingly well. The country is effectively in civil war and while the Junta is still in firm control of the countries, it is starting to shift to phase two of Che's Three Phases of Guerilla warfare. Naturally local communist guerillas, some of which have been at war with the Burmese state since the end of the second world war, support the People's Defence Army (the libs) as a part of a United Front strategy. It helps that like in Vietnam, there are civilian political cadres in Junta territory that support the guerillas through political and civil action, although the main protests have died down now. What comes of all of this is hard to say, the PDA and Ethnic Armies are hardly short of weaponry, some are using lee enfields since burma has basically been a dumping ground for military gear for the last century. There are talks of federalism being on the table, which would be a huge concession from the Bumar liberals towards the ethnic minorities, but if that actually comes to pass remains to be seen.
The US petro-dollar probably does depend on the Saudis, so the other anon isn't wrong
it definitely depends on the saudis. they artificially cheapen fuel by flooding the market when the US tells them to. Although, since 2022 they've been bucking US demands and tightening ties with BRICS
>>1339727>you cannot get that with ethnic minority grievance politics, if it were possible it would have happened already
Funny considering the CPSA was at its height when it constantly advocated for a black nation in their platform.
>>1330901>considering humans can and do affect the climate through their activities, your analogy reveals something that it perhaps didn't intend to.
Its actually addressed in the last paragraph dumbass. We can change the seasons (or AC for that matter). Through actually building a socialist movement or movements.>Part of this adaptation involves thinking about it differently, which is why there is push back against both those who drink the ideological kool-aid of unipolar imperialist hegemony and it's "civilizing mission" against the imperial periphery as well as those lukewarm ideologues who simply shrug and dismiss everything as "inter imperialist conflict" without any deeper geopolitical analysis.
I am not pushing that train of thought and fuck you for even bringing that shit into this thread. This is one of the reasons dumbasses here have been bitching on and on about how my OP is somehow pro-american hegemony. It is not. I literally (you fucking reference it too) have a whole fucking paragraph condemning the United States of its decades long (even centuries long) atrocities and acknowledging that it is bad and will only get worse as time goes on.>inter-imperialist conflicts
Yes, that is what fucking happens when capitalists go head to head. It happens under all forms of capitalism whether its a unipolar or multipolar world order. Stop coping.>Multipolarity is a precursor to a reignition of class struggle in the imperial core
There is already class struggle here, there always have been. And no, multipolarity does not mean class struggle will somehow automatically occur. Jfc, listen to yourself. That is such an idiotic mindset to just wait for the gates of hell to come flying open with flames ready to engulf us all and then out of the fucking blue boom: socialists will bail us all out. MF WE are the socialists, no one is gonna save us, not multipolarists, not china, not the periphery. We need to save ourselves and build movements, not wait for multipolarity to build them for us. WE should be doing more. And if you are doing more. Good job, this critic is not for you then.
That is the whole point of my OP.
You know what is way more likely to occur if we do nothing before multipolarity happens? Fascism. As I said before, American capitalism is in crisis. What happens when capitalism is in crisis? Fascism. We can see it growing today and it is only gonna get more fucking ugly and destructive as the US wanes in power. And this is not gonna be bad just for burgers its going to be bad for everyone. So why wait to build and support socialist movements when the biggest threat to socialism is already growing along side the birth of this multipolar world?>We have reached the point where the USA is trying to overthrow the very same governments it put in place to get rid of socialists.
Ok. Yeah, I know that, its fucking insane bro. Its almost like they don't want to lose their grip on power.>America wants to replace Putin with people like Navalny.
Shocking that the imperialists want to do that, you're blowing my mind here. What's next you're gonna say the US wants to keep Taiwan within their sphere of influence by any means? Oh wait, I already mentioned this in my OP. Its almost like you're saying bullshit to make a non-argument.>Multipolarity means the end of unipolar hegemony's ability to do that.
No it fucking doesn't. It just means THEY won't be the ONLY ones WHO do it. You really think Russia doesn't want to install a puppet in Ukraine if they could? You think the United States will just stop trying to coup countries not aligned with American capitalist interests? That's laughable! Hell the US might just invade when push comes to shove especially if its fascists who are in control.>Like you said, it's an emerging *material condition*, but understanding it is better than simply shrugging it all off as simply inter-imperialist conflict
I'm not shrugging it off and that was never the point of the OP. Multipolarity is complicated. It cannot be all good or all bad. You can pick it apart all you like and analyze it, whatever, that's fine, but all I read in this thread are idiots who are not analyzing it or treating it with any nuance. Its just used as a cope. Also, you keep saying I'm just waving it all off as inter-imperialist conflict. That is far from what I wrote. Capitalist multipolarity is many things, and inter-capitalist conflict is one of those things that are brought about through its existence.>America slaughtered a million in Iraq during "unipolarity".
