In a world where perspectives on globalization often clash, John Feffer’s recent article has stirred quite the conversation. While it’s tempting to let readers delve into this piece on globalism and multipolarity, a few essential points warrant exploration.
Defending Globalism
Feffer stands firmly in defense of globalists and globalism, which contrasts with the critiques raised by others, including JonnyJames. To Jonny, globalism suggests harmonious collaboration among nations. However, critics often use the term “globalist” to signify the elite class that benefits from unrestricted capital mobility—where multinational corporations thrive at the expense of workers and local environments. Anti-globalists view entities like the World Economic Forum as emblematic of these elite interests.
The Putin Perspective
Next, it’s worth mentioning Feffer’s fixation on Putin, which appears exaggerated. He seems to view Russia’s actions through a biased lens, resulting in a lack of balanced discourse.
Critique of BRICS
Feffer’s examination of BRICS is slippery and inconsistent, primarily criticizing it for harboring states he labels as authoritarian, with Russia at the forefront. Yet, the U.S. is equally chummy with various Gulf monarchies, and both the U.S. and the EU are veering toward authoritarianism themselves. For instance, as a tourist in Southeast Asia, I’m less concerned about having my devices searched than I am when returning to the U.S.
Skeptical of BRICS myself, I see value in its aim to bolster bilateral trade, a vital step in escaping economic sanctions tied to the U.S. dollar. Yet, some observers, including Chas Freeman and Mohammed Marandi, have suggested that BRICS functions more like a concept than a cohesive organization. A longer critique can be found in the September post, “BRICS Are the New Defenders of Free Trade, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank”.
Rhetoric and Reality
Feffer’s rhetorical approach can be misleading. He casts globalism as a promoter of human rights rather than as a new form of economic colonialism. Notably, he never sufficiently defines globalism, implying that it must be positive simply because it faces opposition from Trump and his supporters. Following his discussion on BRICS, he writes:
According to such a scenario, the BRICS would sooner or later replace the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), dethrone the dollar, and remake the entire global economy.
However, later in the piece, he acknowledges:
The conservative nature of the BRICS is perhaps most strikingly on display in its embrace of the global capitalist economy. Its July 2025 statement enthusiastically endorsed both the IMF and the World Bank, placing the World Trade Organization at the core of the global trading framework.
This raises the question: Is Feffer suggesting that BRICS members are hypocritical for attempting to reshape existing post-World War II institutions to align with their interests? He never connects multipolarity with the crucial aspect of national sovereignty. Has he overlooked the fact that the very nation vocally opposing Trump’s tariffs on free trade is China, benefiting from a mercantilist stance rather than a purely capitalist one?
Invitation for Dialogue
I expect readers will uncover additional flaws in this article, so I encourage everyone to engage critically!
By John Feffer. Originally published at TomDispatch
Donald Trump has directed his animosity toward a wide variety of targets, including Antifa, late-night television hosts, and Democratic-led cities. Notably, he has recently expressed his disdain for the Nobel committee, as it did not award him a peace prize despite his attempts to influence the members’ decisions.
Trump’s grievances intersect with a deep-seated aversion to the liberal international order. Ironically, he has personally benefited from the very system he critiques, earning from global real estate and international supply chains.
Those he labels “globalists”—like Barack Obama, George Soros, and Emmanuel Macron—have ridiculed him, failing to acknowledge his supposed prowess. In Trump’s eyes, the guardians of the global elite need to be held accountable.
Trump has undermined the liberal international order on multiple fronts—from initiating a global trade war to dismantling humanitarian aid. He’s strayed from alliances with countries like Canada and several EU nations, imposing sanctions on organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC) while cozying up to individuals such as Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. Furthermore, he is implicated in war crimes, including extrajudicial killings.
The United States has historically supported the liberal international order. Therefore, Trump’s attacks threaten to severely tarnish America’s image and global standing, causing distress among the political centrist populace.
Meanwhile, Trump’s right-wing supporters find motivation in his war against what they perceive as excesses of liberalism. The U.N., the European Union, and any connections to universal human rights all evoke disdain. Conservative factions have obstructed U.S. participation in international treaties and have resisted global initiatives aimed at deeper cooperation on pressing issues like climate change.
Some elements on the left have also celebrated Trump’s rejection of globalism, most notably unions that believe his tariffs will safeguard American jobs. However, skepticism persists toward organizations like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which some leftists regard as an agent of American imperialism. Interestingly, some have allied with Trump in critiquing NATO and echoed Russian narratives regarding Ukraine in the lead-up to the 2024 election, even portraying Trump as a potential anti-imperialist.
