Thread by @vikkink

A good time to expand on this a bit. I think we still critically lack analytic instruments to assess the current situation re: the interplay of global and local politics, "foreign interference," and such. The debate tends to degrade to tired clichés and analogies very quickly

We live in a global world which is very Western-centered and Western-dependent economically, politically, and culturally. Protestors often don't shy away from directly appealing to the Western governments and other political actors through symbols, language and calls for action -

we see it now in Iran, we've seen it before everywhere - from Hong Kong to Georgia to Brazil.
Atst, it's near impossible to exist, let alone receive "desirable development outcomes" (longer life expectancy, better quality of life for the general population, etc.) without proper

integration into the world's market and financial system. Western/Global North governments have the power of admission to this double system and don't hesitate to use it to choke those not willing to comply out of existence (see Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, Assad's Syria)

Countries like Russia have more trade flexibility and a bigger domestic market and therefore can offset and postpone negative effects longer, but they are still fated to perpetuated underdevelopment. The besieged fortress situation by itself produces ossification, degradation and

brutality of the local ruling classes. Social contract made with the population gradually deteriorates, diminishing whatever improvements that were achieved. In the situation of crisis, social unrest that boils underneath is then very likely and often deservingly directed against

these local ruling classes.
And here we return to the first part of equatation. Protestors appeal to the Western governments, who often consciously and openly work to make these crisis condition more likely to develop through economic pressure.

These appeals are both ideological (coded around "Western values" etc.) and practical (they can, in fact, tipp the scales in the fight against the local ruling class). The channels these appeals go through are usually diasporic, and not just diasporic in general but

1) usually linked with the remnants of the old ruling classes 2) have lobbyist groups with the access to high-ranking officials & politicians in the West 3) have close ties to security agencies 4) have armed wing involved in criminal enterprises. That is, they are very right-wing

and also have their interest directly tied to perpetuation of the existing social order and system of accumulation. The diasporic wing goes on even when the old-new regime rises to power, acting as a communication channel, safety net, ideological engine and discipline apparatus.

Of course, other iterations of this scenario are also possible - when the protests are against a Western-alighned government, when a deal is made between the local ruling class and the Western block, when previously convenient elites exhaust their usefulness or 'go rogue'.

But from what we have seen in most of the 21st century protest movements, their potential outcomes grow increasingly limited as "the terms of inclusion" after the Great Recession have grown only harsher and certainly not customized to bring any kind of prosperity to those,

who play the role of surplus population in the current system of accumulation for the "condominium of core states" (no matter the lip service paid to human rights). These right-wing factions of the ruling class with close ties to the West are even more likely to come to power

After that few things happen 1) sanctions are lifted 2) humanitarian concerns subdued no matter the brutality of repression 3) state and military capacity regressed, simultaneously decreasing the incentive for the new ruling class to rely on the local population for legitimacy

and thus to rebuild these capacities. This brings to the perpetual condition of controlled chaos, regression of life conditions for the most of the population, social anomy.

I am not writing this to recycle stuff like "every protest against anti-hegemonic government is essentially astroturfing", nor do I want to refer to tired argument about Lenin using assistance from the Kaiserreich to get to Russia in the February Revolution, which somehow

should make it ok for the left to side with the Iranian monarchists (?). I think the structural constraints I describe in this thread construct a genuine challenge for the left and I haven't seen anyone tacking them effectively - nor on theoretical level, nor in action.

The Fall of the Soviet Union and the Third World Debt Crisis, that crushed such alternative centers of socialist organization and thought as Dar es Salaam, left the international socialist/communist movement in ruins, while the right only grew more organized on the global level.

How to fight this planetary imbalance is THE question. Otherwise it's just endless back-and-forth between "right to resist" and "these guys are even worse" with periodical appeals to the Western left who can't even sort themselves out to take largely symbolic moral stand,

which is also often compromized as they are presented with dilemma of either supporting their government that essentially harms the populace to get to the local ruling class or deny the legitimacy of the issues that said populace might have with those in power on the local level

Like any other moral (i.e. abstract) dilemma it's very rarely have the right answer. Both are worse. And all the good answers are locked behind the Western left having no real power. Same goes for the local left, with a catch that both sides likely want you dead or in prison.