Yeah I mentioned Iraq and unipolarity in the OP, perhaps read everything before picking apart my prose like a petty asshole.>Millions die because of capitalism either way.
Yeah I know, wrote about it below. >I think people who prefer unipolarity prefer it because they usually live in the imperial core and they perceive it as "more stable."
Yeah well I'm not one of those rubes dumbass, so I don't know what that has anything to do with my thread besides falsely assuming that my thread is about that stupidity. It is not and fuck you for insinuating that.>When this violence suddenly reaches the imperial core everyone starts whinging about how multipolarity is just the return of the inter-imperialist World War 1 type situation…
When? Wtf are you smoking? When? Its always been here. The violence is held at the collective throats of the American proletariat by the capitalist state for decades. Multipolarity. Bipolarity. Unipolarity. Their terror is all pervasive here. This has nothing to do with multipolarity, most fucking burgers don't even know wtf that is. You are just detracting valid arguments that criticize your own view of multipolarity.>Reminder though that WW1 gave birth to the USSR and WW2 gave birth to the PRC.
If you think that the rise of those nations were only borne from those respective bloody conflicts alone without it being a whole lot of factors that led to those things to happen you are a fucking idiot. That's ahistorical and deeply twisted. The USSR became a thing because the Bolsheviks had a solid foundation to take power and keep power. Same with Mao. Crediting the rise of the USSR and the PRC to just to those capitalist-created wars rather than the workers and socialist parties who fought against the capitalist war pigs is disgusting and only feeds the lies of anti-communists. >But you named this thread "Socialism! Not multipolarism." for a reason… am I supposed to forget that because of the rhetorical padding about how bipolarity and unipolarity are also bad?
Here, I'll rename my OP just for you buddy.Not Multipolarism. Not Bipolarism. Not Unipolarism. Socialism!
How's that? A little long tbh. Like I said maybe read everything before you critic something.>On the contrary, monopoly capitalism destroys the possibility of competition, and contemporary imperialism no longer takes the form of 19th century gunboat diplomacy which forces development onto the global south.
Ok.>It instead takes the form of holding development hostage through high interest loans and demands for foreign direct investment, leading to arrested development in those nations which have a unipolar-backed comprador bourgeoisie instead of a traditional national bourgeoisie.
Alright.>A national bourgeoisie develops the contradictions of capitalism noticed by marx and leads to socialist revolution. A comprador bourgeoisie instead funnels profits to the imperial core, leaving the periphery under-developed, over-exploited, and anemic. a multipolar world would replace comprador bourgeoisie with national bourgeoisie.
Yeah.>It would also be very dangerous. But it's happening anyway whether defenders of imperialism like it or not.
No shit and that is literally what my OP is stating. Its happening anyway and it is still fucking dangerous. The fact that some dumbasses bank their idealist thinking on something that can lead to more conflicts is very fucking stupid and short-sighted. >No prominent marxist advocate for multipolarity says multipolarity leads to peace or that it's a cure for everything.
Irrelevant to the point of my post. Because how can you advocate for something that is happening regardless? You can't. Its irrelevant to the tasks at hand which is building socialist movements. You literally just said that the changing conditions are dangerous, so like I said in my OP, why not just advocate for socialism rather than a bourgeoise led multipolar order (which most of them already do, so they are alright in my book)? Especially when things are getting more and more dangerous by the day.>Wrong. this ignores the geopolitical reality of unipolar imperialism and its economic hitmen.
But it is correct tho. This is a changing of task masters, comprador to national. You said it yourself. They are all capitalists, and they must all be opposed. Simple as that.>There are important differences between those.
Ok. They must all be opposed in the end.>A historical example: The CPC aligned with the KMT against the Japanese comparador bourgeoisie for a reason. But the 1940s Chinese equivalent of you would have scolded the CPC for being insufficiently Marxist and declared that the KMT were just as bad as the people running Unit 731, and that the CPC should instead fight a two front war against both simultaneously (and lose).
