To defeat the state, we in the core of imperialism need to make U.S. hegemony too weakened for our ruling class to be able to use it to hold back revolution. And to cripple the beast by attacking it from within its heart, we need to take away the social base Washington depends on to be able to maintain its global war machine; that social base being the U.S. working class.
I mean, he is still kind of saying that, no? He answers the question “is it good that unipolarity has been challenged?” and his answer is in essence no because it just seems like he argues against some multipolarity in general without considering the material reality of today’s world split into the west and the rest (with China on top). His answer implies that today’s multipolarity is like that of pre-WW1 which is in contradiction with his stance in general.
The question itself is problematic. What does it mean for it to be good? In a vacuum, no, multipolarity is not inherently good for the working class, and the evidence is forms of multipolarity that were bad for the working class. For multipolarity to be good, it must be inclusive of an anti-imperialist pole at minimum and an explicitly socialist pole must develop as well. Becker doesn’t say China isn’t that, but we all know that Russia isn’t socialist so it’s not enough for Russia to challenge the US. He’s correct on this. The situation is terribly fraught right now. We are all waiting to see what BRICS announces in late August and we are all watching China without making predictions or value judgments hoping that we end up in the multipolar chess board we need. Until then, focus at home where you have power.
Listen to Becker’s podcast and it becomes abundantly obvious that Shea is full of shit and acting in bad faith.
I agree that the question is problematic, but he doesn’t challenge it. He answers as if the assumption of an abstract multipolarity is valid. I think he should’ve answered concretely, in accordance with today’s material reality.
Again, I don’t care about Shea, I’m not defending him, and I don’t care what he’s saying. I’m commenting on the interview in question.
I mean, at this point, you’re just saying he didn’t answer it the way you would have answered it and that you think there’s a correct answer and that he failed you personally. Going through life like that isn’t going to lead to good outcomes. Trotsky was like that, too. Becker’s answer to the question was not revisionist, it was not imperial apologia, it was not incorrect. The logical inference we can draw from Becker’s response is that more must be done to secure the revolution, even if Russia and China are bringing about multipolarity, and this inference is correct. So you may disagree with the answer, but it leads to the correct outcome. There must be a socialist revolution in Russia at some point if the global working class is to be liberated. Just having a multipolar world replete with non-socialist powers is insufficient to the task. As socialists in all countries hear this answer, the only inference to be made is that we each have work to do building socialist revolutions domestically so that when the multipolar world emerges and as it develops, it is the workers that drive what comes next.
I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m analyzing his answer in the context of the interview and the geopolitical situation today.
It was arguably off topic and not really an answer to the specific question. The whole interview is about the particular situation today, not an abstract multipolarity. Socialism is present today, especially with China which is leading the bloc of countries struggling against US hegemony.
The question was whether loss of US hegemony today is good, and his answer does not lead to this conclusion. What you’ve said in the rest of your comment is correct, but it cannot be inferred just from Becker’s answer as it stops short of giving an actual judgement on the loss of hegemony in question. He talks about multipolarity in abstract and not the particular multipolary we’re getting where socialist China is one of the poles.
If his takes otherwise are good, then great. Same goes for the PSL. I’m just critiquing his answer here which seems contradictory to the rest of the interview.