Unipolar World versus Multipolar world

“Of course, in politics, in which sometimes extremely complicated—national and international—relationships … have to be dealt with.. it would be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general rule... that would serve in all cases. One must have the brains to analyze the situation in each separate case.” Lenin, Left-wing Communism

"it is not the defensive or offensive character of the war, but the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, or—to put it better—the interests of the international movement of the proletariat—that represent the sole criterion for considering and deciding the attitude of the Social-Democrats to any particular event in international relations." Lenin

As the transition from unipolar world to multipolar world gains momentum, and formally declared with the joint statement of China and Russia, the NED (National Endowment for Democracy)  socialists hiding behind leftist, even Marxist Leninist mask are showing their frustration in their assessments and comments.  Their “opposition “ to multipolar world, rephrasing Lenin’s and Stalin’s words ” is based on a pacifist approach which defends the status quo and opposes all violence including revolutionary violence.”

Their insidious, anti Leninist claim is that there is no difference between unipolar and multipolar world order. It is no different than their claims on the face of fascism that there is no difference between a fascist dictatorship and bourgeois democracy. They summarize their claim in different wording but same context;

“In unipolar world order we see wars like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, in multipolar world we will see world wars”.

They play on the  “fear factor” in defending the status quo. For them unipolar world is better choice where one dominant imperial power have a blank check to invade, plunder any country at will, change governments, suppress, and crush any opposition, any anti-imperialist, progressive and socialist movements without facing any opposition from the governments of the other countries of the world . They do not have to say so, because they present the alternative to be  “worse”; World Wars, Nuclear Wars.  Is this a Leninist outlook? Not even close, but it is a typical Bernsteinist, Kautskyist, Trotskyist (I call them NED socialist for good and verified  reasons) out look.

Lenin said;

“Kautsky’s utterly meaningless talk about ultra-imperialism encourages, among other things, that profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the apologists of imperialism.”

“Compare this reality—the vast diversity of economic and political conditions, the extreme disparity in the rate of development of the various countries, etc., and the violent struggles among the imperialist states—with Kautsky’s silly little fable about “peaceful” ultra-imperialism. Is this not the reactionary attempt of a frightened philistine to hide from stern reality? Are not the international cartels which Kautsky imagines are the embryos of “ultra-imperialism”, an example of the division and the redivision of the world, the transition from peaceful division to non-peaceful division and vice versa?” Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

If not all most of the Trotskyite analysis and commentaries arrive one or all of the following anti-Leninist  conclusions;

1.       Socialism is not possible in one country

2.       National liberation, anti imperialist wars are a thing of the past

3.       Ultra imperialism (unipolar world)  is inevitable and good

In this case the first and foremost  conclusion is the third one; Ultra imperialism (“unipolar” or “one superpower”)  is inevitable and good. Since one superpower will be able to crash any and all, this specific conclusion carries within the  conclusion that the “National liberation, anti imperialist wars are a thing of the past” and dialectically linked to the conclusion that “ Socialism is not possible in one country”.

A theoretical look at Unipolar world- Ultra Imperialism

Second world war and bipolar world;

At the very beginning of the Pacific War, Yale professor Spikman in his book "American Strategy in World Politics", published "in 1942,stated that the United States must either strangle and absorb other countries, or suppress and subjugate them, using one country against another.

“ The imperialist pretensions of the American monopolies were aimed primarily at the decrepit British Empire…correlation of forces between British and American imperialism had drastically changed in comparison with the pre-war one in favor of the United States. England, despite some strengthening of its positions by the end of the war, was nevertheless weakened in economic, political, and military terms…  American finance capital argued strenuously that the "American age" had arrived and that therefore the "American order" should be extended to all continents and oceans. As for the Pacific Ocean, according to their plans, it was supposed to be turned into an "American lake". The establishment of Wall Street dominion in the Pacific Ocean was to be accomplished by completely ousting British imperialism from there, or by completely subordinating British interests and British policy to US monopolies, by turning British monopoly capital into Wall Street's clerk. “