You are comparing something vastly different from what I am trying to say. I would never say shit like that because one: this isn't fucking WW2 the conditions are entirely different and two: the CPC was actually fighting not sitting on the sidelines waiting for multipolarity, they were living through it and had to adapt to their own conditions. If anything the argument I am making is not for the CPC to stupidly fight all capitalists at once but to *not* keep the alliance with the KMT indefinitely after Japan is defeated which they did not do. They fought the KMT anyway and won, so wtf, all capitalists should and will be opposed. >You admit the truth but then downplay it as much as possible.
Bruh, as socialists we want that boot to be gone not lifted slightly. That ain't downplaying that is just fact.>Marxist advocates for the end of unipolarity agree!
Oh that's great thank you for clearing that up never once crossed my mind that they would agree with such a basic principle, now lets start pushing for socialism as well (or just keep doing it but more now because we need it now more than ever). If you already agree, there is nothing else to be said.>read Parenti quote
I read Black Shirts and Reds, and I agree entirely with that quote. He was specifically referencing left anti-communism, and even more specifically "Pure Socialism vs Siege Socialism" [pg 51 para2] and how that the pure socialists who saw the USSR and the Russian Revolution as a betrayed revolution. Great reading and Parenti was entirely correct. Left-anticommunism is not what I am arguing or even doing, and fuck you again for insinuating that.
1 of 2
2 of 2
Here is another Parenti quote from the same chapter:<For a peoples revolution to survive, it must seize state power and use it to (a) break the stranglehold exercised by the owning class over the society's institutions and resources, and (b) withstand the reactionary counterattack that is sure to come.
This is entirely true. I do hope you multipolarists supports a socialist revolution when the time comes and not just say that "we can't support the [X country] people's revolution, that might jeopardize the continuing transition of comprador bourgeoisie to national bourgeoisie. No this is all some burger color revolution run by communists in name only." Contrary to all the anti-burgoid insults thrown at my OP I do have hope that most of you guys will support people's revolutions though btw. I'm just critical of being overly optimistic and languid that everything will just be better or work out automatically under multipolarity.>the fracturing of the power of the unipolar imperial core will make it easier for proles in the imperial periphery to be revolutionary defeatists and advocates of class war against their respective national bourgeoisie because there will be no greater threat of unipolar imperialism to rally nationalist sentiment.
Ok. I mean, that would be great. Still no reason to wait for that to happen automatically and start now (setting the foundations, supporting what already is there, and aiding in anyway one can whether in the imperial core or abroad). If you do that already, then good for you, there is nothing more that needs to be said. Keep up the good fight and never forget the aim is socialism and eventually (god willing) communism.>it is unipolar aggression against the rest of the world causing these contradictions and fractures in the left.
Bro your Parenti quote literally contradicts that by just existing. Capitalists and anti-communists will seek to divide us whether there is unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity.<no but uhh under multipolarity it'll be easier to—
It isn't universal and you don't truly know that it will be easier. It might be the same or worse depending on certain factors and where those countries are located on the globe. Doesn't make the fight any less necessary than it is now.>The problem is reactionaries in the imperial core who benefit from imperialism concern-trolling proles in the periphery for being insufficiently revolutionary.
I agree there are some turbo assholes out there who want to keep the status quo because they reap its benefits (or think they do), but that is not what my OP is about. So please bitch about those losers somewhere else like /isg/ or tumblr or titter even.>More like a less significant influence because it will be unable to maintain its overstretched imperialist apparatus once the rest of the world begins fighting back.
Bitch wtf are you talking about? That's not multipolarity. That's bipolarity against the imperial core (which seems like as I said an idealist dream as well).>The idea that the USA will just turn a new leaf is exactly what the liberal imperialists who believe in the civilizing mission of NATO against the barbaric hordes of Asia argue.
