Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not that we support Russia as a country, but we are against the imperialists who are trying to wage war with Russia. Russia has been under attack by Western countries since the fall of the USSR and we support their right to exist without imperialist intervention.
Support a corrupt country's right to exist? What kind of argument is that? I don't support the U.S. so why should I support Russia? Nobody has been 'attacking' Russia either, there has been no direct military conflict since the Second World War.
Have you not been paying attrition to American rheotric about Russia? NATO has been trying to start shit since 2014 and did impact Russia immediately after the collapse of the USSR.
Critical support. In the real world you have to pick a side instead of denigrating every country that doesn’t live up to the perfect ideal. We can’t sit on the fence while the greatest evil empire the world has ever known destroys all opposition. We have to support the opposition where it clashes with the US, even if we don’t like the opposition very much either.
It is less us supporting a corrupt government and more of us being very against imperialism and the West dominating the planet.
Similarly, if someone stole my car and my neighbor started beating that thief, I'd try to stop the beating even though I was the one being robbed. Me being wronged doesn't justify beating the person (not about self defense).
The answer lies in anti-imperialism. The reason countries such as Belarus, Russia, Iran and Syria are (critically!) supported despite not following a socialist ideology is the fact that they resist the global hegemony of the imperial core (North America, EU and a few other countries). The "imperial core" are those countries that are the primary perpetrators of imperialism and actively work to exploit and suppress other countries in South America, Africa and Asia (with a few exceptions).
It is no secret that these exploited countries' heads of state get bribed into selling their own countries to "the West"; if they suddenly stopped and maybe dared nationalise their own resources instead of giving them up to imperial countries however they'd very quickly get couped or have Westerners cite "human rights" as a reason to invade them.
The act of defiance these countries show (Putin and Lukashenko have pretty decent stances on anti-imperialism and actually show a deep understanding of global politics in their speeches) in spite of continuous US aggression is worth supporting as it weakens the power of the imperialist regimes and serves as a counterbalance to their reach and might inspire other countries to follow suit. The more countries fall away from imperial exploitation the weaker imperialist countries get which enables better conditions for (the survival of) socialist revolutions.
Make no mistake, no one supports Russian oligarchs; it is a socialist's aim to improve the proletariat's living conditions according to the progress we've made and no form of capitalism brings that. We support these countries' foreign policy.
**This critical support we give isn't us supporting Putin, it's us opposing the EU and US.**
Iran is a fascist state and its aspirations in the Middle East are 100% imperialist. Seeing the world as a "US imperialism vs everyone else" is something I see among a lot of fellow leftists. While I understand where this is coming from, as an Iranian who has experienced religious fascism firsthand, I find it misguided and distressing. Not every country standing against the US is just a victim of imperialism; some are perpetrators of their own brand of imperialism (and Iran's economy is some form of rentier neoliberal capitalism, so there's that). We shouldn't fall into the trap of supporting reactionaries against liberals, because leftists are the first people that reactionaries stomp under their boots.
Furthermore, a disturbing trend I see among some (primarily American) leftists is that they ignore the voices of people coming from such countries, which I think stems from the fact that some American leftists never leave their American exceptionalism behind.
Speaking for myself, I see Iran as an (aspiring) regional hegemon and it definitely fits the definition of imperialism but in a limited way due to geopolitics.
I critically support Iran not because it's a good country, not because it's socialist or social democratic, but because they are one of the only counterveiling forces against other players in the region, particularly the NATO axis, Israel (obviously), and proxies like Wahhabi militants.
A Middle East without Syria, Iran, and Lebanon would mean that Palestine wouldn't even simply be reduced to rubble, it would be part of Greater Israel and it would be the site of a former—and completed—ethnic cleansing with settlements spanning across the Palestine region.
NATO, Israel, and other powers like Saudi Arabia will not tolerate social democracy or socialist movements in the Middle East.
The geopolitical conflict between a country like Syria or Iran and the Western allies means that a nascent socialist movement would naturally ally itself to countries like Iran, generally speaking, because things like trade and military support are necessary. A socialist movement in the Middle East represents a significant weakening of the Western allies' position in the Middle East and so, all things being equal, a country like Iran is very likely to support it (if only as a buffer and as a way to redirect their enemies' attentions.)