In July 1942, the American press published a memorandum by Downey, a representative of the powerful concern General Motors, entitled "America in the Post-War World." Downey developed plans for the world domination of American monopolies. “A real war,” he wrote, “is just a struggle for control of the world ... The British Empire is now as much a part of our country as Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, Alaska…. England now needs a strong partner to help her lead the world. This role will be played by the United States in the coming years.”  (Avarin, Fight For the  Pacific)

American imperialists pushed back the British colonialists in Thailand in where the British monopolies was  dominant with 90% of this country's exports was going to the British Empire. America, at the end of 1945 played the role of "defenders" of the country against the encroachments of British imperialism. It was not any different in Indonesia where the US gave a struggle against not only to British but to French and Dutch.  At the same time, to prevent these  European countries  from forging an economic strategic independent entity, the US  unilaterally decided an eastward expansion of NATO.  This expansion of NATO was the way to keep Europe under the US economic – military control and assert America's dominance.

Unipolar world;

'The end of the Cold War has created a “unipolar” or “one superpower” world, a "unipolar" world of unbridled military aggression by U.S. imperialism abroad.  A "unipolar" world based on "American economic and military power and free will laying down the double standard, flexible, ever changing rules of world order fitting its interests at each given time and place. A unipolar world with American exceptionalism, primacy in where the US not only capable of suppressing every anti-imperialist, democratic or socialist struggles, but also subjugating every developed countries to its will.

US unipolar power was a result of a long struggle against British and French who are now its “allies.”

“The notorious theory of “ultra-imperialism,” invented by Kautsky, is just as reactionary…Kautsky called ultra-imperialism or super-imperialism what Hobson, thirteen years earlier, described as inter- imperialism… what better consolation could there be than the theory that imperialism is not so bad; that it stands close to inter- (or ultra-) imperialism, which can ensure permanent peace? No matter what the good intentions… of sentimental Kautsky, may have been, the only objective, i.e., real, social significance of Kautsky’s “theory” is this: it is a most reactionary method of consoling the masses with hopes of permanent peace being possible under capitalism, by distracting their attention from the sharp antagonisms and acute problems of the present times, and directing it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary “ultra imperialism” of the future. Deception of the masses—that is all there is in Kautsky’s “Marxist” theory.”  Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

Lenin did not deny the  possibility of the "peaceful" division of some regions by  imperialist countries to forge an alliance. " We ask, “ he says, “is it “conceivable,” assuming that the capitalist system remains intact—and this is precisely the assumption that Kautsky does make—that such alliances would be more than temporary, that they would eliminate friction, conflicts and struggle in every possible form?”

" This is because the only conceivable basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of influence, interests, colonies, etc., is a calculation of the strength of those participating, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. And the strength of these participants in the division does not change to an equal degree, for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under capitalism. … Is it “conceivable” that in ten or twenty years’ time the relative strength of the imperialist powers will have remained unchanged? It is out of the question. "

Defending a unipolar world is thus defending imperialism.

“In the realities of the capitalist system” says Lenin, “and not in the banal philistine fantasies of… “ultra-imperialist” alliances, no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a “truce” in periods between wars. Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world politics. But in order to pacify the workers and reconcile them with the social-chauvinists who have deserted to the side of the bourgeoisie, over-wise Kautsky separates one link of a single chain from another... Instead of showing the living connection between periods of imperialist peace and periods of imperialist war, Kautsky presents the workers with a lifeless abstraction in order to reconcile them to their lifeless leaders.

Kim Jung stated in his collective works;

“The United States, in an attempt to realize its ambition to build a unipolar world, resorted to reckless moves for aggression, interference, domination and plunder against other countries and nations, mercilessly violating their rights to independence and existence.

