This talk covers a lot of ground – Gaza to Ukraine to Africa. What we found particularly interesting is Prashad’s criticism of BRICS and its historical comparison to the Non-Aligned Movement of decades ago.
“Turning to the global south, Prashad contrasts the anti-colonial, socialist-leaning origins of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) with the more economically driven and politically diverse nature of BRICS. BRICS has gained political coherence mainly due to Western economic pressures and conflicts. He argues sovereignty is the unifying principle for BRICS rather than socialism or radical economic transformation”. He warns against BRICS countries that have no commitment to socialism.
Read in The Greanville Post
So, the problem with this thinking is that there are not too many socialist countries in the world. If they want to form a block they should form one. BRICS is about sovereignty. It is mostly oligarchic countries who want to know why their oligarchy is a subordinate to the Atlanticist oligarchy.
Once we have Atlanticists destroyed and this bipolar world in place, we will start getting more and more socialist countries.
Hi Tim: You make some good points and you’re missing the international element that BRICS is developing the productive forces.
Marx discussed this in his support of the rise of capitalism. We say first develop the productive forces and then let the class struggle play out in each of those countries. We think driving the west into the periphery of the world system is absolutely necessary.