Do you support the BRIC group's agenda of reforming the current world order?

[Bankotsu]

Brazil, Russia, India and China, the so called BRIC are laying the foundations of a political bloc to reshape the current world order that is largely controlled by the western states and designed to suit the interests of the global capitalist financial corporate oligarchy.

Do you support their agenda?




Is BRIC the way ahead?

By Dr. Suvrokamal Dutta

The recent formation of the BRIC between four fastest growing economies of the world seems to have created a lot of ripples in the international order especially among the western nations. The Finance minister ahead of the G20 meeting has met the finance ministers of Brazil, Russia and China in London. Several issues of mutual and international concerns were discussed including the global melt down, recession, unemployment, security, issues before WTO etc.

The meeting assumes all the more importance in the present situation as already two major European nations France and Germany have already made a call for India to increase her contribution in the IMF with other developing nations of the G20.

The Finance ministers of France and Germany in a joint statement has written, “Other countries like India, Saudi Arabia and other emerging markets can be expected to make pledges and we should continue to call on them to join the international effort." Such a demand has been made by the European nations to the developing nations for overcoming the global meltdown. Earlier the Prime Minister of India had agreed in April this year in a meeting of the G20 in London to add $500 billion to the IMF, particularly to help poor countries to overcome the credit crunch .This was in tune with the huge $1.1 trillion rescue package announced by the British Prime Minister then during the summit to overcome the global meltdown.

However for India to agree to such a proposal should not be unilateral from Indian side it has to be attached with terms and conditions which the Indian government in agreement with her Russian, Chinese and Brazilian counterparts should put forward towards the Western nations. One of the important conditions should be wider say in the functioning of the IMF for the developing nations including greater say in the running of the IMF. Another major issue is the issue protectionism and India‘s position on it.

On this count India has achieved a major success as in the meeting of the BRIC, Russia, China and Brazil has endorsed India’s position on it. This was issued in form of a communiqué jointly issued by the BRIC nations after the London summit. Now it’s important for India to jointly lobby with the BRIC nations in the G20 for equitable trade at the global level and not on the terms and conditions of the Western nations within the WTO.

Looking into the new concept of the BRIC its seems to be mutually beneficial for all the four nations to corporate both at the bilateral level within the BRIC and at the global level. India’s relationship with Russia is time tested and historic. India’s 70 % of defense and military trade is with Russia. India has major bilateral agreements with Russia on several fields touching art and culture, education, scientific research, space, nuclear technology etc. Rough estimates of India‘s annual trade with Russia for 2008-09 is expected to touch almost $50 billion.

With China in last 20 years of so India’s relationship has improved significantly though the thorny border issue is yet to be solved. India is already a permanent observer of the Shanghai Corporation at the request of China . During the January-December period of 2004, Indian exports to China grew by 80.5% to reach $7.68 billion. Meanwhile, India's imports from China registered 77.2% year-on-year growth to hit $5.93 billion. The trade balance for the year stood in India's favor at $1.75 billion.. Annual trade between the two countries is expected to rise up to $40 billion by 2010 .

Looking into the bilateral relationship between India and Brazil the relationship has improved and flourished a lot in the last couple of years . Already India is one of the founding members of IBSA(India-Brazil-South Africa ) with Brazil which is flourishing a lot . Brazil has cooperated with India in every forum at the international level under IBSA whether at G8,G20,and G77 or for that matter in WTO . Annual trade between 2001 and 2005, of India and the Mercosur trade bloc (comprising of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) grew from less than one billion dollars to 2.3 billion. By 2009-10 it is expected to rise up to $10 billion .

Thus economically also in terms of foreign trade as well as investments the formation of the BRIC seems to be a good concept having unlimited scope and multilateral dimensions .Strategically such a formation has huge potentials . BRIC can emerge as the most powerful bloc of the Asia-Pacific world if it works out in the long run . It can emerge as a huge antidote against US imperialism in the coming years at the global level . But for that to happen all the four countries has to work together for a common goal leaving aside issues like border disputes etc . For BRIC to become a success strategically and militarily mutual trust between the four countries should be the main parameter .

In a economic and business sense BRIC can emerge as a huge success story and can function as a new power bloc within the WTO, G8 and G20 thereby neutralizing the hegemony of USA and the West within the WTO as an antidote .

Success of BRIC would also have a huge impact in neutralizing the American control on world bodies like the IMF, World Bank, WTO and the United Nations.

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=5941031&programId=1073754953&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL


BRIC to enlist more states to create a powerful bloc to vie with the western states to create a new world order:



BRIC nations to have bigger, louder voice
September 08, 2009

Group of 20 nations (G-20) finance ministers and central bank governors on last Saturday, September 5th, made a declaration to reaffirm their commitment to strengthen the financial system to prevent the build-up of excessive risk and possible future crises and support sustainable growth.

The G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors met in London last weekend ahead of the Pittsburg Summit to discuss how to revive the world economy. The meeting has come to a close in Horsham, southern England.

In addition, the finance ministers called for stronger regulation and oversight for systematically important firms, as well as rapid progress in developing stronger prudential regulation and consistent, coordinated implementation of international standards.

In response to demands set forth by the BRIC nations, namely, Brazil, Russia, India and China, the G-20 communique said it will complete the World Bank reforms by Spring 2010 and the next IMF quota review by January 2011. "Developing economies, including the poorest, must have a greater voice and representation," the G-20 communique acknowledged. For the World Bank's governance reform, it is to be completed by Spring 2010.

Finance ministers and central bank governors of BRIC nations met in London on September 4 to discuss world economy and called for the reform of international financial institutions. For the governance reform on the World Bank, the BRIC nations believed that the World Bank Group also require a review of its capital base in order to be able to fulfill an effective counter-cyclical role; they demand for a seven percent shift in IMF and a six percent shift in the World Bank. Besides, BRIC nations also appealed to G-20 countries not to give up or remove a package of policy measures they had adopted or introduced in coping with the global financial crisis.

BRIC nations have used one single voice to air their views or opinions, and this is of great importance in itself and will facilitate beefing up the integral voice and impact of the new emerging markets and developing countries and spurring the development of multilateralism.

At the G-20 economic summit held in London, capital of Britain in early April, BRIC nations came onto the world stage as "a new political bloc" for the first time when their foreign ministers signed a joint statement. "We are committed to advance the reform of international financial institutions… and we pledge to work together on issues pertaining to energy, food security, education and science," according to the BRIC statement.

The first-ever summit of the BRIC heads of state held in the beautiful Ural city of Yekaterinburg, Russia on June 16 this year had arrested global attention, and the BRIC came to the limelight for the first time on the world arena as an entity.

In view of its birth and growth, the BRIC is absolutely not a Commonwealth body as its member nations do not involve themselves in military cooperation or geopolitics. Since they seek to attain their respective rights and interests and set up global multilateral systems through negotiations, this event of vital significance undoubtedly conforms to a general current of the times in human history.

Of course, BRIC nations have numerous difficulties and obstacles to a varying extent in their development orientation, some differences or disparities in term of ideology, social system, geopolitics and economic interests, and also a number of few practical contradictions or disputes. But all this does not at all affect or interfere with their "equal partnership" and "cooperative win-win outcome".

However, BRIC members still share a strong desire to play a bigger role in creating a new global financial order and counter-balancing the West and Japan and to "have a greater voice and representation in global financial institutions."

Owing to their decisive, pivotal economical scale, BRIC nations have enhanced their competitive stature in the global economy and now been able to vie with Western developed countries, but none of these BRIC members can accomplish this objective alone.

BRIC should jointly press ahead with and help to set up a more rational new global order through much tougher and more arduous work. In the imminent G-20 Pittsburg Summit, the most pressing issue placed before BRIC nations is to work in cooperation and firmly oppose and cope with trade protectionism.

For a long-term point of view, whether the four BRIC nations have the motive, capacity and resolve to transform the global power structure and continue to represent the interests of developing countries with a single voice will focus to determine the future global order.

It is precisely for this reason that BRIC nations should systematize and normalize the meetings of their leaders and ministers on a regular basis, whereas their representatives should improve their representation and more new emerging nations with great regional influences, especially South Africa, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, should be recruited. Only in this way, can newly emerging nations expand their ranks continuously and truly conduct fair dialogues with developed countries, equal in ranks or status.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/6751619.html

[h0m0revolutionary]

The affectionatly named BRIC group all have their own expansionist ambitions and if you think they can challenge with any success the hegemony of US finance capital, you're deluded.

Moreover, if you think the BRIC group becoming a challenge to the global world order is desirebale, you would really have to question your leftism.

There are others forces to support outside of monolithic states. Just putting that out there 0_o

[Bankotsu]

The affectionatly named BRIC group all have their own expansionist ambitions and if you think they can challenge with any success the hegemony of US finance capital, you're deluded.

They are helping to destroy U.S influence in IMF. I think that is a good thing because IMF is a very destructive force to developing states in current economic system.



For the governance reform on the World Bank, the BRIC nations believed that the World Bank Group also require a review of its capital base in order to be able to fulfill an effective counter-cyclical role; they demand for a seven percent shift in IMF and a six percent shift in the World Bank. Besides, BRIC nations also appealed to G-20 countries not to give up or remove a package of policy measures they had adopted or introduced in coping with the global financial crisis.