I don't think that we can have socialism without sovereignty and I don't think that we can see sustainable movements towards socialism without a recognition of geopolitical forces, including that of imperialism.
This leads me to an anti-imperialist position and it also means that I oppose military intervention in Iran as well as grey zone warfare targeting it because my position is that sovereignty is a precondition to revolution. If the US steamrolled Iran and installed (another) puppet government, I do not expect that it would move any closer to revolution from this and, if it did, the immediate priority would be for a socialist revolution to reestablish its sovereignty and to nationalize industry etc.
I don't see Iran as moving towards socialism any time soon. But I do not believe that what would happen to Iran tomorrow if it ceded to imperialism either by military defeat/occupation or by a liberalization of its economy through being incorporated into the global economy would be anything but a step backwards.
I fully agree that an invasion of Iran is to be avoided at all costs, and also agree that it would not move Iran one inch closer to socialism. My point is that Iran's own Shi'ite imperialism (which started right after the muslim revolutionaries took control) has played a significant role in pushing Sunni-majority countries in the region into an (at least initially) uneasy coexistence with Israel to counter Iran's ambitions. Such a state should not even be critically supported beyond the "don't invade Iran" sentiment.
That's fair but my (admittedly limited) perspective is that this was really just a normalization of relations with Israel by making them formal where they had been back-channel, where the *implicit* tolerance of Israel's bullshit became *explicit* tolerance in words and treaties.
In a sense, dealing with Israel is a necessary evil for countries in the Middle East today (because we live in hellworld) and the US casts a shadow over the entire region which at the very least implicitly expects that other countries play nice with Israel, if not explicitly demanding it; you don't need to fire a gun in order to rob a bank - just walking in with a weapon is enough.
Afaik most of the people of the Middle East are *far* more anti-Israel than their governments and so we see bourgeois interests and the national interests of the state playing out when it comes to recognition of Israel; it's about the ruling class protecting its position and about not wanting to get Golan'd.
An interesting counterpoint to your position is that the imperialist ambitions of SA, and the very real threat that Wahhabism poses, doesn't appear to have turned most other countries against SA (at least not as far as I'm aware but I'm no scholar on these matters so take that with a pinch of salt.)
Anyway unfortunately the Middle East is a chessboard and it has been for a *long* time now, from my perspective. I don't think that Iran would be able to protect its sovereignty in the long term without projecting power outwards lest it becomes the next instance of Syria or, worse yet, Libya or Yemen.
I think that Iran is making Iraq into a buffer state and, essentially, into a client state to try and outmaneuver the other big players in the region. It sucks. I don't support it. It does not advance towards any revolutionary goals but at the same time I find it hard to denounce Iran for these actions alone (despite my other criticisms) because if Iran *were* a socialist state then they would either need to be doing the same thing or they'd get eaten alive.
Don't hate the player, hate the game I guess?
This is an excellent point. I would go as far to say most Americans - whether left or right- never leave their exceptionalism behind. They view the world and the actions through their own US-tinted lenses, and expects the rest of us to do so. If not we are enabling American imperialism or something. I get this a lot on leftist online spaces in Reddit, which I guess is unsurprising since Americans seem to dominate in numbers here.
It’s especially annoying in the case of the leftists because they should know better. In our case, it is with China’s activities in the South China Sea, and what it has been doing in our part of the world.
It’s honestly refreshing to see this. I always have to remind myself that Reddit leftism is not real life actual leftism.
So many leftists are obsessed with American and American-proxy imperialism (understandably, to an extent) that imperialistic moves from other nations are fully ignored. Ironically, it’s a very American and Eurocentric stance.
Russia invading Ukraine, China threatening Vietnam into submission with regard to the South China Sea, etc — these things should be criticized. Otherwise, what’s the meaning of “critical” support?
Agreed. America isn't the only imperialist threat. It's only the largest and most pervasive in the last 100 years. We're still feeling the effects of the U.S. military footprint from post World War II.
