People should look at how Iran speaks about Russia and China, not make up their own litmus tests for China and Russia to pass out of thin air.
It’s such an energy drain and self-own to be making up arbitrary stuff these countries have to do to “prove themselves” while ignoring the relationships they have in the geopolitical world.
I’ve got nothing against this guy in particular, mind. It’s more I’m getting really tired of this kind of thing in general. People have got to stop believing that the western-led circus performance is the substance. Look at where material connections of support and solidarity lie. Political power comes “from the barrel of a gun” (and related: control over the means of production and distribution). Legislative abstraction atop that is only as legitimate as the guns behind it and whose interests they serve. The UN is not, and has never been, a neutral organization in the hands of a fair and balanced world order; the unipolar western military power and its interests is fundamentally opposed to such a goal.
People have got to stop believing that the western-led circus performance is the substance.
THANK YOU!
Iran seems to approve of Russia and China’s actions. I will trust their judgement
Useless frothing liberal drivel
2-3 years into a genocide and then 2-3 weeks into another war full of war crimes by the west but the liberal still wants to hold onto international legalism as if it some magic paper.
Only people who have the privilege of buying into the above paradigm are willing to be so easily outraged as they preach imperialist talking points from the “left”:
Useless frothing liberal drivel
A bit harsh. I can understand where he is coming from, emotionally, even if rationally i think his outrage is misplaced. Or maybe i’m just inclined to be a little more forgiving with Ali Abunimah because i really appreciate the work he does with Electronic Intifada.
Electronic Intifada
https://electronicintifada.net/content/china-imports-israels-methods-propaganda-and-repression/9160
If we understand that criticism against Chomsky is more than “he only pointed out just some of the symptoms of imperialism” but he was actually an enthusiastic agent for empire by denigrating those who understood the science of capital, imperialism and how to defeat them then we should understand the problem with these left-liberals. It is the left liberalism that prevents scientific socialism from spreading faster - the anti-cancer Reiki practitioner who prevents chemotherapy only helps to accelerate the growth of malignancy.
I’m not mad, just disappointed…😞
I’m not mad, just disappointed
I totally sympathise with this feeling.
(I edited my previous comment to add an explanation for those links.)
We live in a liberal world and have to consume liberal media to be able to decipher the world because we are starved of more scientific resources. This is just part of the science of how to navigate this hegemony; we have to be detectives on top of everything else and ngl it is can be fucking exhausting.
we have to be detectives on top of everything else and ngl it is can be fucking exhausting.
100
Yeah but Chomsky was in the club. The reiki practitioner likely isn’t unless they’ve gained a following of extremely wealthy “donors.”
And I’m not adverse to whatever metaphysical thing people want to believe as long as others are free to disbelieve of their own accord, unlike some weird scientology type stuff or proselytizing by ambush/cornering I guess…Otherwise wear temple garments or practice TM, taiji, asatruism, merkavah, or thelema or karate. WASP religions or offering Orishas, or Judaism or Baha’i. Jesus Christ supposedly lived off women of means and street preaching, so there’s that. But more than that, WASP heavily colors (no clever pun intended) every other Christian denomination as the Torah colors Judaism and Christianity. But it should never be the justification for abusing neighbors, individuals or entire states/continents. So I can understand wanting to dispense of metaphysics completely, as well. When healthcare is inaccessible, allow the opiate.
And I’m also for bodily autonomy. So to say I have complex ambivalent feelings about it is a bit understated.
Yeah but Chomsky was in the club. The reiki practitioner likely isn’t unless they’ve gained a following of extremely wealthy “donors.”
-
it doesn’t matter - the patient still dies from cancer (and just to add, even if you take away the allegory I was using for capital, this isn’t hypothetical but very much real. To see someone die from metastasised cancer because they decided to go for alternative medicine very much influences how one understands how “benign” these practices are against society)
-
we have to get away from the elite vs the rest of us thinking. Everything Chomsky did as a whole was still awful irrespective of wealthy/state patronage just as what the reiki/chiropractor/homeopath does as part of a system - they engage in quackery, they are not benign, and they are harmful.