[h0m0revolutionary]

They are helping to destroy U.S influence in IMF.

No they aren't.

They propose mild reform, which won't be granted anyway. They're asking the force they wish to mirror, if they can be allowed a greater share of world finance capital. It's pure farce, the left shouldn't get caught up in these tedious ongoings.

[Bankotsu]

For me anything that weakens U.S power is a good thing because the U.S is the centre of world capitalist imperialism.

[Leo]

Brazil, Russia, India and China are incapable of "laying the foundations of a political bloc to reshape the current world order that is largely controlled by the western states". They have more issues among themselves than they have with the Western states.

Politically of course, regardless of whether it is Brazil, Russia, India and China, or the Western states, or the "developing states", to the devil with all them - supporting any means betraying the working class living under those states and being exploited by the classes which rule those states.

[Bankotsu]

Brazil, Russia, India and China are incapable of "laying the foundations of a political bloc to reshape the current world order that is largely controlled by the western states". They have more issues among themselves than they have with the Western states.

I supprt them. I have faith and belief in them. I hope they can shake the foundations of U.S imperialism like IMF, World Bank, WTO to the core and destroy it.

It will have to take time.




In a economic and business sense BRIC can emerge as a huge success story and can function as a new power bloc within the WTO, G8 and G20 thereby neutralizing the hegemony of USA and the West within the WTO as an antidote .

Success of BRIC would also have a huge impact in neutralizing the American control on world bodies like the IMF, World Bank, WTO and the United Nations.

How the IMF Props Up the Bankrupt Dollar System

One of the crucial pillars of support for today's Dollar System is Washington's control of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF. The way this actually works is carefully disguised, behind a facade of technocrats and economic theory of free market ideology. In reality, the IMF is a modern era collection agency for the Dollar Empire.

It collects its tribute, through major international banks, who use the dollars to further extend the power of American financial and corporate hegemony, in effect the driving motor of what is globalization...

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm
Gordon Brown Spills the Beans on the IMF

For fifty years the IMF has organized such payouts to creditor nations. Loans are made to debtor-country governments to “promote exchange-rate and price stability.” In practice this means pouring tens of billions of dollars into currency markets to make bad gambles against raiders. This is supposed to avert the beggar-my-neighbor nationalism and financial protectionism that aggravated depression in the 1930s. But the practical effect of IMF lending is to demand that debtor countries impose onerous IMF “conditionalities” that stifle their domestic markets. This is why the IMF was left with almost no customers until last year’s debt crisis deranged the world’s foreign exchange markets.

It is supposed to be merely incidental that the largest IMF shareholders, the United States and Britain, happen to be the major creditor nations and their banks the main beneficiaries of IMF loans. But in a Parliamentary question-and-answer session on May 6, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown spilled the beans...

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson05112009.htmlWorld Bank & IMF: What They are Really About
http://skeptically.org/wto/id2.html

IMF World Bank creating poverty
http://vodpod.com/watch/1241782-imf-world-bank-creating-poverty-greg-palast-reports-for-bbc-televisions-newsnight-

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
http://www.gregpalast.com/failures-of-the-20th-century-see-under-imf/
http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-palast151003.htm


All the instruments of the financial corporate oligarchy that support exploitation, oppression and subjugate weak third world states must be destroyed.

The core of the global capitalist economic system must be annihilated to make way for a fairer system.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I supprt them. I have faith and belief in them. I hope they can shake the foundations of U.S imperialism like IMF, World Bank, WTO to the core and destroy it.

It will have to take time.

Then you're on the wrong site, this site is for revolutionary leftists.

Not admirers of the Russian State :/

[Q]

BRIC's solution to American imperialism is to work together to impose their own imperialism on the world.

No thanks.

[Pogue]

Why would anyone here support the agenda of the leaders of emerging/existing capitalist powers...?

[Bankotsu]

Then you're on the wrong site, this site is for revolutionary leftists.

Not admirers of the Russian State :/

My support of BRIC is to weaken U.S hegemonism and the oppressive instruments of global capitalism which is I believe is a left wing goal - no?

If U.S influence and power weakens, forces of the left will gain. That is a logic that cannot be denied.

[Bankotsu]

BRIC's solution to American imperialism is to work together to impose their own imperialism on the world.

No thanks.

How do you know? Is there evidence?

[Q]

My support of BRIC is to weaken U.S hegemonism and the oppressive instruments of global capitalism which is I believe is a left wing goal - no?

If U.S influence and power weakens, forces of the left will gain. That is a logic that cannot be denied.
There is no logic in that. The far left strives to destroy imperialism, not replace it with another version of it.

[Bankotsu]

Highlights of BRIC summit joint statement


Jun 16, 2009

YEKATERINBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Brazil, Russia, India and China concluded their first formal summit as the "BRIC" bloc of emerging economic powers on Tuesday, issuing a joint statement calling for deeper international economic reform.


Here are highlights from that statement:


INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REFORM


"We are committed to advance the reform of international financial institutions, so as to reflect changes in the world economy. The emerging and developing economies must have greater voice and representation in international financial institutions, and their heads and senior leadership should be appointed through an open, transparent and merit-based selection process. We also believe there is a strong need for a stable, predictable and more diversified international monetary system."


TRADE AND THE DOHA ROUND OF TRADE TALKS


"We recognise the important role played by international trade and foreign investments in the world economic recovery ... We urge the international community to keep the multilateral trading system stable, curb trade protectionism, and push for comprehensive and balanced results of the WTO's Doha Development Agenda."


ENERGY


"We stand for strengthening coordination and cooperation among states in the energy field, including amongst producers and consumers of energy and transit states, in an effort to decrease uncertainty and ensure stability and sustainability."

UNITED NATIONS REFORM


"We express our strong commitment to multilateral diplomacy with the United Nations playing the central role in dealing with global challenges and threats. In this respect, we reaffirm the need for a comprehensive reform of the U.N. ... We reiterate the importance we attach to the status of India and Brazil in international affairs, and understand and support their aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations."


http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-40378220090616?sp=true

[Bankotsu]

There is no logic in that. The far left strives to destroy imperialism, not replace it with another version of it.

Do you have evidence of BRIC imperialist agenda?

Left wing Indian magazine praises BRIC:



Changing order
VLADIMIR RADYUHIN
in Moscow

The SCO and BRIC summits had a common agenda: working for multipolarity and a revamp of the global economic and financial order.


SERGEI KARPUKHIN/REUTERS
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2614/images/20090717261405701.jpg
BRIC leaders in Yekaterinburg on June 16. (From left) Presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Hu Jintao of China, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India.


IF there is a bright side to the global financial and economic crisis, it is that the devastating meltdown has spurred the rise of a multipolar world. This reality was fully in evidence in Yekaterinburg on June 15-16, where Russia hosted the overlapping summits of the Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRIC) and the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) led by Russia and China.

The resolve to reform the United States-dominated world shaped the agenda of both summits. A declaration released at the SCO summit said that global “multipolarity is irreversible”.

Likewise, the BRIC summit stated its “support for a more democratic and just multipolar world order based on the rule of international law, equality, mutual respect, cooperation, coordinated action and collective decision-making of all states.”

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2614/stories/20090717261405700.htm

[Patchd]

How do you know? Is there evidence?
Tonnes of evidence.

China, Capitalist nation, as a leftist I would have thought you knew what that entailed, the desire to strive for a greater market, lower wages for their workers, poorer working conditions, as well as international competition. Let's see some examples of finance imperialism:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/ (China, Africa and Oil)
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=33 (Petroleum Power and Military Might: The Russian Challenge in the 21st Century)

If you believe that Capitalist nations can even be a force of good because "dey dun like t3h Amerikkka" then like h0m0 said, you're on the wrong site.

[Q]

Do you have evidence of BRIC imperialism agenda?
do I have internal memo's of their schemes? No. But it is the natural course of development of capitalism. Thus capitalism, and it's "highest stage" imperialism, are never worthy of our support. These are really very basic Marxist concepts. Here, have a read (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism).

[Bankotsu]

If you believe that Capitalist nations can even be a force of good because "dey dun like t3h Amerikkka" then like h0m0 said, you're on the wrong site.

My thinking is different from yours. Anything that weakens U.S power and influence is a victory for the left.

How do you propose to weaken U.S power?

Maybe there's another bloc I should support?

[Patchd]

My thinking is different from yours. Anything that weakens U.S power and influence is a victory for the left.

How do you propose to weaken U.S power?

Maybe there's another bloc I should support?
So ... as leftists, we fight the USA, as opposed to Capitalism ... amirite?

Maybe you should start supporting the working class, just and idea.

[Bankotsu]

Maybe you should start supporting the working class, just and idea.

Destruction of IMF or its reform I consider a help to oppressed people and I think BRIC is trying to do that.



The IMF has been described by some as a tool of neo-colonialism. That is too mild, as 19th Century British or European colonialism, however harsh, never managed to accomplish the extent of devastation and destruction of health and living standards the IMF has done since the 1970s.