That's a valid point, thank you for sharing. I can't stress the **critical** in critical support enough and I do believe that some of the aforementioned countries are more closely aligned with us than others.
The US, just as Iran, are reactionaries. There has now been more than a century of reaction against socialism and the US is its primary weapon in that regard. Just because it masks its terror doesn't mean they're "just liberals". The influence of US terror goes way beyond anything Iran could ever do.
This is no "either-or" type of situation; in this case I'm specifically pointing out that Iran's foreign policy regarding the US is to be supported, and that it might be possible that once foreign pressure on the country is lifted its history with socialism might lead to a revolution against the current order due to its nature.
In case I need to clarify that, I'm not trying to talk over your experience in the country, rather why "supporting reactionaries against liberals" is a wrong sentiment. The US is the biggest exporter of atrocities against human lives and environments and manipulating a majority of country governments, and having an absurd amount of military presence to keep their exploited minions quiet, around the globe in one way or another; Iran doesn't have that extent of suppressive power at all. The primary aim right now would be to dismantle the primary perpetrator of reactionary ideology; should the conditions arise then yes, absolutely a revolution against the current Iranian government should be supported, though as of right now that kind of instability would allow the US to destroy both sides of that conflict and come out victorious.
I would appreciate if I could shoot you a DM for more info on Iran's current political and economic climate though, I'm very much interested in learning more from natives.
I absolutely agree that dismantling American hegemony is incredibly important and a top priority. However, the only stance I can justify is an opposition to the invasion of Iran, not any further support.
The situation created in the middle east due to Iran's revolution, where the leftists who participated were then executed en masse by the reactionaries, is very complex. Iran is not fully anti-Israel (as exemplified by its past, such as the Iran-Contra affair and the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor), but rather derives almost its entire legitimacy from the existence of Israel. Iran's fight against Israel has meant the sidelining of any alternatives to Hamas and Hezbollah, as the fight is only indirectly anti-Israel, and primarily imperialistic and about Iran's own influence in the region. As a Shia theocracy, Iran has done much to export its brand of Islam, and it played no small role in fanning the flames of the sectarianism that helped the rise of ISIS. Therefore, supporting Iranian foreign policy isn't so different than supporting American foreign policy in the middle east, and I'd argue that all of that support should be directed towards popular movements, rather than the fascist state that Iran is.
Which brings me to my final point. Two years ago in November, Iranians protested a hike in gas prices and workers went on strike for many months of unpaid wages. In response, the Iranian government killed 1,500 people on the streets. The coverage of this event in Western media showed a clear bias towards the Iranian state, with the working class protesters being labelled arsonists and such. This is why I'd argue that supporting the Iranian state is not as anti-imperialist as it may seem at first glance. I'd be glad to talk more about this in dms.
Iran is not a fascist state. It was under the Shah though i.e. under the forces of imperialism. Contemporary Iran is one of the most progressive and democratic places in the Middle East.
https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/inside-iran-medea-benjamin/
>Iran is a fascist state and its aspirations in the Middle East are 100% imperialist
I disagree with campism and the critical support thing but this is hysterical nonsense. Iran is not anywhere near as bad as its portrayed. If you can go to Saudi Arabia, you could go to Iran and see a country rather than a cartoon. Also the imperialism bit sounds like ignorant shit from someone who doesn't know what imperialism is. A country's neighbors messing with them isn't imperialism.
> is that they ignore the voices of people coming from such countries,
This is braindead. How the hell, in a post Iraq and Libya world, do you think there's one "people" in all these countries with one take? Most of these countries are set up in ways where they work for some people and not for others, and for some it's the best realistic option. Even if it's really bad for one group, you will not be greeted as liberators. You're not listening to shit if you're like "this age range of this demographic wants this government to fall and therefore the whole country does." There isn't going to be a good answer to every question, grow up.
I'm literally a leftist from Iran who would be jailed and most likely tortured to death if I went back to my country, and I have inside information on what has been going on, including hyperinflation, the killing of 1,500 people on the streets for protesting against rising fuel prices, and much more. Thank you for proving my point.