You literally are making no sense. NATO exists to establish and keep the hegemony running. Don't deflect this shit. You say the world will fight back, but what does that even mean when multipolarity means each power looking out for their self interests? What happens if those interests differ in regards to combating the ex-hegemon? Or even clash. The US will most likely lose some of its grip, turn to fascism and then try to reclaim their hold on power or just be a regional entity. You guys seem to ignore that outcome. This gives credence to my argument that we should be pushing for socialism because even though multipolarity might mean good things for the periphery as well as bad things for other players on the world stage (and no I do not mean this as a defense of American hegemony I mean countries near the imperial core or even abroad). This is all beyond the fact tho. Whether there is capitalist multipolarity or bipolarity, or whatever the fuck we must push for socialism. That is all I'm saying.>this is exactly what the people you are writing your screed against have been saying
Irrelevant. We may agree on that but it doesn't mean I cannot be critical of parts of their overall outlook. This statement means nothing.>so the solution is not to oppose imperialism but to scold those opposing imperialism as insufficiently marxist revisionists
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I did not call anyone revisionists. This is not at all what I wrote or what I meant in the OP. Fuck you.>if you live in the imperial core I encourage revolutionary defeatism
Yeah which is why I don't support inter-capitalist conflicts anywhere. Once again fuck you.>Do you have a working organization and a real plan of action to prevent this? Or just high sounding rhetoric about how people who agree with 90% of what you say aren't real socialists?
I would never say who is or who is not a "real" socialist based purely on where they stand in regards to multipolarity. I am no Agent Kochinski. You (any anons reading this as well) are in a way better position to understand your own material conditions on how to build/support socialist movements or create Marxist reading groups than I ever could. That is why my OP is vague in that regard. Its intentional. Because I can't (and will not) tell you wtf to do or what I think is some detailed course of action. That would be incredibly condescending.>OK then maybe the imperial core proletariat should stop scolding the ruins of the Soviet Union and overthrow their own imperialist governments?
Missing the point entirely. Comprador to National bourgeoisie is the system reinventing/adapting itself, is it not? And to address the quote. How do we get that outcome if there is no foundation built for that to happen? There is a fascist foundation in the imperial core there is no denying that, and we are careening towards that. So we as socialists (in the imperial core) must start building something to oppose that reactionary force rather than wait for multipolarity. And this is happening. There is a resurgence of workers movements in the core (hopefully it grows, but waiting for multipolarity to boost it is wasting precious time).>The lack of a united global movement is the problem, and the cause of that is unipolar imperialism strangling imperial periphery socialism in the crib and replacing it with a comprador bourgeoisie who funnel surplus value to the imperial core, performing double the parasitism.
Unipolarity? A lot of those coups occurred under bipolarity. This just reinforces my point further. >it doesn't matter what we want
Yes it fucking does! Do you not want capitalism to be a thing of the past? OFC you do. We all do. We want socialism to replace capitalism.>Reality matters. the reality is that unipolar hegemony is fading.
Yes, I said that in the OP. How do we get what we want? Educating. Organizing. Building the foundations or nurturing the foundations we might already have near us. Gathering together for warmth as I said in the last paragraph. Basic shit.>We can either deal with this reality by employing strategies tailored to it or we can continue to wax poetic like you're doing.
Then do that, I agree strategies are important. But. This a thread on a leftist basket weaving forum you fucking idiot. Jfc. 90% of this thread is just cope, hopeless drivel, and airing petty grievances. What the fuck do you expect? My OP to be a academic paper or some autist blog post a la >>1338484
? Touch some grass or just go back to your own commodified data bubble. Idk honestly. You do you.>strained analogies
You mother was a strained analogy.
Who is this "Agent Kochinski" anons keep referring to? I'm high as a fucking kite and I've never heard that name before. Literally who?
A famous streamer named V4ush, v. aush, there's a word filter on his name because he's either a fed or acts like one.
And, his real name is Ian Kochinski.>>1340435>No it fucking doesn't. It just means THEY won't be the ONLY ones WHO do it.
the lolcows have gained awareness and are taking us for a ride now
Prashad and Ben Norton are exactly that kind of revisionist lol
>>1339920>russian expansion is not driven by the internal contradictions of capitalism, like it is in imperialism. by contrast, imperialist expansion is driven by necessity when monopoly technological development is completed and there is no room for investment opportunities which forces expansion into new markets of lower development
This is true, but you also have to remember that this distinction only makes a real difference up to a certain point. Even if a semi-periphery capitalist country like Russia is working to expand its influence for reasons other than to seek out new profits to feed its monopolies (e.g. for legitimate security reasons like in Ukraine), it will still exploit any new markets, people, and resources that come under its political control. The general rule of imperialist countries is that investment from the metropole arrives in a target country first, followed by its soldiers who come to defend those investments. However we should also expect that when soldiers arrive first, as when semi-peripheral countries launch military interventions for non-imperialist reasons, investment won't be far behind. There are historical precedents of wars waged by non-imperialist countries for non-imperialist reasons which nevertheless prove instrumental in those countries emerging as imperial powers. The Franco-Prussian war comes too mind here.
