Iran and Russia are currently one of the few forces actively engaging in combatting the west and their hegemony and therefore they get critical support from communists. There will be exacyly 0 people on here who support Putin or the Iranian government apart from critical support for their efforts against the US. Would I rather have a perfect communist state doing all of this? Yes, but it does not exist.

We critically support nationalist movements that undermine imperialism and neocolonialism, and in that respect both Iran and Russia play a progressive role in opposing imperialism. We do not support their economic systems, and desire socialism in these countries, which would be preferable to their current status. We do not consider Russia or Iran to themselves be imperialist, due to not being dominated by a financial oligarchy in particular, and therefore not actually running their economies on export of capital as their basis and not reaching the imperialist stage of capitalism (even if they could eventually become as such without socialist revolution).

nobody here uncoditionally support russia and iran in everything they do

We don’t look at the Russian Federation and imagine the Soviet Union, nor does nobody think Putin is building socialism. The support is a strategic judgment about the global balance of forces, rooted in a materialist reading of where the primary contradiction lies rather than having anything to do with Russia’s internal character.

The primary contradiction in the world is a bloc conflict between Western imperialist states, led by the United States, and the Global South. Western imperialism is the system that enforces economic extraction through debt, sanctions, military bases, trade rules, enabled by dollar’s reserve status. It’s the force that has strangled development in the Global South and consistently prevented any alternative path of development from gaining traction. As long as that system remains unchallenged there can be no space for experiments in socialism or even genuinely sovereign capitalist development that could later be transformed. That makes breaking Western hegemony a prerequisite for any meaningful change going forward.

Russia currently acts as the main military force directly challenging American led unipolar order. While it’s not doing it for communist reasons, their push against NATO expansion and efforts to build alternative financial and trade architectures with BRICS are objectively opening fractures in Western dominance. Russia bogs down NATO in Ukraine and exposes the limits of Western power which, in turn, weakens the imperialist camp creating room for left movements to grow around the world.

So when we say we critically support Russia, we are not endorsing Russia’s internal political system, its capitalist class, nationalist ideology, or its treatment of workers and leftists inside its borders. Our support is conditional and tactical, extending only as far as Russia acts as a counter hegemonic force. The moment Russia pivots toward trying to carve up the world with Western powers or becomes a new oppressor of weaker nations in a way that simply replaces current imperialist hierarchy, that support goes away. Communists are internationalists who see the current moment as one where the central task as weakening the main enemy.

I’ll use a historical parallel to help make this all more concrete. Communists critically supported the Allied powers against nazi Germany during the second world war even though the Allies were capitalist imperialists themselves, and just as is the case with Russia today, no one mistook Churchill or Roosevelt for being socialists. The point was that fascism represented the most aggressive and immediate threat to the working class and to the possibility of socialist advance. Today, that threat happens to be Western imperialism with its endless hot wars along with economic warfare against the rest of the world. And the scope of critical support is about actively disrupting Western imperialism.

We live in a world where the US and its vassals can dictate terms to everyone else, and breaking Western hegemony leads to one with more possibilities for mass movements and resource sovereignty creating more room for socialist organizing. Russia’s resistance helps crack that door open, and that’s why it makes sense to make tactical alignment on one particular axis of struggle while maintaining full independence on all others which is what giving critical support is.

Similarly, Iran is acting as a primary anti-imperialist force in West Asia. Its internal character is not communist, but it has sovereignty which is a prerequisite for any genuine improvement in the conditions. Ultimately, it's for the people living in the country to decide how to move forward. Socialism cannot be imposed externally, and it must emerge from within each country according to its own historical and material conditions.

The difference can also come down to the country we're in. Marxists in China will have a different calculus open to them than Marxists in the United States. For us on the U.S., we tend to embrace revolutionary defeatism as any nation which resists our empire's aggression is worth supporting even though they're likely incredibly imperfect. For USians any nation which opposes our imperialist projects represents a progressive force towards dismantling our empire

I have a very hard time understanding the post actually.

“the truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist.”

What is the meaning of this statement in this context? It doesn't give any answers and lacks substance.

If the US succeeds in subduing Iran and the EU/NATO succeeds in weakening Russia to the point of fragmentation, then China is left as the only major obstacle to Western hegemony. In such a world, the US would be more aggressive in the Pacific, sanctions and blockades would become easier to enforce, the Belt and Road Initiative would face greater pressure, Cuba and other sanctioned states would become more isolated, and anti-colonial governments in places like the Sahel would lose important sources of external support. This would be bad for the proletariat. Generally a strong Russia and a strong Iran is essential for increased multipolarity and a stronger development of the material conditions of the working class.