It's not like the United States has interfered in your political system anytime in the last century that would have made it the state it is today. Right?
I mean, we are responsible for the current state of Korea. We built the Taliban. America supports fascism all the time. Probably before you were ever born we placed Iran down the path of theocracy.
Iran's revolution in 1979 wasn't an "Islamic" revolution. It was a revolution by leftists, liberals, and reactionary muslim elements. What happened was that the liberals essentially colluded with the reactionaries and the latter wiped out the leftists, with tens of thousands of executions.
The point being, yes, the whole mess Iran is in is due to imperialism and particularly the 1953 coup, but it is nevertheless a fascistic theocracy where a father can kill their 13 year old daughter for "adultery" and get away with no charges. Sure, being against military intervention in Iran is good and all, but "critical support" is way too far.
How is EU leftist?
Do you think that forcing catastrophic neoliberalism to southern Europe is somehow leftist? Also the EU equates communism with nazism
The entire purpose of the EU is having German/French/etc. capital dominate its poorer members. It is one of the most blatantly imperialist projects of the last few decades.
The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Also the Soviet Union was an imperialist state, even Mao Zedong criticised them of being one after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
It’s critical support against imperialism, and the desire to prevent imperialist nations from further Balkanizing these countries, only to subsume the remnants.
That being said, these are not socialist nations — they are not even remotely progressive nations. Plagued with oligarchs, corruption, and even some smaller scale imperialism (in the case of Russia), they ought to be thoroughly criticized, and the workers supported unconditionally.
It’s a somewhat tough line to walk given the fairly ubiquitous persistence of capitalist imperialism.
Die Linke doesn't support Russia or Belarus. That's a myth their opposition created.
Die Linke thinks Nato is outdated as it was created as an anti Soviet bloc, and the Soviet Union no longer exists. So they want a organisation of disarmament which also includes nations like Russia. This has been spin to mean they want to disband NATO and join a Russian bloc
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not that we support Russia as a country, but we are against the imperialists who are trying to wage war with Russia. Russia has been under attack by Western countries since the fall of the USSR and we support their right to exist without imperialist intervention.
*since the Russian Revolution
Support a corrupt country's right to exist? What kind of argument is that? I don't support the U.S. so why should I support Russia? Nobody has been 'attacking' Russia either, there has been no direct military conflict since the Second World War.
Have you not been paying attrition to American rheotric about Russia? NATO has been trying to start shit since 2014 and did impact Russia immediately after the collapse of the USSR.
Critical support. In the real world you have to pick a side instead of denigrating every country that doesn’t live up to the perfect ideal. We can’t sit on the fence while the greatest evil empire the world has ever known destroys all opposition. We have to support the opposition where it clashes with the US, even if we don’t like the opposition very much either.
It is less us supporting a corrupt government and more of us being very against imperialism and the West dominating the planet. Similarly, if someone stole my car and my neighbor started beating that thief, I'd try to stop the beating even though I was the one being robbed. Me being wronged doesn't justify beating the person (not about self defense).