The IMF operates as a supranational agency to take control over helpless debtor states, to impose economic policies that force the country ever deeper into debt, while opening the market to foreign, often US capital and global corporate exploitation.

The fact that debtor countries never get out of their dollar debt, only deeper in, is deliberate. IMF policy in fact insures this. The dollar debt is a major prop of the dollar system and of private international banks. When that debt is repaid, banks lose power and credit contracts. So long as debt grows, bank credit can grow, the paradox of modern banking...

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm

[Pogue]

Destruction of IMF or its reform I consider a help to oppressed people and I think BRIC is trying to do that.

You must have some pretty confused politics if you think the BRIC's supposed intentions in regards to the IMF will 'help oppressed people'.

[Bankotsu]

You must have some pretty confused politics if you think the BRIC's supposed intentions in regards to the IMF will 'help oppressed people'.

Can you explain it to me then?

Maybe I am confused?

There may be a hidden agenda?



BRIC countries call for reform of international financial institutions

LONDON, Sept. 4 (Xinhua) -- The finance ministers and central bank governors from China, Brazil, Russia and India -- the so-called BRIC countries -- on Friday called for a substantial shift of quotas and shares in the international financial institutions in favor of emerging market and developing countries...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/05/content_11998707.htm

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I'm glad that they're here to 'represent the interests of developing countries', just like Labour Parties are here to 'represent the interests of the working class'. We're coming to the nadir of the US's stint of being the dominant world superpower and so it's a pretty linear sequence of events for these countries - as the most rapidly developing capitalist nations - are scrambling to cement their places when they take the gauntlet as economic superpowers.

They're just playing off anti-american sentiment in an attempt to bolster their own PR. The commitments they're pledging are pretty hollow, but if they can succeed in getting people to succumb to the propaganda of their words, it's probably nicer for them. Remember when the emerging America superpower was benefitting the world when it entered WWII to help defeat the Nazis and then stem the tide of oppressive heretic communism in 1947 with the Marshall Plan?

Also of note is their ambition to 'neutralise american influence' on the IMF, World Bank etc. Institutions by which of your own admission are negative forces. They have no aspiration to decrease the influence of these institutions.

[Bankotsu]

The economist disapproves of Brazil being in BRIC:


Whose side is Brazil on?
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14214011


What is the position of left wing parties on BRIC? I have quoted a left wing magazine that supports BRIC.


Changing order
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2614/stories/20090717261405700.htm

and also from counterpunch:


De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire
By Prof. Michael Hudson

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson06152009.html

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

The economist disapproves of Brazil being in BRIC:



[Lula] has shown political courage in sticking to responsible economic policies, ignoring calls from his left-wing Workers’ Party to default on debt. His instinct for rational economics has turned him from a protectionist into a champion of free trade

nothing to worry about, capitalism.

[Bankotsu]

If BRIC expands and forms a bloc that can successfully deal a defeat to U.S hegemonism and usher in a new world order of multipolar poles of power, should the left support or oppose this effort?



It is precisely for this reason that BRIC nations should systematize and normalize the meetings of their leaders and ministers on a regular basis, whereas their representatives should improve their representation and more new emerging nations with great regional influences, especially South Africa, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, should be recruited. Only in this way, can newly emerging nations expand their ranks continuously and truly conduct fair dialogues with developed countries, equal in ranks or status.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/6751619.html
Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Empire
http://www.takimag.com/article/mr._obama_tear_down_this_empire/

De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson06152009.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson06152009.html)

Building a Multipolar World: BRIC by BRIC
http://voi.org/saurabhjyotisharma/column-saurabhjyotisharma/buildingamultipolarworld:bricbybric.html

Commentary: Multi-polar world on horizon
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/08/content_11674932.htm

Change to a multipolar world
http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2009/02/12/66332.html

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Prospects For A Multipolar World
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13707


In general, should left wing forces support a U.S dominated unipolar world or a multipolar world?




The Prime Minister-designate of Japan, Yukio Hatoyama, says the age of globalization under the US leadership is coming to a close, which he says is clear from the failure in Iraq and the subsequent economic crisis. Mr.Hatoyama, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, is set to become the next prime minister following a win in the 2009 elections.

In his declaration titled “My Political Philosophy” Yukio Hatoyama says the world is clearly on a track to a multi-polar arrangement...

http://ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=50872&cid=56&p=04.09.2009


Which world, unipolar or multipolar would the left fare better?

Which world should we support?

What are the analysis and opinions of fellow leftists on the world situation?

Unipolar or multipolar?

[h0m0revolutionary]

In general, should left wing forces support a U.S dominated unipolar world or a multipolar world?

Which world, unipolar or multipolar would the left fare better?

Unipolar or multipolar?

Our aim is to abolish capital not reform it, let states and egoists play the game of who dominates the world, in the mean time we should spend our energies focusing on our class and fighting for the demolition of capitalism, be that a fight under the context of a muilt-polar of unipolar world.

[Bankotsu]

the demolition of capitalism, be that a fight under the context of a muilt-polar of unipolar world.

In which world would conditions be better for left wings forces to operate?

Under U.S dominated unipolar world or multipolar world?


Hugo Chavez is actively forging alliances to build up a multipolar world, it seems he sees a multipolar world as a better world:



In comments carried by Venezuelan state television, he also accused Israel of being part of imperialist efforts to divide the Middle East.

"The entire world knows it. Why was the state of Israel created? ... To divide. To impede the unity of the Arab world. To assure the presence of the North American empire in all these lands," he said.

Chavez is on an 11-day trip to Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iran, Belarus and Russia in his bid to build a multi-polar world and decrease US influence in the region.

"I believe it is a fateful battle. It's either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world," Chavez told reporters in Damascus.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1251804485107


My views are the same as Chavez regarding multipolar world.


It is well known that USA is hostile to left wing forces, so I oppose the U.S unipolar world and completely and totally am on the side of the forces for multipolar world.




"I believe it is a fateful battle. It's either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world," Chavez told reporters in Damascus.


For the sake of destruction of imperialist forces, I have to support a multipolar world and BRIC is part of that force that is pushing for that goal.

I have to support it.

[Patchd]

In which world would conditions be better for left wings forces to operate?
Neither, nothing can be guaranteed for workers' movements under Capitalism, including ease of operation. :rolleyes:


Under U.S dominated unipolar world or multipolar world?It is well known that USA is hostile to left wing forces, so I oppose the U.S unipolar world and completely and totally am on the side of the forces for multipolar world. ... and Brazil, China, Russia and India aren't? Jeez, have you never watched the news?! In addition, it's not necessarily hostility to left wing forces I'm concerned about, but hostility to the working class, and their movements.

Perhaps you believe that just because Russia and China once had governments in power proclaiming themselves as 'Socialists' they'd be oh-so better than the USA.

[Pogue]

Can you explain it to me then?

Maybe I am confused?

There may be a hidden agenda?

Firstly, if they somehow undermined the IMF capitalism would still remain intact so oppressed people would still be oppressed.

Secondly, they'd replace it with something else.

Third, how excactly would they undermine the IMF and why do you think they would do it?

How would all this relate to the emancipation of the working class or in your words 'oppressed people'?

[Bankotsu]

Neither, nothing can be guaranteed for workers' movements under Capitalism, including ease of operation. :rolleyes:

That is not my view. My view is Chavez's view:


"I believe it is a fateful battle. It's either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world," Chavez told reporters in Damascus.




... and Brazil, China, Russia and India aren't? Jeez, have you never watched the news?! In addition, it's not necessarily hostility to left wing forces I'm concerned about, but hostility to the working class, and their movementsAre there news of BRIC states trying to undermine Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia or Ecuador?

Or helping Colombia fight FARC? Supporting coups in Honduras?

[Bankotsu]

Third, how excactly would they undermine the IMF and why do you think they would do it?

There are no detailed reports on IMF reform at the present, so I can't comment. But they intent to increase voting share of developing states, so they can speak with a louder voice to defend their interests against U.S.



Ironically, though the IMF is a main prop of the Dollar System, it's nominally headed by a European, today a German, Horst Koehler, and before him, by a Frenchman, Michel Camdessus.

The real power is carefully concealed behind the facade.

Under the constitution of the IMF, no major decision is possible without 85% support of the board of directors. The United States, which drafted the original IMF charter at Bretton Woods New Hampshire in 1944, made sure it had the decisive veto control with an 18% vote share. That veto remains to today.

Insiders know well that the IMF is run by Washington. It is no accident that its headquarters is also there...

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm


That control of IMF for destructive purposes must be broken.

The BRIC countries can help to achieve that.

[Pogue]

There are no detailed reports on IMF reform at the present, so I can't comment. But they intent to increase voting share of developing states, so they can speak with a louder voice to defend their interests against U.S.

And you think this is motivated by social justice and getting rid of oppression...?

[Bankotsu]

And you think this is motivated by social justice and getting rid of oppression...?

Obviously not. But that is not the point or the reason why I support BRIC.

[Patchd]

Do you also support Chavez's state's crushing of strikers, his support for the women-hating, anti-LGBT, and anti-workerist Ahmadinejad? Chavez is full of bullshit, I don't know why people still even mention him other than in the context of "he's a fucking scabbing, reformist, privileged prick".

