I have to be honest. The only thing that will happen is either 1.) The US goes full mask-off fascism; or 2.) militant union organizing and popularization of left-wing, even explicitly Communist, ideas. Yes it's true that imperialism is broken, it's also true that the US is running out of force abroad. It's still an economic power house with a functioning (albiet backsliding) liberal democracy. No one really likes the government, but you can tell at least 30-40% of the population is on board 100% with pushing desired candidates and they believe the US has a chance in electoralism.
If you want to know the truth, we are essentially going to have to repeat the work of SDS, the Black Panthers, and all the other post-Civil Rights activisist left-wing movements. Now, instead of the Russian Empire going down as an imperialist force in favor of the Communists, we will have to organize to make that happen in the US or the UK.
As much as we clown on the Democrats and their supporters, it's true that if the Democrats fail we will not have a liberal democracy. Fascism is weak and fragile, but it gets the job done for whoever needs that job done. Bullets are cheap. Prison labor is already raking in plenty of cash and the US doesn't care about overcapacity in the cells or abuse of solitary confinement. Biden himself is already sliding away from the liberal democratic facade that at least Obama was able to keep up. Trump did real damage and pushed us away from keeping up our image, but, yes, there were real conditions behind it (namely between 1980 and 2009).
A collapse is still a pipe dream, either way. Even when the feudal order was weakened and unable to sustain itself, we still had many bloody conflicts and revolutions to push through. The monarchs didn't care, they fled or escaped along with the aristocrats and landowners and landlords. Even some decades after the French Revolution, people were lamenting the death of the old order. To this day we have anti-revolution propaganda from monarchs.
In all honesty, we can exploit external conditions but we still have to realize those conditions alone are not revolutionary or even necessarily progressive. What the US is doing right now is exactly what we expect in a weakened state that used to be so powerful. But this exact policy is also going to force China and Russia to be more agggressive, more competitive, and even form alliances and tighten up on separating their sphere of influence from that of "the West" or the US. This is very bad. This will push China to align more with the right-wing of the CPC. We don't want that. Thankfully we have Xi Jingping as prevention, but I don't trust whoever is going to succeed. It's too shakey, too unpredictable.
I still follow in my belief that we need fresh revolution. If Americans or the British can't do it, there's going to be some serious issues. It will be the equivalent of the German Revolution failing. The US wants China and Russia to get into the politcs of bloc-formation, while the US is also pushing to allow Western Europe to go fascist. Then we have Nigeria playing too neutral. The US has Argentina, Peru, Ecuador in their pockets as well. The Sahel is too weak at the moment.
I won't entertain an idea of collapse for these reasons alone. It's too dangerous to spread that idea. We have decades to keep pushing.
As much as we clown on the Democrats and their supporters, it’s true that if the Democrats fail we will not have a liberal democracy.
Sorry (not sorry) to tell ya, but you already don't have a liberal "democracy." Red fascist or blue fascist, take your pick, or reject the system of fascism altogether. It's not a "democracy," and while the past two senile old white POTUSes have been bad for American PR, Obama himself was just as bad when you actually look at his actions on the ground, in domestic and foreign policy alike. And frankly, I'd argue Biden and the neocon gang are far more fascistic than Trump ever was, if not in token minority "rights" (temporary privileges, considering how easily they are disposed of or voided by the regime despite being called rights- and I say this as someone who is a racial minority, trans, etc) then absolutely in foreign and economic policy, and in the erosion of "liberal" "rights and freedoms" (but they paint it in a notably different way from Trump, talking about "fighting fascism/racism/anti-semitism/far right or left extremism/misinformation/protecting 'democracy'/etc").
If you want to know the truth, we are essentially going to have to repeat the work of SDS, the Black Panthers, and all the other post-Civil Rights activisist left-wing movements. Now, instead of the Russian Empire going down as an imperialist force in favor of the Communists, we will have to organize to make that happen in the US or the UK.
And sure, those movements will have to be repeated. But my point is also that this time around, it is not just the Russian empire that is in rapid decline- it is the entire imperialist bloc, and they are more precariously positioned than ever before (their foundations sundered, held afloat by exporting their inflation worldwide and trying to extort the world with the chips they have remaining), and the world is reaching such a point, where it can be said that it is developing beyond the imperialist bloc as-is.
this exact policy is also going to force China and Russia to be more agggressive, more competitive, and even form alliances and tighten up on separating their sphere of influence from that of “the West” or the US. This is very bad. This will push China to align more with the right-wing of the CPC. We don’t want that. Thankfully we have Xi Jingping as prevention, but I don’t trust whoever is going to succeed. It’s too shakey, too unpredictable.
And as I see it- why shouldn't I want much of what you describe? Not just for China and Russia, but the entire global south. You describe it as "right-wing," but words have meanings- what is "right-wing" about anti-imperialist alliance and development? Is this just some inherent fear and condemnation of "militarism" (even when it is for the clear purpose of defending against a blatant aggressor)? Military buildups and alliances do not equate to "right wing politics"- and frankly, economic development and even competition between states is also not the sole purview of right-wing politics. These things are a fact of life- and I fully embrace and cheer on their rapid development on these fronts, because the more the non-imperialist nations develop in this regard, the more we approach multipolarity and the end of hegemony to the western imperialist system.
Or did you think that China- or even for that matter, Russia- is going to imitate the west's failed system? That's clearly not what is underway. It's a loser's system, a system in its latest stages as the west is in now frankly even destroys more than it ever creates- a system which has hollowed out the once impressive (if wholly ill-gotten) imperial cores' infrastructure, industries, their very spirit. Socialism can be competitive; leftism can be competitive; and it is through the dictatorship of the proletariat that China has developed in such leaps and bounds while safeguarding the revolution, and in particular the characteristics of the revolution which guided China away from the many pitfalls that befell other nations- the Soviets and India as key examples of what China's condition would otherwise be.
