Strategic Lesson for Revolutionary Organizing: When imperialist leaders suddenly reverse positions, static analytical frameworks collapse, revealing which left organizations can maintain principled solidarity versus those trapped in camp-following.
The September Shock That Shattered Theory
On September 24, 2025, Donald Trump did something that broke significant portions of left analysis: he reversed his Ukraine position overnight. After months of demanding territorial concessions to Russia, he suddenly declared Ukraine could “WIN all of Ukraine back” and called Russia a “paper tiger.”
For the segment of the US left analyzing Ukraine through an “inter-imperialist proxy war” lens, this created an insurmountable problem. If Ukraine were merely a US proxy, why didn’t resistance collapse when Trump previously demanded surrender? The inability to answer this simple question exposes a century-old theoretical error that Lenin identified as “imperialist economism.”
What China and Iran Reveal About “Anti-Imperialism”
The podcast explores shocking evidence of how supposed “anti-imperialist” powers mirror Western imperial methods. China has adopted Israeli counterinsurgency techniques for Xinjiang, while security centers there incorporate former Blackwater associates—the same mercenary firm synonymous with US imperial violence. Beijing literally models its oppression on American “war on terror” tactics while claiming to oppose US imperialism.
Iran presents similar contradictions. While positioned as resisting Western hegemony, Tehran’s regional policies and internal repression employ methods indistinguishable from imperial powers. The campist framework cannot account for these structural similarities because it reduces complex political realities to simple binary oppositions.
The Nicaragua Test Case
Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua reveals campism’s analytical bankruptcy most clearly. While segments of the left defended his regime as anti-imperialist, Ortega simultaneously received significant US aid, maintained close DEA cooperation, and collaborated extensively on immigration enforcement. The supposed “resistance” leader was functionally integrated with key US state apparatus.
When massive democratic opposition emerged, campists had to ignore this material reality of US-Ortega collaboration to maintain their theoretical framework. They prioritized abstract anti-American positioning over solidarity with Nicaraguans facing actual repression.
Why This Matters for Revolutionary Strategy
Lenin’s World War I critique of “imperialist economism” predicted exactly these failures. Some Russian revolutionaries mistakenly argued that supporting specific democratic struggles was pointless because only global socialist revolution could end oppression. Lenin responded that without concrete solidarity with liberation movements, revolutionary organizations cannot build the international trust necessary for broader transformation.
Contemporary campism makes the identical error: reducing all political questions to opposition to US dominance while abandoning concrete solidarity with people oppressed by rival powers. This leaves millions defenseless while claiming theoretical sophistication.
The Organizational Consequences
Organizations basing international positions on current power alignments find themselves paralyzed when those alignments shift. They become reactive rather than principled, constantly adjusting based on imperial power politics rather than consistent anti-imperialist commitments.
The 2022 Jacobin debate between Gilbert Achcar and Branko Marcetic illustrated this crisis. Even sophisticated analysts struggled to reconcile anti-NATO positions with solidarity for Ukrainian victims of Russian violence when their static frameworks met fluid conditions.
Building Independent Revolutionary Analysis
The alternative requires developing analytical independence from all imperial power blocs. Revolutionary organizations must support liberation struggles against immediate oppressors while maintaining criticism of all imperialisms—Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and Western.
This means supporting Ukrainian resistance against Russian colonialism while opposing NATO expansion, backing Palestinian liberation while critiquing authoritarian allies, defending Cuban sovereignty while supporting internal democratization. The criterion is objective advancement of democratic rights and working-class organization, not geopolitical alignment.
Listen to the Full Analysis
The complete podcast episode examines these contradictions in depth, tracing theoretical connections from Lenin’s 1916 critique to today’s organizational failures. It provides practical methods for building independent analysis capable of handling shifting imperial conditions without abandoning principled solidarity.
The episode reveals how static frameworks leave organizations marginalized from actual liberation movements while creating space for genuine revolutionary internationalism based on concrete solidarity rather than abstract positioning.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Climate crisis and rising authoritarianism require international revolutionary responses that transcend imperial alignments. Organizations that master independent analysis will lead future movements. Those trapped in campist frameworks will find themselves increasingly irrelevant to struggles reshaping global politics.
Strategic Takeaway: Revolutionary organizations must distinguish between tactical opposition to US policy and principled solidarity with all liberation struggles. The Trump test revealed which approaches can handle fluid imperial conditions and which collapse when power alignments shift.
