this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
106 points (91.4% liked)
Memes
55840 readers
780 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Globally, Iran and Russia both play a progressive role in undermining the era of imperialism, while the US Empire and Israel play a reactionary role in perpetuating and benefiting from the era of imperialism. That can be a tough pill to swallow if you've never really looked into imperialism as a special stage in capitalism, but with that understanding any generic demonization levied against flawed states that ultimately play a progressive global role only serves to benefit the reactionary states.
Russia and Iran are totalitarian imperialist states (Iran's imperialist ambitions are extremely constrained, but they would still gladly overrun their neighboring states if the opportunity existed). They're not undermining imperialism, they're perpetuating it. That's like arguing that GameStop is undermining capitalism by trying to buy eBay. Competing within the bounds of a system isn't undermining that system. Cancer isn't good because it sometimes kills bad people.
You appear to have confused intent with material position. Having imperialist ambitions does not make a state imperialist, just as an athlete’s desire for Olympic gold does not make them an Olympian if they have only ever managed bronze or silver in local leagues. For example most African nations are capitalist yet calling them imperialist is patently absurd as they lack the capacity to dominate global markets. Russia and Iran are similar in the fact that they occupy a semi-peripheral position where true imperialism is structurally impossible for them. They cannot export finance capital on a global scale or enforce unequal exchange through their own monetary systems or military.
Also imperialism is a specific thing. It is the division of the world among great powers to enforce super-exploitation via financial dominance and military coercion. It is not merely invasion. In the current conjuncture, Russia and Iran act as anti-imperialist forces not out of moral virtue or altruism but because direct competition with the US-led core is impossible. Their survival depends on weakening the hegemon’s grip. By funding resistance groups like Hamas or the PFLP, they disrupt the imperial chain of command. This fragmentation weakens the core’s ability to extract surplus value globally. Every blow to US hegemony creates space for other nations to resist neoliberal integration.
Your GameStop analogy fails on two counts. First it assumes parity between Iran/Russia and the imperial core which is factually absurd. Second it misses the structural dynamic entirely. A more accurate comparison is Company A funding unionization efforts at Company B to drain B’s resources and weaken its competitive edge. This action benefits Company A strategically but also materially improves conditions for Company B’s workers. The motive is self-interest yet the outcome aids the oppressed. Russia and Iran support anti-imperialist struggles to degrade US hegemony. This creates space for national liberation movements globally. That these states act from geopolitical necessity rather than altruism is irrelevant. The material result is a fractured imperial order that allows victims of super-exploitation to resist.
Your division between intent and capability is meaningless here. As is your quibbling over the specifics of imperialism. While there is, potentially, some room for argument over Iran, Russia fits your definition of Imperialism perfectly. Russia is a strong advocate for exactly the world of imperial spheres of influence that you describe, and it's absolutely wild that you can't see that. As for the question of intent vs capability, this is an irrelevant distinction because they are actively working towards the creation and reinforcement of imperialist power structures. As the strength of competing imperial powers in their respective sphere wane they will expand - or at least attempt to expand - to fill the gaps. That is imperialism.
The outcome of Russia's invasion of Ukraine is misery and oppression. They are not aiding the oppressed, they are oppressors. The Iranian regime engage in the oppression of their own people and if given the opportunity they would engage in the oppression of other people as well.
It's frankly ludicrous that I even have to explain any of this. You - and just about everyone else here - are operating on a childish morality. You haven't actually unpacked the propaganda you grew up with, you've just swapped out the heroes and villains in a global meta-narrative that still demands the existence of heroes and villains.
I'm aware that I'm trying to offer reason to a cult by even trying to convey any of this. I probably won't bother replying further, there's little value in trying to convince a wall not to be a wall.
Ignoring the distinction between possible ambition and material reality is intellectually bankrupt to put it lightly. You label Russia and Iran imperialist seemingly solely because they are capitalist. By that metric every African nation is imperialist. That is pure unadulterated idiocy. Imperialism requires the capacity to enforce unequal exchange globally. These states lack it and thus at current cannot be labeled imperialist as they are not.
Your second paragraph reeks of Western chauvinism. Russia halted the ethnic cleansing and a decade-long shelling campaign in the Donbass. That is liberatory for the people there regardless of Moscow’s motives or it being a side effect of the struggle against Washington as I already pointed out. Iran has tens of thousands in the streets supporting its stance against the genocidal Israeli regime and US empire. This contradicts your caricature. Yes Iran is capitalist with internal exploitation. But compare it to Libya after Western intervention. The alternative to these regimes is not liberal democracy. It is neocolonial destruction. Iran also funds Hamas Hezbollah PFLP and AnsarAllah among others which directly aids the oppressed against their oppressors. You dismiss this because it inconveniences your moral narrative.
Your third paragraph is hysterical projection. I discuss structural positions and class relations. Not heroes or villains. Not altruism. You cannot grasp dialectics so you reduce everything to childish morality tales. Again I very clearly stated multiple times that the good is mostly side effects of their material positions and struggles quite literally the opposite of your moral hysterics seeking to condemn condemn condemn with no analysis.
You close by calling dissenters a cult while dodging all of the substance to continue to push your doctrine. You refuse to engage because you have no counter-argument. Only insults. Your "reason" is just ideological compliance with the imperial core. The irony is palpable.
Most countries of the world are capitalist. Most of them are poor or middle income.
Only a tiny number of them are in the imperial core, and fit most modern definitions of imperialist. Russia is not among them.
"Totalitarian" isn't a real thing, and neither Russia nor Iran are imperialist. Even if we assumed that you were 100% correct in saying they would be imperialist if they could (which is extremely debatable in and of itself), it remains true that right now they are undermining actual imperialism, which is being perpetuated by and practiced by the west and their vassals exclusively.