The title may seem ridiculously obvious, but when imperialist notions are being put forward by people who call themselves anti-imperialist, the obvious needs to be re-stated.

The despicable worldview which I’d like to discuss is shared by a vocal, albeit minority on the far-left, and far from being simple, it is fundamentally built on contradictions.



As a disclaimer, none of the following is about genuine pacifist, anti-imperialist or anti-war comrades, and as much will soon become clear.



This is about people who claim to be “anti-war” or “anti-imperialist”, but who are really just anti-western, and are willing to declare their support or empathy for some of the most brutal and murderous regimes to walk the face of the earth — so long as the interests of those brutal regimes don’t appear to align with those of the west’s.



It can be seen in their willingness to oppose US intervention in Venezuela, while saying nothing about Russian intervention which sought to ensure Maduro remained in power. It can be equally seen in their opposition to US intervention in Syria which would have toppled the fascist Assad regime, while remaining simultaneously silent on Russian and Iranian intervention which has kept the regime in power (sometimes even openly supporting it).



It is the kind of worldview that allows these people to praise Tulsi Gabbard as an anti-war candidate for opposing US intervention in Syria, even when it is pointed out to them that she promoted Putin’s bombing of the region in several tweets, all while voting to bar Syrian refugees from entering the US.

But let us be clear: In such cases, the anti-interventionist positions aren’t the problem, neither is the zealously held belief that the west is incapable of acting as a moral agent in foreign conflicts without having selfish intentions. Rather, the problem lies with the fact that their cynicism of hegemonic states intervening abroad simply doesn’t extend to non-western despotic regimes like those of Russia or Iran. Instead, they are either denied or openly supported. Such glaring contradictions and inconsistencies never give them pause for thought. Opposition to Russian and Iranian imperialism simply does not factor into their “anti-imperialist” philosophy. Some will go as far as to say that non-western dictatorships are inherently incapable of imperialism, despite Russia’s actions in the Ukraine, or both Russia and Iran’s actions in Syria. And with all things considered, the end result of such a worldview is unsurprising.



When they learn of a non-western regime slaughtering its own people, they feel compelled to dismiss the need for any form of ethical intervention, but they do not do so by re-stating the pitfalls of western intervention, but rather by embracing conspiracy theories that exonerate the regime of its crimes. They will partake in the universal narrative shared by all totalitarian states: the false binary, whereby a regime engaged in genocide becomes “the lesser of all evils”. The protesters calling for freedom, democracy and dignity on the other hand end up being smeared as paid US propagandists and their autonomy is erased, if it ever existed in the first place (as was, and is still being done to pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong and Syria).



Taken to its extremes, this rabbit hole will lead some to even denying chemical weapon attacks or glorifying murderous regimes as anti-imperialist heroes.



But I’ve recently found a little comfort in learning that this toxic worldview is anything but recent, as demonstrated by the following passage from 1945 by the author who confronted fascism and was almost killed by it:

“But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism…



[their] propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against the [UK/US]…



They do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia”.



— Notes on Nationalism — George Orwell

They may just be a vocal minority, but they need to be called out by a truly anti-imperialist and anti-authoritarian left whose solidarity isn’t confined to man-made borders.