This article stems from a lack of understanding. A lack of understanding of all those movements that call themselves socialist but overlook the contradictions in their discourse and that attempt to conceal, beneath false rhetoric, an internationalist sentiment that, far from supporting movements with workers' aims, focuses on bolstering the power of proto-imperialist states like Iran, Russia, or China.
Index1. Anti-imperialism, internationalism and bourgeois geopolitics
2. Russia, China and Iran, the false (non) alternative bloc
2.1. Iran: Capitalism in crisis, theocracy and unlimited repression
3. Neither imperialism nor theocracy. The invisible proclamations of the Iranian working class[3]
4. Between powers and resistances: taking advantage of the contradictions of imperialist wars in Palestine and Kurdistan
5. Kurds and Palestinians: From camps in Lebanon to tactical alliances with powers
----------------------------------------------
These three global or regional powers-depending on who characterizes them-are, at least rhetorically, opposed to the United States and openly challenging its hegemony across the globe. China stands out in this scenario, through economic agreements in regions such as Africa and Latin America; Russia also plays a significant role, with the invasion of Ukraine and Crimea, maintaining its positions in the Black Sea and with its sights set on the warm waters of the Mediterranean; and Iran is extending its military umbrella through the now greatly weakened Axis of Resistance.
Some of the left-wing sectors we're referring to openly support these countries and the creation of organizations like the BRICS. They fight for a multipolar world, hoping to see the fall of US hegemony and the imperialism that has caused so much damage for over seventy years through coups, imperialist wars, regime change operations, and control of the global market and economic transactions through the dollar.
At the same time, these militants and organizations characterized as revolutionary remain silent in the face of the massacres committed by the Iranian regime during the recent protests, which have left more than three thousand dead, most of them demonstrators. They remain silent when Russia imprisons activists, Marxists, and anarchists for organizing reading groups about the revolution. They remain silent in the face of the extreme technological and repressive control that China currently experiences. But these same militants and organizations don't waste a second in accusing, for example, the fighters of the YPG/YPJ, the PKK, and other socialist groups in Kurdistan of being sellouts to US imperialism or even of being part of the Zionist lobby and supporting it.
In this article, we will critique bloc politics and the support for multipolarity from socialist positions, arguing that these merely displace the question of class in favor of authoritarian and capitalist regimes. We will argue in favor of the tenets of class internationalism, revolutionary unity, and organization in a context where the class divide deepens daily, in the face of bourgeois states and imperialist war. We will focus particularly on Iran and the recent protests, analyzing the issue of tactical alliances between subordinate actors and major powers, how these groups exploit the contradictions of capital, and the historical and current relationship between the Kurdish and Palestinian liberation movements.
1. Anti-imperialism, internationalism and bourgeois geopolitics
"The enemy of my enemy does NOT have to be my friend"
Imperialism, in the socialist tradition, constitutes a historical phase of capitalism characterized by the concentration and centralization of capital in monopolies, the hegemony of finance capital, the export of capital in commodities, the division of the world among large corporations and state powers, and the recurrence of conflicts over the redistribution of spheres of influence. It is not simply an aggressive foreign policy, but a systemic structure of global accumulation based on the economic, political, and military subordination of peripheral territories, where the working class is the primary victim.
A perfect example today is the United States, which, with boundless cynicism and without the slightest attempt at concealment, maintains an increasingly aggressive imperialist policy through various tools such as: military projection and armed "deterrence," with hundreds of military bases in more than eighty countries and strategic alliances like NATO; concrete military actions, such as naval blockades and attacks on rival countries-which de facto amounts to declaring war-invasions, bombings, kidnappings, and constant threats that seem to be escalating; the dollar, along with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, using its currency as a reserve, and the SWIFT financial system and sanctions as political weapons; its capacity to define laws, international agreements, label groups as terrorists, and achieve media and ideological hegemony in much of the world, etc. All of this is increasing as the United States loses its global hegemony.
Taking these factors into account, we will try to define what anti-imperialism is and what it is not. Anti-imperialism is not simply about opposing a specific dominant power at a particular moment. Being against the interests of the United States does not automatically define you as anti-imperialist, as certain left-wing groups that interpret international politics through a logic of blocs would have us believe.
Anti-imperialism entails, among other things, breaking the bonds of financial, technological, and commercial dependence, defending the self-determination of peoples, socializing control of strategic resources, and articulating a class-based internationalism aimed at overcoming capitalism. Since imperialism is a relationship of structural domination by the State and Capital, anti-imperialism is a structurally anti-capitalist position, based on the position of individuals within the structure of domination, and which advocates for the international self-organization of the working class.
