TL;DR: The starting point is Trump’s September 2025 reversal on Ukraine, and the argument runs well past it. Two frameworks dominate left international analysis and both fail. Liberal internationalism aligns uncritically with Western power when that is convenient. Pseudo-anti-imperialism reflexively opposes Western positions while staying silent about, or actively supporting, rival imperialisms. They share one flaw. Each derives its position from what the major powers are currently doing rather than from consistent principles of its own, which is why both were left incoherent when Trump changed his mind. Campism is described here as reducing global struggle to a binary: identify the dominant imperial power, then support whatever opposes it, regardless of that force’s actual character or the concrete effects of the support. The alternative proposed is genuine revolutionary internationalism, meaning analytical independence from every power bloc combined with solidarity with liberation struggles against all forms of oppression. The series was originally published in Red Mole across September and October 2025.

Strategic Lesson for Revolutionary Organizing: In an era of shifting imperial alignments, revolutionary movements must develop analytical independence from all power blocs while maintaining principled solidarity with liberation struggles, requiring organizational frameworks that transcend both liberal hawkishness and pseudo-anti-imperialist camp-following.

Introduction: The Crisis of Dependent Analysis

The contemporary left faces an analytical crisis exposed most dramatically by Trump’s September 2025 reversal on Ukraine, but extending far beyond any single policy shift. Decades of theoretical development have produced two dominant but inadequate frameworks for international analysis: liberal internationalism that uncritically aligns with Western power when convenient, and a pseudo-anti-imperialism that reflexively opposes Western positions while remaining silent about or actively supporting rival imperialisms.

Both approaches share a fundamental flaw: they derive positions from the current stances of major powers rather than developing independent analysis based on consistent principles. This dependent thinking leaves revolutionary organizations unable to respond coherently when imperial powers shift positions, as Trump’s Ukraine flip-flop dramatically demonstrated.

Building effective international solidarity in a multipolar world requires transcending both liberal hawkishness and campist anti-imperialism. The alternative is genuine revolutionary internationalism: independent analysis that supports liberation struggles against all forms of oppression while maintaining political independence from all imperial powers.

The Anatomy of Campist Thinking

Campism represents one of the most persistent errors in left international analysis. At its core, campism reduces complex global struggles to a simple binary: identify the currently dominant imperial power, then reflexively support whatever forces oppose it, regardless of their actual character or the concrete effects of such support.

In the contemporary period, this manifests as treating any force that opposes US hegemony as inherently progressive. Russian imperialism becomes acceptable because it challenges American dominance. Chinese authoritarianism gets defended because China competes with Western economic power. Syrian and Iranian regional ambitions receive uncritical support because these states resist US Middle East policy.

The theoretical justification appears sophisticated: since US imperialism currently represents the greatest threat to global justice, any force weakening American power serves progressive interests. This analysis treats international politics as a zero-sum game where enemy-of-my-enemy logic provides sufficient guidance for political positions.

The Ukraine conflict reveals campism’s analytical poverty most clearly. Rather than examining the specific dynamics of Russian colonial invasion versus Ukrainian national resistance, campist analysis focuses exclusively on NATO’s role and US interests. Ukrainian agency disappears entirely, replaced by abstract discussions of “proxy wars” and “inter-imperialist rivalry.”

This approach cannot explain why Ukrainian resistance persisted when Trump demanded territorial concessions, why countries like Estonia and Lithuania provide the highest percentage of GDP in aid despite having no significant imperial interests, or why Ukrainian society has generally supported continued fighting despite enormous costs. Campist frameworks lack tools for analyzing genuine liberation movements that don’t fit neat anti-Western categories.

Liberal Internationalism: The Mirror Image Error

Liberal internationalism commits the opposite error while sharing campism’s fundamental dependence on imperial power positions. Instead of reflexively opposing US policy, liberal internationalists uncritically support Western interventions when justified through humanitarian rhetoric, regardless of actual effects or underlying motivations.

This tendency reaches its purest expression in “liberal hawk” positions that supported the Iraq War on humanitarian grounds, backed NATO intervention in Libya as democracy promotion, and consistently advocate military solutions to complex political problems. The theoretical justification involves treating Western powers as potential forces for global democracy despite overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary.

Liberal internationalism’s approach to Ukraine demonstrates both its insights and limitations. Correctly identifying Russian aggression as imperial conquest, liberal internationalists support Ukrainian resistance and NATO aid. However, they typically ignore the broader context of NATO expansion, uncritically celebrate Western military assistance, and treat Ukrainian victory as automatically advancing global democratic interests.

This analysis cannot explain why previous NATO interventions produced catastrophic results in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, why Western support often serves imperial rather than humanitarian interests, or how Ukrainian liberation relates to other struggles Western powers oppose, such as Palestinian resistance or Cuban sovereignty.

