Years of leftypol saying that SJWs aren't leftists. Years of leftypol saying how "voting with the wallets" is liberal retardation. Years of leftypol saying how "cheking the priviledge" is Cointelpro action against class consciousness.
Now, we have multipolaroids checking the priviledge of "westerners" saying how their iphone prevents revolution. And anti-zionists saying that if you buy a Burger you are a genocidal monster. How did this happen? Many of the people think like this were hating SJWs years ago. So, how did they circle back into the same moralist arguments?(Rule 14f - low-quality sectarian bait)
>>2109966Plenty of people pointed out how similar radlibs are to Christians, not to mention “westoids” is damn near the same as radlibs calling someone “white”; it’s still a faggy idpozzed insult that just replaces race with muh nation muh region
At the end of the day multipolaroids and radlibs both promote cross-class, class collaborationist movements, want the bourgeoisie to save them, and explicitly want more black/woman/gay CEOs (or in the multipolaroid case more black/brown/yellow/slavic imperialists)
>>2109967>independence for the rest of the world is imperialism against the first worldHIlarious. I will enjoy watching you retards start begging for mercy for the European states and other vassals of the empire when US will inevitably turn to loot and colonize them in the worst sense of the world, because by this point the only targets US can go against, the only targets US can pick it's fights with to not lose, are it's own vassal states
After Greenland comes Panama, and after Panama Gibraltar and Suez and Yemen/Horn of Africa. After Canada there's need to ensure that "democracy" perseveres in France and Germany just like it did in Romania. Like it or not, but only multipolarism can save Europe from being destroyed by the master Europe has chosen
>>2109985>Independence for the rest of the worldOccurred decades ago, and has revealed itself to be a fantasy given the reality of competition between the capitalist national states
“Independence” is a liberal meme; given the current capitalist national states of the termed Global South are politically independent but regardless remain bound to the global exchange system and global power relations between states, stuck, as they are, within capitalism.
“Imperialism on the core” isn’t on the agenda unless it comes from the United States, what is on the agenda is “communists” celebrating emergent imperialist nations redividing the markets and resources of the so-called periphery between themselves and America, either peacefully or more likely through warfare
What makes multipolaroids such a meme is that they essentially agree with ᴉuᴉlossnW in every way, they just don’t like white people. No it wouldn’t be legitimate if yall did either. You, like the classical fascists, believe capital is merely a tool, that a nation developing capital develops capital around their objectives rather than their objectives being developed around capital, you all fundamentally turned the situation on its head, hence why you lot tend to be endlessly enamored with bourgeois statecraft and dismissive of proletarian organization
>>2110002Doesn't matter. They have to accuse those who accept emerging multipolarity as fertile ground for communism as
>SJW>Christians>humanists>nazis>fascists>idpollers>campists>anti-communists>etc. etc.Basically the entire westoid leftist worldview bubble is imploding on itself and they throw every known "bad word" they know at people who cheer at what's happening.
>>2110004The only “communism” that’s coming out of leftoids stupidly shilling for the rising imperialist bloc over revolution in all countries will be national socialism
You people are called fascists because you recognize that capitalism is essentially collapsing…and throw your lot in with a bloc of capitalists; not even in a real sense, but as a form of rhetorical online roleplay, for a purely dopamine gain, not even for real material gain, and certainly not for social or political gain
>>2110006I know, pithy one liners, juvenile insults, etc etc
The contemporary Left are such a fucking disgrace, Second International but as a farce of a farce
>>2110007Here's the actual economics of modern imperialism. Russia and China not even CLOSE to being imperialist, let alone the rest of BRICS.
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/hm2-the-economics-of-modern-imperialism/https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/further-thoughts-on-the-economics-of-imperialism/https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/imperialism-the-globalisation-of-production.pdfYou have ZERO empirical evidence of a new rising imperialism. What is happening is the rest of the world teaming up against your century of bullshit and your century of humiliation will follow. Simple as.
>>2110009I think that dude fundamentally misunderstood Marx’s theory of value in capitalist economies as he explained it in the very first chapter of Capital…are you sure this dude knows what he’s talking about?