The BRICS multipolarity strategy does not imply anti-imperialism in a socialist sense: it does not transform the structures of domination of global capitalism, but rather multiplies the centers of accumulation, maintaining the same extractive and competitive logics. It is a creation of bourgeois geopolitics that arises after the rise of new powers, but it does not seek to end capital or domination; instead, it aims to divide the poles of economic, political, and military power among these powers on a global scale. China and Russia are the main promoters of this perspective, seeking to strengthen their positions against US hegemony by opening new economic, political, and diplomatic spaces.
Adopting the perspective of multipolarity as one's own means displacing the tenets of class struggle and revolutionary rupture that have historically underpinned the various positions within socialism. It means obscuring the class struggle within countries, especially during times of confrontation and revolt, since it limits itself to the support of other capitalist states and their bourgeoisies against the US hegemon. This generates a complicit silence among revolutionary organizations in the face of massacres and repression, as we have seen in the case of Iran, and as we have also witnessed at other times in the cases of Russia and China. The consequence is the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but the reality is that this is not necessarily the case.
These states do not resist imperialism as a system, but rather aspire to become autonomous centers of power within the same world order, and even to become imperialist countries themselves, vying for market share, resources, and spheres of influence with the rest of the world and among themselves. A very clear example is the dispute between China and Russia for control of influence and markets in Central Asia. This is a competition between national capital, not a transcendence of capitalism. Their confrontation with the United States does not equate to a break with the imperialist system.
From an internationalist perspective, criticizing these regimes does not imply legitimizing US and Western imperialism. The criterion should not be geopolitical ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), but rather class-based ("who benefits from the disputes and who pays the costs"). Support should be directed toward popular and proletarian struggles for better living conditions and their emancipation, while simultaneously opposing external aggression and internal forms of domination. A consistent and socialist anti-imperialism does not replace one state and capitalist hegemony with another, but rather questions the structural foundations of the global capitalist system and seeks to overturn it.
We live in times of international disintegration, of escalating conflicts and military interventions by US imperialism and its vassals, by Zionism and all its followers across the globe, especially in West Asia, Latin America, and the Sahel region of Africa. Therefore, we cannot allow any part of the revolutionary left to embrace the tenets of multipolarity, or a state-centric perspective or analysis detached from the interests of the working class. Now more than ever, the revolutionary left must unite in a truly anti-imperialist and internationalist movement. We must foster the strengthening of the working class in every sense, along with its organizations, and intensify the struggle for power toward self-managed and libertarian socialism.
2. Russia, China and Iran, the false (non) alternative bloc
From this analytical framework, China, Russia, and Iran, while not yet imperialist, cannot be characterized as anti-imperialist either, since they do not question the logic of global capitalist accumulation or the hierarchical division of the world, but rather seek to improve their position within it.
China operates through a competitive state capitalism, with large conglomerates and intense capital outflows to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It has its own tech giants, real estate bubbles, and private healthcare, and maintains millions of workers in brutal conditions of systematic exploitation. The Chinese ruling class is composed of state bureaucrats and private capitalists who live lavishly at the expense of workers, control unions, arrest labor spokespeople, and use the police to repress legitimate worker protests. And although the Chinese market abroad does not replicate classic colonialism, its investments, loans, and infrastructure deliberately generate asymmetrical relationships, indebtedness, and dependency, shaping dynamics of economic neocolonialism and subordination.
Russia, for its part, acts as a regional power seeking to consolidate its sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space, secure energy routes and key geostrategic positions in Central Asia, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean against NATO, and guarantee markets for its energy-military complex. This is not a socialist or emancipatory project, but rather the defense of the interests of its capitalist elite, which seeks to project itself and gain markets abroad. It is a particularly clientelistic and repressive system based on oligarchs who became wealthy after the fall of the USSR and are generally closely linked to the state.
We will delve deeper into Iran given the current circumstances: the geopolitical realignment in West Asia, a foreseeable imperialist attack on the country, and the largest protests in its recent history.
2.1. Iran: Capitalism in crisis, theocracy and unlimited repression
The Islamic Republic of Iran, located in Western Asia, is a very complex country with more than 90 million inhabitants and borders up to seven different countries, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, as well as very important straits for the world trade of hydrocarbons such as the Strait of Hormuz, which currently go mainly towards China, India and Japan.
