American-sponsored globalisation is in rapid decline and reverse. In fact, the war in Iraq that was supposed to consolidate the US as the world’s sole and only super power in the post-Cold War interval had only the opposite effect of producing what it was supposed to suppress both because of the threat it posed and because of its spectacular failure: imperialist rivals. The world is reverting to multi-polarity and inter-imperialist rivalry as the film of globalisation is wound off backwards. Unfortunately our neo-Stalinist chums are welcoming this process as the road to world peace which is why they are so hot for Putin. They see power balancing between five or six major world powers above the heads of the seven billion as a desirable outcome as well as the only possible one. In fact, for all their criticism of US-imperialism this is more or less US foreign policy nowadays. Since 2008, the Iraq debacle and the world economic catastrophe, they have been seeking allies in the policing of the world and have been pursuing engagement but of course with the intention of remaining if not the one and only world power at least the first amongst equals. This lies behind the appeasement of Putin both by the US ruling elite and the neo-Stalinised left but also Putin’s adventurism. But why do the neo-Stalinists see this as a desirable future rather than the dangerous decay of the system and the short route to a New Dark Ages? Because like its original manifestation it is pathologically counter-revolutionary and conservative. Mere mention of proletarian revolution brings gales of raucous, contemptuous but nervous laughter. The fact that US-sponsored globalisation can only be transcended by world proletarian revolution is enough to send it scuttling into the arms of the Putins of this world. Where once they paid lip-service to the International now they treat it with contempt. Their victory over the international labour movement would spell defeat and death for the world working class. They must be fought politically and ideologically not to mention relentlessly.