> The periphery has less technology and more labour and so produces more value (in labour time) to make the same product. The imperialist countries have more technology and less labour and so produce less value (in labour time). Pretty sure this is almost the opposite of Marx’s explanation of value in the very first chapter of the book, wherein he explains the value of commodities is determined by socially necessary labor time, not absolute labor time, the value produced by labor done with “less efficient” or less productive methods, those utilizing less advanced technologies and thus producing commodities with more absolute labor time embedding within them are valued according to the average labor time embedded in the commodity when produced with the most advanced and labor saving of the currently available technologies and techniques, I’m not sure if unequal exchange necessarily makes sense from my reading of Marx and I don’t see it as equivalent to superexploitation as Lenin describes it, though I want to reread Imperialism again.
Speaking respectfully here and hoping for a reasonable discussion.
>>2110009Also in the first blog post the author does note the BRICS bloc is composed of members with FDI and foreign assets worth his at least noting even if he couched it in an argument that their foreign assets and capital exports are massively dwarfed by the collection of the ancien regime of Western imperialists, which isn’t something people are even contesting when examining BRICS as an emerging imperialists bloc, nor does it say who will win the new contest to redivide the world
What is worth noting is, most of all, the general tendency of Western socialists of all stripes, including you multipolarist poster types, to support a Third World War at a time when communists have the most cogent argument against imperialist war and global conflagration, the spectre of a nuclear exchange
Sadly in every era half the self-proclaimed socialists always have seemed to want to kill proles, kill proles, kill proles; guess booji spooks are hard to overcome
>>2110017I think we live in a fundamentally different system of globalized production chains compared to Marx's mostly national capitals competing and Roberts consistently applies Marx to the changing modern world.
Already you could say that Lenin was "misunderstanding Marx's theory" while in fact he was adopting it to changed circumstances.
yawn, boring, booklet burger "leftist"
>>2109962Anon, surely you have to realize that a guy in Latin America getting angry because his country's entire water source is being bought for cheap by Silicon Valley to cool off their goonslop AI's data centres is on a different level than some radlib urging for body positivity
I don't agree with the multipolaritards because of what
>>2109995 said, that they think capitalist development is the end goal of everything rather than confronting Capital itself, but their motivation is actually very understandable. They want to become China, or at the very least Cuba before the fall of the USSR; an export focused industrialized country instead of being comprador-ruled dictatorships that relied on cheap rent from resource extraction for their individual benefits, which is what "comparative advantage" under global capitalism really amounts too. And this isn't just about hating White people, a classic basket case of this dysfunction is Argentina which is very much a White country
Obv this isn't Marxism. Marx is interested in ending capitalism, not about how countries become rich under capitalism which ultimately sustains this relationship of production. A lot of Multipolarists are basically Third World Keynesians, which is fine and all, but they have to realize that oppression and oligarchy of a few small nations over the rest is something inherent to Capitalism itself rather than just Western imperialism
>>2110029>they think capitalist development is the end goal of everything rather than confronting Capital itselfthings that nobody ever said.
mindbroken westoids
>>2110020I wouldn’t say Lenin misunderstood Marx’s analysis of Capital at all, I’m stating Michael Roberts has fundamentally reoriented how Marx explained capital’s valuation of commodities back to the sort of shit Proudhon claimed that Marx critiqued, there’s a reason I said Roberts’ idea of unequal exchange doesn’t have much to do with Lenin’s explanation of imperialist superexploitation, wherein the capitalist empires shifted their relations with their colonies from the extraction of raw materials at cheap cost using pre-capitalist and “primitive” (as Marx called it) forms of coercion and extraction to Lenin’s analysis of the import of proper advanced capitalist relations in the colonies, with the capitalist empires now exploiting both an industrial proletariat at home and a proper wage earning often industrial proletariat in their colonies.
