Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

1421 readers

1 users here now

The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

DashRendar@lemmygrad.ml

I don't understand the appeal of "multipolarity" (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Lilybump@lemmygrad.ml to c/leftistinfighting@lemmygrad.ml

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Personally, I fail to see why many Marxist-Leninists support multipolarity. The primary goal of the Leninist movements has always been "workers of the world unite!" and not "non-US-aligned countries unite!".

To be clear, in saying this, I am not endorsing US-led unipolarity. I am just saying that multipolarity is not inherently good as some MLs suggest. For example, the world in 1914 and 1939 were without a doubt multipolar, and those both resulted in brutal world wars which killed millions.

Could somebody explain why people support multipolarity so much?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lilybump@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As I understand it, Mao held that "3rd world states" (a term he never used), or bureaucrat-capitalist nations, must undergo a period of New Democracy.

Enterprises, such as banks, railways and airlines, whether Chinese-owned or foreign-owned, which are either monopolistic in character or too big for private management, shall be operated and administered by the state, so that private capital cannot dominate the livelihood of the people: this is the main principle of the regulation of capital. —Mao Zedong, On New Democracy

Where did Mao Zedong state that to build socialism, a country should mass-export private capital abroad?

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Maybe I'm miss attributing this to Mao. However, the strategy employed by the Sinos is described by historian Jeremy Friedman. He described it as a Moa position if I recall. You can hear him talk at length about the Sino Soviet split here:

https://americanprestige.supportingcast.fm/listen/american-prestige-1/unlocked-the-sino-soviet-split-primer-w-jeremy-friedman

https://americanprestige.supportingcast.fm/listen/american-prestige-1/e207-the-sino-soviet-split-pt-1-w-jeremy-friedman

https://americanprestige.supportingcast.fm/listen/american-prestige-1/e207-the-sino-soviet-split-pt-2-w-jeremy-friedman

Part of the split according to Jeremy was due to this conflict in strategy regarding the third world and developing nations.

I have his book about the split, Shadow Cold War: The Sino-Soviet Competition for the Third World, in my reading list, but haven't gotten to it yet.

That said, the belt and road sounds very rooted in what you quoted from Mao.