QUICK RUNDOWN:
BRICS, an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is an economic bloc aiming to reduce dependence on Western financial institutions and promote a multipolar world order. This movement seeks to challenge the dollar-dominated global economy by fostering regional trade alliances, creating alternative payment systems, and expanding economic cooperation among developing nations. Sanctions on Russia, particularly after its actions in Ukraine, and policies during the Trump era—such as trade wars and unilateral decisions—accelerated the push for financial independence from Western systems like SWIFT and the IMF. This shift is reshaping globalism, as countries increasingly prioritize regional trade partnerships and economic self-reliance over integration into a U.S.-led global system. As BRICS expands and champions its own financial mechanisms, the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency faces challenges, reducing its dominance and potentially fragmenting the global economy into autocratic and regional economic blocs.
NOW & Trump's USA:
President Donald Trump's second term, beginning in January 2025, has been marked by a pronounced shift toward economic isolationism, exemplified by the imposition of 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, set to take effect on February 1, 2025.This protectionist stance is intended to address issues such as drug trafficking and illegal immigration. In response, Mexico has emphasized its sovereignty and independence, signaling a potential reevaluation of its economic strategies. Facing these tariffs, Mexican businesses are exploring alternative markets in Central America and the Caribbean to mitigate the impact of U.S. trade policies. For instance, companies like Cemex are considering significant investments in the U.S. to align with Trump's pro-business approach, while also seeking to strengthen trade ties within the region. This shift reflects a broader trend where countries are increasingly focusing on regional economic cooperation and self-reliance, potentially leading to a decline in globalism and a move toward more autocratic economic blocs. The imposition of tariffs and the subsequent realignment of trade relationships are contributing to a fragmentation of the global economy, with countries prioritizing regional partnerships over broader international agreements.
Trump about to mess with Taiwan:
>President Trump is preparing to place tariffs beyond Chinese assembled electronics to computer chips made in Taiwan, warning the tariffs could reach as high as 100%.
>“In particular, in the very near future, we’re going to be placing tariffs on foreign production of computer chips, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals to return production of these essential goods to the United States,” Trump said in a speech to Republicans on Monday.
>“They left us and went to Taiwan,” he then said in an apparent reference to how many of the leading US tech companies have been sourcing their processors from Taiwan’s TSMC, a top semiconductor manufacturer. TSMC has established a factory in Arizona, but much of its chip production remains in Taiwan, where it’s been serving clients including Apple, Nvidia, Qualcomm and AMD, among others.
>“We want them to come back,” Trump said before slamming the US’s CHIPS and Science Act, which his predecessor President Biden signed to invest over $52 billion in domestic chip manufacturing.
>“And we don’t want to give them billions of dollars like this ridiculous program that Biden has given everybody billions of dollars. They already have billions of dollars,” Trump said.
>“They’ve got nothing but money Joe. They didn’t need money. They needed an incentive. And the incentive is gonna be they’re not gonna wanna pay a 25, 50 or even a 100 % tax.”
>“They’re gonna build their factory with their own money. We don’t have to give them money,” Trump added, later claiming:
>“They’re giving the money, they don’t even know what they’re going to do with it.”
>The recipients of the funding, such as Intel, might disagree. Last year, Intel received $7.9 billion from the CHIPS Act, which will go toward expanding its factories in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Ohio, where the company is building a new chip manufacturing hub. Even so, Trump is betting his tariff threat will push more US tech companies into migrating their chip manufacturing to the US over Taiwan.
>>2129636Elaborate
Are you refering to the Subhashish Banerjee article?
>The ongoing push within BRICS to explore dedollarization and introduce a potential BRICS currency has garnered significant attention from global powers, particularly the United States. Indian international relations expert Subhashish Banerjee stated in an interview with Tass that while the U.S. is unlikely to actively disrupt BRICS, it will closely monitor its progress. Banerjee noted:
>"Discussions about replacing the U.S. dollar with the BRICS currency might have triggered some kind of disbalance in understanding. But I assume that it is absolutely temporary in nature."