What is Russia doing now, for instance? Do you think it is liberal economics which is allowing Russia to outproduce the entire west in Ukraine, or that the Russians are the "goose-stepping orcs" that the west paints them out to be, and that is unifying their war effort and morale? Why do you think Chinese and BRICS financing and cooperation is increasingly being chosen across the global south- because it is more extractive, more exploitative?
And- in regards to the "too shakey, too unpredictable" bit- while this is not complacency (as the rest of the world isn't going to save us in the imperial cores, and we can't count on that nor are we owed that, frankly rather the opposite if you think about it), at least in the sense that you may or may not have been calling into question the anti-imperialist bloc's development and overall direction- I wholeheartedly disagree. The rest of the world is moving in the right direction (multipolarity, win-win cooperation, actual "rules-based" order, etc), and it's a question of whether the imperialist bloc will succeed in their attempts to destroy this progress.
I still follow in my belief that we need fresh revolution. If Americans or the British can’t do it, there’s going to be some serious issues. It will be the equivalent of the German Revolution failing.
We (as in those of us in the imperial cores) need fresh revolution, yes. The rest of the world will determine their own path as they see fit, and if you ask me, by and large, for all that it is littered with flaws along the way, they're headed in more than the right direction. The world doesn't need the west to "reform themselves and save the day" otherwise though, they just need the west to get lost, to get out of the way of the rest of humanity (granted, I may have interpreted your tone and/or meaning somewhat wrong here, 50/50 on that). But I do agree otherwise- if the Americans or Europeans can't do it (or the Brits, but truth is also the Brits are increasingly irrelevant- a wonderful statement, that) we're going to see a world war and attempts by the imperialist bloc, at repeating and perhaps even eclipsing the fascist atrocities of the past century.
It just sounds like a long way of saying that China and Russia should function as imperialist powers using some type of Keynesian economic policy or war economy boost. This is undeniably what the US is trying to do. They want to drive competition. Either China or Russia hardens their stance into an imperialist bloc, or the US destroys them. That's the goal. The US will not collapse nor will the imperialist system lead by the US. Weaken, lost influence, lose relevance or merit - yes. Collapse is still a resounding no. It's the reason China is so careful with the US, so willing to go the extra mile to satisfy, the reason China wants to cooperate in international politics as a neutral player. China has reiterated time and time again that they are against bloc formation. This is why: China doesn't want to be seen as an imperialist power or even a competing superpower. They want cooperation with all, whether that be Russia, the US, the Eurozone, or major countries in Africa and Latin America.
If the US keeps pushing power politics, China will be forced to push back, just as Russia was pushed to do in 2022. No one seriously wants that. It will be devastating. That's not progress, that's reaction. The DPRK has even admitted peaceful reunification isn't possible in relation to the South (RoK). Of course it's the truth, but peace is always what we demand first. That can't happen in a world dominated by capitalism, and capitalism has to be taken down consciously with great effort. Peace holds off struggle for another day, it buys time. But we can't fool ourselves. That peace is as much of a facade as American liberal democracy. It's stable and looks good, maybe feels good, but it's fake, another way of obstructing reality.
Though peace can't be shaken out of regular conflict to get rid of capitalism. It has to be liberation, the wars have to be revolutionary wars. Otherwise we're back to step one, always on the edge of a new imperialist competitor, the ultimate aspiration for all capitalist countries at sufficient level of development. At the moment, only Palestine and the DPRK are really capable of fighting those types of wars. Even if the US adopts an America First policy (we all know this is just coded fascism), we know they'll still perform covert operations illegally and against their supposed policy.
China and Russia aren't functioning as imperialist powers. In fact, rather the opposite. And the way to fight the imperialist bloc- the methods they are using- socially, economically, diplomatically- are ways contrary to the very notion of imperialism and hegemony.
You said earlier that the US was "trying to force China and Russia together"- and here you explicitly state that the west is "trying to influence them, to become imperialist powers"- and that couldn't be further from the truth. That's complete and utter bullshit. Nonsense, garbage, and you should educate yourself on that mentality and also consider just how ridiculous that sounds. The west has no such plans for either Russia or China- rather, their nations are only on the menu (the Russians tried, this is where it led them- back to the global south, to anti-imperialism, to realizing their place is with Eurasia and not the "continent" of Europe and its paleskinned, mayo racists), and the increasing ties between them are to the west's horror and what will undo the western imperialist bloc- but also, the notion that these nations- China and Russia, but also the rest of the global south- are having their path charted by the west, which is molding them to become its twisted afterimage- frankly exposes a deep, hopefully subconscious (but extant all the same) western, Eurocentric chauvinism wherein the colored and non-western peoples can't truly think for themselves, and everything meaningful has already been devised by Europeans and westerners (like yourself) who will determine the path that "has" to be taken- that the actions of the global south right now- those of China, in its development unseen throughout history and built without imperialism, of Russia, which is joining hands with the anti-imperialist struggle in Africa and the MENA while they themselves fight encroachment and attempts at genocide and the balkanization of their nation at home, of Iran (flawed that it is) and the various nations amongst the anti-imperialist bloc, etc... are insufficient, that their revolutions are insufficient, that you- a western leftist (if you can be called that- I'm increasingly doubting you should be called that) have the real answers to their liberation, and how to progress past capitalism and imperialism as its highest stage and a world system- and that it comes in some nebulous, "purer" notion of a revolution- which frankly sounds like some anarkiddie nonsense.
China's development is a revolution. Russia's assistance to the various African anti-colonial states (and their own choice in partnering with Russia, to build a world that goes beyond imperialism, beyond the exploitation that has been all the west ever offered, to develop and pursue win-win cooperation- let's not forget that this is their choice, to work with Russia, with China, with BRICS, and the world at large is ecstatic), the development of BRICS (even with the greatly diverse and flawed members as it may be- Indian Hindutvas, Saudi and Emirati petro-monarchies, Iranian state Islamism, the mess that is Egypt, Brazil which struggles with its own settler-colonial issues, Russia which is no Soviet Union, etc), the forging of ties amongst such disparate groups, overcoming the divide-and-conquer and small trivialities (small in contrast) that the west has constantly sought to emphasize and enflame, in order to take on the greatest contradiction, the most abhorrent one- imperialism- all of this is a revolution.