The Trump test exposes liberal internationalism’s opportunistic character. When Trump shifted to supporting maximal Ukrainian victory, liberal internationalists celebrated without acknowledging that their previous criticism of Trump’s Ukraine policy implicitly admitted Western support could be withdrawn for cynical reasons. If Western aid truly served humanitarian rather than strategic interests, such reversals would be impossible.

The Historical Precedents: Learning from Past Internationalism

Revolutionary internationalism has deeper historical roots than either contemporary campism or liberal hawkishness. The Bolshevik approach to national liberation during and after the Russian Revolution provides crucial precedents for developing independent analysis that supports genuine liberation while maintaining political independence.

Lenin and Trotsky’s opposition to “Great Russian chauvinism” offers a model for how revolutionaries in oppressor nations should approach solidarity with oppressed peoples. Rather than defending Russian imperial interests against Western rivals, the Bolsheviks actively supported self-determination for Ukraine, Poland, Finland, and other nations oppressed by the Tsarist empire, even when such support complicated their strategic position.

The Bolshevik position was principled rather than opportunistic. They supported national liberation not because it weakened their enemies but because national oppression divided the international working class and made socialist transformation impossible. Their willingness to grant independence to former Russian territories demonstrated genuine anti-imperialism rather than selective opposition to rival powers.

Similarly, the Trotskyist opposition to Stalinist foreign policy in the 1930s provides lessons for maintaining analytical independence from “socialist” imperialism. Trotsky’s critique of Soviet support for Republican Spain, while supporting the Spanish Republic against fascist invasion, demonstrated how revolutionaries could maintain solidarity with liberation struggles while criticizing the politics of their allies.

The key insight was dialectical: supporting genuine liberation movements while maintaining political and analytical independence from all powers claiming to lead such movements. This approach required concrete analysis of each situation rather than abstract formulas derived from global power configurations.

Contemporary Applications: Beyond False Choices

Developing independent revolutionary analysis in the contemporary period requires applying these historical lessons to current struggles while avoiding both campist and liberal internationalist errors. The methodology involves several crucial components:

Concrete Solidarity with Liberation Struggles: Support movements fighting immediate oppression regardless of which powers currently aid them or which theoretical tendencies advocate similar positions. The criterion is objective advancement of democratic rights and working-class organization, not geopolitical alignment or ideological purity.
Principled Opposition to All Imperialisms: Maintain consistent anti-imperialist positions that oppose Russian colonialism, Chinese authoritarianism, Iranian regional domination, and Western military interventions based on their effects on oppressed peoples rather than their relationship to currently dominant powers.
Critical Support Methodology: Distinguish between supporting liberation struggles and endorsing the politics of their leadership or allies. Support Palestinian resistance while critiquing Hamas authoritarianism, back Ukrainian self-defense while opposing NATO expansion, defend Cuban sovereignty while supporting internal democratization.
Dynamic Analysis: Develop frameworks flexible enough to handle shifting conditions without abandoning fundamental principles. Recognize that liberation movements can degenerate into oppressive forces, that imperial powers can temporarily support progressive causes for cynical reasons, and that genuine solidarity requires constant political evaluation.
Historical Consciousness: Learn from past theoretical debates and political experiences to avoid repeating analytical errors that have already been identified and resolved. Use historical precedents as guides rather than rigid templates, adapting lessons to contemporary conditions.

Organizational Implications: Building Independent Movements

Implementing independent revolutionary analysis requires organizational forms capable of maintaining political independence while building effective solidarity. This presents five critical challenges for contemporary left movements operating in imperial centers:

Avoiding State Department Socialism: Resist pressures to align international positions with current government policy, even when such alignment appears tactically advantageous. Maintain independent analysis that can critique Western imperialism while supporting struggles Western powers occasionally support for their own reasons.
Transcending Campist Anti-Imperialism: Develop anti-imperialist positions based on principled solidarity with oppressed peoples rather than reflexive opposition to Western dominance. Oppose Russian imperialism with the same vigor applied to criticizing American interventions, support Chinese workers while critiquing authoritarian governance.
Building Cross-Movement Solidarity: Create organizational connections with liberation movements globally based on shared principles rather than shared enemies. Develop relationships with Ukrainian socialists, Palestinian revolutionaries, Cuban democrats, and Iranian feminists that transcend geopolitical alignments.
Educational Work: Conduct political education that develops members’ capacity for independent analysis rather than simply transmitting correct positions. Build theoretical understanding that can adapt to changing conditions while maintaining principled commitments.
International Organization: Work toward genuinely international revolutionary formations that can coordinate solidarity across national boundaries without subordinating local movements to great power interests or abstract international strategies.