Years ago, theorists envisioned a synthesis of communism and capitalism, projecting a shift toward democratic socialism. Yet, the ideological chasm between the two systems has only widened. Today, however, an intriguing entanglement between left and right has emerged, fueled by mutual disdain for liberalism. Both sides share a collective animosity toward “globalism” and the paradigm it represents.
Trump embodies this shared discontent, rallying his supporters to dismantle established institutions. Meanwhile, some Marxists believe his presidency could catalyze a mass awakening among the populace against the prevailing systems—fueling visions of an uprising and reinforcing the appeal of upheaval among his followers.
Although both factions maintain divergent aspirations for the future—equity versus injustice—their joint disdain for the liberal elite has contributed to Trump’s appeal even in traditionally Democratic strongholds. The slogan, “Throw the globalist bums out,” resonates across ideological lines.
Globalism versus Multipolarism
Multipolarism has recently garnered attention, with the idea of multiple centers of power opposing the bipolarity of the Cold War and the unipolarity seen after the Soviet Union’s fall. Some now view multipolarity as not just a description, but a pathway forward.
On the far right, thinkers like Alexander Dugin in Russia and Olavo de Carvalho in Brazil have leveraged multipolarism to advance nationalistic agendas, suggesting that Russia’s resurgence is vital for countering Western influence. Similarly, some on the left frame multipolarism as a route toward fairer geopolitics and push back against American hegemony. As articulated by the Tricontinental in 2022:
“The longed-for Western, globalised capitalist world has not lived up to the expectations of even its most enthusiastic advocates. Today we are witnessing a shift towards a multipolar world, despite the aspirations of neoliberal globalists, neoconservatives, and those who favour the US model of development (‘Americanists’).”
Understanding BRICS
The BRICS coalition—comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has emerged as a symbol of multipolarity since its inception. Many view these countries as the successors to earlier non-aligned movements and a potential counterbalance to U.S. dominance. Some believe BRICS will eventually replace the IMF and the World Bank, attempting to reshape the global economic landscape.
This has led some on the left to argue that BRICS positions itself against Western expansion, defending its sphere of influence while facing global repercussions similar to those placed on Cuba and Venezuela. Yet, unlike the latter leaders, Vladimir Putin embodies a right-wing authoritarianism that is increasingly imperial in nature, evidenced by his actions in Ukraine and beyond.
The cognitive dissonance in defending Putin translates into a broader critique of BRICS, as many member countries—such as Russia, China, Egypt, and others—are governed by autocratic regimes. Only a few, including Brazil and South Africa, maintain democratic structures, albeit with caveats regarding their governance. The bloc’s anti-imperial stance also faces scrutiny amidst familiar accusations of interference, particularly from Russia and China’s aggressive policies.
Moreover, BRICS countries often adopt a regressive stance on climate change, primarily due to their reliance on fossil fuels. Although Brazil has championed climate initiatives, China remains heavily reliant on coal, and carbon neutrality goals vary significantly among members. The latest BRICS statements maintain fossil fuels will remain integral to energy strategies, particularly for developing economies.
Embracing Global Capitalism
Perhaps the most surprising aspect is BRICS’s acceptance of the global capitalist economy. Its 2025 declaration warmly welcomed the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, positioning them at the heart of global trade. The New Development Bank, often portrayed as a stepping stone to a new economic order, merely perpetuates existing patterns of extraction, echoing the World Bank’s historical misdeeds.
This portrayal of multipolarity within BRICS often serves as a means to secure a more advantageous position in international discourses rather than championing a hybrid of progressive values. Unfortunately, this delicate balance frequently leads to backlash, particularly from leaders like Donald Trump, who enforces his vision of U.S. unipolarity. Trump has warned that countries aligning with BRICS may face additional tariffs.
Toward Genuine Internationalism
Ultimately, BRICS represents a flawed version of multipolarity that risks undermining progressive internationalism. Although it may challenge U.S. dominance, the potential it offers falls short of promoting human rights, environmental standards, or labor protections.
Both conservative and progressive voices have leaned on notions of sovereignty to bolster their arguments, often overlooking the ramifications of such power. While challenges to sovereign control exist—from Russia’s military invasions to neoliberal globalization—progressives must remain vigilant about overly simplistic narratives glorifying sovereignty. The misuse of sovereignty as a tool often leads to concentrated power among autocratic leaders who claim to represent the people’s will.
As the world grapples with pressing global issues like climate change and inequality, the rise of nationalist sentiments makes meaningful international cooperation all the more critical. Progressives must avoid the trap of equating anti-globalism with progressive ideals. While U.S. hegemony and neoliberal policies can be harmful, aligning with authoritarian regimes under the guise of sovereignty only betrays the spirit of true internationalism.
In summation, I firmly stand by the necessity of globalism—someone must advocate for our planet as extremist forces attempt to divide it for their own interests.
Copyright 2025 John Feffer