This blog, it has little justification for rejecting Marx’s analysis of value in favor of a Proudhonian conception, I don’t think it even does justify it, can you? I mean scientifically that is, not morally. Because…is there any justification for the argument that socially necessary labor time no longer determines value? If so what does? Because the phenomenon Roberts describes seems more explicable by Marx’s theory that commodities are valued according to the socially necessary (that is, technological most advanced/lowest need labor added) time it takes to produce them, and Roberts here seems to even explain directly how value works crudely but then sort of just ignores Marx’s explanation that in the eye of capital more labor intensive methods are less efficient of sufficiently less intensive methods exist and thus their commodities are less valuable because their value is tied to the value of the commodities that took significantly less time and effort to produce (i.e. the commodities they produce are equalized to commodities that actually do have less value in them, because value is socially determined)
The phenomena he’s describing are more explicable by the intentional underdevelopment and the general uneven development of the world economy which was also explained and analyzed by Marx and Lenin and the lesser known Walter Rodney. The way imperialists siphon value from the countries they exploit isn’t by unequal exchange, its through their dominance of their markets, ownership of almost all their assets, ownership of their currency often, and in this they siphon value not from some abstract nation, it’s through the employment of the populace in these countries and their transformation into a proletariat, often an industrial one, engaging in wage labor, in global extensions of once national firms; which doubtless I’m sure Roberts knows and explains as I didn’t read all those blogs; I’m just dubious about his outlook when it begins with a real fundamental break with Marx’s theory of value by a claimed Marxist without explanation or scientific justification
>>2110029>Anon, surely you have to realize that a guy in Latin America getting angry because his country's entire water source is being bought for cheap by Silicon Valley to cool off their goonslop AI's data centres is on a different level than some radlib urging for body positivityThat latin american isn't my enemy cause I'm not a Silicon Valley capitalist. Of course. He is just a worker in another state fucked by the same capitalists that are fucking me in my state.
>They want to become ChinaWell then people who think that and say that they are communist are obviously lying. Of course people living under a neoliberal hell would like a socdem state. In Europe it's that way as well.
>A lot of Multipolarists are basically Third World KeynesiansYeah I agree. They dress themselves with communism aesthetic cause the past is the bitch of the present. And to make themselves "revolutionary" when they only see the world as a series of states invading each other.
>>2110026But Roberts didn’t say “capitalism changed”
Lenin said Capitalism changed
Roberts essentially claimed capitalism stopped being capitalism
Or at least he proffered in the exact analyses of value Marx refuted
Doesn’t that seem odd to you?
>>2109962There is a need to distinguish between strong and weak versions of multipolarism and anti-campism since there are state actors involved here, and they obviously push stuff that serves their interest alone.
>Strong version of multipolarism: we oppose imperialism and recognize that Russia and China do not hold monopolist positions internationally and can't extract superprofits in a manner that would play a big role in their economies and alter class composition>Weak version of multipolarism: AmeriKKKa is over since the entire world is rising up, no I won't explain why, I will just throw around word salad about "winds of change" and "rising east/south", as well as whining about NATO and "eurointegration" without addressing the causes of their behaviour
>Strong version of anti-campism: State actors are using the current events as a way to distupt class consciousness by pushing ridiculous magical thinking narratives about "rising east/south" without a real explanation and many people eat it up. We have to oppose this>Weak version of anti-campism: There is no difference between the state that extracts by far the most superprofits and consistently pushes reaction worldwide, often to great success, and states that have neither the ability to extract significant superprofits nor a roadmap towards doing so, and also don't push reaction in any meaningful wayBoth sides have a point, but both are also manipulated and fall into their own biases. It doesn't help that people are all too willing to talk past each other and not listen.
I think the less and less that western leftists can realistically view themselves as the vanguard of the international socialist movement, owing to slow but sure retraction of welfare gibs and pleasant social policies due to the death of SocDem'ism, the more hostile they get to discussing geopolitics in general. Because, shockingly, nationalist movements that underpin these multipolar states are netting its proletariat more historical development than western socialists are at home with their pleading for their bourgeoisie-issued privileges to stop being revoked.
But rather than recognising the historical development for backward nations for what it is, there's this weird kind of competition that arises where it needs to be impressed on people that the Fabianism of western leftists is still superior, even as it's failing, to nationalist movements it's not actually necessary to compete with. These nationalist movements in the "multipolar" nations aren't the end of their historical development and hopefully it continues without the distraction and fettering of Fabian SocDem'ism by seeing the dead end for leftist movements it created in the west.
