Campism is the tendency to substitute geopolitical alignment for class politics: dividing the world into opposed blocs, giving political support to states in the "anti-hegemonic" bloc regardless of their class character, and consequently refusing solidarity with, or actively opposing, workers and oppressed peoples struggling for democratic freedoms, national self-determination, and workers' control within those states.

Its logical structure runs thus: first, a binary division of states into a hegemonic imperialist pole (the NATO members and their allies) and an opposing pole (Russia, China, Iran and their allies); second, blanket support for ruling elites in the latter because they face Western opposition; third, hostility toward mass movements in those states, which are dismissed as imperialist provocations or told to suspend their struggles in the name of anti-imperialist unity.

[PS Campism has historical roots in Stalinist foreign policy and represents the substitution of diplomatic alignment for independent working-class politics].

In the WhatsApp thread that led to this post, there is a range of views. However, if someone held _all_ of the views that I'm disagreeing with, then yes, I could call that campism.