Maybe it’s because I’m just insufficiently educated, but phrases like “A China led multipolar world order” and “a new world order with China at the center” seem like oxymorons to me. Doesn’t “multipolarity” imply a world where there is no decisive leader on the national stage, but instead multiple powers, all powerful enough to accomplish things on a world stage but none so powerful as to be able to boss around smaller nations?
Could someone please explain this to me? Thank you in advance.
>>2301225>Maybe it’s because I’m just insufficiently educated, but phrases like “A China led multipolar world order” and “a new world order with China at the center” seem like oxymorons to me. Doesn’t “multipolarity” imply a world where there is no decisive leader on the national stage, but instead multiple powers, all powerful enough to accomplish things on a world stage but none so powerful as to be able to boss around smaller nations?True, there is only one polarity - China.
"Multipolarism" is some kind of idea that russian christian retards and islamic jihadists will have a place in the future, that is not true.
The past decade marked three major events of great immediate importance and profound historical significance for the cause of the Party and the people: We embraced the centenary of the Communist Party of China; we ushered in a new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics; and we eradicated absolute poverty and finished building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, thus completing the First Centenary Goal. These were historic feats – feats accomplished by the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people striving in unity, feats that will be forever recorded in the Chinese nation's history, and feats that will profoundly influence the world.
China will always remain the builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, and upholder of international order.
>>2301235Meds.
>>2301237>You gotta multipolar first in order to re-unipolar around something else.Explain. Also, how does the "China led" part figure in to this?
>>2302163I use Tor when I'm on desktop.
What damage would answering my, frankly, quite reasonable question do?
>>2302231You're deflecting attention from the agitation against the WOD obviously
NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR
DEATH TO THE WAR ON DRUGS
>>2301225I think you’re completely correct to notice this is a clear contradiction. I think the intention here is that primacists believe that the coming “multipolar” world order will be one of severe chaos and sorrow. I do not believe this is a natural consequence of “multipolarity,” but only this particular historical moment, and the world that primacists have set up to happen and are preparing for and encouraging. They expect serious conflict, and a return to earlier ways of thinking about race and nationalism, at the same time as severe economic disruption by emerging technologies and ecological shifts.
The short version, U.S. primacists expect to create hell on earth, and they expect to blame China for doing this, under their “leadership” as it were.
>>2302655But when I see people talking about a "China led multipolar world order", it's typically coming from people who are in
favor of it, not against, so I still don't know what to make of it.
>>2301225The answer is that multipolarism is a cope by Russian anticommunist intellectuals. Russia is basically an edgelord state since it was made by newly made porkies who decided to join the side of evil. They keep going with "yeah we'll be a real empire and protect our interests" meanwhile fucking Kazakhstan gets instructors from the UK. It's just not happening for objective reasons.
You're not an empire, you are a part of the global trend towards equalization of power between the west of the rest and you celebrate the time Europe was finally overpowered by the rest of the world every year.
>>2301225>Maybe it’s because I’m just insufficiently educated, but phrases like “A China led multipolar world order” and “a new world order with China at the center” seem like oxymorons to me.Well yeah and you'll notice the Chinese government / media doesn't make statements like that. Now these Chinese officials might see China playing a central role (pretty clearly they're do) but it's pretty strictly not their line or lingo to say that China will act as a hegemon or boss other people around and tell them what to do. The idea of a "leader" implies a kind of hierarchy and the Chinese government is serious business about not giving that impression in its official diplomacy. Now people debate this of course, but you'll hear Xi say things like "there is no iron law that dictates that a rising power will inevitably seek hegemony."
>>2303533>But when I see people talking about a "China led multipolar world order", it's typically coming from people who are in favor of it, not against, so I still don't know what to make of it.It's basically power worship. George Orwell wrote about a tendency in his day of middling English intellectuals and journalists etc. who had become disillusioned with British jingoism and patriotism to throw in with other powers at the time without changing anything about themselves in terms of the substance. They still acted the same but swapped out the flags and could be even more hypocritical and dishonest – any not have any pangs of a bad conscience – because they didn't really know a lot about the countries they were now focused on boosting. It's not an internationalist outlook but one spent on boosting the power and prestige of whatever unit you've sunken your ego into and denigrating everything opposed to it.
>>2303895>The answer is that multipolarism is a cope by Russian anticommunist intellectuals … You're not an empire, you are a part of the global trend towards equalization of power between the west of the rest and you celebrate the time Europe was finally overpowered by the rest of the world every year. Yeah I think everything will kind of result sooner or later at the general average. There's a tendency to view the USSR as the baseline of Russian power rather than an anomalous period in Russian history. The Tsarist Empire was never a true global power like the USSR or the U.S. since World War II, it was considered one of the European "great powers." The baseline is probably more like Germany or Japan, and while Russia is beating up Ukraine, it is also seeing losses in global influence like losing Syria, or having irreplacable strategic bombers blown up. The Turkish navy now is a stronger force than the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
>>2303895>We have the honour to transmit herewith the text of the Russian-Chinese Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order, adopted in Moscow on 23 April 1997 during the State visit f the President of the Chinese People's Republic to the Russian Federation
>The Parties believe that profound changes in international relations have taken place at the end of the twentieth century. The cold war is over. The bipolar system has vanished. A positive trend towards a multipolar world is gaining momentum, and relations between major States, including former cold-war adversaries, are changing. Regional economic cooperation organizations are showing considerable vitality. Diversity in the political, economic and cultural development of all countries is becoming the norm, and the role played by the forces in favour of peace and broad-based international cooperation is expanding. A growing number of countries are beginning to recognize the need for mutual respect, equality and mutual advantage - but not for hegemony and power politics - and for dialogue and cooperation - but not for confrontation and conflict. The establishment of a peaceful, stable, just and rational new international political and economic order is becoming a pressing need of the times and an imperative of historical development.
>The Parties stress that numerous developing countries and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries are an important force that promotes multipolarization and the establishment of a new international order. Interaction among developing countries is gaining momentum. Their role in international politics is growing, and their share in the world economy is increasing. The rise of the developing countries will provide a powerful impetus for the historical process of establishing a new international order. These countries should take their rightful place in the future new international order and participate in international affairs on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. >>2304066>>2301526<the British export of PROGRESSIVE capital>Unironically, yes. It's good to export needed productive forces to further the developmental progress in nations where that is the primary contradiction. As opposed to the export of parasitic capital (FIRE)Zamn didn't know this was a loyalist board
Ironically upon examination both the British empire and China's export of capital did nothing to develop the productive forces in said countries but more often than not maintained semi feudal social structures through dependency.
>>2304144Kazakhstan's biggest import partners are China and Russia (AES) both contributing to over 50% of its imports. This has the been the case for decades.
It's a rentier state with little to no manufacturing industry and a service that makes up 56% of its GDP (the rest being oil exports)
Same applies to neighboring Iran and Iraq.
>>2306856No it isn't.
Thanks for conceding.
Unique IPs: 21