Personally, I fail to see why many Marxist-Leninists support multipolarity. The primary goal of the Leninist movements has always been “workers of the world unite!” and not “non-US-aligned countries unite!”.
To be clear, in saying this, I am not endorsing US-led unipolarity. I am just saying that multipolarity is not inherently good as some MLs suggest. For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.
Could somebody explain why people support multipolarity so much?
Are you seriously expecting BRICS to come out and say “fuck America, we’re de-dollarizing!” That would be fucking ridiculous, as much as I wish sometimes that would happen.
BRICS was also first theorized as primarily a trade/development bloc, but China is steering it into a vehicle for a new vision of the world, which is fervently anti-imperialist, and BRICS has allowed dozens of countries to dodge sanctions and get resources they would otherwise be locked out of.
BRICS collectively increases the GDP of all participating countries by multiple billions of dollars, and allows trade and exchange to occur faster and more effectively than anything the imperialists would allow.
To question if it’s progressing at all, is fucking nuts.
Your comment doesn’t really address most things I said and appears agitated. Please consider whether that comment is fair and comradely.
No and I didn’t say or imply that. You are exaggerating, really straw manning, what I sais. Though in BRICS’ founding statements, they absolutely did prioritize holding each others’ reserve currencies, which is of course the beginning of dedollarization. And most of their founding statements are a direct response to US / OECD domination of finance, trade, and international relations in general, calling for instead following international law and using the UN democratically.
By some crackers that didn’t actually found BRICS, sure. As actually envisioned via summits and documents it is not only economic, it also extends to cooperation on law enforcement, climate change, multipolar diplomacy, respect for sovereignty, etc etc. The economic is of course the driving force behind any of those things.
How so? What has BRICS done in the last 4-5 years, as I asked and received no answer?
BRICS is not fervently anti-imperialist by a long shot. It could become functionally anti-imperialist by way of forwarding multipolarity, but only with discipline.
BRICS itself, as an organization or strategy, can’t take much credit for that. Causation here is reversed. BRICS and multipolarity and fueled by imperialist sanctions regimes and dollar hegemony. Direct trade in each others’ currencies, for example, is a consequence of their own previous economic development and the sanctions regime itself, not the institution of BRICS.
GDP is a magical quantity that tends to mean different things for different countries. China’s real estate bubble drove up GDP but was actually an economic drag, for example. Actual mutual development would be something to look for, and one would need to tie it to BRICS. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say BRICS itself increases GDP, anyways.
BRICS operates more like a parallel G20. It is a diplomatic vehicle and pulls on the same types of levers as international capitalism, but from the perspective of global majority states. Think tanks, lending bodies, friendly vision statement versions of cooperation agreements. The language is like you’ll find from World Bank ghouls but from the (correct) perspective that it is unfair to the global south.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you using BRICS as a stand-in for all direct trade agreements made between its members / other global south countries? That is of course a good development but again I think causation here is reversed.
I didn’t do that. And please do your best to avoid ableist language.
It doesn’t contradict my point though. Of course BRICS was theorized by crackers, but it was the Global South that truly morphed it into something better.
How is dodging sanctions and getting financial aid and trade to impoverished countries literally not helping them stand on their own feet? BRICS is more than an economic partnership, of course it is. I don’t see how that contradicts my point. Of course BRICS could be more fervently anti-imperialist, but shit like this takes time, and it’s a very useful counter-weight to Amerikkkan hegemonical imperialist fascism that has a stranglehold on the world.
I don’t subscribe to GDP being the be all, end all thing either. But in this case, it’s an excellent indicator of real economic growth, not imaginary Amerikkkan stocks. Even bourgeois economists admit that every country that participates in BRICS (though I may be thinking more of the Belt and Road, but I’m sure they are very intertwined) increases their economic value/size by billions of dollars, and fights poverty, and limits the reach of the IMF/World Bank cartel.
I deliberately avoided using ableist language. I’m neurodivergent myself, and I thought that “nuts” would be fine. I sincerely apologize if I hurt or offended you with me saying that.
I see your point about trade with each other’s currencies being a consequence of the imperialist stranglehold’s conditions, but I think you are being really unfair for saying BRICS shouldn’t take credit for that, when BRICS is heavily leaning into, propping up, and standardizing agreements, trade and diplomacy that is directly part of non-USD backed trade or aid.
I didn’t think I was strawmanning you, I thought I was taking your claims to a natural conclusion. I wouldn’t strawman your arguments, and I apologize if it sounded like I was. I just found some of your language to sound like you were bending over backwards to not give BRICS any credit.
As with everything, I think the greater point is that BRICS is a big step in the right direction. As imperialism/capitalism intensifies capitalism’s crises, BRICS seems to be naturally filling in the path of destruction.
I find this reply hard to follow. It is definitely not in the same order of what I wrote and it is seemingly responding to and it does not provide enough context to be certain about what is meant about half the time. It reads like you read parts of my comment and then started responding, but I don’t always know which parts you’re responding to. I was going to try and organize it into something I could respond to, but it ended up being similar to the last one: seemingly disagreeing with things I didn’t say (straw men), basic factual errors about BRICS and equivocation between the organization, its members, and some nerds that predicted an eventual BRICS-like entity, and enough incompleteness that I had to constantly revisit ky previous comment to see what main points had not been addressed. I wrote maybe 1/3 of a reply before my browser crashed. So, this would be a lot of effort on my part and seems silly given the content of your comments so far.
So I don’t think this is a particularly serious discussion or that you even really care. If you do, then I would need you to rewrite your comment so that it makes sense.