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
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
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.
Any conflict, except for the kind that nobody wins (except for :posadist-nuke: )
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.
Also no doubt true
You can pretty much throw any critique of multipolarity out the window if it comes from an American.