Case Studies in Independent Analysis

Several contemporary struggles illustrate how independent revolutionary analysis works in practice, demonstrating methods for maintaining principled solidarity while avoiding both campist and liberal internationalist errors:

Palestine/Israel: Support Palestinian liberation against colonial occupation while critiquing authoritarian tendencies within Palestinian leadership. Oppose Israeli apartheid while supporting Israeli workers and anti-Zionist organizers. Reject both US backing for Israeli militarism and Iranian instrumentalization of Palestinian struggle for regional power projection.
Syria: Support Syrian popular resistance against Assad dictatorship while opposing Western military intervention and Turkish occupation. Critique both Russian backing for authoritarian rule and American support for proxy forces serving imperial rather than democratic interests. Build solidarity with Syrian revolutionaries maintaining political independence from all external powers.
Hong Kong/China: Support Hong Kong democracy movement against authoritarian repression while rejecting Western attempts to manipulate protests for anti-China geopolitical purposes. Back Chinese workers and dissidents while opposing both Beijing’s authoritarianism and Washington’s selective human rights advocacy that ignores American-allied dictatorships.
Venezuela: Support Venezuelan popular movements for economic justice and democratic rights while opposing both US economic warfare and authoritarian governance by the Maduro government. Reject both American regime change efforts and uncritical defense of Venezuelan government policies that harm working-class interests.
Iran: Support Iranian feminist and democratic movements while opposing Western economic sanctions that harm ordinary Iranians. Back Iranian workers while critiquing both theocratic oppression and regional militarism. Maintain solidarity with liberation movements within Iran while opposing external interventions claiming humanitarian motives.

The Multipolar Challenge

The emergence of a multipolar world order poses particular challenges for revolutionary internationalism. The Cold War period’s bipolar structure created analytical errors, but at least provided relatively stable frameworks for developing positions. Contemporary multipolarity creates fluid alliances, shifting conflicts, and complex interactions that resist simple formulations.

The temptation is to retreat into either campist formulas (support whatever opposes the currently dominant power) or liberal internationalist abstractions (support whatever claims humanitarian justification). Both approaches provide false clarity while evading the hard work of developing nuanced analysis that can handle complexity without abandoning principles.

Independent revolutionary analysis requires embracing this complexity while maintaining clear commitments. Revolutionary movements must support liberation struggles against all forms of oppression while avoiding alignment with any imperial power bloc. This means developing analytical frameworks sophisticated enough to handle contradictory situations without falling into political paralysis.

The Ukraine case demonstrates how this works. Independent analysis supports Ukrainian resistance against Russian colonial invasion while opposing NATO expansion and Western arms industry profiteering. It maintains solidarity with Ukrainian liberation while critiquing neoliberal economic policies and supporting Ukrainian socialists advocating democratic alternatives to both Russian authoritarianism and Western capitalism.

Practical Methods for Organizational Development

Building organizations capable of independent revolutionary analysis requires specific methodological commitments and practical structures:

Study and Political Education: Develop systematic study programs that examine historical precedents for revolutionary internationalism, analyze contemporary struggles through multiple theoretical frameworks, and build members’ capacity for independent analysis rather than position-taking.
Democratic Discussion Culture: Create organizational cultures that encourage genuine debate about international questions rather than enforcing predetermined positions. Build structures that can handle disagreement while maintaining unity around fundamental principles and practical solidarity work.
Direct Relationship Building: Establish direct connections with revolutionary movements globally rather than relying on information filtered through imperial media or allied organizations. Build relationships based on shared principles and mutual solidarity rather than tactical alignments or theoretical agreements.
Practical Solidarity Work: Engage in concrete solidarity activities that build understanding through practice rather than abstract analysis. Organize material support for liberation movements, participate in international delegations, and coordinate campaigns that transcend national boundaries.
Theoretical Development: Contribute to ongoing theoretical development around revolutionary internationalism through writing, speaking, and organizing that advances understanding rather than simply defending established positions. Build theoretical work that can guide practice while remaining open to revision based on changing conditions.

Beyond the Left’s International Crisis

The contemporary left’s international crisis reflects broader problems with analytical dependence, theoretical dogmatism, and organizational sectarianism that extend beyond foreign policy questions. Building independent revolutionary analysis requires addressing these underlying issues while developing specific capacities for international solidarity.

The alternative to both campism and liberal internationalism is not political paralysis or analytical relativism, but genuinely independent revolutionary positions based on consistent principles and concrete solidarity with liberation struggles. This requires theoretical sophistication, organizational discipline, and political courage to maintain principled positions despite pressures toward alignment with existing power blocs.

Revolutionary movements that successfully navigate these challenges will be positioned to build the international solidarity necessary for confronting global capitalism and imperialism. Those that retreat into campist formulas or liberal internationalist abstractions will find themselves marginalized from the real movements reshaping global politics.

