news

I see this mistake so often with Communist parties in the United States. And you have 's on Hexbear who repeat it.

This isn't an inter-imperialist war. The Ukraine War isn't an inter-imperialist war. Western Communists are good at copying and pasting analysis without doing any thinking of their own. And I can't tell you how many times Ive heard that the Israeli and Palestinian workers should unite against their "common enemy", or the Russian and Ukrainian workers should do the same (to fight off Russia, what!?). They lack a materialist analysis and just copy what Lenin said as if what it applies to all situations. They don't actually understand the principal contradiction of Imperialism. They don't understand how a more general contradiction can articulate itself in particular contradictions. Hence why they can't understand that a reactionary theocracy/plutocracy, etc. can play the role of an anti-imperialist. They dont think dialectically. They don't understand dialectics.

Hell I've tried playing their game where you just slam quote after quote, but they cherry pick and close their ears. Convinced that Iran must be destroyed to bring us closer to communism, or Hamas must be crushed to truly free the Palestinain people. Shame.

Lets play the game of quotation. From the big man Stalin himself, in The Foundations of Leninism

Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the "dominant" nations to support - resolutely and actively to support - the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national liberation movement... It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism

And for the part that is hard for liberals masquerading as communists to understand.

This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements - if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement

And again, the more general contradiction of labor vs capital, proletariat vs bourgeoisie may express itself in particular and concrete ways that may not appear like worker vs capitalist. A contradiction between settler and colonized may not have the apparent form of worker vs capital, but is local expression of this general contradiction. The principal contradiction of imperialism may articulate itself in ways that don't appear to align with a worker vs capitalism binary. And this lack of basic Marxist knowledge plagues so many groups I've encountered. So they becomes clowns with clown ideas. They are lazy bones, as Mao says, who don't want to study the particulars, and only know to look for "worker vs capitalist* in the most basic, unoriginal, and frankly useless of ways.

To drive the point home with quotes as this type loves to do:

The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions imperialist oppression does not necessarily presupposes the existence of proletariat elements in the movement, ..., the existence of a democratic basis of the movement.

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views.

Stalin, who understands dialectics better than these people, are reminding you to inspect concrete reality, and that you can support even a monarchy, if it weakens imperialism.

Understanding dialectics and especially contradictions makes this a no Brainer. Calling for defeat of Iran isn't some big brained revolutionary defeatist a la inter-imperialist war. It is calling for the defeat of actually existing anti imperialism. It is calling for the victory imperialism because one is too foolish and egotistical to understand otherwise. Sometimes these views come from a childish and impatient understanding of socialism as an era of global transition. Sometimes these people want communism right now and stomp their feet and think that removing the Ayatollah now will bring us one step closer. Or taking out Hamas and the IDF both will do it. Idk fully what goes through the minds of clowns

Imperialist aggression against Iran is how the general contradiction between labor and capital articulate themselves right now at this time and place, i.e. via imperialism. Arguing for Iran's defeat is to argue for victory of imperialism. Which does not advance the cause for communism.

Lenin would be correct if this were an inter-imperialist war.

This is not an inter-imperialist war. The imperialist faction is the US/Israel. The other faction is a reactionary state that has consistently demonstrated that they are radically anti-imperialist, having armed and supported anti-imperialism their entire existence.

Is the Iranian islamic regime good? Nah. Would it being overthrown in favour of imperialist rule be a good thing for the left? Also nah.

Taking Lenin's position here is an analytical mistake. The end of Iran strengthens imperialism and weakens anti-imperialism, this is the primary contradiction in the world today, communists must side against imperialism in all cases. Regime change in Iran is not going to lead to a communist regime either so the fantasy of such can be disregarded.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

A salute from the revolutionaries of Palestine to the revolutionaries of Iran

تحية من ثوار فلسطين لثوار إيران

درود انقلابيون فلسطين به انقلابيون إيران

Yes, Iran getting the Syria treatment would be very good for the Iranian proletariat I'm sure /s

you

the ICP is not a communist party, it's not demcent

This isn't an inter-imperialist war, this is an anti-imperialist defensive war against a genocidal empire. you are the liberal here, supporting the statements of CIA infiltrated color revolutionary groups with no mass backing and no demcent organization