Western leftists, frankly, would be doing themselves a favour to just accept that SocDem'ism (or the meme of DemSoc'ism) failed to achieve any long term developments for their proletariat, it failed to discourage or contain imperialism from within, it did not in-fact triumph over the "Stalinism" of European Communism and its social liberalism did not eradicate Fascism, it therefore also failed to lead the rising global proletariat by example who are now just going along for the ride of historical development under their respective national bourgeoisies and enjoying at least the reduced likelihood of getting bombed by the west, if not liberal rights and welfare states.
It doesn't mean simping for Russia, Iran, India or any of the BRICS states, it just means accepting defeat for now and shutting the fuck up until we have a new movement that replaces the SocDem'ism that rightfully gets ignored or even disparaged by proletarians in the global south and east.
All enemies of the working class share a deep despair about the implications of communism. This is the despair of the petty bourgeoisie, plain and simple, which characterizes all such tendencies. Post-1953 anti-imperialism bears the scars of Khrushchevite opportunism, specifically the flawed alliance between the proletarian dictatorship and the so-called "national" bourgeoisie in colonies and imperialized states. The trend emerging in the form of Dengism, multipolarist anti-imperialism, or however one might describe this phenomenon, represents a clear rightward deviation. Its foundation lies in the so-called "historical opportunity of multipolarity," which is, at its core, opportunistic. While the majority of leftists recognize multipolarity as a fact of the current geopolitical reality, the opportunistic wing of the movement sees something more—something imbued with almost religious connotations. For them, the collapse of Western political and economic hegemony is not just a shift in the global order; it is a messianic event.
This is most evident in their claims that "multipolarity provides fertile ground for communism," yet they never move beyond superficial analysis. Crucially, they fail to ask the essential question: What are the organizational implications of multipolarity? Instead, their analysis remains trapped at the level of bourgeois state geopolitics. These are the hallmarks of opportunism: seizing on a historical trend to muddy the waters of scientific socialism with unscientific theories and unfounded speculations. They no longer truly believe in the communist project. Their accusations against internationalist communists—claims that they are "lost without the U.S. State Department"—are mere projection. They themselves have no coherent vision for what follows the collapse of the U.S.-led unipolar order. Their "solution" is to propose that the Western proletariat submit to the "national" bourgeoisie of the Global South until the eventual, undefined moment when "world communism" will emerge. This line of reasoning echoes the Menshevik revisionist framework of a "two-stage revolution," postponing proletarian struggle indefinitely in favor of bourgeois development.
Underlying their entire ideology is a flawed understanding of the economic relations between the imperial core and the periphery. They rely on the notion of "unequal exchange," imagining that some unaccounted portion of the Global South's labor-power is magically transubstantiated into commodities and social services in the core. This mystical view of economic relations obscures the actual mechanisms of imperialism and erodes the basis for revolutionary analysis and action. This right deviation cannot offer the Western proletariat anything other than capitulation to a vague, idealized vision of the Global South's "national" bourgeoisie. It abandons the core tenets of Marxism, replacing scientific socialism with opportunistic adaptation to the prevailing geopolitical winds. It is not a revolutionary path forward but a retreat into revisionism, cloaked in the rhetoric of anti-imperialism.
>>2109962yes
Ppl here will deny this and cope, but these ppl sound exactly like the sjws of days past
>>2109962to answer OP's question, yes, multipolarism is just SJW as applied to countries as opposed to races within a country.
Unequal exchange theory isn't grounded in traditional marxian political economy and is actually refuted by it.
Most wage differentials between the first and third world are caused by productivity differences related to level of automation, not unequal exchange and arbitrage which to the extent it exists it will correct itself which is why outsourcing from the first world is moving from China/India onto southeast asia and africa instead because China's getting too expensive.
>>2109962holy shit what a fucking retarded and transparent attempt at lumping together two completely unrelated groups you dislike
the radlibs are extremely anti multipolarist, how the fuck your stupid ass thought that slander would work
Unique IPs: 27