“Multi-polar” literally just means there are multiple “poles” of power. This is in contrast to the “unipolar” world order the US set up after WWII. Unipolarity is the real historical anomaly here.

There is nothing inherently radical about wanting a “multipolar world.” Do you know why we wound up with a unipolar world to start with? The capitalist international system was “multipolar” up until the end of WWII. WWI and WWII were the result of “multipolarity.” America took advantage of the chaos to position themselves as world hegemon. This is not an inherently stable configuration for capitalism so it’s now falling apart after a few generations. Now we have “multiple poles” again when in reality having multiple great powers competing for power and influence has literally always been the norm.

It is plainly in the rational self-interest of every state other than the US to want a multipolar world, but in fact, all it means is the collapse of American hegemony. In itself, the collapse of American hegemony is fine, but we still should care about what comes after it.

In case anyone is confused, I’m not in favor of American hegemony, I think there is no winning within the capitalist world-system and literally the only bright spot of a “multipolar” capitalist world system in contrast to postwar American hegemony is that global capitalism overall will be less stable. But that’s explicitly not why Dilma Roussef et al want a multipolar world.