-
we also have to get away from elite vs the rest of us thinking because that is not what the science of capital teaches us. The CIA, the western military industry complex, their news media etc all exist as an outgrowth of the imperial cores’ bourgoise proleteriat + their petite-bourgoisie + bourgoisie; these things exist as a function of protecting and expanding private property against the global south proleteriat for their benefit. These industries could all be state owned (take the prison industry complex for example which the is not really all that profitable and largely state owned) but they still function as a defense for capital. The “elite” comprises of the western masses.
MLs should “tolerate” the metaphysicists as a concession because transition to communism is not instant; Plekhanov is right to a degree about stagism, Lenin supercede him because he was significantly more dialectical and less mechanistic in his materialism in practice - human beings are not passive agents to productive forces and relations of production.
The PRC understood this as it learned from the Soviet’s and pre-Deng/Mao era’s more heavy handed approach (and it should be added if it weren’t for the latter two - Soviet and Mao- more strict approach we would not have the lessons we have today. One only needs to travel to India (or the West with their anti-vaccination / illuminati / capital mythology etc nonsense) to see what a timeline without the cultural revolution entails).
it doesn’t matter - the patient still dies from cancer (and just to add, even if you take away the allegory I was using for capital, this isn’t hypothetical but very much real. To see someone die from metastasised cancer because they decided to go for alternative medicine very much influences how one understands how “benign” these practices are against society)
As long as it’s informed and well-understood, bodily autonomy should take precedence, as long as it’s not contagious. For example, Steve Jobs had the financial means to access any treatment, the intellectual capacity to understand them, I’m not sure. A family member hadn’t the financial means, Intellectual capacity but chose treatment for an aggressive form of cancer where survival rate is very low; they died. Identical twins developed lung cancer from cigarettes. One was diagnosed as their sibling who chose treatment died; the other decided to forego treatment, seeing their sibling rapidly robbed of any ability to enjoy any of their remaining time due to treatment. The sibling survived five years on and crossed several experiences off their bucket list, leaving friends and family with photos of them really enjoying hot air ballooning, hiking, camping, surfing. The last year was pretty wretched, but they had left behind a suitable insurance policy for burial and their children’s modest (not poverty level, middle middle class) upbringing, and with insurance and remaining bank account, was able to afford the best palliative care at home, including string opiates and marijuana. I just think the patient should have the right to choose, and counseling should be available to loved ones helping them to accept the patient’s wishes.
As for the rest of it, I largely agree.
bodily autonomy
This is a given.
However we can have a systemic understanding rather than an idealist one of how a person comes to the their decisons and how they can act on them. We can have a scientific understanding of freedom rather than the liberal metaphysical conception.
We are dialectical matetialists; consciousness does not make the social being, it is the social being that makes the consciousness.
I’m not seeing any disagreement.
-
People have got to stop believing that the western-led circus performance is the substance.
This hit me hard, because it’s a very visceral “lower chakras” (figuratively speaking) feeling I carry but I’m also in the belly of the beast having a painful awakening that the people I was working with towards mutual aid distribution (nonperishables) moved and the other just abused themselves a decade or few too hard, too long, and rapidly deteriorating health like time lapse in 3D. And I’m old with an abused body not that bad but I’m one and rural (because that’s what I currently barely afford under conditions/hours offered and feasible simultaneously), and no feasible health care options. So I’m extremely outraged, but making the best of steady, just enough current hours, and grateful!
Useless frothing liberal drive
A bit harsh. I can understand where he is coming from, emotionally, even if rationally i think his outrage is misplaced.
I can understand it because while it’s calming down as I learn, I’ve been there. 💁
The UN is simultaneously completely useless and so important that over and over we have to complain about China / Russia not vetoing decisions that would happen regardless.
If there was a vote over whether or not the U.S should bomb Iran and a China veto would prevent it- ok. But this is over official condemnation, why should we care?
If they did more to materially support the oppressed states it’d be one thing, but their votes in the UN are pretty much in line with their foreign policy so I think shitting on them for not taking a stand is perfectly fine
I think China buying 90% of Iran’s hydrocarbons and Russia providing pilots / s-400 operators has been pretty cool.
Even if I’d also love to see China rain DongFeng missiles down on the worst of the west
hydrocarbons
not to be confused with carbohydrates. do NOT make this mistake at the gym at 3AM!
