“If they didn’t want sanctions they would simply stop being authoritarian”
Tell them that stating a fact and taking sides are two different things.
We are moving to a multipolar world if we are not already in it.
This is the most frustrating part about trying to discuss this subject in good faith. Whether or not I think a multipolar world order is a good thing is so much less interesting of a conversation than how the world might change in response to that reality.
well, we can talk about wagner if the libs want but they aren't ready to have the conversation about whatever blackwater is calling itself these days or all the other mercenary warcrime companies that the "good guys" have.
Blackwater and then
somethousands. Up to 50% of US forces in Iraq and 70% in Afghanistan at their height were private contractors.
Wagner is also used by Russian state media though. So hardly an invention of the west.
Essentially its another way to say "Neither Washington nor Moscow/Beijing", its an accusation that supporters of multipolarism are just supporting another imperialist faction rather than working from a proletarian and revolutionary political analysis.
And that a multipolar world will not be a progressive advancement for the working class or the socialist revolution because the new poles are of the same fundamental character as the old unipolar world, basically.
If they're Trotskyists you can just ignore their criticisms of international relations.
Don't support every US intervention in the past 2-3 decades and you get be a sect on the left.
Do you want to fight about everything stalin "did bad" ever for the next decade? Along with lengthy explanations on how US intervention is good actually? Don't invite the trots.
A lot of them are awful and support just about everything the US state department supports. They also tend to turn into neocons for some weird reason. There are good Trots who support actual communism as well as good Trotskyism derived moments like our good friend :posadas:
It's not really sectarianism to oppose people who oppose everything we're trying to accomplish, even if they pay life service to our goals. So most Trots, western academic leftists, those anarchists that joined Azov, and other people like that are okay to dunk on.
Maoists, who have good critiques from time to time
Campism is more or less the idea that there are imperialist states (namely the West led by the US) and anti-imperialist states (the global periphery/third world/etc.) and if you don't support one "camp" you have to support the other. That's maybe a bit reductive but campism is a bit like "tankie" in that nobody seriously calls themselves a "campist" and it's used as a derogatory term so I won't dive into it too much.
I'm not sure what multipolarism is but I'm assuming it's supporting a multipolar world order where The US, Russia, China, and maybe India are the poles by helping to shrink US hegemony and grow the other poles'. Depending on the flavor of Maoism it might be a little unusual to levy this critique, but it certainly comes out of the ultra-left camp. The argument would boil down to it's pointless if not actively harmful for the left to support Russia, China, etc. because these are not socialist states (according to Maoists) and the working class is well aware of this. These are imperialist powers in their own right and supporting these bourgeois national wars is detrimental to the international proletariat and the revolution.
To me, this seems to be a critique of the self described "anti-imperialists" that are incredibly married to the concept of multi-polarity as a force for good and are over eager about other states challenging US hegemony. If I'm putting on my maoist hat, this is a somewhat valid critique, which I can see examples of in other replies. The decline of the current center of imperialism will intensify the competition between imperialist powers and is not a total victory for the international proletariat because while there may be less interference from the US there will now be more imperial powers for their comprador governments sell them out to. Also I think we underestimate the ability of big transnational corporations to adapt to a world where the US influence has declined.
I would just say that yeah, I am in a camp and that's the camp of fucking hating Amerikkka. Death to America, and critical support to anyone fighting the great satan. Multipolarity does not mean the victory of socialism, but it is the condition under which new advances might be possible.
I've only heard that term from anarcho-natoists or whatever and nothing they espouse ever passes the "cui bono?" sniff test
Pretty much the only people who cry about multipolarity are Yanks and people mentally colonized by Yanks. Even Western Europeans don't cry about it as much as them.
europeans were talking about it for years until shit really kicked off in ukraine and they instantly went running back to the us.
To be honest I think they're just outsmarting themselves with labels.
okay so to understand camp you kind of have to go back to Beau Brummel
Please, Prince Phillipe mastered camp a century earlier while literally in a military camp.
I only take complaints seriously when they come from people from the global south. I couldn’t care about what some lanyard says on his way to kiss Biden’s feet