Chavez wants US Imperialism out of Venezuala, so he can move to hegemonising South America for his own clique.

[cyu]

if you think they can challenge with any success the hegemony of US finance capital, you're deluded.

If they can't challenge US finance capital, then who can? What hope do the rest of us have?

Finance capital is easy to challenge, because it is just worthless paper and numbers floating around computers - none of it is anything anybody really needs.

If a country allows its truly productive sectors of the economy to deteriorate, in order to focus on "finance capital" - then it's basically shooting itself in the foot. It may work out in the short run, but in the long run, it basically becomes dependent on other economies that do all the producing.

All it is, is stupidity. Not only are the other economies stupid for trading real wealth for the fake wealth from the finance industry, it is also stupid for the countries that lost their truly productive industries and replaced them with the production of fake wealth.

[FreeFocus]

All of the BRIC countries are also capitalist and want to expand their imperialist spheres. Nonetheless, the inter-capitalist conflict this represents provides some avenues that we can exploit. In other words, we don't support this ideologically, but thinking in terms of geopolitics and strategy, it opens some possibilities.

[chegitz guevara]

How do you know? Is there evidence?

Well, they are all capitalist countries who export capital to even smaller capitalist countries. That makes them imperialists.

The solution to British Imperialism was not to support Nazi Germany. The solution to American Imperialism is not to support those who simply want to replace the US with themselves.

Revolutionaries oppose the Americans and BRIC. We oppose all bourgeois states.

[Bankotsu]

So you know what capitalism/imperialism or socialism/communism is?

Do you having any understanding about strategy, tactics, geopolitics, importance of forming alliances?

Current unipolar world and coming multipolar world and the current geopolitics and the moves by the players?

[Bankotsu]

The solution to British Imperialism was not to support Nazi Germany.


Too bad Chamberlain wanted to form an alliance and a four power bloc with Hitler.



Revolutionaries oppose the Americans and BRIC. We oppose all bourgeois states.

So USSR alliance with U.S, UK to defeat Nazi Germany you oppose too?

[Bankotsu]

It has nothing to do with working class struggle revolution which we are here to discuss, if you do not mind.

If it's good enough for Hugo Chavez it's good enough for me.

You should read up more on it in order to understand current world politics.

I don't think a leftist can afford to be ignorant of current global politics.


http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2007-6-27-chavez.jpg

"I believe it is a fateful battle. It's either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world," Chavez told reporters in Damascus.

[Revy]

nothing revolutionary about this "BRIC" it just seems to be an alliance of semi-developed countries (the real "Second World"?). So they replace US hegemony with what, BRIC hegemony? And what does this mean for the workers of the world? How can we not expect an imperialist character to this BRIC?

[Bankotsu]

So they replace US hegemony with what, BRIC hegemony?

Replace U.S unipolar hegemony with a multipolar world.

Venezuela's Chavez Promotes Organization of Gas Exporting Countries during Tour

During a speech to students at the Russian University of Friendship Between Peoples in Moscow, Chavez argued it is necessary for the peoples of the world to liberate themselves from U.S. imperialism.

"Today it is more necessary than ever to say, ‘Socialism or barbarism,' because if we don't bring down the political, economic and military hegemony that the U.S empire wants to impose on the world, we will go towards barbarism," said Chavez, recalling the words of German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg.

"The world today is left with one great empire, Yankee imperialism, that will fall and disappear from the face of the earth, and that's going to happen in this century," said Chavez. "The creation of a multi-polar world is evolving... the 21st Century will not be formed by great power blocs... the world today is neither bi-polar nor uni-polar" as in the 20th Century, he concluded.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4784
I'm with Chavez.


U.S hegemony must die.

So, are there any here who supports the U.S unipolar hegemony? That's why you oppose BRIC?


Chavez said the aim of his tour was to counter U.S. economic and political dominance and promote a multi-polar world.

if we don't bring down the political, economic and military hegemony that the U.S empire wants to impose on the world, we will go towards barbarism," said Chavez, recalling the words of German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg...


I don't think we should be passive in front of U.S imperialism.

[Bankotsu]

We read about it everyday in our media.


But I don't think U.S mainstream media talks a lot about U.S imperialism and their hegemonic goals.



As a communist, I do not support either the big or the little imperialisms.That is quite rigid thinking in tactical sense.

Historically communists have made alliances with all sorts of imperialist forces. Even Lenin got to Russia with Imperial German support.




It will not make anything better for the working class if American imperialism gets replaced by smaller multipolar imperialisms which BRIC is set about to do. It will not make things any better to the exploited workers in Brazil, Russia, India or China if their bourgeois governments get together to form an inter-imperialist alliance.I don't think U.S imperialism should be left alone and not confronted.

How do you propose to end U.S imperialism?




Communists do not take sides in inter-imperialist squabbles, which always lead to mass butchering of workers.Don't think that is historically true. WWII?

[Eat the Rich]

Why the fuck should we support one imperialist alliance, with its own distinct politico-economic interests, over another imperialist alliance? Why should we be a soldier of one boss fighting another over the control of the world's resources and markers.

Bankotsu, you and Chaven remind me more of the social-chauvinist Karl Kautsky than the hero of the working class, Rosa Luxemburg.

[Bankotsu]

Why the fuck should we support one imperialist alliance, with its own distinct politico-economic interests, over another imperialist alliance?

End the bigger and more hostile power, which is the U.S.

U.S and BRIC, which one is more hostile, more vicious against left wing regimes and forces?

That is my logic and reasoning.

I am not a rigid or dogmatic thinker of socialism.

[Eat the Rich]

End the bigger and more hostile power, which is the U.S.

If the BRIC "ends" the bigger, then the BRIC will be the bigger and more hostile. So your argument is nule. Moreover millions would die in the process.



U.S and BRIC, which one is more hostile, more vicious against left wing regimes and forces?

Both. In fact, the Russian government funds and tolerates neo-nazi gangs, India has commenced a war against the local Maosts and China has a huge record of attacking workers movements, rights etc.



I am not a rigid or dogmatic thinker of socialism.

That's not being "non-dogmatic", it's being the lackey of the imperialists. Imagine the bosses saying "we prefer a communist Europe than a communist America". No, they never will say it because they know that their class interests dictate that they should be against both. Why the fuck do we always forget our class interests?

[Revy]

Replace U.S unipolar hegemony with a multipolar world.
I'm with Chavez.


U.S hegemony must die.

So, are there any here who supports the U.S unipolar hegemony? That's why you oppose BRIC?


Chavez said the aim of his tour was to counter U.S. economic and political dominance and promote a multi-polar world.

if we don't bring down the political, economic and military hegemony that the U.S empire wants to impose on the world, we will go towards barbarism," said Chavez, recalling the words of German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg...


I don't think we should be passive in front of U.S imperialism.
You must be confusing Chavez with Lula....

So you would have supported the Central Powers in WWI or Axis of WWII because it was a "multi-polar" world. You have some strange politics.

I support a "uni-polar world", but one where the workers of the world are united to overthrow capitalism.

The wheels of capitalism keep turning regardless of how many geopolitical "poles" the world has...

[Bankotsu]

If the BRIC "ends" the bigger, then the BRIC will be the bigger and more hostile. So your argument is nule. Moreover millions would die in the process.

I'm not talking about war here. Just about peaceful and diplomatic efforts of BRIC to weaken U.S influence and power.

My position is that U.S hegemonism and their aggressive wars must end and BRIC is a tool to be used in this struggle.

If you don't confront and force U.S to end their imperialism, they will continue to undermine left wing regimes and attack more countries.

I think that is a situation that we cannot be passive about.

[Bankotsu]

You must be confusing Chavez with Lula....

So you would have supported the Central Powers in WWI or Axis of WWII because it was a "multi-polar" world. You have some strange politics.

I support a "uni-polar world", but one where the workers of the world are united to overthrow capitalism.

The wheels of capitalism keep turning regardless of how many geopolitical "poles" the world has...

Then what do you suggest to end the current U.S unipolar hegemonism?

[Bankotsu]

We are not so much worried about US imperialism as we are about global imperialism which is completely tied in with capitalism.



You are content to leave U.S imperialism alone?

[Bankotsu]

World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) was the deadliest military conflict in history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll). Over 60 million persons were killed. (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties))

I was referring to the fact that communist took sides in inter-imperialist squabbles such as WWII.

[n0thing]

I love my bric

[Bankotsu]

No. You moron, US imperialism is not the only imperialism around.

Which is the most dangerous imperialist country in your opinion?

[Bankotsu]

Imperialism is a world system. Socialism cannot be achieved by BRIC imperialism destroying American imperialism, but has to to be a working class revolution where capitalism is overthrown.

My view differs from yours in this regard.

My position is simple: Use BRIC to weaken U.S imperialism so left wing regimes in latin america and elsewhere can breathe more freely.

I am curious though, how to you intent to fight imperialism?

Imperialist world system is mainly propped up by the U.S.

If you fight U.S imperialism, you are fighting the global imperialist system.




