Solidarity Without Exception

Introductory notes about supporting the people of Ukraine and Iran

By Sam Friedman

The politics of struggles in which the people of Ukraine and Iran are engaged have been hotly debated by people who consider themselves to be socialists and/or anti-imperialists. This brief paper discusses the histories of imperialism and nationalism in terms of the diffusion of capitalism across the world and the struggles against it. In the process, it explains why socialists and anti-imperialists should support the struggles of the Iranian and Ukrainian peoples against imperial attacks by the United States and Russia and against attacks by their own governments and ruling classes.

As a preface: I have spent many years as an AIDS researcher and activist. In that connection, I have conducted research with Russian, Ukrainian and Iranian researchers and activists. I have very good friends in both Russia and Ukraine. All of the people I worked with in Iran have had to leave the country. Two of them were incarcerated for some years before they could leave.

Much of the discussion around the Ukrainian and Iranian struggles revolves around questions of national existence and the rights of nations to self-determination. So to begin with, I will present a VERY brief discussion of nationalism and nations.

Nations have been described as “imagined communities” to capture a key aspect of nationalism—that the people in a nation feel themselves to be “one people” in some sense and to share many values and histories with other members of their nation. Thus, many people without a nation-state of their own—such as many Kurds or Chechens today, or Jews before the creation of Israel, conceive of themselves as one people and often frame this as a form of nationalism.

Nation-states, on the other hand, are countries that have governments of some sort and have dominant belief systems that see some or all of their inhabitants as part of “one people,” their nation. In reality, as we will discuss, many nations now and in the past, have included oppressed groups of people (who may or may not feel themselves to be members of that or another nation). Clear examples include African Americans in pre-Civil War America, Ukrainians in Czarist Russia, Kurds in modern Turkey or Iran, and Palestinians in modern Israel.

Historically, I think it accurate to claim that in 1200 A.D., there were no nations on Earth. There were kingdoms, empires, tribes, and other formations, but no nations. Many of the places we think of as nations were at most loose confederations of contending smaller entities with many different languages; in some cases, one of these smaller entities was nominally dominant. The UK (Britain) for example had Anglo Saxons, Normans, Welsh, Scots, and Irish, each with their own language or languages. France was similarly divided, as was Germany. Germany remained that way into the 1860s. Although Spain was ostensibly unified in the late 1400s, linguistic differences remained present for centuries, and indeed groups like the Basques and Catalonians continue to express non-Spanish national identities and seek to withdraw from Spain on various occasions. Similarly, India, China, and Iran were mixes of empires and smaller jurisdictions, and multi-lingual. Africa was a mix of empires and tribes, as were the Americas.

The development of capitalism sparked the creation of nationalisms, and of nations, when emerging capitalists began to see the advantages of unified territories with a single language and no tariffs between sub-units like dukedoms or counties. To some extent, these ideas emerged from the lawyers, religious schools, literary figures, and other intellectuals who were part of the development of mercantile trade and capitalism. The prior existence of printing presses and other modes of one-to-many communication over long distances facilitated this.

One typical aspect of this nationalism has been the formation of national myths that claim that the nation has a history that can be traced back centuries or millennia. Vladimir Putin and other Russian nationalists hark beck to a mythical Russian people in Kyiv in the 900s; Zionists claim that Biblical Israel was the birthplace of a Jewish nation; the Nazis traced the roots of the German people back centuries to the age of mythical heroes.

Nationalism led to nation-states through a variety of pathways. Some nations came together as a relatively straightforward effect of capitalism and its culture leading to national feelings. This is what happened with England and France, for example, although in each case the process involved a lot of warfare and social struggle. Other areas, such as Italy and Germany, developed elite groupings within them who saw commonalities of language and culture, and wanted the advantages that being a unified nation-state would bring them and, they believed, other members of the nation. In these cases, a combination of conquest by one of the competing sub-units (such as Prussia) and insurgency led to the formation of a nation-state. A third pathway has been for oppressed people within an empire or other formation to rebel and win their freedom to establish their own nation-state. As we shall see, this is what happened with Ukraine, and it is also what happened with the anti-colonial formation of nations in Africa and Asia in the 20th Century. A related pathway has been nationalism created as the people of a geographical area fend off attempts by imperialism to conquer them. Examples include Chinese nationalism in the face of defeats and impositions by Britain in the Opium Wars and then by other European forces, and finally in the 1930s against a Japanese invasion; and Palestinian nationalism emerging in the early part of the 20th Century.