The stakes are enormous. The climate crisis, global inequality, and rising authoritarianism require international revolutionary responses that transcend national boundaries and imperial alignments. Building movements capable of such responses demands mastering the analytical and organizational methods necessary for independent revolutionary internationalism.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The Trump test has exposed the bankruptcy of dependent analytical frameworks that derive positions from imperial power alignments rather than principled commitment to liberation and socialist transformation. Both campist anti-imperialism and liberal internationalism have failed the concrete solidarity test, revealing their fundamental inadequacy for building revolutionary movements in a multipolar world.

The alternative requires patient work building independent analytical capacities, organizational structures, and international relationships based on genuine revolutionary internationalism. This means supporting liberation struggles against all forms of oppression while maintaining political independence from all imperial powers and developing theoretical frameworks sophisticated enough to handle complexity without abandoning principles.

The historical precedents exist: revolutionary movements have successfully maintained independent analysis while building international solidarity. The contemporary challenge is adapting these lessons to current conditions while learning from past errors and developing new theoretical insights adequate to present challenges.

Revolutionary organizations that succeed in this work will be positioned to play leading roles in the international movements necessary for confronting capitalism and imperialism. Those that remain trapped in dependent analytical frameworks will find themselves increasingly irrelevant to the real struggles shaping the future of global politics.

The choice is clear: develop genuine revolutionary internationalism or remain marginal to the movements that matter. The Trump test was just the beginning of challenges that will expose every weakness in left international analysis. Building organizations capable of meeting these challenges requires starting the hard work of analytical and organizational development immediately.

Strategic Takeaway: Revolutionary organizations must develop independent analytical frameworks that support liberation struggles against all forms of oppression while maintaining political independence from all imperial power blocs, requiring methodological sophistication that transcends both campist and liberal internationalist dependencies.

Series Conclusion: Toward Revolutionary Practice

This three-part analysis has traced a path from immediate crisis (Trump’s Ukraine reversal) through theoretical foundations (Lenin’s critique of imperialist economism) to practical organizational methods (building independent internationalism). The connecting thread is the urgent need for revolutionary movements to develop analytical independence from all imperial powers while maintaining principled solidarity with liberation struggles.

The Trump test revealed that significant portions of the contemporary left operate with dependent analytical frameworks that collapse when imperial powers shift positions. This dependency manifests in two primary forms: campist anti-imperialism that reflexively supports whatever opposes current Western dominance, and liberal internationalism that uncritically aligns with Western power when justified through humanitarian rhetoric.

Lenin’s historical analysis of “imperialist economism” provides crucial tools for understanding why both approaches fail. His insight that democratic struggles strengthen rather than weaken socialist transformation offers theoretical grounding for supporting concrete liberation movements regardless of complex geopolitical contexts. The key is maintaining political independence while providing material solidarity.

As we explained in our podcast on pseudo anti-imperialism, building organisations capable of such analysis requires methodological sophistication, theoretical flexibility, and practical commitment to international solidarity. This means developing theoretical practice that builds analytical capacity, creating democratic discussion cultures that can handle complexity, establishing direct relationships with liberation movements globally, and engaging in concrete solidarity work that builds understanding through practice.

The stakes could not be higher. In an era of climate crisis, rising authoritarianism, and intensifying imperial competition, revolutionary movements need analytical frameworks capable of navigating fluid conditions while maintaining principled commitments. Organizations that master these methods will be positioned to play crucial roles in the international solidarity necessary for confronting capitalism and imperialism. Those that remain trapped in dependent thinking will find themselves increasingly marginal to the movements reshaping global politics.

The path forward is clear: develop genuine revolutionary internationalism or accept irrelevance to the struggles that matter. The work of building such organizations must begin immediately, learning from historical precedents while adapting to contemporary conditions. The future of effective anti-imperialist organizing depends on making this choice correctly.

This series was originally published in Red Mole, September-October 2025. For more strategic analysis of contemporary left organizing challenges, visit redmole.substack.com

Related Reading:

Yes, Marxism Predicts. No, That’s Not What Makes It Valid.: Red Mole’s End of Year Editorial
Vilifying Mandel to Validate Yeltsin: AWL’s Slanders, ‘Socialism in One Country’, and Our Living Marxism: Part 3: Responding to the AWL’s Distortions of Ernest Mandel
Exposing the AWL’s Straw Dolls: How Matgamna Misrepresents Mandel on Stalinism: Part 2: Responding to the AWL’s Distortions of Ernest Mandel
Beyond the China Question - Revolutionary Strategy vs. Sectarian ‘Purity’: Part 5: Responding to the AWL’s Distortions of Ernest Mandel
What Is the True Revolutionary Tradition? May Socialists Vote for France’s NFP?: Why Revolutionary Socialists Must Engage with Broad Anti-Fascist Coalitions

From Campism to Internationalism: Building…