So, I've seen discussions on here that make me think most people here think that multipolarity would be helpful. But I saw some discourse elsewhere about the topic and there was a lot of disagreement about it, but most people were against actively working towards it and said that it wouldnt help anything. I also talked to my three main ML discord friends about the topic and none of them really supported it. One was against it entirely, another fairly neutral, and the other said its not a goal in and of itself but would serve a progressive purpose.
(Their positions on the Ukraine war are also more moderated than some of the ones I see on here though? But I'm also very mixed up and confused about what people think right now because some of the things my friends said were nOT what I thought they thought about the situation).
Ive seen the following Lenin quote used against the idea of multipolarity:
But I've also been told that thats not what Lenin meant at all and that he was talking more domestically than about geopolitical conflict. The quote above is also used as an argument against "critical support of Russia", and MLMs (and anti-Dengist MLs, and Leftcoms) use it as an argument against "critical support of China". My friends online all have slightly different takes on the Ukraine War, one sees it as inter-imperialist conflict and "fundamentally similar to WW1", but another thinks that Russia doesn't count as imperliast under the Leninist definition but is still against the invasion. These are both more moderate takes than i USUALLY see here but I know we arent a monilith. The one that thinks its an inter-imperalist conflict stands by this statement from her party: https://ycl.org.uk/2022/02/25/the-central-committee-of-the-young-communist-league-has-issued-the-following-statement-in-response-to-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/ and dismisses "critical support for Russia" as "twitter jibber jabber". Both, however, think that revolutionairy defeatism means that we as people living in NATO countries should oppose our own country's involvement in the war and oppose NATO generally. I do remember getting into an argument here with someone, who has since gone inactive, who felt that revolutionairy defeatism does NOT apply to Russians living in Russia, and I thought it did. They thought that Russia is a national struggle for its survival and should win outright ect. That is a more extreme position than I usually see from others here, and my side of that argument got more upbears I think.
Sorry, I have a problem where i learn best through discourse and rely on people who I admire and think of as smarter than me to help me figure things out. And when they disagree, I get confused X_X. I know thats not the best, but its the way my brain functions unfortunately. I'm sorry my brain is developing in real time and Im not sure what to think about things right now. This turned into a long rant about stuff thats not all related to the main question. But any input or help you could give would be welcome.
Multipolarity is inherently unstable due to capitalism's drive towards monopolies as they generate the most profit, but unstable situations are where socialist organizations tend to thrive. Could the Russian Revolution happened without the inter-imperialist battle of World War 1? Could the communists in China have achieved victory without World War 2? In my view, the decrease of US hegemony will lead to a tenuous multipolarity correspondingly increasing, and if uncontested, will eventually result in one power becoming the capitalist hegemon once again. The opportunity for a revolution to end capitalism lies in the transition period, and we're already seeing countries wake up to the possibilities. As such, talking about "should you be for or against multipolarity" makes as much sense as asking whether you should be for or against a hurricane or volcanic eruption - the pertinent question is what your reaction will be while the destruction is occurring, and how you will organize to rebuild.
To what extent the Russian invasion is justified and/or necessary is a matter debated on this site to this day. At the end of the day, a world where NATO wins is, in all ways, worse than a world where Russia wins, so I am therefore pro-Russia in that sense. That all being said, the Ukraine War should be understood as NATO using Ukraine to try and weaken its enemy. Ukraine is nothing to NATO and despite the rhetoric, will be entirely sacrificed without NATO officials losing a second of sleep over the mountain of corpses. It was, NATO thought, a perfect war - opening Russia up to massive military and economic commitment while not requiring a similar commitment from NATO in terms of economics or military.
If there are two main mistakes that NATO made, it was a) not going into the war with sufficient planning or even understanding of how to put economic pressure on Russia, resulting in frankly ridiculous sanctions schemes that failed to cause even a meaningful threat of internal collapse; and b) committing their own equipment to the cause once the ex-Soviet stockpiles ran out, thus opening themselves up to be militarily weakened, in fact much more weakened, than Russia was. If I was NATO, I would have ditched Ukraine as soon as the last ex-Soviet gear was destroyed on the battlefield and basked in all the new orders coming in from those countries for new orders of Western military equipment. For whatever reason, they did not do this, and it will be their downfall.
They went all in on the Manichean rhetoric and talked themselves into a corner.
It’s the difference between materialist and vibes based order