And, in case I can't emphasize it enough- I'm going to copy-and-paste state it word-for-word again- 'the forging of ties amongst such disparate groups, overcoming the divide-and-conquer and small trivialities (small in contrast) that the west has constantly sought to emphasize and enflame, in order to take on the greatest contradiction, the most abhorrent one- imperialism.' Do you want to know what the west really proposes, its grand vision for the world, what the cursed western powers inflicted throughout their direct colonial rules, what they consistently support to this day in every corner of the earth, what they even maintain in some considerable level within their own imperial cores? It's that divide-and-conquer mentality, a colonized (or colonizer) mentality through and through.
Blocs are not inherently imperialist; the Warsaw pact was not imperialist, and- if the non-aligned movement, or whatever other grouping, had unified in resistance to the west, it would have been imperialist either. Pan-Africanism, pan-Arabism, pan-indigenism, the collaboration of the global south, etc. is not imperialist. And frankly? If it takes a bloc to fight the west- if the west drives Russia, China, and the rest of the global south towards forming a bloc of resistance, as they are now (through their intolerable actions- genocide, constant warmongering, imperial arrogance and hubris and NOT some "master scheme to taint the resistance with the imperialist ideologies so they can 'replace' the west") then so be it; it is through collaboration, through tangible and meaningful solidarity- and this is what solidarity is, if blocs be needed so be it- that the resistance shall succeed.
The rest of the world is charting their own path, and in what is to come ahead- in the destruction of imperialism as a world system, and in the framework that the global south is building- frameworks of cooperation, mutual development and support, of sovereignty, of mutual respect and dialogue- that is where the path towards socialism lies, in an environment conducive for all nations to chart their course towards it in their own unique ways. And that China, the world's emerging economic superpower and a socialist state (within a socialist phase of development, a transitionary period wherein the forces of capital are harnessed, with strict proletarian oversight and control, to develop) is among this new multipolar order's greatest champions, can only spell good things for socialist development ahead.
Even if the US adopts an America First policy (we all know this is just coded fascism), we know they’ll still perform covert operations illegally and against their supposed policy.
And of course, the imperialist bloc will always be malicious actors. The imperialist ideologies predominant within their societies, their institutions, and proliferated across the entire globe amongst countless compradors, can always be expected to act as such. But the rest of the world is moving past this- they are developing, such that they will be able to better resist this- through the education and awareness of their peoples to the necessity of the anti-colonial struggle and solidarity against the common enemy; through the development of these countries, to wean themselves away from the methods of coercion and subversion the west has always used to undermine them; through the building of relationships- into blocs if need be- that together can better resist imperialist encroachment.
The rest of the world is moving past the west. Past the imperialist world system, and the west is grasping at straws trying to force the genie back in the bottle. And they'll try, certainly they'll try with every terroristic, genocidal, nefarious means to undermine this development- and they'll send covert (and overt) operations illegally as they always have and is the nature of their system- and increasingly, those operations will fail. They'll send their devils, their dogs of empire, as they are doing right now in Ukraine, right now in Gaza, along the shores of Yemen, in Chad, Ethiopia, the D.R. Congo- and those dogs will increasingly die, like the scum they are. Sometimes the west will score wins- like in Argentina, Ecuador, Pakistan (with the overthrow of Imran Khan), the Philippines, etc... but the tide is turning, and these wins will be ever more precarious- as can be seen with all the states mentioned above, or with the contingent post-soviet states of the EU, etc... and sometimes, they will appear more terrible than before- like with NATO's expansion into the treacherous Nordics (which have never actually been "neutral"), and their attempts to court India, or- like with the Abraham accords- but as seen with the last example, these schemes will increasingly fall apart, through the contradictions of empire and its resulting hubris, through the decline in the material conditions underpinning empire, etc.
This is undeniably what the US is trying to do. They want to drive competition.
Also, figured I'd go back to this sentence- no offense, but- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... no.
Does banning TikTok, Huawei, accusing China of "overcapacity," etc. sound like "driving competition?" You're falling for the capitalist drivel, whether you realize it or not- the US is trying to maintain its rentier dominance, over industries, over defence (or rather, terror against the entire world), over finance, over trade, etc...
Capitalists have always claimed they're about "competition." The truth is very much "do as I say, not as I do," however. Was it "competition" that built up the British empire, or shameless plundering, mercantilism, and the outright destruction of native industries across the globe, for instance? And can we call the US' own development- first heavily protectionist, then after indebting and destroying all its competitors, going full Marshall Plan on them, "competition?" Can we call the US foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine, the abuses of the dollar (and the US' jealous guarding of its exorbitant privilege) "competition?" Were the Plaza Accords "competition?" Are the various oligopolies that dominate the US seeking "competition?"
Just... no. Please, educate yourself. As another commenter in this chain has noted- Vijay Prashad is a good starting point (https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4301042). Or Michael Hudson. Or Prof. Wolff. Or Geopolitical Economy Report. If you don't understand these things you're always just going to be misled.
That's exactly what it is - competition. They don't want to cooperate with China, they want to compete. I'm not talking about the domestic "free market," I'm talking about the world economy and power politics. If the US keeps pursuing this path of foreign policy and no longer wants to play friendly, then, yes, either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power. Either that, or they have to choose the submissive role, a puppet government. There's no way around this. We live in the era of imperialism and globalization - all countries have to be interconnected by some way and we can't backtrack. Something like BRICS is an alternative, not a revolutionary new thing, but just a plain alternative to what already exists. That's not inherently a good or bad thing. But when we have the US pushing countries into competiting spheres of influence, what happens in a system like this? The same that already happened before.