Globalization is a word used today, often without precision.

If we use the word globalization to refer to the entire process of IMF and WTO-led neo-colonialism under the Dollar System, then it is a descriptive term.

It describes the creation of a global dollar imperium, a Pax Americana. Establishment critics of the IMF system such as Joseph Stiglitz, himself a former Clinton adviser and World Bank official, make accurate charges against the IMF.

They assume, however, that it is merely misguided policy that leads to the problems.

The entire IMF institution, along with the World Bank and WTO, however, have been deliberately developed to advance this globalization of the Dollar System, the second pillar of Pax Americana after the military power.

It is no mistaken policy, no result of bureaucratic blunders.

That is the crucial point to be understood. The IMF exists to support the Dollar System.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm
In a economic and business sense BRIC can emerge as a huge success story and can function as a new power bloc within the WTO, G8 and G20 thereby neutralizing the hegemony of USA and the West within the WTO as an antidote .

Success of BRIC would also have a huge impact in neutralizing the American control on world bodies like the IMF, World Bank, WTO and the United Nations.


http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=5941031&programId=1073754953&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL



Super Imperialism The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance

This new and completely revised edition of "Super Imperialism" describes the genesis of America's political and financial domination.

Michael Hudson's in-depth and highly controversial study of U.S. financial diplomacy explores the faults built into the core of the World Bank and the IMF at their inception which -- he argues -- were intended to preserve the US's financial hegemony. Difficult to detect at the time, these problems have since become explicit as the failure of the international economic system has become apparent; the IMF and World Bank were set up to give aid to developing countries, but instead many of the world's poorest countries have been plunged into insurmountable debt crises.
Hudson's critique of the destructive course of the international economic system provides important insights into the real motivations at the heart of these institutions - and the increasing tide of opposition that they face around the world.

http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/super_imperialism_II.html

[Bankotsu]

Peter Gowan who died recently wrote about the U.S dominated imperialist system:


The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences.

http://www.marxsite.com/Global%20Gamble2.htm


Obituary Peter Gowan Scholar of international politics who led support for eastern bloc opposition groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/17/peter-gowan-obituary





Peter Gowan - an appreciation
The leading Marxist expert on international relations writing in English

Peter Gowan, Professor at London Metropolitan University, a member of the New Left Review editorial board and a former leader of the International Marxist Group (IMG), died on 12 June. He was probably the leading Marxist expert on international relations writing in English, and wrote and spoke with an astonishing grasp of the inter-relationship between economic, political and military power in the modern world. His ability to knit together theory with a vast range of factual knowledge held his audiences spellbound.


But he was far from a detached academic; he was an utterly partisan, determined and vitriolic critic of American imperialism. For him, the central obstacle to world progress and social justice were what he called the “Dollar-Wall St regime”. After 9/11 Peter was in demand around the world to explain why the US had gone to war and what the ‘axis of evil’ and ‘war on terror’ were all about. He claimed American imperialism had made a ‘Faustian bid’ for world dominance, and that military violence was central to that bid. He was also convinced that it could not succeed; that ultimately world domination was impossible by a single imperialist power and that the United States was ‘triumphing towards disaster’...


http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1679
The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Gamble-Washingtons-Faustian-Dominance/dp/1859842712/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252561229&sr=8-2


I will continue the fight against the vicious U.S imperialism, neo-colonialism, global dollar system.

Sad to see an old fighter go.:(

Others will continue Peter Gowan's work to destroy U.S imperialism.

[Bankotsu]

If it is an element of liberation for Latin America, I believe that it should have demonstrated that. Until now, I have not been aware of any such demonstration. The IMF performs an entirely different function: precisely that of ensuring that capital based outside of Latin America controls all of Latin America.

The interests of the IMF represent the big international interests that today seem to be established and concentrated in Wall Street.

- Che Guevara

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

[Revy]

Are Brazil, Russia, India and China "left-wing regimes"?

Chavez supports ALBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALBA) (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) , not BRIC.

[Bankotsu]

Are Brazil, Russia, India and China "left-wing regimes"?



I am talking about latin american left wing regime that U.S wants to undermine, not BRIC.



Chavez supports ALBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALBA) (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) , not BRIC.They have same goals of creating multipolar world. I don't think Chavez opposes BRIC.


By the way Chavez is now in Moscow to buy more weapons from Russia to defend Venezuela:

Venezuela's Chavez to meet Russian president, PM in Moscow
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090910/156078123.html


BRIC and those states that are for multipolar world must join forces, must unite, must cooperate to form a strong front against the current world order.

I strongly and firmly support this trend.

[chegitz guevara]

Fine, go and support that trend. But stop calling yourself a socialist, because what you are advocating has nothing to do with socialism. You're simply a cheerleader for another set of imperialists, no better than FOX News.

[Bankotsu]

Fine, go and support that trend. But stop calling yourself a socialist, because what you are advocating has nothing to do with socialism. You're simply a cheerleader for another set of imperialists, no better than FOX News.

I am not a cheer leader of imperialism but I see BRIC as a bloc that can destroy U.S unipolar world and their imperialist system.

What are you doing to end the U.S global imperialist system?


Super Imperialism The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/super_imperialism_II.html

The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences.
http://www.marxsite.com/Global%20Gamble2.htm

How the IMF Props Up the Bankrupt Dollar System
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man

[manic expression]

I mean, I think this is positive only because it should cause more competition and conflict within the ranks of the bourgeoisie. When the bourgeoisie fights itself, it weakens itself, and when that happens, the advantage goes to the workers. Marx observed that the capitalists create the very crises which will destroy them, and this may just develop into such a situation.

Remember, comrades, when two big birds are fighting over a prize, it makes it easier for a smaller bird to swoop in and take it.

[Bankotsu]

BRIC nations growing in stature as world order shifts

The upcoming German-Brazilian business summit is the latest indication of how important developing nations are becoming. The recent first summit of the four BRIC nations was a reflection of a newly emerging world order.

When future generations look back at the current financial crisis, they'll almost certainly take notice of an important shift in the balance of world power. Because with wealthy Western nations - and particularly the United States - still reeling from the hits they took, the road has suddenly opened for emerging nations to make a grab for a greater share of economic power, and with it, global influence.

For many observers, it's no coincidence that at this critical juncture, the group of emerging nations known under the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) held their first-ever summit.

The acronym was coined in 2001 by an analyst for Goldman Sachs, who argued that by 2050, the combined economies of the BRIC nations would eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries in the world. The bank never posited that BRIC would organize itself into an economic bloc, although recently there have been signs that the acronym has come to represent much more than was originally intended.

"The economic crisis is what pushed them together," said Thomas Renard, a research fellow at Egmont, Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels. He notes that last March, the BRIC nations issued their first joint communiqué during a G-20 meeting, calling essentially for a "reform of international financial institutions." Still, he maintains that BRIC is far from being a political entity.

"The term BRIC wrongly implies that they are actually a bloc in any concrete way," Renard said. "They are more of an informal group within the international forums who meet sometimes to exchange their points of view and who, when they reach common agreement, will defend their position. But while they have many things that unite them, there is also a lot that divides them."

Pressing for economic change

Combined, the BRIC countries currently have a 15-percent share of the world economy and a 42-percent share of global currency reserves. The countries' leaders have argued that this warrants a greater say in global decisions.

Their increased economic power was underscored recently when Brazil and Russia joined China in announcing they would shift some $70 billion (50 billion euros) of reserves into multicurrency bonds issued by the International Monetary Fund.

The move was interpreted by some as an attempt to topple the dollar; in part because the Russian president said at the time that his proposal to create a new world currency could be discussed at the summit.

But fiscal experts say that BRIC will tread carefully where the dollar is concerned, as triggering a dollar crisis would be akin to shooting themselves in the foot.

"The BRICs are putting the US on notice that there has to be a cutback on spending and that they need to get their house in order," Mark Mobius, emerging markets expert at Templeton Asset Management, told Bloomberg. "Any attack on the dollar will hurt them. But they want to make sure this kind of mess doesn't happen again."

Clearly though, BRIC is using its new influence to put pressure on the IMF to reshape its voting structure to better reflect the shift in economic power. Brazil, for example, is the world's 10th largest economy, but has just 1.38 percent of the IMF board's votes, compared to 2.09 percent for Belgium, an economy one-third the size.

China as a superpower?

China, too, is well-positioned to become a greater actor on the world stage, despite its past preference for playing a supporting role.

"China has realized that it might become a global power much faster than it thought," said Renard. "And the US is realizing that now, too. It is treated as a de facto global power by the US, at least with regard to economic matters, with the two countries for all intents and purposes forming a 'G2'."

But while the thought of China as a superpower is perceived by many in the West as a threat, Renard says that it's an unfounded fear.

"The world today is characterized by interdependence," he said. "Even for China, it's not a time to think about individual gains, rather it's about minimizing the damage that we all suffer."

The "rise of the rest"

While Renard is certain that the current trend is from a unipolar world to a multipolar one, he says we're unlikely to witness the emergence of a new superpower to rival the US anytime soon.

