I think the term “campism” is totally inappropriate in this context. Are
we against taking a camp in a conflict? Not in principle – it depends
which camp! Marxists must never take the camp of an imperialist force.
But they should take the camp of forces representing oppressed peoples.
I have dealt with this in more detail in this article,
https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/iran-war-are-we-campists/
Yes, we always oppose imperialist sanctions – those against Venezuela as
well as those against Iran (or North Korea). And, in this sense, we are
always in solidarity with the peoples who are victims of such
imperialist aggression.
Mark writes: “/Who are we to criticize the Venezuelans for not fighting
US aggression when we have been so ineffective in doing the same?/”
Well, I (and others) never criticized “the Venezuelans” but the
political regime of Castro-Chavismo. And, in the concrete case of the
Delcy Rodriguez regime, we don’t criticize them for being ineffective
but for capitulating and for serving U.S. imperialism. That is a big
difference!
As I have repeatedly argued, Marxists should not show political support
for this or that leadership but support for their actions. In the case
of Iran, there have been actions of resistance in the past weeks. In the
case of Venezuela, there have been actions of capitulation in the past
months. The first deserves support, the latter sharp criticism.
In general, one should judge people and parties not so much by what they
say but what they do. Actions speak louder than words. The Delcy
Rodriguez regime might still praise socialism but, in actions, they
serve the Yankees and enrich themselves.
Am 15.04.2026 um 17:02 schrieb David Walters via groups.io:
No, I totally disagree with this:
In my opinion, it is legitimate and necessary to show solidarity
with bourgeois, petty-bourgeois or reformist forces when and where
they are resisting imperialist or counterrevolutionary aggression.
This leads to /campism /and adaptation the same "petty bourgeois"
forces. I notice Michael P. leaves out "Al Queda" and "ISIS" in his
expression of solidarity. We, as Marxists, should have a clear
analysis of the reactionary nature of some of these movements and
support for all democratic impulses by the masses /against them./ At
the same time the /only/ "solidarity" is to oppose, as Mark suggested,
any aggression from Imperialism, full stop. It doesn't mean any form
of support for any of these movements whatsoever. We should be
examining each movement independently of each other in light of the
international situation AND the domestic class struggle as well.
That puts us in a better position to build a /mass movement/ in the
streets, in the labor movement, internationally, against Imperialism
without suggestions of /political support/ for this or that obscure
movement or reactionary governments that happen to come under attack
by Imperialism. We did that in the U.S. in the late 1960s and early
1970s opposing U.S. imperialist war in Vietnam without a shred of
support for the Vietnamese Communist Party or the NLF though of course
many did that as well (usually IMO).
David
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#41476): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41476
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/118832153/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
