Give me one united front that didn’t end in thousands of murdered communists. There’s no common ground with the bourgeoisie, ever. These countries being strong opponents to the imperialist force of the USA shouldn’t be an excuse for communist parties to stray away from their revolutionary goal. Sure, maybe don’t start a revolution in the case that your country is actively defending against an imperialist war, but revolutionary action and uncompromising theory should never stop in the hope that the capitalists will respect a common interest. Their real enemy is and will always be the working class.

a communist party actively opposing their government would risk destabilising it and then playing themselves directly into the hands of the imperialist states

Remember that the capitalist economic policies of those liberal governments inherently and inevitably lead to contradictions, instability and crisis. You can be 100% sure, that they’ll become unstable without communists doing anything. Especially considering outside pressure, sanctions, wars etc. If there can be any hope of long term stability, they must be opposed by national communists.

Also these states, like any capitalist state, are nothing but an instrument of class warfare against the working class. The very moment those capitalists decide they stands to gain more from selling out their nations by becoming comprador capitalists who represent outside imperialists interests, they’ll just do it. In fact, they already tried it multiple times in all of those nations. Putin tried it. You can have critical support and temporary alliances for national liberation, but ultimately, liberalism is not at odds with outside imperialism. They can find arrangements, they are compatible, they have common class interests and they will have to be fought and defeated to defeat imperialism.

While the role of communists in the imperial core is to fight their own imperialist, they should also trust, that comrades in other countries know what’s best and which time and strategy is the correct one to act against their bourgeois. And they should be supported uncritically and above their liberal capitalists states, when they ask for it. International solidarity is amongst workers not with capitalist states.

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.

They shouldn’t collaborate with foreign non-communists, I can’t see anything good coming of that. Beyond that, just do normal communist party things.

I think ‘critical’ support means exactly that. Where you can support anti-imperialism as actions in themselves, go for it. But that doesn’t extend to supporting the government in all things they do, and weakening it will often be the correct move. Communist parties should be organising and building support, much like anywhere, really.

If a ‘real’ Russian leftist party found themselves the opportunity to destabilise the Russian government, that’s not inherently a positive thing (like it would be in the USA). But if they had even some meaningful chance of consequently getting in power - Then they should do it.

Opposing capitalist states is slightly preferable to a single hegemonic power, but is so far from the ideal that it’s nothing more than a practical stop-gap, and all practical chances at revolution should be chased.

Leftists cannot afford to cower just because their government might be an extremely limited ally against the US.

I guess I would make a difference between Iran and Russia, for example. Russia is geopolitically strong enough and has a weak enough communist opposition inside that I think revolutionary defeatism is a good strategy to follow, I mean you should have contact with other communist revolutionary defeatist orgs in the west to push for peace in both blocks, reduce military expenditure, and when (if) war times come, push for revolution on both sides.

In Iran, given its much weaker geopolitical position, it doesn’t have in my opinion a strong enough standing to weather the consequences of a revolution, like, probably would be immediately invaded by the west as soon as a power vacuum/civil war broke out, and wouldn’t receive meaningful help from China.

Just my two cents

Serious question: how is Russia anti-imperialist while India gets branded as imperialist in online leftist discourse? Is it just racism?

This is just me thinking out loud, but i think this highlights how socialism can only really work if it’s international movement. If the communist party tries to destabilize its country, the imperialists will fill in the power gap. If their country is already imperialist then they must fight against their government (as we theoretically should be doing in the imperial core).

Its somewhat of a miracle that some states have achieved dictatorship of the proletariat stage, but i think its because they fought off the imperialist forces in their own country and there didnt have a anti-imperialist bourgeoisie or whatever you’d classify the Iranian government.

I believe Franz Fanon made the argument that in some developing countries, the domestic class divide is less significant than the international class divide, and that there can be a logic to persuing a class truce. If a country becomes colonized, the domestic bourgeoisie stands to lose their positions (at least potentially) so there’s a greater degree of shared interests. This is in contrast to a more old school perspective, which would argue that a class truce isn’t really possible, that the bourgeoisie will never let up, and that attempting to persue that course is reactionary and opens the door to opportunism.

I don’t have a strong opinion on it because I’m in the imperial core, I think either approach can be valid depending on the circumstances.

I think the way you’re phrasing the question is problematic bordering on chauvinism, but the content of your question has me thinking in different terms.

Is revolutionary defeatism a viable strategy for countries that are opponents of the empire?

there are no communist movements popular enough to destabilise these countries

At the bare minimum I think they should always condemn foreign aggression against their state, even if they’re harshly critical of the current administration.

However they want, ideally guided by material dialectics.

depends on the specifics of their situations. banning english speakers is a good way to prevent being used by the US state department but that might not be practical