China

Often in the American media, offering a negative opinion of a target of imperialism will be used by those promoting the imperialism to support their agenda. They will say things like "Everyone dislikes this regime, and we are the only ones brave enough to make the hard choices and sacrifice to get rid of them". This leads the anti-imperialist movements in the US to say they oppose imperialist interventions and hold any critical analysis of the targets out of public view. Similarly, any intra-left disagreements will be amplified into viciously destructive sectarianism instead of a more productive conversation.

(this reads very weirdly, like it was written by AI or something; like a liberal asked an AI to craft something that sounds like what a Chinese Marxist might say in English)

Chinese Marxist-Leninists believe that the root cause of everything lies in capitalist relations of production—specifically, the private ownership of the means of production and wage labor. They argue that when a weak capitalist nation breaks through a blockade and gradually evolves into a stage of monopoly capitalism, it will inevitably become the next imperialist power—citing the Empire of Japan as an example. Consequently, they maintain that such regimes should merely be utilized by the Left as instruments, rather than being objects of loyalty.

If this is truly what they think, they should study other nations that broke away from colonialism and how they turned out; Algeria, Zimbabwe and South Africa didn't turn into the next imperialist powers, they were simply liberated from their colonialism. Either way, there is no acceptable solution where abandoning the people of suffering nations (the Iranians for example) is the answer. Let them first be liberated and then we can deal with the fallout if there even is one.

You hold the view that "no one but an anti-American regime can defend the Iranian people," whereas Chinese Marxist-Leninists believe that "the victory of the Communist Party of China demonstrates that the people are capable of defending themselves."

That's not what I said; The current Iranian government is the one they have, not the one we'd like but it is the current one, and they're the holders of the military weapons to rebuff attacks against them, and the ones who have the military that has the training to resist occupation. America literally bombed water plants in Iran; the government was not able to stop that, so how would the people stop it? Genuinely what a very bizarre response; what are the people supposed to do when faced with one of the most powerful governments in the world going to war with them? Especially when both Israel and America admitted they have mossad traitors embedded in Iran and giving weapons to create armed groups in Iran, intending to try and fracture the country.

Libya had a socialist government that was also decentralized, but their decentralization wasn't developed enough to do anything about being attacked by America back in 2011; the people had tons of power in Libya, but the US government is way too skilled at destabilizing and destroying countries for the people to win that battle.

Are you a liberal who's been sticking prompts into AI? This response reeks of liberal thinking, with very unnatural dogmatic sentences tossed in.

You miss understand imperialism. Imperialism is not simply whenever a war is not about national liberation. Imperialism according to Lenin is about the need to export capital. Russia exports mostly goods and resources. The world Bank lists Russia as developing nation. Foreign direct investment outflows out of Russia are negative. Russia is not imperialist. The capitalist class in Russia would make better profits without the war, even if they had lost the Ukrainian sphere of influence. The reason Russian capitalists need this war it to defend assets inside Russia from NATO imperialists. In repeated negotiations to prevent the war, NATO did not accept yes as an answer from Russia to their demands.

On the other hand, US capital would not survive without the forever wars. US absolutely needed this war, that's why they started it. Remember, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO and become subservient under US, they didn't accept, because of the absolute imperative to have war.

but to be honest, I don’t think you want any communication with me at all. You said, “This is not Leninism,” but you didn’t provide any arguments either.

I apologize if I sounded condescending, I now understand Yang Heping's (YH) position. Contrary to your post, I think this is a very common one, especially among non-ML leftists organizations in the west. It seems that YH's primary concern is guarding against class collaborationism. From what you wrote it seems he applies Lenin's stance during WW1, not supporing bourgeoisie inter-imperialist conflicts, to prevent the Left from becoming cheerleaders for reactionary capitalist governments. This is a principle concern and obviously our ultimate goal is the emancipation of the proletariat and not the success of any bourgeois state.