This isn't a moral concept, this isn't a voluntary thing. This is just what happens when you have a bunch of sufficiently developed capitalist countries. They will all demand imperialism at some point, that's their aspiration, and those competing interests will interfere in the peace of all other (both capitalist and socialist) countries. People will be forced to pick sides at some point, that's the competition.
They don’t want to cooperate with China, they want to compete.
My answer to that, is the same as before- laughter. It's certainly not competition they want, otherwise they would have just left things be- they are rentiers, hegemonists, imperialists- and it is submission they desire. Or do you think that within capitalism and imperialism as the system we live in today, big corporates want to compete with- say, labor, or even with other corporations, rather than buy off the competition and grow fat and complacent while cutting margins? This is what it always is and was, this is the nature of capital, this is undeniably the approach the west has built for itself over centuries and maintains (albeit a crumbling system) to this day- there may be some competition within it, but it is only a means to the end, a means that capitalists, and imperialists as their highest form, ultimately have a consistent track record of (and it only makes sense from their perspective- it's the nature of the system) seeking to eradicate in turn once they reach their desired end.
I’m talking about the world economy and power politics. If the US keeps pursuing this path of foreign policy and no longer wants to play friendly, then, yes, either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power.
Once again, you're mixing the notion of "competition" - anti-imperialist competition ie. resistance at that- as imperialism. This is nonsense. Is the competition, the struggle of the Palestinians, "imperialist?" Bullshit.
either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power. Either that, or they have to choose the submissive role, a puppet government. There’s no way around this. We live in the era of imperialism and globalization - all countries have to be interconnected by some way and we can’t backtrack
I agree, we can't backtrack. We are moving forward- what is being built now, is a stage of society beyond imperialism, and from there, gradually ideally beyond capital. Did you think that stage would be characterized by non-competitive, disunited, unfocused (anarchic) groups or states, fumbling in the dark and refusing to play power politics? Do you think that would be "progress," or uplift the human condition? Did you think that with the ushering in of socialism, humanity would suddenly cease to be globalized? This sounds more like a dark age to me than anything else, and it certainly is not what any communist movement, but also any sensible leftist movement, would advocate- it is not what the former movements (SDS, Black Panthers, civil rights movement, etc) you positively described advocated also, for that matter.
The individual could not compete against tribalism (not that we evolved that way to begin with); tribalism could not compete against early complex societies, and those in turn could not compete over the long run against monarchism and/or more stratified societies, and then finally in turn against the imperialists. Feudalism and the rights of nobles gave way to capitalism and the rights of the capitalists- each class, larger than the next. And the next class in turn, the ideally universal class, which comprises all the masses of humanity- that is what was theorized by Marx to come next, what was determined to be the next logical conclusion, with the means to outcompete and truly liberate our species once and for all from the contradictions- the class struggle, the alienation, etc. that has plagued humanity for millennia.
Something like BRICS is an alternative, not a revolutionary new thing, but just a plain alternative to what already exists. That’s not inherently a good or bad thing. But when we have the US pushing countries into competiting spheres of influence, what happens in a system like this? The same that already happened before.
This hasn't happened before, certainly not in the same way. But you won't listen regardless, will you? What we are seeing is the development and cooperation of the non-western "bloc"- if it can be called that- the west vs. the rest, really- wherein the colonized have finally reached a parity within the greater global system (rather than individual states doing so, such as with Japan, or with- while they were not imperialist, which in itself literally disproves your point- the Soviets), and where they all, diverse and flawed as they may be, some (most) even capitalist in their own right, are coming together in the face of their common enemy now that they truly have the means to do so, against the global system of capitalist superprofits/extraction that is imperialism, the highest stage of capital.
And they are not "rebuilding imperialism, but with the south in charge" or whatever nonsense. That's your western victim/purist mentality at play; a seat is at the table for the west when they want to start acting like human beings again, for the first time in 500 years if not more (ie. revolutionary change, getting rid of the colonial mentality, etc). A system of actual rules (rather than western diktat and double standards), increasingly more equitable trade, win-win cooperation, a diverse and open dialogue for peoples- all peoples, unlike how it has only ever been with the west- having their voices heard and determining their path forwards themselves, and- if you want to be a healthy cynic about it, with state entities keeping each other in check (the most prominent, developed, competitive, and powerful of which today is an AES) to prevent the prior order from returning with a different head at the helm.
I'm done with this discussion. Because I've said all there is to say, about it, and you've said yours (nebulously gesturing at "competition, power politics bad, there is no alternative to recreating the wheel," etc). I've already linked other sources, but I don't think you've even so much as properly absorbed what I've said already (in any of my comments so far), it just hasn't been able to sink in yet. Anything else I could say would just be repetitions of what I've already said before, and more to convince anyone else looking in on this conversation than anything else- but I simply won't. I recommend actually checking the sources linked by me- or by the other commenter in this thread in regards to Vijay Prashad and the Tri-Continental- if you actually have interest in seeing it all spelled out for you by people more practiced and articulate in doing so than I am, with a far greater understanding of the subject, and with sourcing and (in regards to their published works) peer review and renown.
As far as I'm concerned, your own take on the matter is little different from the neoliberal "end of history" mentality- that certainly seems to be what you're trapped in- just with a colorful "leftist revolution" aesthetic and idealism behind it all. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only groups you seemed to mention positively (presumably without looking at their actual approach and analysis to things) were now-defunct leftist organizations, the Palestinian resistance who haven't even their rightful sovereignty and autonomy as a state within their own internationally recognized territories, and the "hermit kingdom" of North Korea (for all that that name is deeply unfair and a smear in and of itself- so let's say, "pseudo-hermit socialism" or "socialism, but under siege and isolated from much of the world").