Holy shit that is inspired!
Just transcend capitalism, just stop commodity production, produce for use or need!
Why didn't anyone think of that before?!
How do we deal with the fact that the systems that tie us to unipolarity are tying us to, specifically, unipolar capitalism? At the current moment, every country is paying what amounts to an imperial tax to the United States through the international trade regime and is forced to constantly give the US special privileges in order to ensure that its reign is always uncontested in its dealings with every country. This comes at the threat of being exiled from the international trade systems that will leave your country either in autarky or chaos. Very few places can meaningfully achieve industrial autarky.
And if you are going to go socialist, expect to get doubly cracked down upon if you're any kind of threat of expanding to anywhere else. If you're going to be socialist but bend to the US whims, you're still imperialized and your citizens will be paying to fund the US' military's weapons that get used to force them back into the "international order".
smug faggots like you want to act like youve figured out some grand historical strategy instead of struggling on the ground for communism. it must be really comfortable to think that communism actually just means you get to keep your treats, you get to own strangers on the internet, you get every one of your current habits, because the productive forces are going to swoop in and inevitably save you
nobody is going to do communism for us
I don't think I've figured out anything great except there is a difference between good and bad things.
This has very much the feel of ultra projection to me. Your answer to any development is invoking Zeno's paradox (you can never get anywhere cause to get there you have to get half the way and so on) but without any irony.
why would you explicitly tell us you're afraid of other countries developing because daddy could start a nuclear war lmao? are you retarded!?
Imagine making the reverse argument here that the US being the hegemon makes class struggle easier lmaoooo
Zero self awareness from OP
oh you mean the incoherent mess at the top of the thread? you can't seem to decide quite what it means.
maybe you're ready to admit being pro-multipolarity is objectively good and your pearl clutching is meaningless.
you gonna flip out every time a conservative says something good is good and attack everyone else who thinks so?
of course the reactionary national bourgeoisie is going to conflict with the international bourgeoisie who still profit from colonial relationships, and their compradors.
little faggots like you start to rail against math when retards like meloni and vladolf say 2+2=4
the irony of everyone bringing up world war I is they can't bring themselves to examine who exactly is falling out of hegemony right now: THE COLONIAL POWERS THAT DID WORLD WAR ONE!!!!!
none of the periphery has these relationships because THEY WERE THE COLONIES.
OBJECT PERMANENCE. OBTAIN IT
underwhelming response.>There is already class struggle here
i said reignition, not initial appearance. My guess is you disagree with the idea of labor aristocracy. Convenient. I have trouble convincing my fellow proles in the imperial core of this idea, but I have no trouble getting comrades in the global south to agree.
For a modern understanding of labor aristocracy I would highly recommend Zak Cope's "Divided World, Divided Class", "The Wealth of (Some) Nations" as well as Tony Norfield's "The City".
Capitalists subsidize workers in the imperial core through the over-exploitation of workers in the global periphery. The labor aristocracy consists of these workers in the imperial core, who are paid higher wages, and pay less for consumption. This is why any gains made for the working class in the United States has left imperialism unimpeded, because once given their concessions, the working class in the imperial core stops revolting. The collapse of American imperialism will cause a precipitous drop in the standard of living for the (already highly exploited) american proletariat, and cause the petit bourgeoisie to lose their livelihoods and join the proletariat in misery. This will lead no other option for the imperial core proletariat but direct confrontation with their ruling class. That is what the emergence of multipolarity is a precursor to. I know you are capable of seeing this.
>>1340435>MF WE are the socialists, no one is gonna save us, not multipolarists, not china, not the periphery.
they aren't going to save us, but certain geopolitical inevitabilities are going to cause a precipitous drop in our imperial core standard of living, leading to there being way more people who want to join us, suddenly, who previously were merely liberals.
>>1340435>Ok. Yeah, I know that, its fucking insane bro. Its almost like they don't want to lose their grip on power.
glad you agree, however sarcarstically. Now the question is *why* are our leaders in the imperial core trying to replace Puting with Navalny? It's not because Putin is a communist, but it IS because Putin represents a threat to American financial and military hegemony. That is the real threat multipolarity poses, not an ideological threat, but change in the global balance of power. The periphery will be free of the IMF, of the world bank, of the CIA, and the core will be forced to revolt against their capitalist class once there are no more crumbs left to fight over.
