/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>but in order for that to happen we would need a proletariat revolution to take its place which automatically implies that the American working class is revolutionary.
What?

>>2646763
How do you stop America from being an economic empire after America collapses? Basically how are you sure that another, similar capitalist regime won't take its place?

>>2646770
America is losing its status as an empire as we speak. Dollar's share as a global currency is at a record low and continues to drop. Every country that turns away from the US and develops its own internal productive forces accelerates this process.

>>American proletarians have no revolutionary potential.
You'd consider me a "multipoltard" and I don't believe this at all. You're conflating the pro-multipolarity position with third worldism. They are not the same.
>How does America collapses and then a continuation of that geographical pole of economic influence doesn't appear again?
The US becoming the capitalist world power that far surpasses all others was a product of the unique conditions after WW2. The US already had the largest economy in the world prior to the war, but afterwards literally every other great power was in ruins and couldn't seriously hope to compete. Now that other powers are emerging as near-peer competitors their edge is lost and their economy and empire based on the assumption of unchallenged dominance is in crisis. No other single state could achieve the kind if singular dominance the US enjoyed without similar advantages, i.e. enjoying a good decade plus of there being no competition.

Before multipolarism there was another popular belief shilled widely across imageboards that started out as people analyzing a trend within the current capitalist epoch and then another group of people deciding that supporting said trend would become their primary political project which in turn allowed them to have an unearned sense of superiority over le normies for sitting at home and doing nothing- Accelerationism.

>>2646788
>>2646778
So the US hegemonic status would just "wither away" so to speak? Then what? In a peer to peer world, how does that result in communism?

>>2646748
Bong empire is no more despite bong proletariat was, is and will be irredeemably disorganized liberals.

Mutts don't need to be revolutionary for their empire to fall since the empire itself is built on sand and will outcompeted by every socialist state like China is already doing. The bourgeoisie parasites and empire itself is the problem why US sucks for average people and can't it compete in manufacturing or anything anymore. The decision for the US is having the empire or being a functional nation again. It's ruling class now realizes that it needs to be functional nation again to maintain it's empire, but it's really failing with both.

Also what if the world just decides to turn the last irredeemable basion of reaction that is the United States into a desert plain filled with shards of radioactive green glass. No more US, no more US empire and no more US proletariat needing to get it's shit together. Kinda gordian knot solution but it works.

>>2646805
>will outcompeted by every socialist state like China is already doing.
Funny cause every socialist state is a shithole and china isnt even socialist.

>>2646808
You are wrong but it doesn't matter for the argument. Mutt's are being irredeemable as ever and US empire is going down despite it, while losing ground to shitholes that is.

>>2646800
A world in which the bourgeoisie of various regional great powers are at each other's throats instead of united under a single hegemon is one in which communists and other progressive forces can exploit the competition between them. A world in which multiple states compete for imperial superprofits instead of a small handful cooperating to achieve them is one in which the ruling class of any individual country is less capable of placating its workers with concessions. A world in which more countries are able to develop and industrialize on their own terms is one in which more countries have the socioeconomic basis for communism. A world without US hegemony doesn't automatically produce communism, it's just a more favourable environment for proletarian revolution.

>>2646748
Trump did more for the collapse of the Empire in a few years than the American proletariat in a 100 years.

> What exactly is the way that the continental mass that was once called the United States of America doesn't become, by virtue of their natural resources, industrial machinery and population, an economic powerhouse again?
The same way Russia became a second rate power. By the time they even partially recovered, they had been “out of the game” for decades and were far behind technologically. This gap would be even worse between a post-collapse American state and the People’s Republic of China, which is on the verge of a fourth industrial revolution with automation. Natural resources won’t be sufficient to bridge that gap.

>>2646878
Unfortunately true lmao

>>2646748
Not here for the post, just want to say that is a nice kitty

>>2646800
It means no single country will be easily able to do pic rel

the same way rome collapsed and then the mode of production changed.

america is capitalism in its highest form, therefore it MUST collapse.

>>2646748
They don't because it's a cope ideology. Communism fails not because of the entrenchment of capital or the intangibility of Marxist thought, but because of the nefarious actions of a single state actor.
It's the same as people who believe that economic collapse, climate change or nuclear war will 'automatically' bring about communist revolution.

>>2647594
Who was in charge of Iran in 1988 anon ?

>>2647659
Pobodys Nerfect

>>2646748
>contradiction is a big "no-no"
anglo box

>>2647594
>>2647659
This article is also from 1988. Shows that this multipolarity stuff isn't that exotic.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v10/n10/philip-towle/last-days-of-the-american-empire

>>2647559
It's not unfortunate. It is systemic and logical. The labour aristocrats won't act against their class interests.