>The prospect of reducing reliance on the dollar has gained traction among BRICS members, especially Russia and China, as a response to concerns over U.S. economic influence.>India, however, remains cautious about dedollarization. Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has reiterated that “India has never been a supporter of de-dollarization.” While India opposes the concept of a unified BRICS currency, the bloc is actively promoting the use of local currencies in trade. This approach aims to reduce transaction costs and shield member states from currency volatility linked to the dollar.>Sergey Ryabkov, Russia’s BRICS sherpa, emphasized that the initiative is not about abandoning the dollar but about addressing the consequences of U.S. policies. BRICS members have already initiated steps toward conducting trade in national currencies, with several bilateral agreements signed in recent years. Such efforts mark a broader push for financial sovereignty within the bloc.>The BRICS group currently comprises 10 member nations. Besides Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the association recently expanded to include Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Ethiopia, and Indonesia. Additionally, BRICS has established partnerships with a number of countries, further strengthening its influence. The group’s efforts to promote economic cooperation, reduce dollar reliance, and potentially establish a common currency highlight its ambition to reshape the global financial landscape and challenge the dollar’s dominance. Something I've been thinking lately about BRICS and Multipolarity in general is that it is the ideological heir not of the USSR, but of the Non-Aligned Movement that started at the Bandung Conference, and by extension, Titoism.
The NAM emerged during the Cold War in the 1960s, with countries seeking to remain independent from the major power blocs of the USA and the USSR. It was founded on the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and peaceful coexistence. It included many newly independent countries, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, aiming to assert their independence in the global order.
BRICS, while not a direct successor, shares some key principles with the NAM. Like the NAM, BRICS members advocate for a multipolar world, economic development without dependence on the West, and reform of global institutions (like the UN Security Council and IMF). BRICS represents a shift toward emerging economies exerting more influence, continuing the NAM’s spirit of non-alignment and fostering cooperation among developing nations.
Titoism played a significant role in the formation of the NAM in the 1960s. Tito, along with leaders like Egypt's Nasser and India's Nehru, helped establish NAM as a platform for newly independent countries to maintain their sovereignty without aligning with either the USA or the USSR. NAM's core principles reflected Titoism: non-interference in the internal affairs of nations, peaceful coexistence, and promoting economic and political independence. It provided an alternative path for countries to pursue development without being drawn into the Cold War rivalry.
What the New Cold War reflects is that the West must now attack not just Communism, however tenuous, but Non-Alignment. All nations must be forced to bow to Western Hegemony, Or Else. This is why it's incredibly promising that 55% of the world's population is now aligned with BRICS against NATO and the EU.
>But it's not Socialism
Yes but it is historically progressive and dissolves the current hegemony
>But old hegemony will be replaced with new hegemony
US hegemony was historically progressive over British hegemony. BRICS hegemony will be historically progressive over US hegemony.
>This is just reformism
No, I am just noting the important quantitative changes that will lead to qualitative changes.
>>2133001The end of US hegemony will open a power vacuum which will cause a lot of political instability and potentially revolution.
Remember "historically progressive" =/= "good" but simply means unleashing the forces of change which were stagnating under an existing political stalemate. It means a real qualitative change and a paradigm shift rather than the mere accumulation of quantitative change under an existing paradigm.
>>2132764>US hegemony was historically progressive over British hegemony. BRICS hegemony will be historically progressive over US hegemony. Are you aware of how bad this makes BRICS sound?
Not even a BRICS fan, but god DAYUM.
>>2132764there wont be a "brics hegemony" because its purely an alliance of circumstance, with the sole aim of resisting the US led western empire hegemony. Theres barely any common interest, wether, ideological, economical or political beyond that. As soon as the US hegemony crumble, I expect brics to loose much of its relevance and cohesion, it will simply be a tool to build bilateral ties.
