Why against multipolarity
Why against multipolarity
Why against multipolarity despite many socialist state arise after ww1 and even more after ww2 end? I ask this question because I see many people in r/communism view multipolarity negatively.
You're viewing a single thread.
Disclaimer: I certainly do not want to give credit to the maoist gonzaloite sickoes of /r/communism.
That being said, positioning oneself as a communist against or for multipolarity within the context that we are in is just a nonsensical question if you understand imperialism in the marxist-leninist understanding: the monopoly stage of capitalism, marked by the merging of bank and industrial capital into financial capital. Shifting which financial capital pole is dominant, or whether there are multiple financial capital imperialist poles matters little for communists: the end result is inter-imperialist war.
Should I quote Lenin in Socialism and the War and Imperialism: the Latest Stage of Capitalism, on that? Do I need to remind comrades that Lenin saw Tsarist Russia as a nascent imperialist state with a mix of feudal colonial elements and modern imperialist elements all that tied to it being dominated by British and especially French capital? The excuses then that today's Russia, an advanced capitalist state with sizeable capital export and control in its immediate region (larger than under Tsarist Russia to be noted), is therefore not imperialist is lazy. We must remain consistent. We must remain scientific, but very importantly we must remain clear eyed: The fact that the current war is an inter-imperialist one does not mean that we must ignore that the primary aggressor is undeniably western imperialism and its war dog the NATO "alliance".
The question of the war in Ukraine from the perspective of european and north american communists regardless of the above mentioned questions is simple: total and compete commitment to revolutionary defeatism. Full opposition to NATO. Building the mass base to make that happen. Implent that in the labour unions. That requires not to be larpy fucks too. That requires saying: "being pro or anti russia is none of our business, let the russian comrades deal with that, we oppose nato and demand peace negotiations and the stop of arm shipments, we demand investing all those billions in our working class instead of tools to kill Ukrainians and Russians". It might be cliche to say but we demand peace and bread, and in the context of enormous ass inflation and rising costs of leaving, along with trailing wages, the masses have never been more receptive to that message in decades.
I'll give you a concrete example: KKE is openly stating (only within the sphere of the IMCWP and communist organizing) that the war is an inter-imperialist war. And yet they are the single BEST party right now across europe in opposing NATO arms shipments to Ukraine, and dedicate their vast majority of energy opposing the war from a revolutionary defeatist basis. Anyone who shits on them from the comfort of their computers that haven't personally engaged in blocking trainloads of armoured vehicles for Ukraine can only shut the fuck up.
Edit: as to whether multipolarity bringing socialist states into emergence bring revolution slower or faster: i'd say this is a completely nonsensical thesis that is tied to accelerationism. It has zero basis in concrete organizing, and I would dare say, is an example of disgustingly "wishful" opportunism indicative of a complete and total disconnection from the working class.
Edit 2: I see a lot of downvotes and zero counter arguments. The echo chamber some of you lot lived in presumably with zero on the ground organizing has messed with your scientific socialism and your connection to proletarian internationalism. Join a party, engage in real life struggle, learn what it means to struggle against the NATO war in Ukraine outside internet micro-niches.
Should I quote Lenin in Socialism and the War and Imperialism: the Latest Stage of Capitalism, on that? Do I need to remind comrades that Lenin saw Tsarist Russia as a nascent imperialist state with a mix of feudal colonial elements and modern imperialist elements all that tied to it being dominated by British and especially French capital? The excuses then that today's Russia, an advanced capitalist state with sizeable capital export and control in its immediate region (larger than under Tsarist Russia to be noted), is therefore not imperialist is lazy. We must remain consistent. We must remain scientific, but very importantly we must remain clear eyed: The fact that the current war is an inter-imperialist one does not mean that we must ignore that the primary aggressor is undeniably western imperialism and its war dog the NATO "alliance".
We indeed must remain scientific. That requires us to consider things that happened post-1924. This idea of labelling Russia imperialist, a shaky argument to being with, and then asserting that this makes the sides similar enough to not proclaim support is little more than idealism.
If we're throwing out quotes, let's also being in Stalin, Litvinov, Molotov. Why are we even pretending war between capitalists is happening for the first time since 1918, why are we ignoring the monumental though largely fruitless efforts of the USSR to rally the imperialists against Nazi Germany? Why pretend we've never allied ourselves with the US and UK when so many people's movements received assistance from them, even if for the purpose of fighting their enemies?
Correct, however, even if we only limit ourselves to Lenin, we can quote his work A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism (1916) where he gives us general principles to analyze any conflict which again strengthens our position here on Lemmygrad and that of many communist parties (especially in the 3rd world) which give critical support to Russia:
How, then, can we disclose and define the “substance” of a war? War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war.
For the philistine the important thing is where the armies stand, who is winning at the moment. For the Marxist the important thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.
The situation today is not the same as it was in World War 1, and we need to adjust our analysis accordingly.
Hey, I hadn't read that. Thanks!
Your cringe bad faith remarks brings my desire to even engage with your actually relatively well thought-out arguments to absolute nil.
You do not know the people active here. Many of the downvoters could be newbie trolls for all you're aware of, and many of us are quite active in our local politics and even regularly discuss it, which you might notice were you not too busy denigrating communists every turn. Many of our comrades here live in the periphery and global south. You are not only addressing these straw white guy LARPers.
This is a space mainly for education and there is a definite level of anonymity that should be and is maintained. No one should have to discuss their local real-world organizing experiences to prove to a bad faith actor that they're not 'terminally online' and that their mostly valuable insights are worth listening to, yet it feels a little like you're baiting for that proof.
I suggest actively participating in mutual conversation rather than making dehumanizing overgeneralizations about the comrades active here.
You have not convinced me that struggling for multipolarity is an unworthy task, either.
Imperialism is highlander, imperialist hegemons will never allow another imperialist power to rise.