"To be a world power, you need more than money," Renard said. "You need military power and soft powers, such as cultural power. And in these respects, the US is still the leader."

Instead, Renard says it's more accurate to talk about bad US policies that have damaged American influence abroad coinciding with the "rise of the rest."

The "rest" not only includes new emerging powers, such as the BRIC nations, but also "non-state actors such as transnational organizations like al Qaeda and supranational institutions like the EU, all of which are increasingly challenging American predominance."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4321650,00.html?maca=en-en_nr-1893-xml-atom

[chegitz guevara]

I am not a cheer leader of imperialism but I see BRIC as a bloc that can destroy U.S unipolar world and their imperialist system.

What are you doing to end the U.S global imperialist system?

If you support one block of imperialists against another, you are, by definition, a cheerleader for imperialism. If you support imperialists, you are supporting imperialism.

As to what I'm doing, I'm trying to overthrow American imperialism.

[Bankotsu]

If you support one block of imperialists against another, you are, by definition, a cheerleader for imperialism.

Whose definition is that?

Who gave the definition?

[JohnnyC]

Whose definition is that?

Who gave the definition?
It's just common sense.If there are two imperialist blocks, by choosing to support one of them, you support imperialism.

[Tzadikim]

No. Simply replacing a Western-oriented capitalist hegemony with an Eastern-oriented capitalist hegemony will not suffice. Both East and West must be united under a socialist world-order.

[Bankotsu]

It's just common sense.If there are two imperialist blocks, by choosing to support one of them, you support imperialism.

Was Mao an imperialist according to your view? He supported USA against Soviet.

http://scottnolansmith.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mao-nixon.jpg

[Tzadikim]

Was Mao an imperialist according to your view? He supported USA against Soviet.

Both Maoist China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were imperialist States, and I'm loathe to call either of them socialist.

[Bankotsu]

Both Maoist China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were imperialist States, and I'm loathe to call either of them socialist.

What was a good example of a non imperialist state during cold war era in your view?


If you support one block of imperialists against another, you are, by definition, a cheerleader for imperialism.

USA supported China, was USA a cheer leader of Maoism in your view?

[Tzadikim]

What was a good example of a non imperialist state during cold war era in your view?

There were none, because there were no non-capitalist nation-States during the Cold War era, nor are there any today.


USA supported China, was USA a cheer leader of Maoism in your view?

The bourgeoisie of the United States supported the bourgeoisie of Maoist China against the bourgeoisie of the Soviet Union.

[Bankotsu]

There were none, because there were no non-capitalist nation-States during the Cold War era, nor are there any today.

What is your strategy of fighting U.S imperialist economic system as wielded through IMF, World bank, WTO, wall street and dollar system?




The bourgeoisie of the United States supported the bourgeoisie of Maoist China against the bourgeoisie of the Soviet Union.

So were the bougeoisie of U.S Maoist?

[Tzadikim]

What is your strategy of fighting U.S imperialist economic system as wielded through IMF, World bank, WTO, wall street and dollar system?

World socialist revolution.


So were the bougeoisie of U.S Maoist?

The bourgeoisie of Maoist China weren't Maoist, either.

[Bankotsu]

World socialist revolution.

That doesn't seem realistic to me as a strategy to overthrow the U.S imperialist system.




The bourgeoisie of Maoist China weren't Maoist, either.

But were the U.S bougeoisie Maoists?

[Tzadikim]

That doesn't seem realistic to me as a strategy to overthrow the U.S imperialist system.

Then you aren't a socialist.

Protip: the American worker is the only one who can end American imperialism, because he is the only one who can end imperialism itself - he, and the Mexican worker, and the Canadian worker, and the English worker. Notice my emphasis on the worker.


But were the U.S bougeoisie Maoists?

Why should they be, if their Chinese counterparts weren't?

[Bankotsu]

Then you aren't a socialist.

Protip: the American worker is the only one who can end American imperialism, because he is the only one who can end imperialism itself - he, and the Mexican worker, and the Canadian worker, and the English worker. Notice my emphasis on the worker.

I also support the working class in USA. I also support BRIC. Am I a socialist?





Why should they be, if their Chinese counterparts weren't?

So supporting China does not mean cheer leader of maoism?

Am I correct to say that?

[Tzadikim]

I also support the working class in USA. I also support BRIC. Am I a socialist?

No, because socialism entails a worlds revolution. At best you are a (lower-case-n)ational (lower-case-s)ocialist; at worst, a mere populist.


So supporting China does not mean cheer leader of maoism?

Am I correct to say that?

No, supporting China means supporting its territorial and market ambitions, in other words, its imperialism. You merely want to substitute one imperialism for another.

[Bankotsu]

No, because socialism entails a worlds revolution. At best you are a (lower-case-n)ational (lower-case-s)ocialist; at worst, a mere populist.

I don't get your logic.

Explain.






No, supporting China means supporting its territorial and market ambitions, in other words, its imperialism. You merely want to substitute one imperialism for another.No. I want to destroy U.S imperialist economic system.

You are passive in front of U.S imperialist system.

You are a supporter of U.S imperialism?

[Tzadikim]

I don't get your logic.

Explain.

You quite clearly aren't concerned with overthrowing the existing world-capitalist order; you simply want to transfer the epicenter of that order from America and Western Europe to the Orient. This is not only non-socialist, it is downright reactionary: Western capitalism is clearly at present well on its way into self-imposed obsolescence; your campaign to replace American with Eastern hegemony would, in effect, bolster capitalism by giving it new blood to feast on.


No. I want to destroy U.S imperialist economic system.And replace it with a BRIC imperialist system.


You are passive in front of U.S imperialist system.You are passive in front of global capitalist imperialism.


You are a supporter of U.S imperialism?
You support capitalism?

[Bankotsu]

You quite clearly aren't concerned with overthrowing the existing world-capitalist order; you simply want to transfer the epicenter of that order from America and Western Europe to the Orient. This is not only non-socialist, it is downright reactionary: Western capitalism is clearly at present well on its way into self-imposed obsolescence; your campaign to replace American with Eastern hegemony would, in effect, bolster capitalism by giving it new blood to feast on.

My agenda is support for multipolar world. That is why U.S imperialist economic system must be destroyed or reformed to support a multipolar world system.

You are reactionary in not confronting U.S imperialism.




And replace it with a BRIC imperialist system.A multipolar capaitalist system for now. That is feasible now.



You are passive in front of global capitalist imperialism. How can that be? I support the forces that want to destroy the U.S imperialist economic system.

You on the other hand do not. You are passive reactionary.

[Tzadikim]

My agenda is support for multipolar world. That is why U.S imperialist economic system must be destroyed or reform to support a multipolar world system.

You are reactionary in not confronting U.S imperialism.

And my agenda - which is the agenda for all socialists everywhere - is support for a world which is neither monopolar, nor uniporal, but which is instead singularly united under a socialist economic system.

"U.S. imperialism" exists only because of world capitalism. That America is by far the largest cog in the capitalist machine is true; that the machine still exists independently of it is equally undeniable. America will need to be revolutionized, of this there is no doubt - as will the rest of the world.

*snip*

[Bankotsu]

"U.S. imperialism" exists only because of world capitalism. That America is by far the largest cog in the capitalist machine is true; that the machine still exists independently of it is equally undeniable.

Any force that undermines U.S imperialist economic system, I will support, such as BRIC.

I am being practical and realistic and aiming for more feasible goals now.

[Tzadikim]

Any force that undermines U.S imperialist economic system, I will support, such as BRIC.

I am being practical and realistic and aiming for more feasible goals now.

All you would do is make it more difficult for future revolutionaries to implement a global revolution.

If my enemy is holed up in one large house, then ultimately it doesn't matter how many weapons he owns - I'll eventually be able to outnumber him, and at the very least starve him out.

If, however, I have multiple enemies, who aren't quite as powerful but who outnumber me, then my task is made infinitely more difficult: I can't simply blockade them, and they outnumber me.

Think about it.

[Bankotsu]

If my enemy is holed up in one large house, then ultimately it doesn't matter how many weapons he owns - I'll eventually be able to outnumber him, and at the very least starve him out.

I disagree with your analogy. U.S is super power.

Military the most powerful. I would rather fight a divided and weaker group of states than fight U.S.

You oppose BRIC, do you support IBSA then?



Brazil, India, South Africa press for IMF reform
Sep 1, 2009

BRASILIA — Signs that the global crisis is easing should not stall plans to overhaul the world's financial system, including reform of the IMF, the foreign ministers of Brazil, India and South Africa said on Tuesday.

"The risk is that, with the crisis subsiding, some reforms will not be carried out deeply enough," Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told a news conference after talks in Brasilia with his counterparts.

Amorim, India's S.M. Krishna and South Africa's Maite Nkoana-Mashabane held the meeting to prepare a summit between their countries in Brazil's capital that is scheduled for October 8.

They issued a joint statement calling for a continued expansion of the International Monetary Fund's reserves and a shake-up of countries' representation and voting rights on that and other Bretton Woods institutions.

They also backed negotiations aimed at sealing a free trade agreement between India, the South American trade bloc Mercosur, and the Southern Africa Customs Union.