A unipolar world can create even greater obstacles and danger for the people’s cause of independence than a bipolar world. We cannot overlook the danger of the emergence of new blocs in the international arena, blocs which will pursue dominationism. “ Kim Jung

Historical facts have proven that every  forms of popular struggles during the unipolar world rarely seek to go beyond the partial reforms allowed by the ruling class, avoiding armed struggles due to the U.S. military interference in a unipolar world dominated by them. Every  anti-imperialist struggle in any form and shape has been crushed violently by the Unipolar world power, the US, and its vassals. Like the Nuclear bombing of Japan had nothing to do with winning the war against Japan but a warning against the Soviets, brutal murder of Kaddafi, hanging of their once-puppet Saddam were warning messages to any and all those who goes and struggles against the interests of US.  Only someone who lives in a fantasy world can deny the fact that this warning  through militarily crashing every opposition and brutally murdering the leaders had decisive affects on the movements, parties, leaders of every country.  It was at this time that most anti-imperialist, revolutionary organizations, and parties turned in to passive  reformist ones. Here is a list of meddling and wars of the US;

1945–1948: South Korea, 1947–1949: Greece , 1948: Costa Rica, 1949–1953: Albania, 1950–1953: Burma and China, 1952: Egypt, 1952: Guatemala, 1952–1953: Iran, 1954: Guatemala, 1956–1957: Syria, 1957–1959: Indonesia, 1959: Iraq, 1959–1963: South Vietnam, 1959–1962: Cuba, 1959: Cambodia, 1960–1965: Congo-Leopoldville, 1960: Laos, 1961: Dominican Republic, 1963: Iraq, 1964: Brazil, 1965–1967: Indonesia, 1970–1979: Cambodia, 1970–1973: Chile, 1971: Bolivia, 1974–1991: Ethiopia, 1975–1991: Angola, 1975–1999: East Timor, 1976: Argentina, 1979–1992: Afghanistan, 1980–1989: Poland, 1981–1982: Chad, 1981–1990: Nicaragua, 1983: Grenada, 1989–1994: Panama, 1986–1991: Soviet Union, 1991: Iraq, 1991: Haiti, 1992–1996: Iraq, 1994–1995: Haiti, 1996–1997: Zaire, 2000: FR Yugoslavia, 2001–2021: Afghanistan, 2003–2021: Iraq, 2004: Ukraine, 2005: Kyrgyzstan, 2006–2007: Palestinian territories, 2005–2009: Syria, 2011: Libya, 2012–2017: Syria, 2019–2022: Venezuela.. Foreign electoral intervention is countless to list here.

It is important to note that the unipolar imperialist aggression to Libya, a modern country with immense social benefits, distributed shares from the petroleum income was not a coincidence. What the BRICS is trying to accomplish today, Qaddafi of Libya was trying to accomplish then ; de-dollarization of trade, especially that of Oil trade. In the name of “democracy” US-West send that country to slave age where men and women are being traded.

Currently it is evident in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Myanmar, Taiwan and meddling in the elections through NED and its NGOs in most Asian countries.

A unipolar world is a world where small and large all countries are one way or another subjugated to  the demands and interests of the dominant world power. A world where, if not all, most small and developing countries are ruled by the NED and/or its NGOs and such other organizations behind the curtain. It had come to a point where the US did not even have to ask them to raise their hands in the UN in favor of the US, it was an expected spontaneous reaction of them like puppets with the strings attached to the US.  When the US raised its hands, they automatically raised their hands, when US did not, they did not. Fear and loss of confidence in the majority of the countries to raise their voice never mind taking action against the will of the US.

Now, after looking at the concrete  history of unipolar world dominated by the US, insidiously defending unipolar world is not the theory and stand of Marxist Leninists but of reactionaries in any form and shape regardless of the leftists or even Leninists masks they have on.  The phrased assessment of the NED socialists; “In unipolar world order we see wars like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, in multipolar world order we will see world wars” is nothing but “pacifying the workers and reconcile them with the social-chauvinists who have deserted to the side of the bourgeoisie” through fear mongering , fear of World wars which they automatically assume will be nuclear wars.