This support is not unconditional but critical.

Russia and Iran as weak links in imperialism secondary imperialisms (Iran, Russia).

Meaning what? That they are themselves imperialist, not just to the degree of western states? From a ML standpoint this is laughable, what is the definition of imperialism then? It is not the usual Leninist one that's for sure.

When the sanctions on Iran end, and they're allowed to participate in the global community like everyone else, then we'll be fine criticizing them day and night; for now, they've been through decades of sanctions that have genuinely killed and hurt people. Here's Giuliani literally excitedly telling people about how the sanctions on Iran are working and using as evidence people having to sell their organs and that men and women are starving:

https://x.com/MintPressNews/status/1575843136798347265

https://xcancel.com/MintPressNews/status/1575843136798347265

There's a time and place for criticizing countries, and one that's currently being starved to death needs support, not criticism. Gaza isn't communist either, and I'm sure there are nationalists who support Gaza as well, but that doesn't change the fact that at this time the people of Palestine need help and total support.

As a Marxist, does the fate of the people of Iran mean anything to you? Because as bad as the Iranian government is, in an existential conflict like what they've been put through for decades, now is not the time to oppose them. When America conducts attacks on the Iranian people, when they attempt to starve the Iranian people to death, when they do everything in their power to destroy the lives of the Iranian people, who do you think is pushing back against all that and trying to put a stop to it? It's literally their government; there are no other forces protecting the Iranian people from this horrific imperialist violence.

As I said, when they are allowed to rejoin the global community and participate like everyone else, then we'll be more than happy to criticize them day and night, but while the lives of the Iranian people is at risk, now is not the time.

As for Russia: they're opposing Western hegemony, and the world needs a power in opposition to the West's EXTREMELY active imperialism. Trust the people of the world when they vote that America is the greatest threat to world peace. Russia has a bad government, but they're not starting wars and civil wars in Africa and the Middle East or murdering African leaders. Over the course of the last twenty years, America has killed literal millions of people around the world and destabilized countries horrifically. Iraq used to be one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East, and after this last war, the UN said Iraq had been reduced to a pre-industrial stage. France has literally tried to murder Traore tens of times.

Yang is wrong. What you call "Orthodox Marxists" in China are a tiny minority of ultras. What you call "Chinese nationalists and national leftists" are the mainstream Marxist-Leninists in the CPC. Iran and Russia are not imperialist. Russia is semi-peripheral and Iran is a global south country. They are both fighting an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist war. This is regardless of the internal nature of their systems (which are closer to industrial capitalist and different from the financialized neoliberal system of modern western countries). We don't uncritically or "unconditionally" support the Russian or Iranian governments, we support their anti-imperialist struggles and their struggle for sovereignty in the face of Western neocolonial aggression.

Others are going to give answers founded in theory as applied to the geopolitical situation better than I could. There are also emotional reasons I am inclined favorably toward enemies of the US. I hate it here. I hate here. We are ruled by mad child molesting aristocrats. All institutions were designed by scammers and robber barons to be as exhausting, expensive, and minimally helpful as possible. Most people are bigots of at least one kind. No doubt the same things are wrong in many other places but familiarity breeds contempt and I live here. I can't help but feel gratified when anyone bloodies uncle Sam's nose.

What do you mean by "Orthodox Marxist"? Generally in American left circles, the people who adopt that term tend to think that Lenin (or if not him, then certainly Stalin) either misinterpreted Marx or cynically used Marxism to gain power, but if I am not familiar with its usage in China.

In China, those who unconditionally support Iran and Russia are usually nationalists or national leftists.

If by "nationalists" you mean fascists and "national leftists" you mean fascists who adopt superficially left-wing rhetoric to cynically appeal to people, yeah that's pretty much the same as here in America. What are you seeing that leads you to believe that may not be the case?

At least in my part of Europe, the position you describe is also the position of most leftist and communist organisations. Whether that’s because open support for Russia or Iran is a sure way to put a target on your back for intelligence agencies and possible criminalisation, or if it’s because it’s actually the majority position is unclear to me.