The ministers said they wanted to see trade between their nations top 25 billion dollars by 2015, up from 10 billion dollars currently.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i5YEBhaignxCEX9c2jfmCERbuv9w


The IBSA Dialogue Forum (India, Brazil, South Africa) is an international tripartite grouping for promoting international cooperation among these countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBSA_Dialogue_Forum

[Tzadikim]

I disagree with your analogy. U.S is super power.

Military the most powerful. I would rather fight a divided and weaker group of states than fight U.S.

Why? China alone already rivals the U.S. If global capitalism had China as its stalwart defender, backed by Russia (and, indeed, a weakened America), we'd be in a far worse place than having one real power to contend with.


You oppose BRIC, do you support IBSA then?No. Why should I?

And it's not a matter of 'opposing' BRIC and the IBSA, per se. It's simply a recognition of the fact that a mere change in the constellation of ascendant nations will do absolutely nothing to change the economic realities of international capitalism.

In the closing days of World War II, the IJA decentralized its munitions and arms productions and hid them among civilian businesses, which made it that much more difficult for the Allied forces to destroy them with precision attacks. Your support for an internationally decentralized capitalism is much the same.

[chegitz guevara]

There is a difference between revolutionary states attempting to play one imperialist block off one in other in order to survive and revolutionaries siding with one imperialist block or another. You cannot simply declare them equivalent. We do not side with capitalists! We overthrow them!

When the USSR allied with the West during WWII, it was being invaded by a common enemy. To have not joined forces would have been to invite destruction at the hands of the Nazis.

As for Mao's blocking with the U.S. against the USSR, I'd call it a betrayal. Not only did this allow the U.S. to split the anti-imperialist powers, but it gave the U.S. breathing space, and a chance to re-consolidate. The Communist powers should have united behind Vietnam's defeat of the U.S. and moved in for the kill. I mean, hell, the Maoist Chinese supported Mbutu's invasion of Angola against the MPLA! :eek: WTF!?!

I'm surprised this is too difficult for you to understand, cuz it's pretty basic stuff.

[Bankotsu]

Why? China alone already rivals the U.S.

But China cannot match USA in military power.



No. Why should I?

So you also oppose moves for the expansion of BRIC or merger of BRIC and IBSA to form a grouping of states to confront the U.S imperialist economic system?



It is precisely for this reason that BRIC nations should systematize and normalize the meetings of their leaders and ministers on a regular basis, whereas their representatives should improve their representation and more new emerging nations with great regional influences, especially South Africa, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, should be recruited. Only in this way, can newly emerging nations expand their ranks continuously and truly conduct fair dialogues with developed countries, equal in ranks or status.
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/6751619.html

In addition to trilateral trade, the three sides underlined the importance of broader cooperation in the international arena. South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane expressed the view that Brazil, India and South Africa, as members of the WTO group of 20, mainly discussed recommendations for governance reform of the Bretton Woods institutions. Besides, said the South African minister, climate change was also one of the main topics for deliberations, and they would proceed to coordinate their stance for the forthcoming Copenhagen trilateral summit. Meanwhile, noted Minister Nkoana-Mashabane, the meeting would also confer on the issue of coordination between IBSA and the BRIC bloc, namely, Brazil, Russia, India and China.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91421/6747758_txt.html

[willdw79]

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Ithink that a little research would prove wise. You may discover that the so-called "BRIC" is nothing more than a bullshit faction within the current capitalists' ruling class.

The Bric is in no way. shape, or form advocating for the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor are they even trying to do what they think is right. They are simply a class of exploiters.

[Bankotsu]

I mean, hell, the Maoist Chinese supported Mbutu's invasion of Angola against the MPLA! :eek: WTF!?!


That's basic stuff, MPLA was backed by USSR so China support other forces against it.

Simple logic also cannot comprehend?:crying:

[chegitz guevara]

But China cannot match USA in military power.

So what? Is the U.S. going to attack China anytime soon? No. The U.S. can barely handle Iraq, you think they can take on the world's most populous country?


So you also oppose moves for the expansion of BRIC or merger of BRIC and IBSA to form a grouping of states to confront the U.S imperialist economic system?

Do you support Pepsi against Coke? Do you support Seattle's Best Coffee against Starbucks? Do you support Apple against Microsoft?

If you do, you're stupid. And that's exactly the same thing you are doing when you support a different set of imperialists against the current imperialists. Slaves don't become free by supporting a different master.

[Bankotsu]

The Bric is in no way. shape, or form advocating for the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor are they even trying to do what they think is right. They are simply a class of exploiters.

To weaken the biggest exploiter and its system.

That I support.

[Tzadikim]

To weaken the biggest exploiter and its system.

That I support.

And to prop up an ever bigger system of exploitation in its wake.

You're the first truly internationalist capitalist I've ever encountered. Well done. :lol:

[chegitz guevara]

That's basic stuff, MPLA was backed by USSR so China support other forces against it.

Simple logic also cannot comprehend?:crying:

And you don't seem to understand how fucked up that was? There is absolutely no excuse for backing Mbutu against the MPLA. By that logic, the PRC should have supported South Vietnam, because the USSR was supporting the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.

Can you see how stupid that argument is?

[Bankotsu]

The U.S. can barely handle Iraq, you think they can take on the world's most populous country?

In a face to face war in conventional fight, I think China will lose to USA.

No serious military analyst thinks that China will win.




Do you support Pepsi against Coke?

Pepsi does not represents or props up a system.

USA is the main prop of the current global economic and financial system.

[willdw79]

To weaken the biggest exploiter and its system.

That I support.
It matters who weakens them. I will not say more because this is is really an easily digestible situation.

This is like saying I root for the drug dealers over the cops in my neighborhood. Although the confrontations between the two may bring me some form of entertainment or even happiness, it is nothing more than that.

A fight between the U.S. and the BRIC is a fight in which I have no dog.

I hate to get all chanty but, "same enemy, same fight, workers of the world unite"

[chegitz guevara]

To weaken the biggest exploiter and its system.

That I support.

And replace it with a new biggest exploiter. Congratulations, you're the enemy.

[Bankotsu]

And replace it with a new biggest exploiter. Congratulations, you're the enemy.

I don't think so. The BRIC agenda takes into account the interests of the developing states more so than USA.

It would be a fairer system than the current one.

[Tzadikim]

I don't think so. The BRIC agenda takes into account the interests of the developing states more so than USA.

It would be a fairer system than the current one.

So it says, until the BRIC establishes itself as a hegemonic entity, at which case such promises will cease to even be made, much less kept.

[Bankotsu]

It matters who weakens them.

But in real world there are many instances of states with different ideologies, systems cooperating against the stronger threat for tactical reasons.

For example French alliance with Ottomans against Charles V, or USSR and USA, UK against Nazi Germany or USA and China gainst USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance

I am proposing that left wing forces form a tactical alliance with BRIC against the neoliberal order represented by USA.

[Bankotsu]

So it says, until the BRIC establishes itself as a hegemonic entity, at which case such promises will cease to even be made, much less kept.

That is for the future. Like USSR allied with capitalist UK or USA against Fascism.

The fight against capitalism must wait against the fascist threat.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think so.

That's pretty much irrelevant. As Marx wrote, it's not what a man thinks of himself that determines his character, it's what he does. You support imperialism, even though you think you don't.

[chegitz guevara]

That is for the future. Like USSR allied with capitalist UK or USA against Fascism.

The fight against capitalism must wait against the fascist threat.

There is no fascist threat and the USSR was attacked. The USSR did not chose to ally with the West. The Nazis made an alliance reality by attacking all three countries.

[Bankotsu]

That's pretty much irrelevant. As Marx wrote, it's not what a man thinks of himself that determines his character, it's what he does. You support imperialism, even though you think you don't.

You can also be accused of covertly supporting U.S imperialism for not actively confronting it.

[chegitz guevara]

I do actively confront it. I just don't do so by supporting other imperialists.

[Bankotsu]

The USSR did not chose to ally with the West.

It did. It could had fought the Nazis alone.

For example USSR did not fight Japan until the closing days of WWII, while UK and USA were actively fighting Japan since 1942.

The USSR chose not to fight Japan.

[Bankotsu]

I do actively confront it. I just don't do so by supporting other imperialists.

Would you ally with capitalists to fight fascists?

[chegitz guevara]

Would you ally with capitalists to fight fascists?

No. I don't side with capitalists against other capitalists. How many times do we have to write that for you to understand it?


It did. It could had fought the Nazis alone.

For example USSR did not fight Japan until the closing days of WWII, while UK and USA were actively fighting Japan since 1942.

The USSR chose not to fight Japan.

The USSR had it's hands full with the Nazis.

As soon as the USSR was able to divert forces to fight Japan, it did so.

The UK and the USA also threw most of their effort against the Nazis. It took the combined effort of all three countries to defeat the Nazis. Japan could only be victorious if the Nazis won. They were never a serious threat on their own.

In fact, it's highly unlikely the USSR would have survived without the aid of the US. While the Soviets certainly had more advanced weaponry than the Americans, the United States supplied the USSR with steel, boots, rubber, trucks (thousands of trucks), food, etc.

