Brasilia, Feb 25 (Prensa Latina) Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016) on Friday said that the war in Ukraine paves the way for the assertion of the multipolar world.
You must log in or register to comment.
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
- 0 users online
- 1 user / day
- 1 user / week
- 1 user / month
- 1 user / 6 months
- 17 subscribers
- 873 Posts
- 2.02K Comments
- Modlog
Stupid f@got negg3rs
Stupid F@get removed
I wrote something with the same conclusion here:
https://lemmy.ml/post/181612
Absolutely based Lemmy blogger o7
“Multi-polar” literally just means there are multiple “poles” of power. This is in contrast to the “unipolar” world order the US set up after WWII. Unipolarity is the real historical anomaly here.
There is nothing inherently radical about wanting a “multipolar world.” Do you know why we wound up with a unipolar world to start with? The capitalist international system was “multipolar” up until the end of WWII. WWI and WWII were the result of “multipolarity.” America took advantage of the chaos to position themselves as world hegemon. This is not an inherently stable configuration for capitalism so it’s now falling apart after a few generations. Now we have “multiple poles” again when in reality having multiple great powers competing for power and influence has literally always been the norm.
It is plainly in the rational self-interest of every state other than the US to want a multipolar world, but in fact, all it means is the collapse of American hegemony. In itself, the collapse of American hegemony is fine, but we still should care about what comes after it.
In case anyone is confused, I’m not in favor of American hegemony, I think there is no winning within the capitalist world-system and literally the only bright spot of a “multipolar” capitalist world system in contrast to postwar American hegemony is that global capitalism overall will be less stable. But that’s explicitly not why Dilma Roussef et al want a multipolar world.
A multipolar world has always existed: civilized and non-civilized. Russia was in the middle for a while (which seemed to have been some sort of a ruse) and now went full-on to the other side. Perhaps west did something to prevent them from coming to the civilized side, if so, that’s absolutely deplorable.
Even so, nobody forced Putin to keep clinging to power, to keep imprisoning and poisoning his political opponents. That’s 100% on him.
If Russia wants to get on the “civilized” side they have centuries of colonialism, slavery, genocide and imperialism that they will have to catch up on. Don’t think they have it in them to accomplish this in the near future right now.
You need to perhaps read a history book if you think Russia hasn’t caused their share of all of those.
Yes please tell me about how the Russian empire has committed atrocities as bad as the genocide of American natives and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Oh, you actually mean this is a measurement contest in which only the winner matters?
The point isn’t whether whatever threshold of depravity is acceptable. You described the opposition to Russia as “civilized” which is a western chauvinistic and white supremacist point of view. Only wanted to point that out.
Your point was exactly that, don’t try to backtrack on that. You literally compared Russian empire’s atrocities to US atrocities, suggesting that the former doesn’t matter because the latter is somehow larger, which is actually a controversial opinion.
Try reading. It’s fun and educational.
Westoid mad
Ah, I see.
Joseph Stalin did his best to even the score. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_toll_and_accusations_of_genocide
Lenin and Trotsky weren’t far behind! Just ask the Cronstadt citizens or the Ukranian farmers… woops can’t they’ve all been massacred by the red army because they wanted actual communism (anarchy) and not a dictatorship of the proletariat.