Maybe as an experiment, let's try to understand each other's positions ITT and not have the same boring old arguments (because they're boring).

Edit - nice discussion everyone, thanks <3. I'm seeing a lot of responses from ML and not many from anarchists, but maybe I'm the only anarchist on this site lol

  • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    ML's grasp on antiimperialism (and geopolitics in general) is way firmer than 90% of anarchists'. Anarchists have to understand (and at the end of the 90's-start of the 00's they seemingly did) that global capitalism is built around the United States so it should be the priority to bring it down, and that saying this is not simply saying "america bad" but "in the system that is called global capitalism the #1 power that will do anything to quell any kind of sizable leftist movements in blood, regardless of it's tendency, is the United States so it's essential to strip them of the power to do this in order to establish anarchism/communism."

    I don't agree with ml's that the fall of the US would bring us that closer to the goal they think (thinking that Russia is honest about multipolarism and wouldn't try to place itself in the place of global hegemon is ridiculously naive imo), but they are absolutely right about that bringing about the collapse of the States should be the goal of every leftist.

    • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      thinking that Russia is honest about multipolarism and wouldn’t try to place itself in the place of global hegemon is ridiculously naive imo

      Matt Cushbomb critiqued the idea of multipolarity along these lines recently, basically pointing out that, even with a defeated/defanged US, Russia will inevitably clash with China over their developmental models, continuing the danger of nuclear conflict. Principled anti-imperialism should be just that, based around principles, rather than a permanent allegiance to something like BRICS which, while useful under American hegemony, is riddled with contradictions

      • American_Communist22 [she/her,comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don't know who doesn't acknowledge that, but I gotta say: The RF is way easier to fight than the USA. China will undoubtedly win any sort of conflict with them.

          • American_Communist22 [she/her,comrade/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Maybe, but its also easier to flip russia than the USA. Russia has a strong Communist past, and also a strong existing Soviet sensibility. China could easily nudge that into a good movement. The real problem I think would be India or Brazil. But even those each have pretty strong leftist movements that are at least sympathetic to China. The USA has no such thing, and is the strongest fascist state in existence, with a firm hold on its brainwashed populace.

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Matt Cushbomb critiqued the idea of multipolarity along these lines recently, basically pointing out that, even with a defeated/defanged US, Russia will inevitably clash with China over their developmental models, continuing the danger of nuclear conflict.

        You can pretty much throw any critique of multipolarity out the window if it comes from an American.