It is a theocracy where the highest position has been held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since 1989. He should not be confused with Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic who came to power after the 1979 revolution. That year, the Iranian revolution overthrew the criminal and authoritarian monarchy of the Pahlavi dynasty. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last monarch of Iran, ruled with great power and political control thanks to a 1953 coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the oil industry in 1951, a move that displeased the British and Americans.
With the prime minister sidelined and Western oil companies pleased, the regime responded to US interests and repressed all other political currents. Finally, in 1979, after several periods of liberalization, inflation, discontent, and mass strikes, the monarchy was overthrown and the Islamic Republic was proclaimed. Currently, its political system is based on a hybrid model of elected institutions, such as the president and parliament, with unelected ones, such as the Supreme Leader, who holds both political and religious authority, and the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts.
Iran has a capitalist economy dependent on the export of hydrocarbons to the global market. Despite failing to gain membership in the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization, it has continued its own path toward neoliberalism, repeating its prescriptions: privatizing state-owned enterprises and factories, reforming labor and pension laws, creating the conditions for increased temporary and subcontracted work, and gradually eliminating subsidies for basic goods such as fuel and essential items. The soaring inflation resulting from sanctions, economic liberalization policies, and the declining rate of profit[1]over the past twenty years has plunged the population into abject poverty.
On the one hand, sanctions limit access to international credit, modern technology, machinery, and efficient supply chains, making production in Iran more expensive than in other countries. At the same time, obstacles are placed in the way of exporting, using the banking system, and repatriating income normally, thus reducing profits. Iran currently lacks the capacity to offset this economic pressure by extracting value from other countries-as China or the United States do-so it ends up blatantly cutting internal costs through privatizations, the elimination of subsidies, inflation, job insecurity, and reductions in social spending, which amounts to transferring public assets to its private elites.
In short, by not being able to increase external income, it reduces internal costs, and the children of the poor suffer unemployment, lack of housing or food with skyrocketing prices, while the children of those who hold power enjoy luxuries and pleasures abroad since their parents, close to the government or the IRGC[2]own the capital and natural and mineral resources of the country.
All popular responses in the form of workers' strikes, student revolts, or pensioners' protests that have occurred since the 1990s in places like Mashhad, Islamshahr, and Tehran have been brutally and quasi-militarily repressed. The regime has systematically repressed minority nationalities and religions, LGBT people, and workers' and feminist organizations. It has responded to protests systematically with unrestrained repression, through assassinations, arrests, and imprisonments, this time leaving a death toll of between three and five thousand (depending on the source), the majority of them protesters. To claim that all of this is fabrication by Western propaganda is to deceive oneself and to undermine the international workers' struggle.
Externally, it has sought regional geopolitical projection through military interventions and alliances in countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine, establishing its own axis of influence. This stems from a logic of state competition for hegemony, not from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, or emancipatory program, nor from humanitarian support for the Palestinian cause.
Within this geopolitical framework, and given the country's internal situation, the imperialist powers-with the United States as the hegemonic actor, the unconditional support of the main European players, and Israel's strategic interests as the central driving force-have been preparing the ground for a political regime change in the country by carrying out hybrid warfare operations. Mossad itself stated on Twitter: "We are with you, not just remotely and verbally. We are with you on the ground."
Meanwhile, certain sectors of the international left, trapped in reductionist and dichotomous interpretations of power blocs, have chosen to disregard the voices and demands of their Iranian counterparts, rendering their grievances invisible, displacing the class question, and prioritizing a camp-like logic for fear of appearing to agree with the US and Israeli agenda. In contrast to these positions, which only hinder our struggle, we will now address the demands of our revolutionary comrades in Iran and review some of their key experiences, which have been largely silenced.
3. Neither imperialism nor theocracy. The invisible proclamations of the Iranian working class[3]
The latest uprising in Iran affected the country's major cities and universities, and has been characterized by its cross-class, inter-ethnic, and inter-religious nature. It is clear that the revolts in Iran are not solely a response to foreign interference in the regime, but also to living conditions that have steadily worsened in recent years as a result of sanctions, neoliberal monetary policy, and the climate crisis.
To put things in context, after the 12-day war against US and Israeli imperialism, the value of the Iranian rial plummeted, reaching historic lows, which exacerbated the already precarious economic situation. While the official inflation rate was 42% in December 2025, food inflation now stands at 72%, and the price of bread has increased by 113%. Meanwhile, the capital city is suffering its worst drought in years, and the government is even considering relocating it due to its inability to offer solutions.