The chances of me not being Marxist is as high as the chance imperialism collapses.
The shelf for Kautsky, Dugin, and Keynes is further down. It should be easier for you to digest.
Moishe Postone might have something interesting for you, when you're ready to come back to earth to discover my support for North Korea and Palestine (clearly from what I wrote, if anyone spent the time to extrapolate and use some thinking skills) is not an anachist position, but is almost verbatim what Lenin and Stalin would argue.
I have to be honest. The only thing that will happen is either 1.) The US goes full mask-off fascism; or 2.) militant union organizing and popularization of left-wing, even explicitly Communist, ideas. Yes it's true that imperialism is broken, it's also true that the US is running out of force abroad. It's still an economic power house with a functioning (albiet backsliding) liberal democracy. No one really likes the government, but you can tell at least 30-40% of the population is on board 100% with pushing desired candidates and they believe the US has a chance in electoralism.
If you want to know the truth, we are essentially going to have to repeat the work of SDS, the Black Panthers, and all the other post-Civil Rights activisist left-wing movements. Now, instead of the Russian Empire going down as an imperialist force in favor of the Communists, we will have to organize to make that happen in the US or the UK.
As much as we clown on the Democrats and their supporters, it's true that if the Democrats fail we will not have a liberal democracy. Fascism is weak and fragile, but it gets the job done for whoever needs that job done. Bullets are cheap. Prison labor is already raking in plenty of cash and the US doesn't care about overcapacity in the cells or abuse of solitary confinement. Biden himself is already sliding away from the liberal democratic facade that at least Obama was able to keep up. Trump did real damage and pushed us away from keeping up our image, but, yes, there were real conditions behind it (namely between 1980 and 2009).
A collapse is still a pipe dream, either way. Even when the feudal order was weakened and unable to sustain itself, we still had many bloody conflicts and revolutions to push through. The monarchs didn't care, they fled or escaped along with the aristocrats and landowners and landlords. Even some decades after the French Revolution, people were lamenting the death of the old order. To this day we have anti-revolution propaganda from monarchs.
In all honesty, we can exploit external conditions but we still have to realize those conditions alone are not revolutionary or even necessarily progressive. What the US is doing right now is exactly what we expect in a weakened state that used to be so powerful. But this exact policy is also going to force China and Russia to be more agggressive, more competitive, and even form alliances and tighten up on separating their sphere of influence from that of "the West" or the US. This is very bad. This will push China to align more with the right-wing of the CPC. We don't want that. Thankfully we have Xi Jingping as prevention, but I don't trust whoever is going to succeed. It's too shakey, too unpredictable.
I still follow in my belief that we need fresh revolution. If Americans or the British can't do it, there's going to be some serious issues. It will be the equivalent of the German Revolution failing. The US wants China and Russia to get into the politcs of bloc-formation, while the US is also pushing to allow Western Europe to go fascist. Then we have Nigeria playing too neutral. The US has Argentina, Peru, Ecuador in their pockets as well. The Sahel is too weak at the moment.
I won't entertain an idea of collapse for these reasons alone. It's too dangerous to spread that idea. We have decades to keep pushing.
Sorry (not sorry) to tell ya, but you already don't have a liberal "democracy." Red fascist or blue fascist, take your pick, or reject the system of fascism altogether. It's not a "democracy," and while the past two senile old white POTUSes have been bad for American PR, Obama himself was just as bad when you actually look at his actions on the ground, in domestic and foreign policy alike. And frankly, I'd argue Biden and the neocon gang are far more fascistic than Trump ever was, if not in token minority "rights" (temporary privileges, considering how easily they are disposed of or voided by the regime despite being called rights- and I say this as someone who is a racial minority, trans, etc) then absolutely in foreign and economic policy, and in the erosion of "liberal" "rights and freedoms" (but they paint it in a notably different way from Trump, talking about "fighting fascism/racism/anti-semitism/far right or left extremism/misinformation/protecting 'democracy'/etc").
And sure, those movements will have to be repeated. But my point is also that this time around, it is not just the Russian empire that is in rapid decline- it is the entire imperialist bloc, and they are more precariously positioned than ever before (their foundations sundered, held afloat by exporting their inflation worldwide and trying to extort the world with the chips they have remaining), and the world is reaching such a point, where it can be said that it is developing beyond the imperialist bloc as-is.
And as I see it- why shouldn't I want much of what you describe? Not just for China and Russia, but the entire global south. You describe it as "right-wing," but words have meanings- what is "right-wing" about anti-imperialist alliance and development? Is this just some inherent fear and condemnation of "militarism" (even when it is for the clear purpose of defending against a blatant aggressor)? Military buildups and alliances do not equate to "right wing politics"- and frankly, economic development and even competition between states is also not the sole purview of right-wing politics. These things are a fact of life- and I fully embrace and cheer on their rapid development on these fronts, because the more the non-imperialist nations develop in this regard, the more we approach multipolarity and the end of hegemony to the western imperialist system.
Or did you think that China- or even for that matter, Russia- is going to imitate the west's failed system? That's clearly not what is underway. It's a loser's system, a system in its latest stages as the west is in now frankly even destroys more than it ever creates- a system which has hollowed out the once impressive (if wholly ill-gotten) imperial cores' infrastructure, industries, their very spirit. Socialism can be competitive; leftism can be competitive; and it is through the dictatorship of the proletariat that China has developed in such leaps and bounds while safeguarding the revolution, and in particular the characteristics of the revolution which guided China away from the many pitfalls that befell other nations- the Soviets and India as key examples of what China's condition would otherwise be.
What is Russia doing now, for instance? Do you think it is liberal economics which is allowing Russia to outproduce the entire west in Ukraine, or that the Russians are the "goose-stepping orcs" that the west paints them out to be, and that is unifying their war effort and morale? Why do you think Chinese and BRICS financing and cooperation is increasingly being chosen across the global south- because it is more extractive, more exploitative?