It is becoming more common for people to openly support Iran in their fight against US imperialism, but support for Russia remains very controversial. Most orgs will say that working class people suffer from war, and that all sides should seek for diplomacy above everything else. That’s also the largest argument against increased military spending. But it’s not a very convincing argument to the masses who believe that Ukraine deserves our material support (at least where I live).

Only recently has local leftist media started reporting on the Ukrainian neonazi movement and how it’s selling off all its capital to Western investors, I think because they realise that support for Ukraine in the West needs to fall before people are willing to get behind an anti militarisation platform.

our evaluation is contingent on their opposition to western hegemony. I'd prefer a russia trying to do communism again or a secular communist iran etc of course but the US is the biggest problem on the world stage so i have no choice but to think substantial opposition to it is good.

in some sense there's not really a proletarian side to these conflicts, but the west winning would be much much worse.

supporting one state does not mean the same thing for different individuals. right wingers are against israel because they perceive israel as taking their tax money and healthcare and want to be america first while left wingers are against israel because of the apartheid and genocide. some people support russia because they see it as a white supremacist ultra christian state (not true) while other people support russia as a force against western hegemony. some people support china because they perceive a harsh, ultra disciplined, monoethnic state while others support china because they see it as an example of a successful socialist country. someone from china not supporting russia, iran, north korea etc. will have a vastly different motivation and perspective than (the average) western person not supporting those states.

i wouldnt say its a chinese left wing vs american left wing thing either because were looking at orthodox marxist leninist maoist opinions here and many leftists would shiver being at being called marxinist leninist.

yang heping also has an unique perspective because he was born in 1952 to parents who moved to maoist china to help with the revolution and has seen an ideological/historical world we didnt get to see

From what i've observed the answer falls into a couple of camps, 1. ML's usually tend to back Russia and Iran due to their opposition to western hegemony even if they accept that they aren't progressive due to a general understanding that the no.1 enemy of socialism in the modern era is american imperialism and thus their fight against it is beneficial in the long term, even if they preffer that they were socialists

2. The second camp is the nationalist communist types, for example the ACP, they generally tend to view russia and iran positively precisely because they are socially regressive

3. The general idea of “the truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist.” while accepted as correct, it's viewed negatively due to a tendecy of certain western marxist schools to call for revolutions in already socialist states like Cuba or China and their tendency to infiltrate and sabotage parties that support the existing socialist countries and anti-imperialist struggles against the US and its lapdogs.

It also doesn't help that these schools of thought were actively financed and guided by the CIA to undermine the various socialist movement in the west, so the support of anti-imperialism even if done by coincidence like in the case of russia and iran became a way to see if someone is actually comitted as a serious socialist and not a government spook

From your replies, it seems like you are talking about maoists and other ultra-left deviations and not Marxism-Leninism.

"Orthodox marxism" doesn't exist except for said ultras and maoists in my experience. Marx gave us tools, not a blueprint or dogma. Orthodox tools are not a thing.

Other than that, there does not seem to be much difference between the Yang Heping stance and us. Where we seem to overlap with YH is Iran and Russia are to be supported for utility reasons only (critical support), but where we differ, and where YH reveals himself as an ultra, is that YH categorises these two countries wrongly as "imperialist".

I highly doubt that YH stance is the only stance available from a person that calls themselves Marxist-Leninist in China. China has 1.4 billion people, how big is this guy in the Marxist-Leninist space of China?

I do hope that he does not represent the standard of Marxist-Leninist analysis by Chinese leftists.

What does "Orthodox Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" mean? In English, Orthodox Marxists are generally those who decry Leninism, and Maoist can mean anything from "Believes in Mao-Zedong thought." to "Is a Gonzalo supporter but only admits so behind closed doors." This description you've given of this person is full of contradictory information and isn't very helpful to me.

Can you elaborate on your terms please?

What does he think about the Odessa Massacre, the attempts at ethnic cleansing of Russian speakers and minorities in Ukraine and the glorification of Ukrainian Nazis? Would these factors constitute a defensive struggle against Russia? If this is considered a defensive struggle then would he apply the same logic to ETIM terrorists in west China?

Nobody on the left supports Russia what they support is the disarmament of nato and killing of nazis that Russia is engaged in.

Iran is a borderline socialist nation. If you read their constitution there are obligations to helping the poor and fighting oppression. They may not be "ML" but they are practicing Socialism with Islamic characteristics, they have a long ways to go and they will need to rejigger some things but they are on the right path.