The uprising began after a relative reduction in profits for bazaar merchants, who had amassed enormous gains while society grew increasingly impoverished. This was merely the final straw. Other sectors of the population, suffering from empty tables, a significant increase in poverty, higher taxes, soaring gasoline prices, and the unchecked rise in the cost of basic goods, quickly joined the movement. Segments of society such as students, young people, women, and workers soon joined the protests, which spread to cities like Isfahan, Mashhad, Karaj, Hamedan, Qeshm, Kish, Mallard, Mamasani, and Kerman.
In the midst of the chaos, Iran's enemies-especially the United States and Israel-tried to capitalize on the uprisings in support of the Shah's monarchist policies. Leveraging their international media power, they pushed to mobilize support for their own interests in the region. Through hybrid warfare operations, thousands of fake Twitter accounts, according to an investigation by the French newspaper Le Figaro , allegedly posted more than 843 million tweets, thousands of hashtags, and generated up to 1.7 billion likes on posts promoting Reza Pahlavi and the return of the monarchy. They not only intervened on social media but also openly carried out covert terrorist operations to try to overthrow the regime and spread pro-Shah propaganda, including on the streets. But ultimately, according to our counterparts on the ground, no single ideology or organized political force has managed to lead the protests.
Some Iranian workers' organizations also denounced the Shah's monarchist forces, with the aforementioned material and media support from the United States and Israel, for carrying out attacks against other ideological currents within the protests, acting as enforcers for capital. Through deception, death threats, and intimidation, they sought to eliminate certain rival figures with popular support, which, for the revolutionary left, meant benefiting the Islamic Republic at the expense of the ongoing popular revolution.
A segment of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie in Iran supports the Shah's positions and also looks to the West with a desire to expand the neoliberal model and the free market. This is the aspect of the protests covered by the Western press, which doesn't delve into in-depth analysis or consider the workers' perspectives. Therefore, it falls to us to analyze and give voice to the class movements, moving beyond the simplistic and bloc-based analyses employed by some on the left.
Thousands of young people, peasants, proletarians, and women have suffered the regime's massacres, and, after reading its tenets, they almost certainly hate the United States, Israel, and the theocratic regime of the Ayatollahs, although they lack sufficient strength, at least for now, to exert ideological hegemony in the subversive process.
The most common slogans of the revolutionary left calling for the overthrow of Iranian capitalism were: "Long live the struggle against poverty, high prices, and inflation! Forward with the revolution!", "Death to the regime, death to the Shah!", "No Pahlavi, no leader (supreme leader), democracy and equality!", "Women, life, freedom!", "Long live freedom, long live socialism!", "The student dies, but will not accept humiliation!", "No to Zionism, no to the monarchy, and no to imperialism!" , and a firm opposition to the "fascist" external intervention of Israel in their country. These positions are not easily found in Western mass media and are only found on socialist websites, social networks, and videos disseminated by the protesters themselves. According to them, it is about breaking free from the dualistic game between the Axis of Resistance and Imperialism, since neither represents "socialist liberation."
It is worth mentioning the actions of the workers at AarAb and Wagon Pars, who occupied and took control of the logistics and industrial plants in the city of Arak. Also noteworthy are the oil, gas, and mining workers who went on strike to protest low wages, job insecurity, the elimination of subcontracting, and the need for improved working conditions. The militant students from Tehran's universities-who participated in the demonstrations and called on other students to join the street protests-and the healthcare and education workers are also significant. For the country's revolutionary left, all these segments of Iranian society represent the return of the working class to the political arena.
At the same time, workers' and women's organizations such as the Council for the Organization of Oil Workers' Protests, the Coordinating Council of Nurses' Protests, various pensioners' unions, and the Haft Tappeh Sugar Cane Workers' Union called for the more intensive use of tools such as general strikes and mutual aid committees, night chants, neighborhood control, and revolutionary coordination as decisive actions against the state and capitalism, in order to massively expand a political and revolutionary movement.
Statements of support from "activist workers in Kurdistan and Azerbaijan" were also made public. While some on the Western left accused the Kurdish people, in general terms and as if they were a unified entity, of supporting genocidal Zionism, some organizations called for the overthrow of monarchism and the creation of a "reflective movement toward the revolutionary horizon" in order to confront imperialist and Zionist regime change projects, "in defense of the working class and the socialist future."
Having examined the positions of the revolutionary movements in Iran, specifically in the context of the protests, and understanding that a position based on state blocs overshadows the issue of class and the concrete demands of the workers, several questions arise. What about armed groups or movements that rely on foreign powers to continue their projects? Are they aligning themselves ideologically with one power or another, or are they operating under reductionist analyses? Should we accept these positions or cease supporting these movements?
