The Truth about "Globalism" vs Multipolarity
History can't be undone but it can be surpassed.
Our post on X appears to have generated some small debate, with people extrapolating all kinds of assumptions about a simple image with two words. While the discourse was unintended, allow us to clarify our beliefs on globalism, multipolarity, and socialism in one country.
The Rise of Unipolarity
What is Globalism? We see Globalism - the colloquial sense of the word associated with liberalism - as the attempted liquidation of particularities worldwide by liberal hegemony. This "liquidation" is open-ended and comes in various forms often at the same time. From 'hard power' such as the bombings of Yugoslavia to 'soft power' media manipulation games, speculation attacks, and NGO activities. The particularities depend on the conflict. The results, motivations, and justifications however are always the same.
Globalism has rapidly unfolded in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The emergence of Globalism is a consequence of the world's transition from a bipolar system towards a unipolar hegemonic system under the stranglehold of the United States and its ruling financial oligarchy. However, it should be noted that the seeds of this phenomenon & system were planted long before the Eastern Bloc collapse, precisely in the Bretton Woods conferences and the following transformations of societal and social institutions. Social and political movements post-Bretton Woods existed entirely in a "Global" context, said context can be explained by the globalization of capital markets and the centralization of the world's reserves in the hands of the United States.
As Dugin has noted many times, some of the first particularities to face attempted liquidation by this new unipolar system were those of the West itself. Traditions from familial ties to other forms of sociality being continually liquidated by the endless march of consumerism, corporate culture, meaningless labor, and mammon. This consciousness and phenomena eventually expanded outwards from the West following the political expansion of capital markets during the Cold War. Everything from corporate managerialism, propaganda outlets, NGO industrial complexes, and the internet entered those countries within this specific context.
Unipolarity vs Multipolarity; An Alternative "Globalism"?
The emergence of "multipolarity" in challenge to the Unipolar world order has been a rising phenomenon of the 2020s. The premise of multipolarity is rejecting the unipolar, unilateral system dominated by the US and its financial oligarchy & satellite states (e.g. NATO). It instead proposes leadership of respective regions by the dominant regional powers as opposed to US interference. For instance, Germany and France in Europe; Turkey and Russia in Eurasia; Iran in West Asia; Egypt and Ethiopia in Eastern Africa; etc. Such regional powers also happen to usually be the rooted, traditional/historical regional powers before modernity and Western domination of the world in the 19th-20th centuries. Some of these states are longstanding civilization states, that are foundational to much of the geographic pole they are a part of, for instance, China in East Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in West/Central Asia, etc.
To quote Alexander Dugin:
“The multipolar world is primarily a philosophy. At its core lies a critique of Western universalism. In this world, there are only Western values. Only one political system — liberal democracy. Only one economic model — neoliberal capitalism. Only one culture — postmodernism. Only one conception of genders and family — LGBT... Multipolarity is an alternative philosophy. It is based on the fundamental objection: the West is not all of humanity but only a part of it — a region, a province. It is not the Civilisation in the singular, but one of several Civilisations.”
These offer competing views of the development of humanity as a whole. Liberal false universalism seeks the complete annihilation of particularities at every level of society. From religious social bonds, traditional cultural components, and their associated institutions to the collective understanding of one's self and one's nation. Within the West the populations are endlessly subjected to endless governmental and institutional propaganda that their nations, societies etc. do not really exist, have no history, if they have a history, it is one of misery, brutality, and endless evil. As the infamous British Witch Thatcher once proclaimed:
“... who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”
The objective of Western Liberal Trotskyist elites is to damage and destroy any social bond Western populations have with one another and to isolate them so that they are easier to control.
The Multipolar view of human development and its view on humanity as a whole differs very sharply. It puts forward the importance of social bonds, social institutions, traditions, and particularities. It does not see them as a thing to be endlessly negated as Western Liberal Trotskyist elites do and it seeks to elevate the individual's involvement and responsibility to social organs and society as a whole. It seeks to build a society that exists beyond financial abstraction.