Colonialism and imperialism grew up with capitalism and the emergence of nations. This happened in Western Europe when several European states became kingdoms and organized navies and armies and private armed forces (e.g., the Dutch and English East India Companies) to conquer other lands and force their people into mining and agriculture on behalf of their national ruling class. First, Spain and Portugal conquered parts of Africa and Latin America. They used these as sources of forced labor by the people whom they had conquered, and gold, silver and farm products became the basis of royal fortunes and mercenary armies. Dutch, French, and British imperialism followed, and seized new lands and people in the southern cape of Africa, Indonesia, and elsewhere, as well as taking some territories away from each other and from the Spanish and Portuguese. The British and French profited enormously from the enslavement of kidnapped Africans. Sugar grown by slave labor was for many decades the mainstay of international trade, and the island of Haiti (under French rule) the most profitable place on Earth. The United States formed as a nation through rebellion against the British government. This meant they were free to continue to trade in slaves, to employ slave labor, and to conquer lands held by American Indians (often with genocidal intent and/or consequences). (British governments had been considering restricting slavery, and had enacted prohibitions against American colonists moving into the Northwest Territories of Ohio and west.)

Far less known in the United States and many other countries is the growth of the Russian empire. Starting in the 1600s, the areas around Moscow organized as Russia under the Czars and started a campaign of territorial expansion that mixed conquest and subjugation of some areas (such as much of what is now Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) with outright genocidal settler colonialism in other areas such as much of Northern and Central Asia in which Yakuts, Buryats, and many other groups of people suffered massive population declines. In areas like Ukraine and Belarus, it tried to suppress the local religions and languages and other elements of culture.

In the 1800s and ever since, both the Russian and British Empires established economic dominance and at times military take-overs of Iran. In World War II, they divided Iran between them before reluctantly withdrawing later in the 1940s and leaving the old Shah’s son in control of a constitutional monarchy. (Iran itself is somewhat imperial and dominates and exploits several subordinate peoples, including Kurds, Baloch, Azeris, Arabs, and Turkmens).

Beginning in the 1800s, anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements and ideas began to develop and spread more widely. As mentioned earlier, this took the form of “re-unification” in Germany and Italy. In much of the rest of the world, it took the form of rebellion against colonial overlords.

Many social democrats in imperial countries opposed the anti-colonial nationalism in the Global South. It is notable that Marx shared some of these views when young, but by the 1850s was clearly becoming anti-imperialist. Books by Kevin Anderson provide wonderful analysis of this. [1]

Key figures of the next generation of socialists, including Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, James Connolly, and Trotsky, were fierce opponents of colonialism, although they disagreed about the political implications of this for European socialist movements.

World War II broke the power of all of the major imperial powers except the United States and Russia (USSR). Both the US and Russia supported anti-colonial movements in the former colonies of Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Russia and the United States vied for influence in the newly-emerging countries, which is one reason these new nations became neocolonial corporate capitalist or state capitalist developmental regimes dependent upon the USA or Russia for investment and trade—and in many cases autocratic. Frantz Fanon wrote about this reality from within the movements for independence and freedom as the depressing reality of neocolonial independence was becoming visible. Neither Russia nor the United States tolerated anti-colonial movements within their empires. (They were extremely repressive against such movements in Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Hungary, and Poland, for example.)

So what does this mean for Ukraine and Iran?

