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?
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.
I never once strawmanned you. And now you’re just being a douche.
You have multiple times and likely because you’re just not really putting in any effort to understand or communicate - such as in writing an incoherent out-of-order reply with no indication of what you’re even replying to with each paragraph. Another example would be that your most recent comment ignores nearly everything I wrote but does lash out at me - just like your first comment.
Please be comradely. I am not your punching bag.
I clearly explained my points to you while you were shitting on BRICS, and then you cowered out when I explained/proved you wrong about how BRICS helping other countries get around sanctions and access resources they were never able to before, is a good thing and anti-imperialist, and you said that wasn’t “enough” even though BRICS is helping the globe move in a more socialist direction.
I apologized once for if seeming like I strawmanned you, which wasn’t my intention, even though I only took your point to it’s logical conclusion, but it seems like you want me to suck you off or something.
You’re crying victim while you insult and blame me for calling out your cowardice, while you call me “non-comradely”. You’re being a jerk and tone policing me.
You keep projecting and should take a look in the mirror.
A better word for straw man, at this point, might just be lying, as this is not remotely close to what happened and serves no purpose other than to gas you up / feel vindicated despite again ignoring nearly everything I have said in the last two comments.
To repeat myself, I got meta two comments ago because after writing up about 1/3 of a (long) reply and having it disappear due to a browser crash/refresh, I thought, “you know, this person doesn’t really seem like they care or are here in good faith, nobody is reading this thread but them anymore, so what is the point of being indirect about them phoning it in and being aggro?” Re: BRICS and sanctions, I honestly do not know exactly to what you are referring due to the equivocation I mentioned earlier. Would it be BRICS as an org? The member states? The general group of countries envisioned by the various academics? Who knows, you have been inconsistent in your use of the term and have no provided enough context for me to reliably answer.
In reality, I offered to reply to the comment you claim I “cowered out” about, by which I assume you mean “chicken out” or “cowered”, so long as you just write it up to be minimally coherent. With enough context to know what you are replying to, quotes, or even just in the same order as the comment you are replying to so that I can more confidently parse it and reply germanely. So far, you have not even acknowledged that request and have instead begun escalating further and are now entirely misrepresenting what happened. This confirms my initial thoughts in not rewriting that earlier comment: your comments are not in good faith, so there is little point in continuing without an equalization in effort / good faith. Being comradely includes treating others in good faith and I have provided a lot of leeway to you given your initial comments, and even continuing to reply to you at all right now and explain this to you. Most people will dismiss you and move on immediately, something I will do soon.
I would be surprised if this kind of interaction ever works out for you well irl, let alone others, and highly advise that you take a step back and do some self-crit, e.g. Actually processing what I have said instead of defensively lashing out. I am not your personal critic, I am criticizing poor behavior towards me, and those behaviors are corrosive to all involved.
Please refrain from sexually pathologizing this discussion.
Re: straw manning, you are continuing to misrepresent what I have written and my intentions - intentions you guessed at, despite having an actual explanation of them right in frony of you that you ignored, with guesses not coincidentally putting me in a bad light.
I don’t expect most straw manning or misrepresentations to be particularly intentional, as in, “I have come up with a great stratagy to defeat this jerk! I will simply lie!” I think you are just being repeatedly defensive about criticism of your positions and escalatory approach and consequently noy thinking over your responses very carefully: it is more important to characterize me and what I say as wrong rather than really interrogate what I am saying or your own stated positions. But this is still bad faith behavior, it is uncomradely, and I have been patiently pointing it out, explaining it, and giving you opportinities to correct and move forward, and you are not taking thr opportunities to do so.
Re: taking my point to its logical conclusion, that is 100% opaque. There is no thread of logic presented and it is not clear or intuitive. I’m sure it is an actual conclusion your mind jumped to, but I do not reside in your head, you have to explain things and clarify where needed and acknowledge that sometimes you could get it wrong illogically. We might never know, however, because the actual objects of the straw men werr never really directly addressed. I doubt we will have chance to discuss those things. You seem uninterested.
This is the defensive behavior I am referring to - it was hinted at in your first comment being needlessly escalatory, seemingly because you had a different opinion than I do on BRICS. I am not a victim, this is absolutely nothing to me in terms of a personal negative reaction, but these behaviors are also overall toxic and you should recognize and improve them for the sake of others.
I can even break down the elements here and tell you how you are incorrect:
“for calling out your cowardice”: I don’t recall this ever happening. You haven’t called me a coward until this comment so far as I can tell, nor referenced this supposed thing. How can I be responding to something before it happened?
“cowardice”. This is a new personal insult about intentions and emotional content to personally insult me. Note that I have not personally insulted you, just made not of some behaviors that are out of line and unfair. A common thread in defensive behaviors is a focus on “criticizing the critic” rather than engage with what they say. Note that you have almost entirely ignored my comments since I asked you to recompose because your comment was incoherent. But you have plenty of gas in the tank for things like this, apparently. What does that say to you?
“while you call me “non-comradely”.”
I referenced specific behaviors that were uncomradely and asked you to refrain from them, ideally to do self-crit on them. That is a fair thing to label and ask, despite how you are presenting it.
The only extent to which I have tone policed you is in describing your responses as needlessly escalatory, in asking you to not use ableist language, and now, in this comment, to avoid sexual pathologizing language. I think these are reasonable requests.
What would I be projecting? I am still waiting for you to just write out your previous commeny to make it mininally understandable and we could then continue. You are now hung up on the criticisms around that. This does not describe my behaviors.
I never once strawmanned you, and your gaslighting is disgusting.
You did, of course, and I pointed out where. You can go back, quote it, and talk about it more if you would like to. And if you want to talk about the incoherent comment and its seeming continued straw men, I really will need you to rewrite it to be coherent, because I am not going to go into that potential spiral if you don’t actually care (and you absolutely show no interest in doing so).