>>2647711
I don't even think multipolarity is particularly hurtful to America, they'll just go back 19th century style politics of Monroe doctrine, them being weaker on the world stage doesn't make it more likely for them to collapse either, after all, the French Revolution happened when France was the most dominent european power by far.

>>2646814
correct
>>2647694
glad more people are starting to nootice anglobrain

American proletarians absolutely have revolutionary potential, but that potential will go unrealized if the main point of proletarian leverage (actually operating the means of production) is obviated by the empires ability to outsource production. This is like multipolarista 101 stuff dude

>I personally think that the way to stop this would be for a socialist America to happen, that way, an imperial, capitalist nation won't take its place
I never understood why some assume that a hypothetical socialist nation in the first world would abandon its imperialist habits toward the global south. Even if the means of production were controlled by the proletariat through the State, soviets, councils, or whatever, why would such citizens reject cheap commodities from underdeveloped nations?

>>2647877
>why would such citizens reject cheap commodities from underdeveloped nations?
Because there's no economic necessity of doing so. Socialism would be able to provide a far higher standard of living without either domestic or international exploitation. Imperialism is a result of personal greed, its a necessity borne out of a system that must constantly expand profits exponentially or else enter a crisis.

>>2647886
If they maintain some degree of economic domination over other societies, such citizens could reap the benefits of socialist organization plus the spoils of the Third World, that is, an even higher standard of life.
>Imperialism is a result of personal greed
There is no guarantee that such proletarians will be so different from the prevailing homo economicus in this respect. Especially if their socialist society inherits the infrastructure and power necessary to impose such relations between nations.

>>2647913
>such citizens could reap the benefits of socialist organization plus the spoils of the Third World, that is, an even higher standard of life
Yeah and I could stab you and steal your shit, but I wouldn't do that even if there were legal consequences. Don't forget that imperialism also requires an enormous expenditure of blood and treasure to maintain. Again, it doesn't happen just out of greed. If you want a good example look at the distinction between capitalist and pre-capitalist forms of imperialism. Typically in the latter case, an imperial power would conquer a country and leave its economic base intact, simply replacing the local leadership as the recipient of taxes and tributes. When the Romans showed up the life of the average person wouldn't change much, just that they would now pay their taxes to a Roman governor rather than a local king. By contrast when the British showed up, they would deliberately strangle local industry and agricultural self sufficiency, force the locals to grow cash crops and focus on raw material production, and flood the country with British goods to the exclusion of any domestic or international competition. It's what transformed India from one of the world's most robust manufacturing economies into one of the most underdeveloped and backwards. By contrast the Eastern Mediterranean was the wealthiest part of the Roman Empire when they conquered it, and it was still the wealthiest part when it collapsed.

>>2647943
>british goods
You mean british manufactured goods yes?

>>2647948
Yes, they establish the classic colonial pattern of reorienting the colonial economy of raw material production to fuel industry in the metropole. So they make Indian farmers grow cheap cotton which they turn into textiles that they then force the Indians to buy, thereby fuelling British growth and preventing the Indian economy from developing any secondary sectors.

>>2647958
And since there is a difference in value between raw goods and manufactured goods this leads to trade deficit or whatever? And leads to inflation of indian currency? Because they have to pay with money or something? Is that how it works?

>>2646748
Is it really so hard for you people to actually understand what people actually believe before letting these posts dribble out of your brains?
>multipolarism
>American proletarians have no revolutionary potential.
Where exactly has the World Anti-Imperialist Platform or any other multipolarist org/party (PSUV, ACP, KPRF, etc.) stated this? You appear to be conflating the positions of multipolarism with that of the now-defunct Leading Light Communist Organization and Maoist Third-Worldism, two completely opposed tendencies. As such your "analysis" is incoherent nonsense arguing against someone who doesn't exist. Get off the internet.

>>2647943
>Don't forget that imperialism also requires an enormous expenditure of blood and treasure to maintain
Yes. But if the wealth extracted exceeds the investment, most societies will pay the price. Forms of ideological revisionism would arise in this case to justify the deal. Furthermore, the unequal economic relations of NIDL can be maintained in certain cases without the direct need for boots on the ground.

>>2647594
chuds and libs will look at that image and think it means anticommunists were exterminated by communists all over the world LOL

>>2646748
if America collapses due to some economic depression the whole world collapses, and that has prime revolutionary potential

At this point, I think multipolaristas don't even understand the implications of a multipolar world order if Lenin's theory of imperialism is true.