Ukraine developed a powerful nationalist movement in the 1800s. Ukrainian socialists were often leading nationalists as well. In the Revolution in the Russian Empire of 1917, this led at times to cooperation and at other times fighting between revolutionary socialists who were allied with the Russian Soviets and revolutionary socialists (some of whom called themselves Bolsheviks) who wanted Ukraine to be a separate nation. Both fought both Ukrainian and Russian pro-capitalist forces. Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution, was torn between:

1. This general support of the right of nations—particularly including Ukraine—to self-determination (including his hatred of Great Russian Chauvinism, his term for that form of racism).
2. The specifics of the struggle in Ukraine, including the fact that many Bolsheviks in his party opposed Ukrainian nationalism.

In any case, the strength of the national movement in Ukraine and some other parts of the Russian Empire is why the end of the civil war led to the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, as a union of independent nation-states (including Russia and Ukraine) with the right of secession from the Union. To begin with, this led to considerable Ukrainian cultural and other freedom, but as the Stalinist counter-revolution proceeded and Russia became an autocratic form of State Capitalism, Russia increasingly suppressed Ukrainian language, religion, and most of its culture. By the 1930s, when the USSR faced a severe economic crisis that it dealt with by exporting food that its inhabitants needed, Ukraine was singled out for the harshest police tactics and starvations. This took the form of the Holodomor genocide, in which 4 million or more Ukrainians starved to death or were murdered by the police or army. Ukrainian politics is still shaped by the memory of this.

In World War II, the German invasion inflected hardship and mass murders on millions of Ukrainians, including Jewish Ukrainians. Ukrainians suffered the worst (more than the Russians of Belarusians, for example) and made major contributions to defeating the Germans. Russia tries to portray the defeat of the Nazis as a Russian victory and to disregard the contributions of Ukrainians and its other oppressed nations.

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, Ukraine, Russia, and other countries seceded and formed separate countries. The next five or ten years were unbearable in all of them. The economy collapsed. Productive assets were sold off by the governments (run by their top bureaucrats) to coteries of allied top bureaucrats and top leaders of the criminal underground. Joblessness, alcoholism, and tuberculosis became epidemic. Use of opioids became relatively widespread among the young, as did trading sex for money or goods—and, as a result, HIV/AIDS, particularly among people who began injecting drugs. Oligarchs contended for wealth and power, at times violently, or by using government police power to attack their rivals.

Coming out of the 1990s, both the Russian and Ukrainian governments were dominated by viciously contending oligarchs who ran corrupt autocratic nominally-democratic regimes that held periodic elections to determine which group of oligarchs would rule and benefit most from the corruption. Starting with the Orange Revolution against a stolen election in 2004, their paths diverged, with Russia becoming more autocratic but Ukraine seeing the power of the oligarchs challenged by popular rebellions. The Maidan Revolution of 2013-2014 showed again that oligarchic regimes could be overthrown, and made inroads upon police corruption and, to some degree, corruption by other officials. This did NOT happen in Russia, but Putin and other Russian oligarchs feared it could spread. Thus, in 2014 Russia seized Crimea and tried to seize the Donbas (Donets Coal Basin) and Odesa as a way to make sure the Maidan Revolution did not turn left and, even more importantly, to delegitimize efforts to overthrow his own oligarchic regime. [2]

The Left was an important component of the Maidan Revolution, though far less visible than the extreme Right. Most of the movement, and its dominant beliefs, was a pro-European vaguely social democratic yearning for clean government and European living standards. Nonetheless, there was a socialist and anarchist Left, it acquitted itself well during the Maidan struggles across Ukraine, and it continues as a (relatively weak, but respected) force in Ukraine today. [3]

Later, after the near-revolution in Belarus that started in late 2020, Russia’s leaders decided to take over Ukraine and to erase Ukrainian culture and political freedoms. They were motivated both by the desire to eradicate the Russian peoples’ hope for freedom and by their own desires to restore what they see as the glories of the Russian empire. It tried this in early 2022 and has so far failed spectacularly due to a people’s movement in Ukraine. In my opinion, socialists in the US should support this movement without reservations.

