A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
Classic white savior bullshit about "authoritarian regime" "tyranny" and "dictatorship" but otherwise "condemns" the war. They might as well be anarchists.
Like do Iranians have the right to self determination or not? They chose the republic if you don't like it you either shut up or you are in support the change of the government. In a post imperialist situation you can call for a proletarian revolution but for now a united front against fascism is more important.
I think the "communist" parties of USrael should be doing something about it not throwing statements around. I mean the fact that these are settler states "communist" parties already gives me social fascist vibes.
The statement in itself or the organisations as a whole? Please link the statement next time.
IMO the statement in itself is fine for a domestic statement, but shouldn't be made in collaboration with CPs of enemy states. Tudeh should be asking for their comrades abroad nothing short of the complete overthrow of their regimes. If Iranians are getting killed by your country, solidarity without risk of consequences is no solidarity at all.
I understand the gringo urge to be angry at communists abroad being critical of their reactionary but anti-hegemonic governments, but that's just a byproduct of translation into English. If this little "strongly worded" text was only published in Persian it would be unobjectionable.
When nazbols from ACP have a more based position than your "communist" party. Probably. I didn't bother to check, but I have a feeling.
Edit: pretty much.
This post reminds me of Trotsky's interview with Mateo Fossa:
I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!
So basically, speaking about democracy or regime change when your country is being besieged by imperialist powers is just a betrayal of their working class. Dictatorship x democracy is nothing but a nonsense talking point of liberals and one that does not strengthen national sovereignty or the working class conscience. Imperialism and anti-imperialist struggle is still the biggest contradiction of our times.
This is the crucial flaw that the Iranian Left in exile fail to understand. Something that cost them during the revolution as well in regards to the MEK. Mujahideen El-Khelq had participated in overthrowing he Shah, there contributions to fighting imperialism was plainly essential.
However their miscalculation about the core contradiction posy revolutionary Iran faced condemned the Communist movement in Iran decades of retreats. They sided with Sadaam's Iraq, a nation acting as an agent of imperialism in that circumstance, during the Iran-Iraq War, bombing the parliament building. This would lead to the mass executions of all kinds of Communists and other leftists.
They place the reactionary elements of the Iranian state on a comparable level with western imperialists.
how does trotsky manage to have a better take than any one of his modern-day western followers
I mean, what is the actual statement? Is it SRS level of statement or something else? And is it jointly published or just being attributed to all of them?
Found it from the website that appears to be linked to in the screenshot: https://www.idcommunism.com/2026/03/joint-statement-by-tudeh-party-of-iran-communist-party-of-israel-and-communist-party-usa.html#more
Some of the language is a bit iffy, but mostly it seems on point. I'm not seeing sourcing on attribution to these particular parties though. Perhaps it's taken from another website that signed it in their names?
This is the main instance I noticed of iffy language:
The experiences of the peoples in Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and in every country in the southern half of the globe facing colonialism and imperialism cannot be overlooked – true liberation and salvation from reactionary and authoritarian regimes and their change can only come with the action of the people and patriotic leadership – not from Washington or Tel Aviv.
Notably "authoritarian regimes" (pretty meaningless term) and "patriotic leadership" (doesn't always apply, ex: you get patsoc if you apply that to the US)
Edit: Did some more searching, I did find a version of it attributed to Tudeh Party and CPUSA, though I'm not familiar with what websites they are known to use, so I don't know if these are legit:
To be expected from people who side with the KKE on Ukraine
I mean there is literally a KKE model page on ProleWiki.
Indeed it is how I found this. Just to clarify, if it seemed I was addressing the room instead of muttering about CPUSA.