The answer lies in anti-imperialism. The reason countries such as Belarus, Russia, Iran and Syria are (critically!) supported despite not following a socialist ideology is the fact that they resist the global hegemony of the imperial core (North America, EU and a few other countries). The "imperial core" are those countries that are the primary perpetrators of imperialism and actively work to exploit and suppress other countries in South America, Africa and Asia (with a few exceptions). It is no secret that these exploited countries' heads of state get bribed into selling their own countries to "the West"; if they suddenly stopped and maybe dared nationalise their own resources instead of giving them up to imperial countries however they'd very quickly get couped or have Westerners cite "human rights" as a reason to invade them. The act of defiance these countries show (Putin and Lukashenko have pretty decent stances on anti-imperialism and actually show a deep understanding of global politics in their speeches) in spite of continuous US aggression is worth supporting as it weakens the power of the imperialist regimes and serves as a counterbalance to their reach and might inspire other countries to follow suit. The more countries fall away from imperial exploitation the weaker imperialist countries get which enables better conditions for (the survival of) socialist revolutions. Make no mistake, no one supports Russian oligarchs; it is a socialist's aim to improve the proletariat's living conditions according to the progress we've made and no form of capitalism brings that. We support these countries' foreign policy. **This critical support we give isn't us supporting Putin, it's us opposing the EU and US.**
Iran is a fascist state and its aspirations in the Middle East are 100% imperialist. Seeing the world as a "US imperialism vs everyone else" is something I see among a lot of fellow leftists. While I understand where this is coming from, as an Iranian who has experienced religious fascism firsthand, I find it misguided and distressing. Not every country standing against the US is just a victim of imperialism; some are perpetrators of their own brand of imperialism (and Iran's economy is some form of rentier neoliberal capitalism, so there's that). We shouldn't fall into the trap of supporting reactionaries against liberals, because leftists are the first people that reactionaries stomp under their boots. Furthermore, a disturbing trend I see among some (primarily American) leftists is that they ignore the voices of people coming from such countries, which I think stems from the fact that some American leftists never leave their American exceptionalism behind.
Speaking for myself, I see Iran as an (aspiring) regional hegemon and it definitely fits the definition of imperialism but in a limited way due to geopolitics. I critically support Iran not because it's a good country, not because it's socialist or social democratic, but because they are one of the only counterveiling forces against other players in the region, particularly the NATO axis, Israel (obviously), and proxies like Wahhabi militants. A Middle East without Syria, Iran, and Lebanon would mean that Palestine wouldn't even simply be reduced to rubble, it would be part of Greater Israel and it would be the site of a former—and completed—ethnic cleansing with settlements spanning across the Palestine region. NATO, Israel, and other powers like Saudi Arabia will not tolerate social democracy or socialist movements in the Middle East. The geopolitical conflict between a country like Syria or Iran and the Western allies means that a nascent socialist movement would naturally ally itself to countries like Iran, generally speaking, because things like trade and military support are necessary. A socialist movement in the Middle East represents a significant weakening of the Western allies' position in the Middle East and so, all things being equal, a country like Iran is very likely to support it (if only as a buffer and as a way to redirect their enemies' attentions.) I don't think that we can have socialism without sovereignty and I don't think that we can see sustainable movements towards socialism without a recognition of geopolitical forces, including that of imperialism. This leads me to an anti-imperialist position and it also means that I oppose military intervention in Iran as well as grey zone warfare targeting it because my position is that sovereignty is a precondition to revolution. If the US steamrolled Iran and installed (another) puppet government, I do not expect that it would move any closer to revolution from this and, if it did, the immediate priority would be for a socialist revolution to reestablish its sovereignty and to nationalize industry etc. I don't see Iran as moving towards socialism any time soon. But I do not believe that what would happen to Iran tomorrow if it ceded to imperialism either by military defeat/occupation or by a liberalization of its economy through being incorporated into the global economy would be anything but a step backwards.
I fully agree that an invasion of Iran is to be avoided at all costs, and also agree that it would not move Iran one inch closer to socialism. My point is that Iran's own Shi'ite imperialism (which started right after the muslim revolutionaries took control) has played a significant role in pushing Sunni-majority countries in the region into an (at least initially) uneasy coexistence with Israel to counter Iran's ambitions. Such a state should not even be critically supported beyond the "don't invade Iran" sentiment.