Multi polar world order with non-alignment of countries

“There is no change in the world people’s aspiration” said Kim Jung,” to build a free, peaceful new world, and advancing towards independence and peace is the fundamental historical tide that cannot be turned back. Non-alignment, which regards independence as its lifeblood, must invariably uphold its fundamental ideal and principles. In order to deal with the changing situation effectively, the Non-aligned Movement must, of course, continually improve the methods of its activity, but it must not stray from its fundamental ideal and principles. However complex the situation, the non-aligned countries must, without vacillation, remain loyal to the fundamental ideal and principles of Non-alignment and combat all attempts to sway the movement from its original ideal and principles. They must continue to uphold the banner of anti-imperialist independence and peace in opposition to war, and struggle vigorously for the building of a free and peaceful new world which is without domination and subjugation, aggression, and war. “

Despite some of the contradicting statements, Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century stated that “ The Party promoted the development of a multipolar world and the democratization of international relations and pushed economic globalization in the direction toward common prosperity. China took an unequivocal stand against hegemonism and power politics, endeavored to safeguard the interests of developing countries, worked for a new international political and economic order that would be fair and equitable, and promoted lasting peace and common prosperity in the world.”  I quoted this not because it is entirely correct for a Marxist Leninist, but as the background idea and followed by action of building multipolar world order that fits the economic interests of a country which  produces goods, builds infrastructure and its economy heavily depends on the export of goods which requires a stable world as opposed to the dominant  country whose economy is based primarily on military industry, on a war economy which requires an unstable world.

Before I quote Stalin, in order to debunk the demagogy and sophistry of those Pro-status quo, pro unipolar, pro US-West fake “socialists” who claims 2^nd WW was an imperialist war against Soviets, here is what Stalin says;

“These comrades are mistaken…the Second World War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries.” Stalin, Inevitability of wars between capitalist countries 

Analysing the second world war Stalin comparing the imperialist countries noted ; “

“as distinct from the preceding crisis, the present crisis is not universal, but as yet involves chiefly the economically powerful (nonaggressive) countries which have not yet placed themselves on a war economy basis. “

His assessment is fully applicable to the current condition and situation especially related to the economic crises of the aggressive countries;

“As regards the aggressive countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, which have already reorganized their economies on a war footing, they, because of the intense development of their war industry, are not yet experiencing a crisis of over-production, although they are approaching it. This means that by the time the economically powerful, non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the phase of crisis, the aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material in the course of the war fever, are bound to enter a phase of very severe crisis.”

It is not secret that the US is temporarily delaying its economic crises by shifting the burden to Europe. European countries are in a deepening economic crises.

It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become a universal, world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily Britain, France, and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.

Stalin continues his analysis which is being insistently and consistently disregarded either due to lack of  laziness in study and research of existing conditions but applying readymade schemes to all, or insidiously concealing his assessments in order to attack Stalin and/or insinuating that Stalin was wrong. Stalin continues;

“Thus we are witnessing an open redivision of the world and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain connivance, on their part. Incredible, but true.    To what are we to attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new imperialist war?

How is it that the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily and without resistance abandoned their positions and their obligations to please the aggressors?

Is it to be attributed to the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Of course not! Combined, the non-aggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist states, both economically and militarily. 

The situation was not so much different  up to and before the Ukraine war’s early stages.

To what then are we to attribute the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors? It might be attributed, for example, to the fear that a revolution might break out if the non-aggressive states were to go to war and the war were to assume world-wide proportions.  But at present this is not the sole or even the chief reason. The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly Britain and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of "neutrality." , ( Stalin Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B) June 27,1930)

“Economically powerful non-aggressive countries which have not yet placed themselves on a war economy basis. “” like China and Russia was following an appeasement policy. Russia, who even applied to be a member of NATO but rejected, has woken up from its illusion on US and West with the war in Ukraine. China is in the process of waking up from its appeasing policy. This wake up was the start of the multipolar world order which was formally declared at Putin’s visit to China with the joint declaration.