However, it should be clear—this current people’s movement in Ukraine is not socialist, though it has socialist threads within it. [4] Moreover, under the neoliberal demands of West European and US capital and their support by the Zelensky government, the Ukrainian government has adopted a lot of anti-working class and anti-union policies and has gone into massive debt to Western capital to pay the costs of the war. If the war ended tomorrow, the existing debt that capital has imposed on Ukraine means that both Ukrainian and Western capital (and governments) will wage war on Ukraine’s workers to pay it back. One job of US socialists is to oppose this and to support the Ukrainian working class in its current and future struggles to survive and, hopefully, to overthrow capital.

Iran

In an election in 1953 (after the new Shah took office when Britain and Russia occupation troops left Iran following the end of World War II), Mossadegh became Prime Minister and took steps to curb British control over Iran’s oil production. He was overthrown by a coup backed by US oil interests and the CIA, including those Iranians who benefited from the private oil industry.

The Shah then set up a dictatorship friendly to US capital. This dictatorship was friendly to using its oil revenues to “modernize” Iranian society to resemble secular corporate America to a degree, including making jobs and other aspects of Western life available to women. He set up a vicious and powerful secret police to suppress all opposition brutally and often fatally.
By 1978, the Iranian people had had enough, and revolted. In 1979, the revolution succeeded in driving the Shah and his regime out. This revolution had important socialist and worker components, and it was the oil workers’ actions that were decisive in ousting the Shah. Hard-line Islamists, quite anti-American, also had massive support, and won out in the ensuing struggles over the direction of the revolution. They were backed in this by the pro-Russian Iranian Communist Party which saw the Revolution as an anti-imperialist one that should stop short at putting the bourgeoisie into power.

With US backing, Iraq then started a war with Iran, which raged through the 1980s. This was a long and vicious war, with huge loss of life. One of my friends tells me it led to a lot of drug use by soldiers, and eventually to a lot of AIDS.

The Iranian people have mounted a number of mass movements in the years since the Millionaire Mullahs came to power. The 2009 Green Movement protested massive fraud in presidential elections; the 2019 uprising opposed rising gasoline prices and included a variety of efforts by workers to improve their lives; the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement of 2022-23, which was viciously repressed, involved Kurds and other oppressed minorities as well as Persians, and men as well as women; and the recent uprising of 2026 based around economic and environmental collapse that was suppressed after tens of thousands of people were killed.

US and Israel decided to attack Iran at the end of February 2026. As of this writing, this attack seems to be an utter failure, and has left the Iranian government in a much stronger position against its own people as well as against Israel and the United States than it had before the war.

What about socialists and anti-imperialists in the United States and much of the world?

People in the United States and elsewhere who call themselves socialists and/or anti-imperialists are divided into two sharply divided groups. One group are called “campists” because they see the world geopolitically as divided into Western imperialism, as one camp, and nations that oppose Western imperialism, as the other camp—which they then support.

Campists support the Iranian government as anti-imperialist and usually see the peoples’ movements as “objectively pro-imperialist” or even as US-Israeli instigated counter-revolutionaries. They support Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine because they see Ukraine as a part of the Western, imperialist, camp. Many of them believe Russian claims that it invaded Ukraine because the Maidan revolution was an imperialist coup and that it threatened to attack Russia. Many of them also support Russian claims that Ukraine is run by, and is a hotbed of, Nazis and other fascists. (As someone who has spent a lot of time in Ukraine both before and after the Maidans, and as someone who understands that there are serious fascist forces helping to direct both Russia and the United States, I will attest to the fact that these claims are utter rot.)

Historically, many campist leaders have had ties to the former state capitalist Russia or other state capitalist regimes, or accepted the worldviews of their leaders who saw the world as divided into an anti-imperialist camp (which they, but not the people of Eastern Europe, Taiwan, or Tibet, among others, considered themselves to be). Fundamental to campist views is a disbelief in the power of working class or other movements of “the people” to take power and build a new society that is better than the one we live in. As a result, they see States as the only important actors in the world, and they choose to side with one camp within those states.