I think China buying 90% of Iran’s hydrocarbons
They’ve been buying oil from Iran for years, not sure why this fact is significant.
Russian providing pilots / s-400 operators has been pretty cool.
Russia does this for India as well
So? Doesn’t change the facts that they are materially supporting Iran.
deleted by creator
They did and do materially support Venezuela. And Venezuela is not a comprador state.
I can see we are not going to agree. We have fundamentally different interpretations of the world right now. We will just have to wait and see.
Removed by mod
You are either with us or with the terrorists.
Both Russia and China have said pretty clearly that they condemn the unjustified aggression against Iran and support its right to defend itself. We also know that they are both almost certainly providing material and intelligence support.
Resolutions like this are more performative than anything else, and their reluctance to use their veto is easily explained by the fact that Russia and China also have and want to maintain good relations with the Gulf Arab states.
And would it have changed anything at all, substantively, if they vetoed it? I don’t like it either but that was probably their reasoning. It doesn’t mean they support the resolution.
I also think sometimes people tend to overstate the importance of these resolutions.
And i think we’ve had the discussion before about how, at least in China’s case, they have a record of using their veto power extremely sparingly due to how they see the veto as drawing them into a larger commitment which they seldom want to make.
Both Russia and China have said pretty clearly that they condemn the unjustified aggression against Iran and support its right to defend itself.
Really? When?
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2026/3/19/chinas-silence-on-iran-reveals-its-true-priorities
With Russia preoccupied with its own war, Iran waited to see whether its only other ally capable of going toe to toe with the US, China, would come to its aid. The answer came quickly. Two days into the war, during a regular news conference at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, business continued as normal, as if the US and Israel had not just attacked one of China’s comprehensive strategic partners. When it became clear that China would remain silent, an Iranian journalist protested. Only then did the ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, reluctantly condemn the US-Israeli assault.
In the days that followed, China became a vocal critic of the attacks. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi argued, “Might does not make right,” warning that the attacks proved that “the world has regressed to the law of the jungle.” Yet for all his strong words, Wang stopped short of explicitly naming the US or Israel as the aggressor, even if there was little doubt which countries he meant. Furthermore, China offered Iran little substantive assistance beyond rhetoric.
While China contacted several Middle Eastern countries and sent a special envoy on a diplomatic tour of the region, a move that helped prevent Iran’s neighbours, many caught in the crossfire, from joining the fray, it made no attempt to directly confront the US, the country ultimately responsible for the war, let alone send Iran military aid.
China’s response remained muted even when Iran, in a bid to provoke international intervention, closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime corridor through which 40 percent of China’s imported oil passes each day. Faced with a direct threat to its economic lifeline, Beijing’s only response was to call for all parties to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table. Its priorities were clear.
China immediately condemned the attack on Iran:
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202603/01/WS69a42333a310d6866eb3af12.html
They have since called for peace and de-escalation but never once condemned Iran for defending itself.
Russia of course condemned the attack on Iran. They also explicitly stated that they support Iran’s right to self-defense:
https://tass.com/politics/2100609?ysclid=mmzgz1rpsg854907143
Considering that AJ is Qatari state media i don’t think they are exactly an unbiased source on this.
You think Qatari state media would be disavowing China for not supporting Iran enough?
Yes. Al-Jazeera has a history of trying to stir up anti-China sentiment. You would know this if you followed their reporting on China for a few years. They are also not exactly pro-Iran and have a vested interest in driving a wedge between the two.
I’m not really familiar with Al-jazeera’s stance towards China, and their relationship with Iran, so I’ll defer to you on this.
China (and Russia too to an extent) is careful not to alienate anyone in the region, because they want to work with and rally everyone. In West Asia, they work within a situation inherited from US and UK imperialism - none of this was of their own making, and the culprits are still around to focus on.
Iran and Yemen are letting Chinese and Russian ships through their straits, there’s a lot we just don’t see happening beneath the surface. In 2024, Hamas and the PA met for talks in Russia and China. but that’s the thing with living in the time of an imperial hegemon, we learn to only respond to the big showy explosions.