Unlike most sophists’ claim, a peace as a result of the multipolar world,  even it is short term, is in the interests of the people and of their struggles. Unlike the sophists who repeat the memorized slogans, Stalin says;

“ if it succeeds result in preventing a particular war, in its temporary postponement, in the temporary preservation of a particular peace, in the resignation of a bellicose government and its supersession by another that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. That, of course, will be good. Even very good.

Yet, Stalin continues;

 “But all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will not be enough, because, for all the successes of the peace movement, imperialism will remain, continue in force -- and, consequently, the inevitability of wars will also continue in force. To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism.” Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the  U.S.S.R.

Conclusion

Just because the wars in the imperialist era is inevitable does not mean we have to defend unipolar world order against the multipolar world order due to the fear of a third world war. That approach is pro status quo, chauvinistic, pro US-West petty bourgeois one at best, or of NED puppets as worst. While claiming that as long as capitalism exists wars are inevitable on one side, and using the possibility of a world war in the case of a multipolar world order on the other, is oxymoron. It is fear mongering to serve their pacifist, conformist stands.

During the phase of unipolar world, the United States government, overtly and covertly, has participated and interfered in the replacement of many foreign governments, taken military actions for regime change, shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, suppressed many socialist, anti imperialist, democratic struggles. All because there was no other power to challenge it or the existing  few ones had an appeasement policy toward the aggressions.

Even at the initial stage of the multipolar world anti-imperialist coups mushroomed, Burkina Faso, Niger Mali coups with other counter coups in various countries. First time France’s colonial and neo-colonial rule has been challenged. Uprising in its colony, thousands of miles away Caledonia, is still continuing and will continue. The uprisings of NED in Georgia, Armenia, Myanmar, provocations in Balkans, in South East Asia, Latin America is not going smoothly and as it is expected.  The “transparency” laws for the NED extensions NGOs enacted in countries of South East Asia is spreading and reflected itself in Georgia.

Since wars are inevitable, Lenin’s “little wars theory”  is still valid. This helps to understand the essence of small wars and the danger they pose to social progress. Small wars are not limited by their scale and technical methods of warfare. A small imperialist war can develop into a world war. That is always a possibility whether it is a unipolar or multipolar world order.  The fear mongering technique is the pro-status quo, conformist, pacifist , NED socialist stand in order to conceal their true colors.

It is a common reformist, pacifist approach to the questions. Similarly they do not see any difference between a fascist, monarchist state form of democracy and bourgeois democracy, they disregard the interest of the laboring people and of their interests. They only repeat Engels’ words “the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy.” However, quoting Engels, Lenin states that “by no means signifies that the form of oppression makes no difference to the proletariat, as some anarchists “teach”. A wider, freer, and more open form of class struggle and of class oppression vastly assists the proletariat in its struggle for the abolition of classes in general.”

Even those with the best intentions make the mistake of correlation and disregard the interests of the laboring people and of their struggle -either anti-imperialist or socialist. Which one is better for the people a unipolar world order where every struggle is crashed by a powerful international  enemy without any opposition, or a multipolar world order where the contradictions between them can be used and utilized for the interests of people? In reference to benefiting and using the contradictions between the bourgeoisie stated that those who cannot make a connections applying the dialectics of Marxism are dead to Marxism.

What will be the end of this struggle between the aggressive and peace-loving forces?

Peace will be preserved and consolidated if the peoples will take the cause of preserving peace into their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may become inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war.

That is why the wide campaign for the maintenance of peace as a means of exposing the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now of first-rate importance. Stalin, When is war not inevitable?

Who are the current war mongers?   

Erdogan A

May 31, 2024

Thailand