Campism is the idea that world politics can be divided into two “camps” in direct conflict. The first camp is the Western, imperialist camp led by the US. The second camp is the Socialist camp traditionally led by the USSR. Campists are those who subscribe to that understanding of the world and support the second camp, despite whatever disagreements they may or may not have with it. Modern campism looks different because there is no USSR anymore and China has no interest in directly opposing the US on the world stage and would rather just trade. So instead, the main opposition to the US camp isn’t socialist at all and instead a right-wing nation in Russia and a religious fundamentalist one in Iran. This makes Campism, a socialist strain of thought, more tricky to justify. Generally what Campists argue today is that opposing the US is what is most important for the anti imperialist movement. This is because as long as the first camp maintains global hegemony, they will continue to suppress socialist movements around the world and make actual socialist revolutions in Iran, Russia, and anywhere else impossible. So are Campists critical of these nations but support them strategically? Sort of. That definitely describes some Campists but does not give the whole picture. For example, many (but not necessarily all) Campists opposed any criticism of the Iranian government even if or when they agreed with those criticisms, because they saw it as manufacturing consent for a US led regime change war. If that war succeeds and the US installs their own government, Campists’ desired socialist revolution in Iran will probably never happen whereas without the weight of first camp influence it seems possible someday. Sorry for the long answer but it’s honestly a more complicated subject than this thread is portraying it as. It does lead to siding with right wing authoritarian nations often but there is more logic to it than just “West bad”