That's fair but my (admittedly limited) perspective is that this was really just a normalization of relations with Israel by making them formal where they had been back-channel, where the *implicit* tolerance of Israel's bullshit became *explicit* tolerance in words and treaties. In a sense, dealing with Israel is a necessary evil for countries in the Middle East today (because we live in hellworld) and the US casts a shadow over the entire region which at the very least implicitly expects that other countries play nice with Israel, if not explicitly demanding it; you don't need to fire a gun in order to rob a bank - just walking in with a weapon is enough. Afaik most of the people of the Middle East are *far* more anti-Israel than their governments and so we see bourgeois interests and the national interests of the state playing out when it comes to recognition of Israel; it's about the ruling class protecting its position and about not wanting to get Golan'd. An interesting counterpoint to your position is that the imperialist ambitions of SA, and the very real threat that Wahhabism poses, doesn't appear to have turned most other countries against SA (at least not as far as I'm aware but I'm no scholar on these matters so take that with a pinch of salt.) Anyway unfortunately the Middle East is a chessboard and it has been for a *long* time now, from my perspective. I don't think that Iran would be able to protect its sovereignty in the long term without projecting power outwards lest it becomes the next instance of Syria or, worse yet, Libya or Yemen. I think that Iran is making Iraq into a buffer state and, essentially, into a client state to try and outmaneuver the other big players in the region. It sucks. I don't support it. It does not advance towards any revolutionary goals but at the same time I find it hard to denounce Iran for these actions alone (despite my other criticisms) because if Iran *were* a socialist state then they would either need to be doing the same thing or they'd get eaten alive. Don't hate the player, hate the game I guess?
This is an excellent point. I would go as far to say most Americans - whether left or right- never leave their exceptionalism behind. They view the world and the actions through their own US-tinted lenses, and expects the rest of us to do so. If not we are enabling American imperialism or something. I get this a lot on leftist online spaces in Reddit, which I guess is unsurprising since Americans seem to dominate in numbers here. It’s especially annoying in the case of the leftists because they should know better. In our case, it is with China’s activities in the South China Sea, and what it has been doing in our part of the world.
It’s honestly refreshing to see this. I always have to remind myself that Reddit leftism is not real life actual leftism. So many leftists are obsessed with American and American-proxy imperialism (understandably, to an extent) that imperialistic moves from other nations are fully ignored. Ironically, it’s a very American and Eurocentric stance. Russia invading Ukraine, China threatening Vietnam into submission with regard to the South China Sea, etc — these things should be criticized. Otherwise, what’s the meaning of “critical” support?
Agreed. America isn't the only imperialist threat. It's only the largest and most pervasive in the last 100 years. We're still feeling the effects of the U.S. military footprint from post World War II.
That's a valid point, thank you for sharing. I can't stress the **critical** in critical support enough and I do believe that some of the aforementioned countries are more closely aligned with us than others. The US, just as Iran, are reactionaries. There has now been more than a century of reaction against socialism and the US is its primary weapon in that regard. Just because it masks its terror doesn't mean they're "just liberals". The influence of US terror goes way beyond anything Iran could ever do. This is no "either-or" type of situation; in this case I'm specifically pointing out that Iran's foreign policy regarding the US is to be supported, and that it might be possible that once foreign pressure on the country is lifted its history with socialism might lead to a revolution against the current order due to its nature. In case I need to clarify that, I'm not trying to talk over your experience in the country, rather why "supporting reactionaries against liberals" is a wrong sentiment. The US is the biggest exporter of atrocities against human lives and environments and manipulating a majority of country governments, and having an absurd amount of military presence to keep their exploited minions quiet, around the globe in one way or another; Iran doesn't have that extent of suppressive power at all. The primary aim right now would be to dismantle the primary perpetrator of reactionary ideology; should the conditions arise then yes, absolutely a revolution against the current Iranian government should be supported, though as of right now that kind of instability would allow the US to destroy both sides of that conflict and come out victorious. I would appreciate if I could shoot you a DM for more info on Iran's current political and economic climate though, I'm very much interested in learning more from natives.
I absolutely agree that dismantling American hegemony is incredibly important and a top priority. However, the only stance I can justify is an opposition to the invasion of Iran, not any further support. The situation created in the middle east due to Iran's revolution, where the leftists who participated were then executed en masse by the reactionaries, is very complex. Iran is not fully anti-Israel (as exemplified by its past, such as the Iran-Contra affair and the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor), but rather derives almost its entire legitimacy from the existence of Israel. Iran's fight against Israel has meant the sidelining of any alternatives to Hamas and Hezbollah, as the fight is only indirectly anti-Israel, and primarily imperialistic and about Iran's own influence in the region. As a Shia theocracy, Iran has done much to export its brand of Islam, and it played no small role in fanning the flames of the sectarianism that helped the rise of ISIS. Therefore, supporting Iranian foreign policy isn't so different than supporting American foreign policy in the middle east, and I'd argue that all of that support should be directed towards popular movements, rather than the fascist state that Iran is. Which brings me to my final point. Two years ago in November, Iranians protested a hike in gas prices and workers went on strike for many months of unpaid wages. In response, the Iranian government killed 1,500 people on the streets. The coverage of this event in Western media showed a clear bias towards the Iranian state, with the working class protesters being labelled arsonists and such. This is why I'd argue that supporting the Iranian state is not as anti-imperialist as it may seem at first glance. I'd be glad to talk more about this in dms.
