Multipolarity is not the end goal but it is a pathway to socialism because it represents the dismantling of the West's unipolar imperialist hegemony which has been the greatest obstacle and enemy of socialist movements since 1945. I strongly recommend that you read this: https://internationalmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/through-pluripolarity-to-socialism-a-manifesto-final.pdf

Also, Multipolarity is emerging whether we as communists like/want it or not, because it is the result of objective processes of development that have been occurring for the past half century.

You cannot stop this process, and believe me the imperialists have tried very hard to do so by attempting to slow down, stop or even reverse the development of the global south.

So it is a reality that we have to acknowledge and understand how to make the best use of in order to further our goals.

Multipolarity is the only option by which to transition away from unipolarity, US domination. Any alternative will look fairly multipolar, even one with two main rivals, as other countries position themselves relative to them (like when the USSR existed and there were aligned/"non-aligned").

Multipolarity as advocated by e.g. BRICS envisions multiple counties holding to mutual win-win pacts to have non-US-based economic ties. The feasibility of this is a materialist question, it will be about economic and military outcomes over the next few years and arguably BRICS is not living up to its potential at the moment. But as a goal or organizing principle it is a good strategy when no other countries are ready to become an opposite pole to US imperialism. Instead of going it alone, it is better to foster mutial ties and interests and devise strategies by which they could, if necessary, decouple from the imperialist countries. US domination, and therefore imperialist domination, is not just wars or the IMF, it is also the many economic tendrils weighing on your country and people for attempting to have sovereignty. The imperialists will pull and pull and pull with thousands of strings. If a country achieves a greater degree of sovereignty, what allies can they depend on if they are also subject to those strings? Integration with many counties is a way to create an intertwined economic world order that can (I think, at least) resist imperialism from a single country or even a bloc.

Because breaking American global hegemony inevitably leads to smaller blocs that are easier for communists to break up, its that simple.

I feel like this question can only come from someone in the imperial core. The global south wants multipolarity because we want to be the masters of our own destiny and not subjects of the US, we want to establish relations of mutual prosperity not of tribute.

For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.

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.

For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.

Yes, and both those wars resulted in massive gain for socialism.

A multi-polar world would allow more unfettered development of the economies of the global south. Over time, this would allow more and more of the population to become proletarianized which should enable more opportunities for the Communist parties of these countries to organize.

A multi-polar world would also disrupt the flow of super-profits from imperial periphery to core which would necessitate a deterioration of the standard of living of the working class in order to maintain the rate of profitability. This would hopefully shake the American working class out of complacency and give more opportunities for mass work by Communists.

Because socialist movements how a far greater chance of succeeding in a world where major powers are divided rather then the US/NATO having absolute dominance and control. If the US has no major rivals they are free to use their resources on playing world police and smother socialist country or movement before it has the chance to get off the ground. Obviously, worldwide socialism is the ultimate goal, but multipolarity is the most feasible next step towards that.

While multipolarity isn't inherently socialist or anti-capitalist, the current/coming form of multipolarity seems to be anti-capitalist, and a pre-cursor to countries becoming socialist.

The primary problem in the world right now, is the Amerikkkan settler-colonialist, white supremacist, fascist global imperialist dictatorship. Every single capitalist country on Earth, knowingly or unknowingly (most of the time, knowingly) is a lapdog of the U.S. or followsd in it's cultural, political, social, and economic footsteps and imperial order.

While capitalism will likely continue to exist even after the U.S. empire falls, the fall of the U.S. will likely be a major death knell or the first major domino of a very long chain of events.

With the largest/most powerful stronghold of capitalism/imperialism being dethroned, as countries across the world are rising up against their neocolonial overlords, and supporting each other, they are and will be increasingly turning towards/socialism, bit by bit.

Rather than being dominated by a single unipolar global dictatorship, multipolarity will mean that the countries/continents of the world will finally have a much larger say in their own affairs, and the institution/enhancement of democracy (actual democracy, not capitalist lies sold as democracy) will mean that socialism will be even more on the rise again.

Nobody (or almost nobody) is inherently/blindly supportive of multipolarity, or multipolarity as an end goal. It's just a major step.

There will no doubt be all kinds of horrific suffering and oppression and death, as human civilization enters a new era. But that will likely, eventually, stabilize.

I don't support multipolarity as a concept necessarily, but in the current material conditions, it is an absolutely necessary step for overthrowing capitalism.

The US and its system of vassals, world organizations, economic strangleholds, networks of operative and political/military/economic violence have been suppressing socialist projects all around the globe since WW2. That is the main priority of the world hegemon, as the aim is to prop up the US empire, and by extension its capitalist system, as long as possible and at any cost.

We should not forget that there's been multiple attempts to dismantle capitalism at various degrees, in many different countries, in the last 80 years, but they've all been squashed by the US or its proxies. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that these attempts will continue occurring in the future, and if the reach of the US is diminished, then many of these attempts will survive and probably succeed.

