many of these states and their governments are openly hostile to communist elements, but a communist party actively opposing their government would risk destabilising it and then playing themselves directly into the hands of the imperialist states. an indefinite “united front” would be desirable, especially in countries like iran, but it seems all leftist organisations in these states have either decided to fully support the government in everything, becoming controlled opposition (KPRF in Russia) or western puppets like (MEK) or whatever the fuck the “leftist opposition” in russia, belarus is.
I think when comparing the situation from WWI Russia and this one the problem we run into is that the WWI scenario was on a much more even keel in terms of the relative power of the imperialist alliances than it is now. In WWI, if Germany or Russia lost, the balance of power was such that they could most certainly not be fully subjugated to the other side. In the modern day scenario however, they west would be more than capable of economically subjugating Russia.
That is the reason that revolutionary defeatism was the right strategy at the time. This time however, I think it would actually be best to instead take the complete opposite approach. It is now in fact paramount to take the materialistically correct position and instead acknowledge how the liberals in both Russia and Iran are effectively impeding the resistance against imperialism via their own personal interest of retaining power or the fact that even in foreign policy they are hedging their bets instead of uncompromisingly allying with China. In that respect, the communist parties should actively take the position that the only way of actually securing the country not just from outside but from the inside as well, is to socialize the means of production in the hands of the state, which will be the only entity capable of actually utilizing it to not only secure the positions of the working people, but of maximizing security by any means necessary.
The way I think about it, the more I think revolutionary defeatism only made sense within the context of WWI. Seriously, try to apply revolutionary defeatism to WWII:
Are British socialists supposed to wave around “neither London nor Berlin” signs while the Blitz is happening?
Are French socialists supposed to stay home while the Nazis overthrow the French republic and establish a collaborating regime in its place?
Are USian socialists supposed to draft polemics about how the IJN bombing Pearl Harbor was just inter-imperialist rivalry and that USian socialists should focus on overthrowing the regime in Washington DC instead?
There’s a reason why the CPC completely stopped hostilities with the KMT as soon as Japanese imperialists invaded Manchuria, even going so far as to wear nationalist uniforms.
Revolutionary defeatism could still be the right strategy for communists in the imperial core though, right? For countries outside the imperial core it’s often still national liberation and the fight against compradors that’s a prerequisite for communist revolution.
Oh yes, absolutely