And- in regards to the "too shakey, too unpredictable" bit- while this is not complacency (as the rest of the world isn't going to save us in the imperial cores, and we can't count on that nor are we owed that, frankly rather the opposite if you think about it), at least in the sense that you may or may not have been calling into question the anti-imperialist bloc's development and overall direction- I wholeheartedly disagree. The rest of the world is moving in the right direction (multipolarity, win-win cooperation, actual "rules-based" order, etc), and it's a question of whether the imperialist bloc will succeed in their attempts to destroy this progress.
We (as in those of us in the imperial cores) need fresh revolution, yes. The rest of the world will determine their own path as they see fit, and if you ask me, by and large, for all that it is littered with flaws along the way, they're headed in more than the right direction. The world doesn't need the west to "reform themselves and save the day" otherwise though, they just need the west to get lost, to get out of the way of the rest of humanity (granted, I may have interpreted your tone and/or meaning somewhat wrong here, 50/50 on that). But I do agree otherwise- if the Americans or Europeans can't do it (or the Brits, but truth is also the Brits are increasingly irrelevant- a wonderful statement, that) we're going to see a world war and attempts by the imperialist bloc, at repeating and perhaps even eclipsing the fascist atrocities of the past century.
It just sounds like a long way of saying that China and Russia should function as imperialist powers using some type of Keynesian economic policy or war economy boost. This is undeniably what the US is trying to do. They want to drive competition. Either China or Russia hardens their stance into an imperialist bloc, or the US destroys them. That's the goal. The US will not collapse nor will the imperialist system lead by the US. Weaken, lost influence, lose relevance or merit - yes. Collapse is still a resounding no. It's the reason China is so careful with the US, so willing to go the extra mile to satisfy, the reason China wants to cooperate in international politics as a neutral player. China has reiterated time and time again that they are against bloc formation. This is why: China doesn't want to be seen as an imperialist power or even a competing superpower. They want cooperation with all, whether that be Russia, the US, the Eurozone, or major countries in Africa and Latin America.
If the US keeps pushing power politics, China will be forced to push back, just as Russia was pushed to do in 2022. No one seriously wants that. It will be devastating. That's not progress, that's reaction. The DPRK has even admitted peaceful reunification isn't possible in relation to the South (RoK). Of course it's the truth, but peace is always what we demand first. That can't happen in a world dominated by capitalism, and capitalism has to be taken down consciously with great effort. Peace holds off struggle for another day, it buys time. But we can't fool ourselves. That peace is as much of a facade as American liberal democracy. It's stable and looks good, maybe feels good, but it's fake, another way of obstructing reality.
Though peace can't be shaken out of regular conflict to get rid of capitalism. It has to be liberation, the wars have to be revolutionary wars. Otherwise we're back to step one, always on the edge of a new imperialist competitor, the ultimate aspiration for all capitalist countries at sufficient level of development. At the moment, only Palestine and the DPRK are really capable of fighting those types of wars. Even if the US adopts an America First policy (we all know this is just coded fascism), we know they'll still perform covert operations illegally and against their supposed policy.
It's socialism or barbarism.
China and Russia aren't functioning as imperialist powers. In fact, rather the opposite. And the way to fight the imperialist bloc- the methods they are using- socially, economically, diplomatically- are ways contrary to the very notion of imperialism and hegemony.
You said earlier that the US was "trying to force China and Russia together"- and here you explicitly state that the west is "trying to influence them, to become imperialist powers"- and that couldn't be further from the truth. That's complete and utter bullshit. Nonsense, garbage, and you should educate yourself on that mentality and also consider just how ridiculous that sounds. The west has no such plans for either Russia or China- rather, their nations are only on the menu (the Russians tried, this is where it led them- back to the global south, to anti-imperialism, to realizing their place is with Eurasia and not the "continent" of Europe and its paleskinned, mayo racists), and the increasing ties between them are to the west's horror and what will undo the western imperialist bloc- but also, the notion that these nations- China and Russia, but also the rest of the global south- are having their path charted by the west, which is molding them to become its twisted afterimage- frankly exposes a deep, hopefully subconscious (but extant all the same) western, Eurocentric chauvinism wherein the colored and non-western peoples can't truly think for themselves, and everything meaningful has already been devised by Europeans and westerners (like yourself) who will determine the path that "has" to be taken- that the actions of the global south right now- those of China, in its development unseen throughout history and built without imperialism, of Russia, which is joining hands with the anti-imperialist struggle in Africa and the MENA while they themselves fight encroachment and attempts at genocide and the balkanization of their nation at home, of Iran (flawed that it is) and the various nations amongst the anti-imperialist bloc, etc... are insufficient, that their revolutions are insufficient, that you- a western leftist (if you can be called that- I'm increasingly doubting you should be called that) have the real answers to their liberation, and how to progress past capitalism and imperialism as its highest stage and a world system- and that it comes in some nebulous, "purer" notion of a revolution- which frankly sounds like some anarkiddie nonsense.
China's development is a revolution. Russia's assistance to the various African anti-colonial states (and their own choice in partnering with Russia, to build a world that goes beyond imperialism, beyond the exploitation that has been all the west ever offered, to develop and pursue win-win cooperation- let's not forget that this is their choice, to work with Russia, with China, with BRICS, and the world at large is ecstatic), the development of BRICS (even with the greatly diverse and flawed members as it may be- Indian Hindutvas, Saudi and Emirati petro-monarchies, Iranian state Islamism, the mess that is Egypt, Brazil which struggles with its own settler-colonial issues, Russia which is no Soviet Union, etc), the forging of ties amongst such disparate groups, overcoming the divide-and-conquer and small trivialities (small in contrast) that the west has constantly sought to emphasize and enflame, in order to take on the greatest contradiction, the most abhorrent one- imperialism- all of this is a revolution.