The other group, who are sometimes called internationalists (and I am one), support the working class and other oppressed people in their struggles against both their country’s ruling class and State and also against imperialist countries who threaten their national independence. One of our slogans which forms part of the title of this essay, is “solidarity without exception.” When imperial invaders attack a people, we support that people to the best of our ability. When governments or employers attack workers’ lives and conditions and freedoms, we support the workers. And we urge the movements of oppressed peoples and of workers in every country to support each other in a solidarity without exception.

When the United States or its allies attack or oppress a nation such as Palestine or Venezuela, campists and internationalists can sometimes work together, although even then campists tend to offer uncritical support for their governments or other top-down leadership bodies like Hamas whereas internationalists support the people against both their attackers and governments like that of Maduro or leaders like Hamas. Another frequent area of tension-within-cooperation is that campists support top-down and often secretive leadership bodies within solidarity movements (as happened in many of the campus encampments that supported Palestine in 2024) whereas internationalists support open discussion and democratic control by the participants in the movement.

Finally, there are many other nations that are being attacked or oppressed. Campists decide on whether of not to support the Kurds, Rohingyas, Uyghurs and others based on whether they judge the attackers or oppressors as allies of US imperialism or part of their imagined “axes of resistance,” whereas we internationalists offer solidarity without exception.

We see this as the only way to live and build a socialism from below in which workers and other have democratic power to build a sustainable world of peace, friendship, self-fulfillment and fun. And we view it as humanity’s best hope of surviving the environmental crisis, and specifically the climate crisis, and eventually thriving once this is done.

1. 1. Kevin B. Anderson, Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies (University of Chicago Press, 2015); Kevin B. Anderson, The Late Marx’s Revolutionary Roads: Colonialism, Gender, and Indigenous Communism (Verso, 2025).
   2. Hanna Perekhoda, “How to Understand Russia’s Imperialist Attitude Toward Ukraine,” New Politics, Winter 2024, https://newpol.org/issue_post/how-to-understand-russias-imperialist-attitude-toward-ukraine/; Ilya Matveev, “Political imperialism, Putin’s Russia, and the need for a global left alternative,” Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal, September 28, 2024, https://links.org.au/political-imperialism-putins-russia-and-need-global-left-alternative-interview-ilya-matveev; Ilya Budraitskis and Ilya Matveev, Russia’s New Imperialism: Capital and Ideology (Stanford University Press, 2026).
   3. Andrey Kurkov, Ukraine Diaries: Dispatches from Kiev (Harvill Press, 2015); Marci Shore, The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution (Yale University Press, 2018); Emily Channell-Justice, Without the State: Self-Organization and Political Activism in Ukraine (University of Toronto Press, 2022); Sam Friedman, “What Happened in Ukraine in 2013– 2014? Maidan and After,” New Politics, May 13, 2023, https://newpol.org/what-happened-in-ukraine-in-2013-2014/; Sophia Willson, Maidan: Ukraine’s Democratic Revolution (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2026).
   4. Commons: Journal of Social Criticism, https://commons.com.ua/en/; Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement), democratic socialist organization: https://rev.org.ua/en/sotsialnyi-rukh-who-we-are/, https://www.facebook.com/social.ruh; Solidarity Collectives, anti-authoritarian network supporting the resistance to the Russian invasion: https://www.solidaritycollectives.org/en/, https://www.facebook.com/SolidarityCollectives/; Green Party of Ukraine: https://www.facebook.com/GreenPartyofUkraine/; Social Democratic Platform, https://sdplatform.org.ua/main/en; Pryama Diya (Direct Action), leftwing student trade union, https://www.facebook.com/priama.diia, http://direct-action.org.ua; Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FPU): https://www.fpsu.org.ua, https://www.facebook.com/fpsu55/, https://x.com/of_unions; Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (KVPU): https://kvpu.org.ua/, https://kvpu.org.ua/en/home/; Razom We Stand, campaign for fossil fuel sanctions on Russia and rebuilding Ukraine around renewables, https://razomwestand.com/; Rozviy, feminist youth campaign for fossil fuel sanctions on Russia and rebuilding Ukraine around renewables, https://www.rozviy.org/.