These accusation of the US empire being wholesale replaced and a new hegemony arising, wether brics or chinese, are pure propaganda with no basis in reality
>>2142178>We are only privileged enough to see US downfall and that's it.>implyingExcluding the extremely slim and gradually thinning upper-crust, for the vast majority of Americans, material conditions have only gotten worse and worse since the rise of neoliberalism, with the rot becoming noticeable as early as the late-2000s. If Trump's policies fail, which they almost certainly will, things will tip over the edge from "livable" to "unbearable", and Americans will have no choice but to fight back.
>>2142210Ultra-leftists. It's one of many terms that once meant something but with time has mutated into a fancy way of saying "leftist I disagree with".
>>2147011BRICS is just an economic alliance anon. Their members just happen to be multipartisan in nature because the bi-product of global competition.
picrel
>>2132764yeah good based
>>2133913> purely an alliance of circumstance, with the sole aim of resisting the US led western empire hegemony.> I expect brics to loose much of its relevance and cohesion, it will simply be a tool to build bilateral ties.its basically a tool for doing UN things outside the UN as long as the US is willing to abuse the veto. if US loses its hegemony then the UN will actually start working again and BRICS will just become a replacement for the IMF/WorldBank
>>2142277> "leftist I disagree with".it does refer to a certain disagreement and is supposed to mean anyone left of ML, ML claim to make pragmatic adjustments according to material conditions, so ultra left means doing things too fast or wanting to implement ideas without a material base to support them. like demanding a vote on free healthcare in a country with no hospitals. first you gotta do free education for doctors and bricklayers, then you build the hospitals, then you do the free healthcare. its kinda like a specific type of idealism. in this case first you gotta get the cia glownazis and wall street out of your country, then you press the communism button. or soemthing like that
>>2161773The most basic definition of ultra is that they wanna skip development, yes.
What this means most of the time is that they can't really wrap their head around basic concepts like what a "prerequisite" is.
>>2161774There are several tankie posters.
>>2171332 (Me)
Said essay/article is the first image, forgot to say.
>>2133913>there wont be a "brics hegemony" because its purely an alliance of circumstance>>2156107>BRICS is just an economic alliance anon.>>2165713>every single defense of BRICS (bourgeois imperialist bloc lmao) I think "alliance" is even stretching is. Besides if you've ever listened to Xi Jinping speak about multipolarity the point is that BRICS is not a bloc, it's a rejection of bloc politics. It's not an alliance, it's not about values, it's about presenting options other than American unipolar hegemony. It's a multilateral organization. It doesn't have a lot of power but there can be increased co-operation on some issues, sign some deals etc. But nobody who seriously thinks China and India are allies in any sense are worth taking seriously.
>>2161773>so ultra left means doing things too fast or wanting to implement ideas without a material base to support them … its kinda like a specific type of idealism. I think it's also like upholding radical tactics as absolute principles, like Maoist guerrilla warfare or something like that. Marxists tend to view tactics as contingent on historical circumstances and ultra-leftism departs from that.
>>2176549Not for much longer, lmaoooooooo
>"from scratch" companiesyankee moment
“America First”, which prioritizes America’s exclusive interests, will actively promote multipolarization around the world.
Humanity's century-old desire to live in a just, peaceful, stable, and prosperous world is facing a serious challenge from the advent of the current U.S. administration and the whirlwind of its political philosophy of "America First."
The inevitable decline of American imperialism and the unprecedented chaos, distrust, conflict, and contradiction brought about by the aggressive foreign policies of past U.S. administrations aimed at delaying it even a little have been accelerated by the reemergence of the Trump administration and its “America First” policy.
The American Empire's "America First" doctrine, which at first glance appears to embody the universal attribute of international relations that places one's own interests at the center, is clearly revealing its own unique tyranny, aggression, and plunder over time, and progressive mankind that pursues peace and international justice is taking a hard look at the hypocritical reality of American imperialism hidden under the "America First" veil.
There is no other reason why “America First” is condemned and rejected all over the world today.