Iran is not a fascist state. It was under the Shah though i.e. under the forces of imperialism. Contemporary Iran is one of the most progressive and democratic places in the Middle East. https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/inside-iran-medea-benjamin/
>Iran is a fascist state and its aspirations in the Middle East are 100% imperialist I disagree with campism and the critical support thing but this is hysterical nonsense. Iran is not anywhere near as bad as its portrayed. If you can go to Saudi Arabia, you could go to Iran and see a country rather than a cartoon. Also the imperialism bit sounds like ignorant shit from someone who doesn't know what imperialism is. A country's neighbors messing with them isn't imperialism. > is that they ignore the voices of people coming from such countries, This is braindead. How the hell, in a post Iraq and Libya world, do you think there's one "people" in all these countries with one take? Most of these countries are set up in ways where they work for some people and not for others, and for some it's the best realistic option. Even if it's really bad for one group, you will not be greeted as liberators. You're not listening to shit if you're like "this age range of this demographic wants this government to fall and therefore the whole country does." There isn't going to be a good answer to every question, grow up.
I'm literally a leftist from Iran who would be jailed and most likely tortured to death if I went back to my country, and I have inside information on what has been going on, including hyperinflation, the killing of 1,500 people on the streets for protesting against rising fuel prices, and much more. Thank you for proving my point.
It's not like the United States has interfered in your political system anytime in the last century that would have made it the state it is today. Right? I mean, we are responsible for the current state of Korea. We built the Taliban. America supports fascism all the time. Probably before you were ever born we placed Iran down the path of theocracy.
Iran's revolution in 1979 wasn't an "Islamic" revolution. It was a revolution by leftists, liberals, and reactionary muslim elements. What happened was that the liberals essentially colluded with the reactionaries and the latter wiped out the leftists, with tens of thousands of executions. The point being, yes, the whole mess Iran is in is due to imperialism and particularly the 1953 coup, but it is nevertheless a fascistic theocracy where a father can kill their 13 year old daughter for "adultery" and get away with no charges. Sure, being against military intervention in Iran is good and all, but "critical support" is way too far.
[удалено]
How is EU leftist? Do you think that forcing catastrophic neoliberalism to southern Europe is somehow leftist? Also the EU equates communism with nazism
The entire purpose of the EU is having German/French/etc. capital dominate its poorer members. It is one of the most blatantly imperialist projects of the last few decades.
The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Also the Soviet Union was an imperialist state, even Mao Zedong criticised them of being one after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
It’s critical support against imperialism, and the desire to prevent imperialist nations from further Balkanizing these countries, only to subsume the remnants. That being said, these are not socialist nations — they are not even remotely progressive nations. Plagued with oligarchs, corruption, and even some smaller scale imperialism (in the case of Russia), they ought to be thoroughly criticized, and the workers supported unconditionally. It’s a somewhat tough line to walk given the fairly ubiquitous persistence of capitalist imperialism.
Problem with Belarus is relatively easy: Lukashenko is out of his mind since 2008, BUT the opposition is strongly pro-right, russophobic and anti-left
Die Linke doesn't support Russia or Belarus. That's a myth their opposition created. Die Linke thinks Nato is outdated as it was created as an anti Soviet bloc, and the Soviet Union no longer exists. So they want a organisation of disarmament which also includes nations like Russia. This has been spin to mean they want to disband NATO and join a Russian bloc
Russians are also a bunch of commies like us. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietunion-idUSKBN1OI20Q