4. Between powers and resistances: taking advantage of the contradictions of imperialist wars in Palestine and Kurdistan
Actors do not operate in a vacuum, nor are they driven by pure ideology, but rather within material power structures and historical contexts beyond their control, related to capital, war, and imperialism. This material reality conditions all their actions. Regional powers or superpowers, such as Iran, the United States, and Israel, do not support movements out of solidarity but out of self-interest. Regional armed movements are typically instrumentalized and used as proxies[4]to weaken rivals, such as the Kurdish and Palestinian liberation struggles, despite their internal diversity.
To claim that the armed and political movement in Rojava is incoherent or that it has "sold out to imperialism," as has been heard recently following the offensive by Al-Jolani's Islamist government, for its tactical alliance with the United States or its negotiations with the government, is, at the very least, lacking in rigor and uncritical. A careful analysis of the context reveals that the Kurdish militias do not control sovereign territory and are surrounded by powerful enemies such as Turkey, the Syrian governments of Assad and Jolani, and ISIS, making them militarily very vulnerable.
Therefore, we can understand that without secure territory they cannot carry out the project of Democratic Confederalism, and that without military support they cannot withstand the onslaught of Turkey or ISIS. Thus, a tactical alliance is a fundamental strategy for the material survival of armed groups. This is not about ideological affinity, but rather, as important historical figures like Lenin already stated, about exploiting inter-imperialist contradictions and the fissures created by their conflicts for the benefit of the working class.
The powerful manipulate the weak, just as the weak manipulate the context and sometimes even the powerful. The United States used the armed movement in Rojava as cannon fodder against ISIS, to destabilize the Assad regime, and as leverage in negotiations with Turkey, all while continuing to sell it weapons and provide military intelligence. Meanwhile, the Kurds received training and weapons from the hegemon, which they used to continue their movement. The armed struggle in Kurdistan is not new; they have been fighting for over forty years and know exactly who the enemy is.
Of course, playing with a context you can't control has consequences, and we're seeing them as I write this: the United States has abandoned the Kurds, using them as bargaining chips in a deal between Israel and Turkey, countries currently vying for hegemony and influence in Syria amid Iran's decline. With the approval of the United States and Israel, the Damascus government, supported by Turkey, launched a major offensive against Rojava. The Autonomous Administration lost significant territory, suffered several massacres, and failed to halt the advance of Islamist forces.
As of today, when this article is being published, events are changing very rapidly, but everything seems to indicate that the Autonomous Administration will be dissolved following a ceasefire agreement with the government. According to preliminary information, they will maintain armed self-defense units in their cities in the form of battalions and brigades legally integrated into the Damascus army. State forces will not be allowed access to the areas of Kobani, Hasakah, or Qamishli; only some forces will be permitted in the centers of the latter two cities. The administration will be integrated into Syrian institutions.
In terms of revolutionary achievements, this constitutes, at least in my opinion, a partial capitulation, forced by the sheer number of enemy forces and the full support they receive from the major powers. They have achieved civil rights and recognition as a people, but the democratic institutions and self-government they created, according to the agreement, must gradually disappear. It is too early to say, as we do not know what strategy their cadres, who have spent so many years with weapons on their backs, may be developing; only time will tell. And every revolutionary movement must know when to retreat, when to negotiate, or when to go on the offensive if it wants to survive or keep its community alive in the face of massacres.
The Palestinian case is similar. Its structural position is even weaker than that of the Kurdish political movements. It is suffering genocide. Military occupation and ethnic cleansing are ongoing, leaving it in a position of complete asymmetry with Israel. This is why they rely on external support. Iran, which vies with Israel for regional hegemony, supports Palestinian political movements with weapons, intelligence, and funding, especially Islamist factions like Hamas. Consequently, some Palestinian armed groups are being used as proxy armies by Iran.
This condition of subordination does not imply-or need not imply-adherence to, doctrinal coherence with, or total political control of Iran. In the specific case of Hamas, everything seems to indicate that they have an affinity, but this is not the case for some of the Palestinian socialist or nationalist political movements that also employ its weapons. After two years of genocide, the Palestinians, as with the imposition on the Kurdish people, are now suffering under a sham "Peace Council" that they have been forced to accept and which is nothing more than a colonial and imperialist project of a few billionaires we all know.
