Apologies for the delay in response I’ve been very sick but to answer your question as I understand it
I agree they are overhyped in some circles. BRICS+, the SCO, and similar institutions are obviously not revolutionary organizations, not socialist blocs, and not the next Comintern as some would attempt to make them out to be. They are state forums made up of countries with very different class characters, political systems, and strategic interests. Treating every BRICS or SCO member as part of a coherent anti-imperialist camp is bad analysis and gives ammunition to reactionaries who want to dismiss all multipolar politics as naive campism.
However it is also important to understand that they do not need to be revolutionary to have a positive historical effect. Their importance is that they apply pressure against the US-led unipolar order. They create alternative diplomatic, financial, trade, and security spaces outside the direct control of Washington, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. Even partial moves toward local-currency trade, alternative development finance, sanctions resistance, and South-South coordination weaken the monopoly power of the imperial core.
But again it’s important to remember the limits of such setups. India, under its current leadership, is deeply reactionary and increasingly tied to the US-Israel axis against China. The Gulf monarchies are obviously not anti-imperialist; they are comprador, counterrevolutionary states hedging between Washington and Beijing while preserving their own ruling-class interests. South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, and others have their own contradictions and dependencies. These actors prevent BRICS or the SCO from becoming a unified revolutionary or honestly an even consistently anti-imperialist bloc.
In short my view is that these institutions cannot and will not, by themselves, overthrow imperialism nor can they be called real proletarian internationalism. But they do help erode unipolar hegemony, widen contradictions inside the world system, and give the Global South more room to maneuver. Multipolarity is not socialism, but it is a better terrain for socialist construction, national liberation, and anti-imperialist struggle than a world ruled uncontested by Washington.
Apologies for the delay in response I’ve been very sick but to answer your question as I understand it
I agree they are overhyped in some circles. BRICS+, the SCO, and similar institutions are obviously not revolutionary organizations, not socialist blocs, and not the next Comintern as some would attempt to make them out to be. They are state forums made up of countries with very different class characters, political systems, and strategic interests. Treating every BRICS or SCO member as part of a coherent anti-imperialist camp is bad analysis and gives ammunition to reactionaries who want to dismiss all multipolar politics as naive campism.
However it is also important to understand that they do not need to be revolutionary to have a positive historical effect. Their importance is that they apply pressure against the US-led unipolar order. They create alternative diplomatic, financial, trade, and security spaces outside the direct control of Washington, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank. Even partial moves toward local-currency trade, alternative development finance, sanctions resistance, and South-South coordination weaken the monopoly power of the imperial core.
But again it’s important to remember the limits of such setups. India, under its current leadership, is deeply reactionary and increasingly tied to the US-Israel axis against China. The Gulf monarchies are obviously not anti-imperialist; they are comprador, counterrevolutionary states hedging between Washington and Beijing while preserving their own ruling-class interests. South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, and others have their own contradictions and dependencies. These actors prevent BRICS or the SCO from becoming a unified revolutionary or honestly an even consistently anti-imperialist bloc.
In short my view is that these institutions cannot and will not, by themselves, overthrow imperialism nor can they be called real proletarian internationalism. But they do help erode unipolar hegemony, widen contradictions inside the world system, and give the Global South more room to maneuver. Multipolarity is not socialism, but it is a better terrain for socialist construction, national liberation, and anti-imperialist struggle than a world ruled uncontested by Washington.