That's the difference. If we need them to survive, we'll use them. We do not, however, aid them simply to help take out their competitors.

And this is my last word on the subject, because I see no point in continuing to argue with a ferrous cranus.

[Bankotsu]

No. I don't side with capitalists against other capitalists. How many times do we have to write that for you to understand it?

How about a temporary alliance with a smaller capitalist power against the bigger capitalist hegemon?

After capitalist hegemon weakened or defeated, ditch the alliance?

This is call strategy, it may be hard for rigid, dogmatic, inflexible, strategic imbeciles to grasp though.

[cyu]

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Indeed the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, but they can still be useful.

Say you're in the middle of a fire-fight in some jungle in the middle of nowhere. Your enemy has you pinned down. Suddenly, a panther jumps out and starts mauling your enemy. Obviously the panther isn't your friend, but the current situation has suddenly improved when compared to your previous situation.

[chegitz guevara]

That doesn't mean you make an alliance with the panther.

[willdw79]

But in real world there are many instances of states with different ideologies, systems cooperating against the stronger threat for tactical reasons.

For example French alliance with Ottomans against Charles V, or USSR and USA, UK against Nazi Germany or USA and China gainst USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance

I am proposing that left wing forces form a tactical alliance with BRIC against the neoliberal order represented by USA.
If you read further into history, you can find several instances where the bourgoisie has tried to team up with communists. You can read about why Mao and those fellas he rolled with had to take a long march. After you help the BRIC, turn around so they can insert the knife, guaranteed. You will have trouble getting many leftists who have studied any history to go along with such a scheme.

If it seems too easy... there is probably a catch. there are no known shortcuts to revolution, the BRIC just don't get ya there. In fact, if you join them, and you achieve your goal of BRIC dominance, some coroner may be digging a bullet out of your brain.

We don't call the capitalist pigs for nothing, they've earned that title.

[Bankotsu]

In fact, if you join them, and you achieve your goal of BRIC dominance, some coroner may be digging a bullet out of your brain.

I oppose hegemonism by any state or grouping of states. My goal is not BRIC dominance, which I think they won't be able to achieve anyway but the reform of the current world order to multipolar world and end of U.S imperialist global economic system.

Here is my vision of a new world order:

The Future of Global Relations
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI12Ak01.html
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Global-Relations-Crumbling-Regions/dp/0230617476/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252822433&sr=8-1#reader

[willdw79]

I oppose hegemonism by any state or grouping of states. My goal is not BRIC dominance, which I think they won't be able to achieve anyway but the reform of the current world order to multipolar world and end of U.S imperialist global economic system.

Here is my vision of a new world order:

The Future of Global Relations
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI12Ak01.html
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Global-Relations-Crumbling-Regions/dp/0230617476/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252822433&sr=8-1#reader
From what I read there all it is, is a prediction that the U.S. will fall from dominance one day. it doesn't avocate for anything to replace it.

[Bankotsu]

From what I read there all it is, is a prediction that the U.S. will fall from dominance one day. it doesn't avocate for anything to replace it.

The author advocates a multipolar world of regional powers and regional blocs all in cooperation and in concert with each other.



The Future of Global Relations centers on two intertwined themes: (a) the collapse of US global hegemony and (b) the rise of a multi-centric world order of regional powers from China to Africa, from Latin America to India, from the Middle East to Russia and the European Union. The ascendancy of these regional powers means that humanity has reached a historical turning point that signals the incapacity and impracticality of empire-building, thereby bringing an end to the search for hegemony and efforts by one nation to achieve domination or primacy over all others. The future of global relations will be defined by a more integrated and mutually cooperative world order of regions in which there are multiple centers of political and economic power. These regional centers will continue to mature under the ideology of “regionalism” and through the long historical process of “regionalization.”

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Global-Relations-Crumbling-Regions/dp/0230617476/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252827094&sr=8-3

[cyu]

That doesn't mean you make an alliance with the panther.


Unless you can talk to animals, it's probably not even possible to make an alliance with the panther :D

However, when you're dealing with more than 2 parties (you, your opponent, and other parties that may be attacking or distracting your opponent) you don't necessarily have to make the third parties stronger, but the third party gives you a chance to accomplish the things you were working on with less interference.

There may even be a case for making the thrid party stronger: if they are about to be defeated, then it may be in your interest to boost them up just enough to keep distracting your opponents, as long as it doesn't distract yourself too much to accomplish this.

[willdw79]

Unless you can talk to animals, it's probably not even possible to make an alliance with the panther :D

However, when you're dealing with more than 2 parties (you, your opponent, and other parties that may be attacking or distracting your opponent) you don't necessarily have to make the third parties stronger, but the third party gives you a chance to accomplish the things you were working on with less interference.

There may even be a case for making the thrid party stronger: if they are about to be defeated, then it may be in your interest to boost them up just enough to keep distracting your opponents, as long as it doesn't distract yourself too much to accomplish this.
Where have alliances with the bourgeoisie gotten us in the past?

Why do you feel that this one will be different?

[willdw79]

The author advocates a multipolar world of regional powers and regional blocs all in cooperation and in concert with each other.
I am sorry, because I am always searcing for unity within the left, but this is too broad and too reactionary to take seriously. It seems like the author is cotent with changing one asshole ruler for another asshole ruler that is more "diverse".

I don't feel that.

[Bankotsu]

Where have alliances with the bourgeoisie gotten us in the past?

USSR emerged a superpower in alliance with capaitalist USA and UK during WWII, influence and power of left wing forces grew throughout the world.

And also Lenin cooperated with Imperial Germany to get back to Russia to launch the bolshevik revolution.

[Bankotsu]

I am sorry, because I am always searcing for unity within the left, but this is too broad and too reactionary to take seriously.

In what way too "big and reactionary"?

Then a unipolar world dominated by USA and under the neoliberal system is good for left wing?

Doesn't make sense to me. If USA is dominant, it will put pressure on other states to adopt the neoliberal economic order, which is hostile to workers. If USA influence is weakened, they won't be able to exert that much pressure on states.

This line of thinking makes sense for me.

This is also the reasoning being Venezuelan foreign policy:


Chavez: Venezuela is a major player in multi-polar world
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/14/content_12048734.htm


USA is now in economic hardship, if we miss the momentum and opportunity to create multipolar world, that would be a betrayal to the left wing cause in my view.

There is no better moment to destroy the USA imperialist neoliberal economic, financial system than now.

[willdw79]

USSR emerged a superpower in alliance with capaitalist USA and UK during WWII, influence and power of left wing forces grew throughout the world.

And also Lenin cooperated with Imperial Germany to get back to Russia to launch the bolshevik revolution.
If you think that the USSR becoming a "superpower" is a good thing, if it did not lead to international Communism, then you and I have irreconcilable differences and we should agree to disagree.

I don't belive that advancements were made, but the advancements that were mad, were made DESPITE alliances with bourgeois factions and not BECAUSE of them.

Please do not follow up, this conversation, as far as I am concerned has been solved.

[Bankotsu]

If you think that the USSR becoming a "superpower" is a good thing, if it did not lead to international Communism, then you and I have irreconcilable differences and we should agree to disagree.

USSR as a superpower was a bad thing, not good thing in your view?

[bailey_187]

Im just hoping that the Chinese Yuan replaces the dollar so everyone has to look at Chairman Mao's face

[Bankotsu]

Im just hoping that the Chinese Yuan replaces the dollar so everyone has to look at Chairman Mao's face

I support basket of currencies, more fair that way, u.s dollar, yen, ruble, euro, sterling and yuan etc.

[willdw79]

USSR as a superpower was a bad thing, not good thing in your view?
This is really my last response.

Communism and imperialism don't mix. Becoming/remaining a "superpower" requires wasteful production. the word superpower denotes a country whose influence especially militarily far outreaches what its population suggests.

Communists should strive to be "social superpowers" by which I mean their social structure and processes should serve as a model for international communists to folloe.

I say this honestly, plainly and with all due respect (and the Russian Revolutionaries deserve much respect) , the USSR became imperialist after WWII.

[Bankotsu]

BRIC is not about hegemony but rather to create a more balanced and fairer world for all states to live in.

Some fear that BRIC is just about weakening U.S power and influence, so they oppose it.

That is not so, it's more about reforming the current unfair neoliberal system propped up by U.S interests.

We should not give up the chance to reform the world order to a fairer one just because of narrow biases against emerging states like BRIC group.

We should support all moves aimed at creating new multipolar world.



Chavez: Venezuela is a major player in multi-polar world
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/14/content_12048734.htm

Venezuela: Strengthening “Strategic Alliances” and a Multi-polar World
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4758

[cyu]

Where have alliances with the bourgeoisie gotten us in the past?


It seems you've misread what I wrote. Where am I actually proposing an "alliance" with third parties?

I am merely saying they can be useful when they distract your opponent. It's like Bush getting bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm betting if he weren't so busy there during his 8 years in office, the Bush regime would have had plenty of time and resources to be fighting leftist movements in Latin America - if that were the case, I'm betting there wouldn't even be any leftist progress there at all today, but rather a rollback to authoritarian capitalist regimes.