And, in case I can't emphasize it enough- I'm going to copy-and-paste state it word-for-word again- 'the forging of ties amongst such disparate groups, overcoming the divide-and-conquer and small trivialities (small in contrast) that the west has constantly sought to emphasize and enflame, in order to take on the greatest contradiction, the most abhorrent one- imperialism.' Do you want to know what the west really proposes, its grand vision for the world, what the cursed western powers inflicted throughout their direct colonial rules, what they consistently support to this day in every corner of the earth, what they even maintain in some considerable level within their own imperial cores? It's that divide-and-conquer mentality, a colonized (or colonizer) mentality through and through.
Blocs are not inherently imperialist; the Warsaw pact was not imperialist, and- if the non-aligned movement, or whatever other grouping, had unified in resistance to the west, it would have been imperialist either. Pan-Africanism, pan-Arabism, pan-indigenism, the collaboration of the global south, etc. is not imperialist. And frankly? If it takes a bloc to fight the west- if the west drives Russia, China, and the rest of the global south towards forming a bloc of resistance, as they are now (through their intolerable actions- genocide, constant warmongering, imperial arrogance and hubris and NOT some "master scheme to taint the resistance with the imperialist ideologies so they can 'replace' the west") then so be it; it is through collaboration, through tangible and meaningful solidarity- and this is what solidarity is, if blocs be needed so be it- that the resistance shall succeed.
The rest of the world is charting their own path, and in what is to come ahead- in the destruction of imperialism as a world system, and in the framework that the global south is building- frameworks of cooperation, mutual development and support, of sovereignty, of mutual respect and dialogue- that is where the path towards socialism lies, in an environment conducive for all nations to chart their course towards it in their own unique ways. And that China, the world's emerging economic superpower and a socialist state (within a socialist phase of development, a transitionary period wherein the forces of capital are harnessed, with strict proletarian oversight and control, to develop) is among this new multipolar order's greatest champions, can only spell good things for socialist development ahead.
And of course, the imperialist bloc will always be malicious actors. The imperialist ideologies predominant within their societies, their institutions, and proliferated across the entire globe amongst countless compradors, can always be expected to act as such. But the rest of the world is moving past this- they are developing, such that they will be able to better resist this- through the education and awareness of their peoples to the necessity of the anti-colonial struggle and solidarity against the common enemy; through the development of these countries, to wean themselves away from the methods of coercion and subversion the west has always used to undermine them; through the building of relationships- into blocs if need be- that together can better resist imperialist encroachment.
The rest of the world is moving past the west. Past the imperialist world system, and the west is grasping at straws trying to force the genie back in the bottle. And they'll try, certainly they'll try with every terroristic, genocidal, nefarious means to undermine this development- and they'll send covert (and overt) operations illegally as they always have and is the nature of their system- and increasingly, those operations will fail. They'll send their devils, their dogs of empire, as they are doing right now in Ukraine, right now in Gaza, along the shores of Yemen, in Chad, Ethiopia, the D.R. Congo- and those dogs will increasingly die, like the scum they are. Sometimes the west will score wins- like in Argentina, Ecuador, Pakistan (with the overthrow of Imran Khan), the Philippines, etc... but the tide is turning, and these wins will be ever more precarious- as can be seen with all the states mentioned above, or with the contingent post-soviet states of the EU, etc... and sometimes, they will appear more terrible than before- like with NATO's expansion into the treacherous Nordics (which have never actually been "neutral"), and their attempts to court India, or- like with the Abraham accords- but as seen with the last example, these schemes will increasingly fall apart, through the contradictions of empire and its resulting hubris, through the decline in the material conditions underpinning empire, etc.
Also, figured I'd go back to this sentence- no offense, but- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... no.
Does banning TikTok, Huawei, accusing China of "overcapacity," etc. sound like "driving competition?" You're falling for the capitalist drivel, whether you realize it or not- the US is trying to maintain its rentier dominance, over industries, over defence (or rather, terror against the entire world), over finance, over trade, etc...
Capitalists have always claimed they're about "competition." The truth is very much "do as I say, not as I do," however. Was it "competition" that built up the British empire, or shameless plundering, mercantilism, and the outright destruction of native industries across the globe, for instance? And can we call the US' own development- first heavily protectionist, then after indebting and destroying all its competitors, going full Marshall Plan on them, "competition?" Can we call the US foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine, the abuses of the dollar (and the US' jealous guarding of its exorbitant privilege) "competition?" Were the Plaza Accords "competition?" Are the various oligopolies that dominate the US seeking "competition?"
Just... no. Please, educate yourself. As another commenter in this chain has noted- Vijay Prashad is a good starting point (https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4301042). Or Michael Hudson. Or Prof. Wolff. Or Geopolitical Economy Report. If you don't understand these things you're always just going to be misled.
That's exactly what it is - competition. They don't want to cooperate with China, they want to compete. I'm not talking about the domestic "free market," I'm talking about the world economy and power politics. If the US keeps pursuing this path of foreign policy and no longer wants to play friendly, then, yes, either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power. Either that, or they have to choose the submissive role, a puppet government. There's no way around this. We live in the era of imperialism and globalization - all countries have to be interconnected by some way and we can't backtrack. Something like BRICS is an alternative, not a revolutionary new thing, but just a plain alternative to what already exists. That's not inherently a good or bad thing. But when we have the US pushing countries into competiting spheres of influence, what happens in a system like this? The same that already happened before.
This isn't a moral concept, this isn't a voluntary thing. This is just what happens when you have a bunch of sufficiently developed capitalist countries. They will all demand imperialism at some point, that's their aspiration, and those competing interests will interfere in the peace of all other (both capitalist and socialist) countries. People will be forced to pick sides at some point, that's the competition.
