Multipolarity

 A not uncommon left (specifically an idealist utopian socialist) idea is that Unipolarity vs Multipolarity is not a "left" concern, it's merely about how many oppressors there are.

My claim is that a scientific materialist view would be more that devolution from Unipolarity to Multipolarity is the critical first step in ending global imperialism and diminishing the power of capital.  Unipolarity is the highest, and the ultimate form of global imperialism.  Every step back is collapse from that zenith.

The power of a Single Oppressor is amazing.  A Single Oppressor can do what the US did from 1945 to 2022 and still.  Engage the world in endless regime change wars, coups, interference, and financial controls.  When there is no alternative, there is No Alternative.  A libertarian friend confessed to me in 1991 that the collapse of the Soviet Union as a slightly "competitive system" would mean the gloves were now off for greater oppression in the US.  And to an even greater degree for the entire world.  The New World Order of GHW Bush restored direct US military aggression (and not just non-military interference operatios) all over the world that had been somewhat muted by the Vietnam Experience.  So we had real military wars in Panama, Iraq War One, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq War Two, Syria, and Libya. 

In principle the collapse of Unipolarity could happen via internal or external mechanism.  Internally, of course, is preferable.  But it is, quite probably, more unlikely.

I welcome Multipolarity and propose making the USA a militarily unaligned "neutral" nation whose security forces are only concerned with protection against domestic attacks, not preserving US bankers rights to exploit at most favorable terms across the world while enriching domestic weapons makers (the function of the endless war machine, as well described by Smedley Butler).

It's hardly a new idea, that great socialist slave holding President George Washington well enunciated it as no "foreign entanglements," with a later nod from pro-big-business Eisenhower.

I am always asked and until recently I have waffled.  I am indeed now claiming to follow my same principle in WWII, though it sadly aligns me America Firsters.  (My mother was an unrepentant American Firster all her life, and tortured me with Rush Limbaugh.)  I respect the argument that Nazism was a unique evil that was world threatening.  My argument is that WWII simply replaced Germany by the USA as the ultimate oppressor.  If we had stayed out, possibly unipolarity would never have occurred.  The worst of the war occurred because the US entered it.  It was actually won by Soviet sacrifices, but US took the mantle and has run roughshod over the world...  The racist spirit of Nazism and the need/motive/ability to be world hegemon moved to the USA, which has had far greater resources to sustain it for 77 years.  I suppose, there is the possibility that if the Soviets had lost because of the lesser threat to the Nazis from US "neutrality," there could have been a virtual unipolarity of capital, but it would not be as powerful as what the US has enjoyed since.

America is too big, too rich, to be aligned in the affairs of other countries.  Because of its size and wealth, it's too reckless and heavy handed in world affairs.

It's ultimately with neutrality we free ourselves from self-sacrifice over nothing (or less than nothing after nothing was bombed).  We save more, and we can still always get a good deal, simply by being big and rich.  We quit being the pariah state we've become to over half the world's population.

End state ideal "Communism" cannot be achieved in a war economy, where the goods and services are largely of military nature.  You can't meet everyone's needs that way.

The US domestically is very self-secure from external threats and doesn't require the vast quantities of money on increasingly fancy and dysfunctional weapons systems for wars we hope not ever to fight.  And those resources should be directed ASAP to the construction of nation preserving renewable energy systems.

Eco-Communism and Unipolarity are incompatible.  Eco-Communism is only possible with Neutrality.  Neutrality means not parroting the Empire's Lies and castigating the Empire's Enemies.  It means sympathizing with the Empire's enemies and honoring their efforts in the dangerous step back from Unipolarity.  (Such "honoring" might best take the form I too rarely get around to: writing to editors and representatives, pressing for useful negotiation not weapons and war, and elimination of foreign entanglements.)