Letter to the American Workingmen

[DasFapital]

I just finished reading Lenin's "Letter to the American Workingmen" and noticed his apparent support of briefly siding with imperialist powers in order to further the cause of proletariat revolution. I was wondering if, for example, there was a secular progressive uprising in a country such as Iran that was supported by the West would marxists be justified in supporting it even if there was a risk of the country becoming loyal to said imperialist powers? I mean after all, it could still mean improvement for the working class and various sexual and religious minorities in the country.

[NewLeft]

Lenin entered into agreement with French imperialists against Germany, only to protect the interests of the "Russian revolution." Lenin made it clear that he was against the "middle class utopia" of a national unity among classes, the like that crushed the left after the 1979 revolution. The imperialists don't care if the revolution has a "secular" nature, they're willing to back just about anyone if they support their interests. The Shah was "secular" (though national minorities did not have collective rights) and extended suffrage to women, but he also killed the communist uprisings in 1953 (the task of his coup d'état) and suppressed communist activities throughout his rule. During the 1979 revolution, peasants and workers formed councils, while the petite-bourgeois and Islamists wanted restoration of capitalism. The Marxists went into guerrilla warfare and eventually made the mistake of recognizing the Islamic republic because it was "anti-imperialist," since it rejected Western imperialism. By abandoning the class struggle, they only made it easier for the Islamists to consolidate power. Marxists should not support "progressive" capitalists, they will be the first to be repressed.