In short, and to summarize the idea I want to develop here, subaltern movements, if we want to call them that, navigate structures imposed upon them by the reality of the hegemonic struggle between the powers; they don't choose their context. It's about exploiting the contradictions of capital, in the case of Kurds and Palestinians, to survive both politically and physically. Therefore, in any case, as revolutionary movements, we shouldn't ask how ideologically pure they are compared to our own ideas, but rather what strategies they are capable of implementing to advance toward revolution in each context, and what we consider to be their limitations and errors.
The occasional alliances of subordinate actors with state powers, as we have explained, do not imply ideological adherence but rather a calculation of survival. This is an instrumental approach by actors operating under enormous power asymmetries without necessarily sharing their political project. It often involves short- or medium-term strategic calculations focused on maintaining autonomy and surviving. In contrast, understanding the international system as organized by closed and homogeneous blocs-imperialist and anti-imperialist-leads to automatically and uncritically supporting regimes that are extremely contrary to our interests as a class, as has been the practice of militants and organizations of the Western revolutionary left.
Since we're on the topic of Kurds and Palestinians, let's address some questions that have been circulating on social media and in publications from the radical left lately. Is the Kurdish movement pro-Israeli? Is it aligned with the Zionist project in the Middle East? What is the relationship between the Palestinian liberation movement and the Kurdish movement? Are these movements currently in conflict or incompatible?
5. Kurds and Palestinians: From camps in Lebanon to tactical alliances with powers
The relationship between the Kurdish and Palestinian political movements has undergone transformations over time. Nevertheless, their trajectories have intersected, leading to episodes of political cooperation and solidarity. Both peoples share similar structural conditions: the absence of a truly independent state with full sovereignty-or only with very limited rights-processes of forced diaspora, and dynamics of territorial fragmentation and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by other powers.
In the 1980s, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) welcomed exiles from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to Lebanese refugee camps, where they were trained in guerrilla warfare and political organizing. Indeed, during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, PKK fighters fought alongside Lebanese and Palestinian fighters against the Israelis, resulting in the deaths of ten guerrillas and the capture of fifteen. They were held in detention centers and interrogated by Israelis and Turks. This cooperation, based on a shared anti-imperialist and socialist perspective, shaped the memory and political practices of many fighters from both groups.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (1969).
Following the decline of the Palestinian revolutionary left and the rise of Islamist forces, frictions emerged between them. Hamas maintains ties with Turkey and Iran-which repress Kurdish liberation movements-and has repeatedly praised Turkish operations in Afrin. Some sectors of the Kurdish population interpret these movements in national and religious terms, rather than from a class-based or anti-colonial perspective, which has generated friction between the two struggles. This does not mean that the Kurds, in general, now side with Israel.
In fact, the PKK and the Union of Kurdish Communities (KCK) condemned and categorically labeled the invasion of Gaza as genocide as early as November 2023. However, they have not ceased criticizing Hamas and its Islamist strategy for dismantling, sometimes violently, the Palestinian revolutionary left. The KCK called on Palestinians to return to the socialist path and sever the ties their Islamist groups maintain with Iran and Turkey, a criticism that could also be leveled at certain sectors of the Kurdish movement.
For its part, Israel has forged ties with Iraqi Kurdistan as part of its strategy of state fragmentation in the region, leading some Kurdish organizations in the region to view it as an ally and to wave its flag. Israel, along with the United Arab Emirates, supports certain secessionist movements in Somalia, Kurdistan, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan.
The relationship between the two movements has fluctuated, shaped by internationalism, immediate interests, strategic calculations, and sheer survival. International relations are anything but simple; contexts are predetermined, and political movements navigate a stormy and complex sea that is difficult to understand and manage. However, internationalist class solidarity always persists at the grassroots level and within international movements as both struggles intersect with global and regional geopolitics.
Fony, a Liza militant.
[1]It is important to emphasize that the loss of the rate of profit is not solely due to sanctions, but is a global dynamic of current capitalism.
[2]Corps of the Revolutionary Guard of Iran.
[3]Much of the information in this section has been taken from Partisan Magazine, which has compiled an extraordinary collection of workers' statements and proclamations from the latest protests in Iran.
[4]By proxies -in the singular proxy- we normally refer to non-state armed actors with their own political agenda that receive material, logistical and even intelligence support from a State, which uses the armed group to externalize the costs of war, to be able to deny its participation in a conflict (not to bring its forces into the field), or to keep the group dependent for specific purposes.
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/02/13/cuando-la-izquierda-olvida-la-lucha-de-clases/
_________________________________________
Link:
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten