China's recent actions have left many observers puzzled and questioning what this means for the world. Despite shutting down during the Covid-19 pandemic and even continuing to close even after the outbreak was under control, China suddenly emerged from this situation. It relaxed Covid measures and announced a new production campaign. More importantly, especially after Wang Yi's recent talks at the Munich Summit, China abandoned its relatively neutral position in the war between Russia and Ukraine and began to openly support Russia. Xi Jinping's three-day visit to Russia, the agreements made and the statements, including Jinping's parting words to Putin, "There are changes and we are the ones driving these changes together," were all very unsettling. These developments were followed by other notable events. China brought together the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran to establish a China-brokered peace. Essentially, energy exchange based on the gold standard through the Yuan was at stake here. The process did not stop there. Despite opposition from the United States and Europe, OPEC+ countries reduced oil production, causing oil prices to rise and dealing a stylish blow to "advanced" economies struggling with inflation. Additionally, it was reported that trade agreements between Brazil and China through Yuan were on the horizon, and Lula's postponed visit to China due to health problems would take place in the coming days. The announcement by France's TOTAL that it will purchase liquefied natural gas through Yuan was a very significant development.   We are witnessing developments that deeply shake the throne of dollarization, which has reached the most uncontrollable stage of financial obesity and has lost confidence due to unstoppable inflation. It appears that the United States hegemony has entered a process of profound decline marked by deep losses. But what does the world expect from these developments? I believe it is helpful to look to Marx for the answer.   Marx wrote that progressive forces that hold the means of production would ultimately triumph. He also noted that it should not be surprising that the previous privileged but outdated forces would act irrationally in the face of these developments. However, he also pointed out that these efforts were ultimately indicative of helplessness and were far from changing the outcome. For example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism was the most typical example of this. Capitalism did indeed initiate a much deeper exploitation than its predecessor. However, both infrastructure, as a mode of production, and superstructure, as a mental and spiritual phenomenon, were "relatively" superior to feudalism and represented historical progress. We owe capitalism values such as science, rationalism, and enlightenment, which enable human freedom. Marx was not, as is often believed, a romantic anti-capitalist. On the contrary, he almost admired capitalism as the most advanced system that made socialism possible. Frankly, if he saw the developments of our time... The United States has recently shifted its focus towards high value-added knowledge work and start-ups, as exemplified by Silicon Valley. However, while significant progress has been made, technological and robotic innovations have not yet filled the void left by manual labor, leading to a major crisis in the U.S. economy. China has capitalized on this by catching up in the technological race. In response, the U.S. has taken on a reactionary and aggressive role, punishing new manufacturing powers and implementing bans on 5G technology, trade and currency wars, quotas, embargoes, and sanctions. Despite these efforts, the U.S. continues to lose ground and become more desperate. Eventually, the U.S. instigated and exacerbated the Ukraine-Russia conflict, creating a climate that poses even greater risks to humanity.   Given this situation, I must ask the question that follows in the footsteps of Marx: if the decaying power is the U.S., then do China and the states it has brought into its pact represent the progressive side of history? There is no reason not to say yes from an economic and technological standpoint. However, history is made up of numerous structures, with economic and technological structures being the most influential but not possible without the support of other structures. When we look at legal, political, and cultural structures, those that appear economically progressive often present themselves with pitch-black darkness. If Marx saw this, he would have to admit how wrong he was about the historical concept of progress. Apparently, the concept of progress is not so simple. In this regard, we need to be as careful and even skeptical as Gramsci. The most regressive aspects of history can still exist through high economic efficiency and advanced technologies. This is the risk we face today. We are so tired of the hypocrisy of the West and what it has done to nature and humanity that we cannot help but be excited to witness its collapse and develop sympathy for new powers that accelerate it. These are things that are done without considering the consequences. When Biden divided the world into democracies and autocracies, he lied. If he had made the distinction between covert autocracies with democratic cosmetics and open autocracies without these cosmetic concerns, then he would have told the truth.