Im old enough to not care about the UN.
UN is a rigged game.
I’m not qualified to speak for them on their thought process, but someone more qualified than me attempted to explain China’s. Please excuse the clickbait title.
Neutrality Studies: 📺 China Fools US with Genius Iran Strategy | Sheng Zhang
China’s silence in the first weeks on Iran was not a mistake. Beijing is highly strategic in its approach to the latest US war of aggression, and it’s quite surprising what’s behind the reasoning. Today I’m talking again to Mr. Sheng Zhang, a Chinese West-Asia expert who explains the driving rationale behind China’s approach to the Iran War.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Vetoing would polarize Saudi towards the US.
China just signed an oil deal with Saudi in Yuan a couple years back. It’s what mitigated the financial damage that this war has caused.
Now that the terms of engagement has expanded to targeting oil infrastructure, it would render this mitigation null and void.
Not to mention that in case of Japanese / US aggression in east Asia, China still needs to rely on Saudi Oil. (Kind of) Because the US is able to provide oil to its vassals in the region to fuel the invasion.
China does not pick a side between Arab States and Iran. We can argue about whether that is right or not, but at the end of the day that is their policy. Ergo an Arab led resolution shouldn’t be vetoed by China as it is not their policy to pick a side like that. China is also focussed on deescalation, like Victor Gao says in his recent interview on the Cradle. China doesn’t want to escalate the conflict and throw fuel on the fire. We can also argue one whether that is right but those two things are where our discussions should start.
I will say I dislike arguments that go “the UN doesn’t matter.” This resolution, imo, doesn’t really matter, but the UN in general has been something China has supported for decades, and Xi himself explicitly states multiple times how important the UN is. So to dismiss it would also be to dismiss China’s own views on the subject, which leads us nowhere
A lot of begging the question in this thread. The UN is simultaneously not important and yet important. If the UN is not important, why shouldn’t Russia and China veto? Why would the golf states care or feel alienated if the vote doesn’t matter? Why be careful about it? You know who feels alienated right now? The victims of the genocide and the wars of extermination in Iran and Lebanon. Maybe they should be more careful about that.
The truth is, that it does matter. These things have effects. Small effects, but still. Russia and China made a choice here. They weighted two small effects against each other. On the one side: trying to stay on the good side of the fascists imperialists who hate them anyway via a symbolic gesture of submission. On the other side: a symbolic gesture towards internationalism and solidarity that would have meant a lot to the victims. They chose slightly (not really) increasing the chances for short term profits with their enemies instead of long-term relationship building with their friends.
It’s a hallmark of liberal politics to try to stay on the good side of the fascists. Historically, it has always failed. Pick a side already, they want to crush you either way.
The UN is a front for Western Imperialism. This was established with the Korean War.
While China and Russia should be doing more to oppose imperialism there are better ways to argue this than performative gestures at the United Nations of America.
Yes, of course the UN is a front for western imperialism. That’s why it’s strange, that China and Russia take part in this performance instead of disrupting it.
The UN is one of the core foundational blocks of modern international politics. Participation is not optional. That is why everyone is in the UN and why only one country has ever left and it eventually rejoined.
Yes, but that’s not what I meant. I didn’t mean not being in the UN, but playing their game. Please try to shift perspective. They are participating in the pretense precisely by abstaining. This is the meaningless gesture to uphold appearance. The pretence of neutrality, rules based order and everything the UN stands for. Vetoing it would have been a disruption. A slight one, but valued highly by the victims of imperial aggression.
They have the power of veto because the system gives it to them as part of the process. That’s not disruption; that’s participation. This is like saying voting for the socialist candidate is disrupting capitalist democracy when in fact it’s just legitimizing it.
Abstaining in both cases reflects an unwilling to participate in the system. This isn’t necessarily disruptive but it’s not participating/legitimizing either.
So you admit it yourself. They have the power to veto, because they don’t use it. The UN serves the empire. On a scale of total subservience to total opposition, abstaining in this context, is closer to the interests of the US than against it.
It’s exactly opposite to tactically denying to take part in bourgeois elections, in a situation where a large number of non-voter could actually critically de-legitimize the while system. Abstaining didn’t make any waves, did it?
