It occurs when moralism is the foundation of their beliefs instead of class struggle. When given a choice between class struggle and a moral/values issue they choose to support the latter, so they end up on the bourgeoisie side instead of the proletarian one.
In the case of Iran the moral issue is that the religious state and its rules are not great for many reasons. The idea of that being overthrown for something better takes precedence over their sovereignty against imperialism. Even if it strengthens the imperialists and thus simultaneously weakens proletarians globally.
It’s also plausible they don’t analyse the situation from an international strategic position, but solely from a national one where it is only about Iran itself rather than the effect on anti-imperialism internationally.
Even from a national standpoint, if history shows us anything it’s that any of these “naturally occuring revolutions” end up with worse fascists coming to power, now working for the further exploitation of local resources to the favour of foreign capital. Hardly a better reality for the ones that would supposedly benefit from this “moral” solution.
If class war is not the basis of the revolution, then you should always ask yourself which class is to benefit from it
Yes but they reason again and again that this time it will be different. Probably because they have no personal stakes and it will not affect them at all.
It’s reminiscent of the way they respond to claims of Uyghur genocide. Genocide is unthinkable, genocide denial is evil, therefore denying the Uyghur genocide is unthinkable evil. Going a step further to “lying about a genocide is also evil, and well within the expected range of behaviours of a nation currently proposing genocide against GSMs” is too much - they can’t be a genocide denier, so china is committing genocide.
It occurs when moralism is the foundation of their beliefs instead of class struggle. When given a choice between class struggle and a moral/values issue they choose to support the latter, so they end up on the bourgeoisie side instead of the proletarian one.
In the case of Iran the moral issue is that the religious state and its rules are not great for many reasons. The idea of that being overthrown for something better takes precedence over their sovereignty against imperialism. Even if it strengthens the imperialists and thus simultaneously weakens proletarians globally.
It’s also plausible they don’t analyse the situation from an international strategic position, but solely from a national one where it is only about Iran itself rather than the effect on anti-imperialism internationally.
Even from a national standpoint, if history shows us anything it’s that any of these “naturally occuring revolutions” end up with worse fascists coming to power, now working for the further exploitation of local resources to the favour of foreign capital. Hardly a better reality for the ones that would supposedly benefit from this “moral” solution.
If class war is not the basis of the revolution, then you should always ask yourself which class is to benefit from it
Yes but they reason again and again that this time it will be different. Probably because they have no personal stakes and it will not affect them at all.
Also the personal factor. They left Iran for the US, obviously no love lost there for their home country.
It’s reminiscent of the way they respond to claims of Uyghur genocide. Genocide is unthinkable, genocide denial is evil, therefore denying the Uyghur genocide is unthinkable evil. Going a step further to “lying about a genocide is also evil, and well within the expected range of behaviours of a nation currently proposing genocide against GSMs” is too much - they can’t be a genocide denier, so china is committing genocide.