Pre-WWI Europe, "the highest stage of capitalism", was multipolar. The British Empire was the most powerful but it wasn't hegemonic. WWI admittedly started as European powers were competiting for what was very well described in >>2647958.
So if the theory holds true and we are heading toward a multipolar world order (and we already are), the competition among great powers will not stop, but intensify and potentially lead us to World War III.
As a reminder, after WWI, only Russia had a successful revolution, and it became mostly a matter of industrializing the country after the Bolcheviks took control, as Tsarist Russia was backward on many aspects. The German revolution failed and ultimately gave rise to Nazism. Britain and France didn't abandon capitalism at all, and the US was starting to become the great power it became today, despite the 1929 crisis.
The theory of the US being the single most powerful uncontested hegemon is, I suspect, much closer to Kautsky's theory of superimperialism.
And if the US administration talks so much about invading Greenland, and kidnapped Maduro, it's because they know very well their power is declining.
Every world power will want to have a firm grip on their own backyards, Putin does too. Multipolarity might very well result in capitalist states being more agressive toward each other, there is absolutely zero guarantee it would lead to the world powers letting a socialist state develop peacefully, unless this socialist state is already a world power like Russia was in the 1910s.

Lenin's theory of imperialism if applied to the 21th-century can also lead to very uncomfortable conclusions for multipolaristas (which country is one of the biggest exporters of capital today, if not the biggest?), but all I will say is that, Lenin's theory of imperialism might not even have been correct when applied to pre-WWI Europe as it is shown in this blogpost: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2016/05/08/bm/
For example, French and German capitalists could export capital to India without any problem, and their bankers had no qualms doing business together in the Balkans all despite geopolitical tensions.

But maybe all of this deserve its own thread with more detailed sources, for a later time.

My conclusion is that multipolaristas should go back to the basics instead of waiting for a new world order that might as well be extremely hostile to them, according to their goals, and that is already coming anyway.
You should focus on preparing for the next state of crisis, on connecting with your own working class and activists if you want to make change, just Americans like are doing in Minneapolis against ICE. Being solely a spectator of geopolitical games won't make a change, finding concrete ways to improve the conditions of the working class while upholding internationalist principles however might.

thats correct! they must reject their American identity to collapse America. YOU UNDERSTAND NOW PERFECTLY

>>2646748

Every country that's had a revolution was on the verge of economic collapse due to war on the home ground. That's what it will take for the US. A ground invasion by Russia or China or some other enemy of the US

>>2646748
America keeps devolving and falling for its own self contradictions to the point it alienates the rest of the world, like it is doing right now, to the point that it fails to maintain the empire abroad, leaving open the possibility of revolutions which, given enough time, form a new bloc. It would basically just be a repeat of the early 20th century, just hopefully without an isolationist approach like the USSR's.

>>2646770
'collapse of America' means the death of every single human being (as far as we can consider yanks as such) on American territory.
No people = no chance of capitalist restoration

also multipolaroids do not think that the collapse of america will bring communism by itself. It is a step in that direction, but it is not yet guaranteed.

nor do multipolaroids believe that multipolarity in itself is the establishment of communism. There are many multipolaroids who are no leftists/socialists/communists at all.
Multipolarity is, again, a step in the direction which creates conditions which make the emergence of socialist 'experiments' more probable. No certainties however, and definitely no vulgar determinism here.

>>2655800
>My conclusion is that multipolaristas should go back to the basics instead of waiting for a new world order that might as well be extremely hostile to them, according to their goals, and that is already coming anyway.
I mean, Trump kidnapping el Presidente is an example of that. I feel like the vibe on the left was much more favorable to multipolarity as a normative thing which "ought" to be (as opposed to a descriptive claim) and endorsing it as a net good from 2020-2025 but the turnaround is coming pretty fast because people have been saying a lot of dumb shit.

Same way socialism came to (half of) Germany, by having its fascist government being defeated, territory devided and nation conquered by a socialist state. duhh

Thread is more proof most people need to return to the basics, all this geopolitical multipolarity content slop has people running around saying random words they hear like “third-worldism” without understanding the political currents they’re even speaking about

>>2657090
Oooohhhhhh I'm partnooooooooring
I'm strooooooootegically partnooooooring

>>2657098
Geopolitics is bourgeois politics

>>2646748
Regardless of how depraved and reactionary Americans are, their place in the world as top G is entirely situational. They got lucky during the industrial overhaul. There is no great leap to happen again for that to happen.

So regardless of how bad they are, a complete collapse of the west would be for the best. Even if it were fully capable of happening again, there's no reason we shouldn't wanna see crackers suffer and die right now.

>>2662513
You hace autism

>>2646748
I think the most generous interpretation is that the US empire collapsing not the USA literally. IE its not that the US will literally be irrelevant, the same way the UK is still a high income but geopolitically largely irrelevant actor after the fall of the British empire. So "socialist" revolutions have a chance to sprout elsewhere, because the CIA isnt crushing them or whatever, because americans military-intelligence might is gone due to China undercutting and deindustrializing the US economy at every turn and eclipsing it in income, thus undermining the dollar system and making it so the US can no longer support and fund a military with 11 aircraft carriers based on debt.