However, it is important to remember the West is not monolithic. There are two Wests. The Globalist West of the Liberal Trotskyist elites and the traditional West — the West of peoples and societies. The traditional West itself suffers from the tyranny of perverted Liberal Trotskyist elites and tries, where it can, to rise in rebellion. The peoples of the West are not enemies of the Multipolar world. They are primarily victims.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin discussed this in his Tucker Carlson interview, for which some right-wingers wrongly labeled Putin's statement as “Globalist”. According to Putin, the West, and the East are like "two hemispheres of the brain". Each responsible for its own respective duties. The West by its actions, is like the left side of the brain attempting to overtake and "destroy" the right side. One-sidedness. Separating the two hemispheres is not good, that is mental illness, the state of the world today of competitive blocs is “mentally ill”. If we want a “predictable, productive, peaceful world”, then everyone should work together. I.e. both hemispheres of the brain should be connected and work together. It's in everyone's interest. “Win-Win” as China often promotes.
What could be the future?
The future remains to be unforeseen, and it is arrogant to definitively say that "this or that" is going to be the future. What can be said for certain is that there will not be a "One World Government" and the "Liquidation of state boundaries" in the foreseeable future. Such concepts and ideas are little more than a low-tier conspiracy.
What can also be stated for certain is that the effects of globalization and the "innovations" of liberal global hegemony are also irreversible. For instance, the global interconnectivity and global internet cables, etc. It is silly to call for the dismantlement of such things, equivalent to a minority of radical "revolutionaries" among the Bolsheviks that called for the dismantlement of "bourgeois" railways and the creation of "proletarian" railways. Or those who called for the dismantlement of "bourgeois" culture and the creation of a Proletkult (abstract new "proletarian" culture). Stalin had dismissed such ridiculous proposals.
Similarly, many right-wingers, in an analogous stance to some of the radical aforementioned early Bolsheviks, currently call for the reversal of globalization. This is an immature, unrealistic, idealistic stance. There is no reversing the interconnectivity of the world. The future of the world is going to inevitably be more collaborative, more interconnected, and more. This does not mean the liquidation of all to be replaced by an abstract nothing. Rather the consolidation of regional blocs into civilizations. Civilization states are not contradictory to universalism. The form of the connection itself may last (e.g. internet cables/satellites) but the content and context of this connection, its larger meaning, and lasting implications will be radically different than how these systems exist today and how we all relate to them/use them.
Socialism in one country - Development
It is not the responsibility of American Communists to bring about Communism to other countries. Likewise, it is not the responsibility of Chinese Communists to bring about communism to America. Only a nation's own masses can authentically give expression to a real socially guided system (i.e. Socialism; Communism). It is not authentic nor socially guided by, of, and for one's masses for another polity to come nation-build. This is why most nation-building projects by foreign Great Powers have largely failed. Afghanistan is the case of this, where both the Soviets and Americans in the end failed to nation-build lasting regimes.
Another example of misguided anger towards a Communist country engaging in trade is the endless accusations made against China that it "exploits" poor African countries. Let's for instance take a mine in Africa that a Chinese company operates, many of those mines have subpar working conditions for Western standards. The problem is that China must maintain a reasonable and responsible relationship with the host country; in a situation of poor conditions China faces two options; Force develop mass infrastructure within the region of the mines to elevate its productivity and safety or continue with the status quo. The problem with the first option is that for China to do so they have to either directly administer the region with their own officials or mass bribe the entire regional and even national governments to do so, with this, they risk destabilizing the entire country's economy and wider regional economies because of economic opportunities mass opening in small regions, in other words they risk crashing the economy of the country by doing this, the second problem is an open and direct interference with the host country's politics and development. The latter option of sticking to the deals they make with the host country thus becomes the safest option to ensure stable long-term regional growth.
Socialism in one country advocates for thus, developmentalism and constructing one's own country, and through internationalism, working together with other friendly countries for the betterment of everyone. This is the guiding principle of Stalin's USSR, but particularly China in the 21st century. Socialism is to be spread by example. As Stalin noted "in our time socialism is possible even under the English monarchy. The revolution is no longer necessary everywhere [...]. Yes, socialism is even possible under an English king." We must move from dogmatism and a forced linear perspective of historical development and embrace regional and national particularities as positives, not something to be endlessly negated and struggled against.
To end on a quote from Alexandre Kojève:
“Only the Revolutionary who manages to maintain or reestablish the historical tradition, by preserving in a positive memory the given present which he himself has relegated to the past by his negation, succeeds in creating a new historical World capable of existing.”
