I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I greatly appreciate your perspective and clarity of writing and learned a lot.
I am interested in your view on BRICS and other multilateral non-UN multipolar institutions in relation to building a multipolar or at least non US-dominated world. Especially any follow up readings on the matter.
Its obvious that the People’s Republic of China is playing an irreplaceable and honorable part in the global revolution against US led imperialism-capitalism-zionism, and the CPC is clearly on the side of the global proletariat in this global class war. 🫡
But I feel as if BRICS+ and SCO have been dangerously overhyped. One consequence of the overhyping leads to a lot of reactionary narratives (like the one you are refuting) gaining more strength in narrative war.
From my perspective, the power structures in countries like India and South Africa are ultimately aligned with US-israel-NATO even against the interests of the “national interest” and definitely their own people and despite any soft political posturing. Pakistan is its own issue… Egypt and the UAE (Saudi too but idk if they accepted BRICS?) are completely captured by the enemies of humanity and will happily sacrafice all their own “national interest” when and if Uncle Sam asks it. An official BRICS basket of currency will never happen as long as these countries are now participating.
Apologies for the delay in response I’ve been very sick but to answer your question as I understand it
I agree they are overhyped in some circles. BRICS+, the SCO, and similar institutions are obviously not revolutionary organizations, not socialist blocs, and not the next Comintern as some would attempt to make them out to be. They are state forums made up of countries with very different class characters, political systems, and strategic interests. Treating every BRICS or SCO member as part of a coherent anti-imperialist camp is bad analysis and gives ammunition to reactionaries who want to dismiss all multipolar politics as naive campism.
However it is also important to understand that they do not need to be revolutionary to have a positive historical effect. Their importance is that they apply pressure against the US-led unipolar order. They create alternative diplomatic, financial, trade, and security spaces outside the direct control of Washington, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. Even partial moves toward local-currency trade, alternative development finance, sanctions resistance, and South-South coordination weaken the monopoly power of the imperial core.
But again it’s important to remember the limits of such setups. India, under its current leadership, is deeply reactionary and increasingly tied to the US-Israel axis against China. The Gulf monarchies are obviously not anti-imperialist; they are comprador, counterrevolutionary states hedging between Washington and Beijing while preserving their own ruling-class interests. South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, and others have their own contradictions and dependencies. These actors prevent BRICS or the SCO from becoming a unified revolutionary or honestly an even consistently anti-imperialist bloc.
In short my view is that these institutions cannot and will not, by themselves, overthrow imperialism nor can they be called real proletarian internationalism. But they do help erode unipolar hegemony, widen contradictions inside the world system, and give the Global South more room to maneuver. Multipolarity is not socialism, but it is a better terrain for socialist construction, national liberation, and anti-imperialist struggle than a world ruled uncontested by Washington.
excellent
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I greatly appreciate your perspective and clarity of writing and learned a lot.
I am interested in your view on BRICS and other multilateral non-UN multipolar institutions in relation to building a multipolar or at least non US-dominated world. Especially any follow up readings on the matter.
Its obvious that the People’s Republic of China is playing an irreplaceable and honorable part in the global revolution against US led imperialism-capitalism-zionism, and the CPC is clearly on the side of the global proletariat in this global class war. 🫡
But I feel as if BRICS+ and SCO have been dangerously overhyped. One consequence of the overhyping leads to a lot of reactionary narratives (like the one you are refuting) gaining more strength in narrative war.
From my perspective, the power structures in countries like India and South Africa are ultimately aligned with US-israel-NATO even against the interests of the “national interest” and definitely their own people and despite any soft political posturing. Pakistan is its own issue… Egypt and the UAE (Saudi too but idk if they accepted BRICS?) are completely captured by the enemies of humanity and will happily sacrafice all their own “national interest” when and if Uncle Sam asks it. An official BRICS basket of currency will never happen as long as these countries are now participating.
This is what I am thinking.
Apologies for the delay in response I’ve been very sick but to answer your question as I understand it
I agree they are overhyped in some circles. BRICS+, the SCO, and similar institutions are obviously not revolutionary organizations, not socialist blocs, and not the next Comintern as some would attempt to make them out to be. They are state forums made up of countries with very different class characters, political systems, and strategic interests. Treating every BRICS or SCO member as part of a coherent anti-imperialist camp is bad analysis and gives ammunition to reactionaries who want to dismiss all multipolar politics as naive campism.
However it is also important to understand that they do not need to be revolutionary to have a positive historical effect. Their importance is that they apply pressure against the US-led unipolar order. They create alternative diplomatic, financial, trade, and security spaces outside the direct control of Washington, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. Even partial moves toward local-currency trade, alternative development finance, sanctions resistance, and South-South coordination weaken the monopoly power of the imperial core.
But again it’s important to remember the limits of such setups. India, under its current leadership, is deeply reactionary and increasingly tied to the US-Israel axis against China. The Gulf monarchies are obviously not anti-imperialist; they are comprador, counterrevolutionary states hedging between Washington and Beijing while preserving their own ruling-class interests. South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, and others have their own contradictions and dependencies. These actors prevent BRICS or the SCO from becoming a unified revolutionary or honestly an even consistently anti-imperialist bloc.
In short my view is that these institutions cannot and will not, by themselves, overthrow imperialism nor can they be called real proletarian internationalism. But they do help erode unipolar hegemony, widen contradictions inside the world system, and give the Global South more room to maneuver. Multipolarity is not socialism, but it is a better terrain for socialist construction, national liberation, and anti-imperialist struggle than a world ruled uncontested by Washington.