My answer to that, is the same as before- laughter. It's certainly not competition they want, otherwise they would have just left things be- they are rentiers, hegemonists, imperialists- and it is submission they desire. Or do you think that within capitalism and imperialism as the system we live in today, big corporates want to compete with- say, labor, or even with other corporations, rather than buy off the competition and grow fat and complacent while cutting margins? This is what it always is and was, this is the nature of capital, this is undeniably the approach the west has built for itself over centuries and maintains (albeit a crumbling system) to this day- there may be some competition within it, but it is only a means to the end, a means that capitalists, and imperialists as their highest form, ultimately have a consistent track record of (and it only makes sense from their perspective- it's the nature of the system) seeking to eradicate in turn once they reach their desired end.
Once again, you're mixing the notion of "competition" - anti-imperialist competition ie. resistance at that- as imperialism. This is nonsense. Is the competition, the struggle of the Palestinians, "imperialist?" Bullshit.
I agree, we can't backtrack. We are moving forward- what is being built now, is a stage of society beyond imperialism, and from there, gradually ideally beyond capital. Did you think that stage would be characterized by non-competitive, disunited, unfocused (anarchic) groups or states, fumbling in the dark and refusing to play power politics? Do you think that would be "progress," or uplift the human condition? Did you think that with the ushering in of socialism, humanity would suddenly cease to be globalized? This sounds more like a dark age to me than anything else, and it certainly is not what any communist movement, but also any sensible leftist movement, would advocate- it is not what the former movements (SDS, Black Panthers, civil rights movement, etc) you positively described advocated also, for that matter.
The individual could not compete against tribalism (not that we evolved that way to begin with); tribalism could not compete against early complex societies, and those in turn could not compete over the long run against monarchism and/or more stratified societies, and then finally in turn against the imperialists. Feudalism and the rights of nobles gave way to capitalism and the rights of the capitalists- each class, larger than the next. And the next class in turn, the ideally universal class, which comprises all the masses of humanity- that is what was theorized by Marx to come next, what was determined to be the next logical conclusion, with the means to outcompete and truly liberate our species once and for all from the contradictions- the class struggle, the alienation, etc. that has plagued humanity for millennia.
This hasn't happened before, certainly not in the same way. But you won't listen regardless, will you? What we are seeing is the development and cooperation of the non-western "bloc"- if it can be called that- the west vs. the rest, really- wherein the colonized have finally reached a parity within the greater global system (rather than individual states doing so, such as with Japan, or with- while they were not imperialist, which in itself literally disproves your point- the Soviets), and where they all, diverse and flawed as they may be, some (most) even capitalist in their own right, are coming together in the face of their common enemy now that they truly have the means to do so, against the global system of capitalist superprofits/extraction that is imperialism, the highest stage of capital.
And they are not "rebuilding imperialism, but with the south in charge" or whatever nonsense. That's your western victim/purist mentality at play; a seat is at the table for the west when they want to start acting like human beings again, for the first time in 500 years if not more (ie. revolutionary change, getting rid of the colonial mentality, etc). A system of actual rules (rather than western diktat and double standards), increasingly more equitable trade, win-win cooperation, a diverse and open dialogue for peoples- all peoples, unlike how it has only ever been with the west- having their voices heard and determining their path forwards themselves, and- if you want to be a healthy cynic about it, with state entities keeping each other in check (the most prominent, developed, competitive, and powerful of which today is an AES) to prevent the prior order from returning with a different head at the helm.
I'm done with this discussion. Because I've said all there is to say, about it, and you've said yours (nebulously gesturing at "competition, power politics bad, there is no alternative to recreating the wheel," etc). I've already linked other sources, but I don't think you've even so much as properly absorbed what I've said already (in any of my comments so far), it just hasn't been able to sink in yet. Anything else I could say would just be repetitions of what I've already said before, and more to convince anyone else looking in on this conversation than anything else- but I simply won't. I recommend actually checking the sources linked by me- or by the other commenter in this thread in regards to Vijay Prashad and the Tri-Continental- if you actually have interest in seeing it all spelled out for you by people more practiced and articulate in doing so than I am, with a far greater understanding of the subject, and with sourcing and (in regards to their published works) peer review and renown.
As far as I'm concerned, your own take on the matter is little different from the neoliberal "end of history" mentality- that certainly seems to be what you're trapped in- just with a colorful "leftist revolution" aesthetic and idealism behind it all. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only groups you seemed to mention positively (presumably without looking at their actual approach and analysis to things) were now-defunct leftist organizations, the Palestinian resistance who haven't even their rightful sovereignty and autonomy as a state within their own internationally recognized territories, and the "hermit kingdom" of North Korea (for all that that name is deeply unfair and a smear in and of itself- so let's say, "pseudo-hermit socialism" or "socialism, but under siege and isolated from much of the world").
Once again, for convenience:
The video linked by another commenter, with Vijay Prashad on hyper-imperialism
The articles- on hyper-imperialism and the "churning of the global order" (or rather, the anti-imperialist developments of the global south and world) by the Tri-Continental
Geopolitical Economy Report
Richard D. Wolff
Michael Hudson (article on predictions for 2024 and onwards, and describing in detail exactly what I've been talking about whether in regards to how imperialism is being outcompeted as a world system- and only has terrorism, disruption, destruction left- and just how the entire world is positioned, with the prospects for the future, etc)
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
That's fair, I can give finishing remarks as well - I'll make it even shorter.
I see where Marxism influenced you, but that doesn't make you a Marxist.
You don't know class struggle, you know struggle of civilizations and races.
FWIW I don't consider you a Marxist in any sense of the word, either. You use the lingo, but in practice you're no different from an anarchist.
The chances of me not being Marxist is as high as the chance imperialism collapses.
The shelf for Kautsky, Dugin, and Keynes is further down. It should be easier for you to digest.
Moishe Postone might have something interesting for you, when you're ready to come back to earth to discover my support for North Korea and Palestine (clearly from what I wrote, if anyone spent the time to extrapolate and use some thinking skills) is not an anachist position, but is almost verbatim what Lenin and Stalin would argue.