Indeed, even in places where no attempts at socialism have been made, the local socialist groups and parties have all become extremely weak and diluted, to the point where some are even considered centrists nowadays. The reason for this is not just infiltration, or a "Western mindset". A big motivator is the hopelessness they feel, as they consider that anything they do outside the permitted structure, will be doomed to fail due to US intervention.

Capitalism's decline is inevitable. We are already experiencing it, and it is only kept alive by the exploitation of the imperial core population (which before largely enjoyed the fruits of imperialism) and the massive efforts at suppressing any form of dissent (which are becoming increasingly more and more direct and obvious). So if peoples are left alone to dictate their own future, it is very likely that much of the world will progressively abandon capitalism, particularly if PR China is around to help them.

As a recent example, look what happened in the Sahel in 2022-2023. With the US overstretched and its attention consumed by what was going on in Ukraine and Gaza, they couldn't do anything, as Burkina Faso and others were throwing French and US soldiers out of their countries. They threatened, they sent some money to certain dubious groups and individuals, they tried couping the governments multiple times. But when all failed, the US could only just shrug and put a pin on it. Whereas before, you can be sure there would be deployments of fleets and possibly troops, bombing missions, drones visiting houses and weddings, operatives preparing assassinations, sabotage and coups, etc. And so, the Sahel countries kicked out the colonizers and are now on track on nationalizing the mines, eradicating imported western-sponsored jihadists and strengthening their independence.

On the other hand, if the US declines, but the world remains unipolar, i.e. another hegemon takes over, then that might not be ideal for Marxists around the world, especially considering all the top world powers, bar PRC, are capitalists. And also, most of them, bar PRC and Russia, are happy participants in the current US system. The ideal scenario would perhaps be PRC becoming the new unipolar hegemon, and they could certainly pull it off. But China itself does not seem interested in this future. They themselves promote multipolarity, which means they've probably come to a similar conclusion as what I describe above.

So, to summarize, multipolarity is good because: a) Socialism can take root more easily around the world, b) Nobody will oppose it, c) There's no apparent scenario for a Marxist unipolar world right now, as the only nation capable of creating it does not seem to want it.

The shift from Unipolar to Multipolar is a clear indication that the Western focused world order is ending. As that becomes a reality it means the contradictions in the west are the sharpest they've ever been. These conditions will only strengthen the movement. A multipolar world was the inevitable outcome after repeated recession.

The only way these countries could unite they way they have is directly a result of the failing empire strategy by the US. Having injected itself into nearly every international financial transaction via the ending of bretton woods and the beginning of globalization, the US bit the hand that fed it by weaponizing the SWIFT system to seize Russian assets at the start of the Ukraine/NATO war. Now that system is tainted and driving membership into BRICS.

All of this signals to me to be a death spiral for the imperial core. This is what creates the conditions for a rise in the demand for socialism. These events are also driving the fascist moment happening in the US and other imperial states.

This is a historically progressive moment. There was a long debate during the cold war between the Soviet and the Sino revolutions. The debate was between how to export revolution. Mao believed that the 3rd world states needed to develop capitalism before they could eventual transition to Socialism. The Soviet Union believed that with experienced technicians and loans you could skip capitalism and leap forward into socialism.

As the cold war marched on it became clear that Mao was right. The Soviet strategy yielded resistance from national bourgeois figures and compradors because their solution would result in removing them from power, so they stopped taking the loans.

I think we can see Mao's vision in action from the Belt and Road initiative. Bolstering infrastructure for developing nations, regardless of mode of production, which hardens the nations against imperialism from the west. This is the results of combined and uneven development. Now we see African states building regional self determination, places like Burkina Faso building socialism.

As the empire weakens it allows for other nations to build themselves up. These nations are seizing production lines for national interests, while China is diversifying its economy globally. They support national development and supply chain development. We're looking at decades of development ahead of us in some of the most resource rich portions of the globe.

This will naturally build conditions in the west to develop class consciousness. It also builds the productive forces in the global south that benefits those nations instead of western capital. This eventually allows for sharpening national contradictions that could lead to local development of socialist parties and demands.

Opens up space for revolutionary situations

The primary goal of the Leninist movements has always been “workers of the world unite!”

You can’t get there from here; you have to start somewhere else.

I’ve sort-of, tangentially explained it by explaining ML critical support for Russia in the Ukraine war.

Its just like how we cant go from liberal democracy or monarchy directly to a stateless classless society without going through the transition period of socialism.

As the empire of the usa degrades there are multiple contenders to try to take their place. None of them are strong enough to take on all the others alone. If the strongest nation tries to seize on the weakness of the usa to take its place directly the others will come together to defeat them. After usa falls everyone will attempt to consolidate their wins an try to form backroom alliances to become the next top power.

For the socialist nations its a trick to pit bourgeois dictatorships against each other. If you can convince them to compete against each other with their eye on the throne they will keep each other in check while the socialist block quietly shows the working class the path of their best interests.

Eventually the socialist block will become the incontestable geo-political power but it has to get there through popular revolution one nation at a time not through mass coercion.

I feel like its happening anyway regardless of my (or my local party's) opinion of it, so might as well make the most of it. :/