Marx taught us that "the weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons." In their terminally online struggles, multipolaristas mistake inter-imperialist squabbles for the forward march of history. You cheer for a "multipolar world" and the "decline of the West," paying respect to the very idealism Marx and Engels went over in the German Ideology. Worse yet, you imagine Stalin as a patron saint of your geopolitical game of Risk.
But Stalin was not a diplomat of the status quo. He looks upon Putin and Xi and sees not a counter-weight to American hegemony, but a farce.
The dialectic does not care for your cope.
>>2656843> multipolaristas mistake inter-imperialist squabbles for the forward march of history.the decay of unipolarity is a step forward. inter imperialist squabbles only become possible in the context of the decay of unipolarity
> You cheer for a "multipolar world" and the "decline of the West,"because it is a step forwards from unipolarity, not because it is the end goal, nor even necessarily safer than what came before. it is fraught with its own dangers
>>2656843Is your issue with the objective historical developments or is it with tactics of these so called multipolaristas? If you have any criticism of their tactics, that is a only one tactic of campism, then please show. Their only tactic is campism. Their claim is that the campism is a vehicle for bringing about revolutionary conditions. What do you say to that?
>>2656843>criticism by weaponsAnd how much of that are you doing?
>>2656926>the decay of unipolarity is a step forward. Where is teh proofs?
I just think multipolarity will happen at some point as a matter of fact and we need to plan around it, not that it is preferable to struggle to bring it about, as if we can influence policy that much anyway at this point.
>>2656968Do you believe unipolarity exists?