"America First" is, in essence, a continuation and expansion of the imperialism and hegemony that the United States has pursued since its inception, and it is rooted in extreme exclusivism and the Yankee way of thinking that it is okay to trample on the sovereignty, right to survival, and right to development of other countries and peoples for the sake of American interests.
In addition to the innate nature of “America First,” the ideological characteristics it pursues, such as “show of force” and “peace through strength,” have nothing to do with the ideologies that many countries and peoples around the world pursue today to maintain, promote, and develop their own superiority.
The words and actions of the current U.S. administration, which are conducted in accordance with the doctrine of “America First,” make it easy to see the aggressive nature pursued by the above doctrine.
The current U.S. administration marked the beginning of its second term by implementing extreme discriminatory policies domestically aimed at deporting “illegal immigrants” on a large scale, and by withdrawing from international organizations and agreements such as the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the UN Human Rights Council, as well as displaying its will to aggressively annex the sacred territory of a sovereign nation.
Since taking office, he has been accelerating the pace and pace of his aggressive and hegemonic external actions in line with his “America First” policy.
While indiscriminately brandishing tariff clubs against neighbors, allies, and enemies alike, they are pursuing exclusive economic interests, and they have even thrown off the deceptive mask of “humanitarianism” and completely suspended “foreign aid” to other countries. They are also repeatedly committing absurd and bizarre acts, such as the proposal to “take over the Gaza Strip and develop it into a resort area,” sending the international community into a state of great shock.
The “humiliation” and “contempt” suffered by the European countries, Japan, and South Korea, allies that have boasted of nearly 80 years of “alliance relations” since World War II and actively followed the U.S.’s unipolar world domination strategy, are the natural consequences of “America First.”
Even politicians and media in Western countries who have been so loyal to the United States are lamenting that the current U.S. administration's policy of blackmail suggests that a new era of survival of the fittest has arrived, and that the current U.S. administration's "America First" policy is not isolationism, but a transformed form of interventionism.
Even among conservative media and experts in the United States, there are bold claims that the doctrine of “America First” should be made clearer and more specific so that it can more actively contribute to expanding America’s external role as an “international leader.”
These assessments are only a very partial example that proves that the international community has anatomically and accurately analyzed the nature of “America First” and has come to a precise conclusion.
The implications of “America First” for the international community and the present age are quite significant.
In conclusion, the meaning is that one must become strong in order to protect oneself, and that the pursuit of self-reliance and self-reliance is the truth and a powerful means of driving the lawful development of history.
Today, our country, which has risen proudly as the highest bastion of anti-imperialist and anti-Americanism, is holding on to the banner of independence and the nuclear sword of justice more firmly and increasing its power in order to put an end to the evil empire's abominable invasion and plunder attempts and to write a new page in world history that pursues independence and multipolarity.
The reality of some countries that have been helpless in the face of America's tyrannical threats and intimidation because they have failed to develop their own power, and whose dignity and national interests are being mercilessly trampled upon, makes us appreciate anew the delicacy of the simple life adage that a lynx should only be governed with a club.
History is always on the side of justice, and justice and conscience are the fundamental factors that have kept the complex history of international relations from derailing from its correct path of development while overcoming all kinds of trials and tribulations.
The Yankee-style hegemonic logic that everything in this world exists solely as prey for the United States, the shameless anachronistic behavior of an evil empire that ignores international law and international organizations for its own exclusive interests while forcing a “rules-based international order” on other countries, can no longer be tolerated by the conscience of humanity that strives for a new era of independence and multipolarity.
The forces of evil steeped in fanatic ideology that destroy world peace and security and threaten human survival itself will not be able to escape the stern judgment of history, and when progressive mankind, united by justice, cultivates its own strength and exerts it without regret, the downfall of Yankee-style hegemonism will be hastened.
The more the current U.S. administration pursues unilateral policies based on “America First” that prioritizes the exclusive interests of the United States, the more the global trend toward multipolarization will accelerate, which will lead to the total bankruptcy of the evil empire of the United States and imperialism.
International Affairs Commentator
Kim Myung-cheol (end)
Unique IPs: 66