20
I don't understand the appeal of "multipolarity"
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
20 points (81.2% liked)
Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations
1419 readers
1 users here now
The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you want to know why? The main contradiction of those world wars right now, was imperialist western multi-polarity, competing to swallow the other over, (with the exception of the USSR and the then-imperial-occupied global south)
The multipolarity we have right now, doesn't contain as much of those contradictions, but, in fact, is more ripe to anti-imperialism, including opposition to comprador capital, capital which not only penetrates, but rather make ravage and dependent a periphery nation to a core empire for its own designs, like with West Africa and France.
This anti comprador stance coincides with not only national bourgeois interest to making their own hegemony, but proletariat, peasant-esque subsistence farmers, and even temporarily-allied petit bourgeois seeking to break their own chains and make their own working class path, the latter who are most beneficial of anti-imperialist efforts. (though national bourgeoisie is definitely a force to vanquish, yet only dissolve when all of the world's capitalists falls with it as well)
That is why we support multipolarity against U.S unipolarity; it challenges, for example, the status quo of dollar domination, with its stranglehold of balance of payments, that force these working class elements in the periphery countries to work to the bone, for not only profit, but give off their trade surpluses to the U.S empire, for U.S prosperity.
Even if Russia is not an imperialist power currently, the nature of capitalism (constant consolidation into fewer and fewer entities, competing over the division and redivision of resources and land) demands that in the absence of an imperialist power, a new one will form. Marxists hold that the dialectical framework understands things to be in constant movement and change over time.
What is to say that the anti-imperialist Russian Federation will not simply take the place of the United States upon its defeat?
Historical and material reality.
The US didn't appear as a magician on the scene out of nowhere. It invaded western Europe not to defeat Nazis but to ensure the survival of western European capital, under new management of course. With US troops and guns at their backs they were spared their people being liberated by socialism, in exchange fealty was given to the US.
Quite honestly the US is a product of and beneficiary of CENTURIES of European colonialism. Russia cannot reproduce that in a day or a decade.
The wealth, power, geopolitical control, cultural dominance and propaganda hegemony the US enjoys was built off those European empires, their looted wealth, and their influence. Was built off cooperation with the British who in the post-colonial moment of WW2 still had deep penetration of many societies, governments, etc.
Even assuming the US suffers a huge fall in a few years the lingering tendrils of its cultural influence and dominance will be fighting it out with Russian and Chinese influence for many years if not decades to come.
In other words Rome was not built in a day, the US did not morph magically into an omni-power empire in a year or a decade out of nowhere. And Russia cannot do the same.
Western Europe did not resist US imposition as it came as a rescue, they will likely resist joining with or being dominated by Russia to form a new bloc to subjugate the world.
One strong, all-powerful enemy or a bunch of enemies in disarray with shifting alliances, backstabbing, and various weaknesses and uncertainty. In the latter situation one can even bargain with imperial powers scrambling for influence a socialist in some cases because of their weakened state being but one of many smaller fish.
Nobody is suggesting that Russia will become an imperialist power in the course of a day or even a few years. Rather, what is being suggested is that Russia will become one after a difficult series of armed conflicts, annexations, etc. etc. Looking at Nazi Germany, it went from being a defeated imperialist power with practically no sphere of influence to one which conquered nearly all of Europe and waged war in multiple continents in the course of a few years.
Let us no forget that the Russian state was born out of reaction to a similar extent the EU countries were, coming out of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and rise of the new Soviet bourgeoisie, its undemocratic and illegal dissolution, the rapid introduction of neoliberal "shocktherapy" under Yeltsin, the events of 1993, etc. This state is obviously and backwards force with horrible origins and so it becoming imperialist is not far away to say the least.
For me, Russia is more likely heading back to Socialism rather than turning imperialist if you check the material conditions within the country and external. Some internal conditions mentioned in this post are the following:
the share of supporters of socialism has grown from 26 to 43%, while support for the capitalist model has fallen to 15%
Despite the fact that they only know the pioneers from the stories of the older generation, two-thirds of young people are in favor of their return.
For Russia to turn imperialist lots of conditions(happy paths if we use the programming meaning) have to happen before we even consider this a possibility. For me, it is harder to see these possibilities come true knowing that the better route of socialist development is a more favorable view for the common Russian citizen.
Also, let's be real here... If we have the time to only think in the worst possible scenarios, we should also give ourselves time to think in the other more realistic scenarios which is socialism returning to Russia.
It's more likely that Russia is heading in short term not to socialism but to something reminiscent of July Monarchy, where it remains capitalist, but allows significant concessions for socialism.
If we weigh correctly all of the internal and external conditions within Russia, the possibility tilts much more favorably to Russia returning to Socialism than to a reminiscent July Monarchy as you suggested. Capitalism by nature is unsustainable and a monarchy even more. Adding to that, comrades in Russia are working hard to raise the class consciousness of their people and we are seeing plenty of qualitative changes mounting up.
Anyway, Russians are more warm to the idea of returning to the USSR rather than a Tsarist regime. If people wanted a Tsarist(monarchist) regime again, we wouldn't have beautiful pictures like this one:
I'm not saying literal monarchy, but similar uneasy compromise with "accepting the revolution of the past" made by reactionaries to stave off a new revolution.
Without the material extraction or support of an imperialist country, it is downright impossible to achieve that compromise that you are speculating. Besides that, we have to add into the mix that the external AES countries are growing more and more prosperous and their youth are having active exchanges with the Russians.
Also, the revolutionary momentum in Russia is only getting hotter now that interactions with AES is consolidating and permeating in all of the russian working class.
It is possible, but it would not be long-lasting, and there is a high probability of a new revolution (just like historical July Monarchy, which lasted for 18 years).
Exactly. Our goal should be world socialist revolution, not capitalist multipolarity.
To reach that world socialist revolution, there is a process that has to be taken in order for that to happen. Lots of comrades here have shared good answers to explain that throughout this thread.
Just as I described for Russia, the same is true for the rest of the countries in the global south. In a multipolar world, their interests are directly aligned with their mutual development and fair trade. This is a far cry to what the west offered through imperialism which exploited the global south.
Please, don't dismiss the comrades that have eloquently explained why it is important to have a multipolar world first to jump to socialist world revolution.
I am not being dismissive.
That is unquestionably the end-goal. But you can’t always skip ahead, directly to the end-goal. Sometimes you even have to seemingly go backwards to get there. Take for instance China’s reform and opening up.