Where are the anti-multipolaristas?
It's your time of the day to seethe about the regional sovereignty and how it is literally imperialism and 1920's Europe.https://www.radiohc.cu/en/noticias/internacionales/311642-celac-reaffirms-commitment-to-regional-integration
Remember folks, the periphery defending against the imperial core is bad and anti-socialist! You wouldn't support capitalists now would you??
>>1343947>oh you mean the incoherent mess at the top of the thread?
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
What in the fuck are you bitching about?>you gonna flip out every time a conservative says something good is good and attack everyone else who thinks so?
No. You are the only one flipping out here anon.>little faggots like you start to rail against math when retards like meloni and vladolf say 2+2=4
Wtf does this even mean? One can't be critical of a fascist (Meloni) or Putin even? You sound like a fucking liberal boot licker.>>1343989>My guess is you disagree with the idea of labor aristocracy.
No I do not disagree. Inconvenient enough for you? My argument has little to do with the labor aristocracy. Once again you ignore the rise in fascism that is occurring in the core. The rising labor movement in the state, while growing is nowhere near close enough to challenge the rise in reactionary sentiment let alone the current order. So, my argument, is to not wait for the living standards to just drop and hope (because that is literally what you are saying "hope"; you may think that it will just push many to our side and that the petty bourgeoise as well will join the masses of workers which is almost baffling to think since most of them are turning en mass to more reactionary corners and feeding the rise of the new form of American fascism) that everything will come up in our favor, it is to start building the foundations for a socialist movement now (or help build the already existing ones). I am so tired of repeating this basic shit. You are looking way too hard into what I wrote, its fucking exhausting, and a waste of fucking time. Listen to the KMFDM song, it is time to move the fuck on.>>1343990>leading to there being way more people who want to join us
Join what? PSL, CPUSA, DSA even? That is all well and good but those orgs could probably use more members now don't you think? Nothing wrong with getting involved now rather than later.
We need a good foundation for them to go to (if that even happens). Nothing wrong with doing as little or as much as one can to help build that socialist foundation. That's all I'm saying.>>1343992>Now the question is *why* are our leaders in the imperial core trying to replace Puting with Navalny?>it IS because Putin represents a threat to American financial and military hegemony
Lol no. Its because he isn't in America's camp, simple as that. Putin couldn't even take Cuckraine. He is no threat to the Great Satan. He's just a regional minion of the smaller Devils who exploit the Russian working class. And so is Nalvany. He's just America's puppet. If anything Putin is the biggest boon for America's military industrial complex currently. What Putin did in invading Ukraine literally made a bunch of American arms manufacturers shit tons of money. You dumbasses are so blinded by this campist shit its fucking laughable. Its like watching radicals turn to libs in real time (and I think you all know what most libs turn into when push comes to shove). Its honestly pretty goddamn sad the lot of you are falling for this bullshit.
>>1340435>You know what is way more likely to occur if we do nothing before multipolarity happens? Fascism.>>1344331>Nothing wrong with getting involved now rather than later.
rising multipolarity is a call to action not to do nothing. we need strong parties to take advantage of the coming crisis and lead the masses
>>1344599>rising multipolarity is a call to action not to do nothing.
Yes, I agree. That is the point of my OP. I am not against multipolarity, it is something that is happening regardless as I stated so many times already.>>1344602>OUN flag
retard>insinuating I am like those anarcho-natoists after I just gave a critique of anarchy in prev post>thinking one should be afraid of multipolarity
Listen, I know its hard for you to read words like those in the OP, but please, illiteracy is a thing that can be overcome. I'm rooting for you anon. You'll be able to read big words someday.>>1344613
This.>>1344624>you write a screed about how the communists who noticed before you need to prepare
Which communists did I call out? I would like to know. I in fact say they are fine. See >>1340435
<which most of them already do, so they are alright in my book
>YOU need to prepare.
Yeah. Absolutely agree. Its super important.>You guys only heard about this shit through NATO's political entertainers!
I mean yeah, it sucks here in the core. Propaganda central.>Get with the fucking program!
Once again, yeah. Absolutely. Why do you have to scream like a bitch though? Nothing else needs to be said. We agree.
Remember folks, the periphery defending against the imperial core is bad and anti-socialist because its capitalists doing it! You wouldn't support capitalists now would you?? WWWMS (what would marx say)?
Unique IPs: 129