However, applying Lenin's 1914 framework to the 2020s without accounting for the shifted material conditions is (as you wrote) dogmatism, not dialectal materialism. Being "consistently grounded in Lenin’s original texts" is not really a thing in 2026 unless you are also analyzing imperalism in the context of WW1.

Regarding the summary YH's theory:

"The truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist."

While this sounds revolutionary, it lacks material substance. Dialectal materialism does not consider "truth" is not an abstract moral category; it is found in the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. It borders on Trotskyist sloganeering because it offers no actionable roadmap for the working class. The proletariat does not exist in a vacuum bot in a world currently dominated by a unipolar US hegemony. If a bourgeois government takes actions that objectively weaken that hegemony, thereby easing the boot off the neck of the global proletariat, recognizing and tactically supporting that fracture is not a betrayal of the working class.

Arguing that because Russia is imperialist because it has domestic monopoly capitalism fundamentally misunderstands Lenin's economic criteria. Lenin didn't say "imperialism is monopolies doing bad things". Imperialism is a specific stage of global financial domination cahracterized fundamentally by the export of capital and the super-exploitation of the periphery to generate super-profits.

The US and NATO export financial capital, control global institutions (IMF, World Bank, etc) and violently enforce the dominance of the dollar, extracting super-profits globally. Russia on the other hand, primarily exports commodities (oil, gas, agricultural products) and weapons. Foreign direct investments (FDI) outflows from Russia are in most sectors negative (and otherwise negligible). The Russian bourgeoisie is heavily sanctioned and isolated from global finance. Iran is literally subjected to starvation-level blockade and cannot even trade its own oil freely, let alone export finance capital to subjugate other nations.

To say that Russia and Iran are imperialist because they have an internal bourgeoisie with capitalist ambitions is like saying the corner store outside my apartment is a multinational corporation because it also wants to make a profit.

Lenin's assessment of WW1 as an "unjust imperialist war of plunder" between relatively equal imperial powers dividing the world was true then -- today's material conditions are completely different. We don't have competing empires of equal standing, but a single global hegemon (US/NATO) attempting to crush regional bourgeois states that refuse to act as subserviennt compradors.

When NATO pushes into Ukraine, it is expanding the US imperial monopoly. When Russia pushes back it is a national bourgeoisie fighting for its own survival against that monopoly. The Russian capitalists would have happily integrated into the West (as they tried in the early 2000s), but US finance capital demands absolute submission and not partnership. Acknowledging Russia's resistance is not "Social Pacifism" obscuring contradictions but recognizing the primary contradiction in the first place.

Imperial Japan in the 1930s was already heavily industrialized, actively exporting capital and colonizing Korea and China for super-exploitation. Iran and Russia are not in that position. If, in 50 years, a multipolar world exists and Russia attempts to establish a gloval financial monopoly, the primary contradiction will have changed, and our analysis will change with it.

But right now the primary barrier to socialist development worldwide is the US empire.

In another reply you had a comparison about Imperial Japan and noted the risk that a nation breaking through a blockade will inevitably become the next imperialist power. You also mentioned that these regimes should be used merely as "instruments, rather than being objects of loyalty."

But here we are in agreement, we do not pledge loyalty to the Islamic Republic or the Russian Federation. We don't pretend Putin or the Ayatollahs are socialist. We offer critical support, which means exactly what you said. So maybe I have not understood your position well enough after all.

I think it boils down to two things which are a bit confusing:

Russia and Iran as weak links in imperialism secondary imperialisms (Iran, Russia).

This doesn't hold up to a Leninist definition of imperialism. Which makes the whole discussion of dogmatism even more unclear.

unconditionally support Iran and Russia are usually nationalists or national leftists.

This is generally not a thing in the West, which makes the question of the original post ill-stated. You'd especially not find an ML unconditionally supporting these states.

I wonder if the differences between the left-wing in Europe and America and the left-wing in China are really that significant?

I have discussed things of this nature with Chinese MLs and have generally had few disagreements. I would say that among contemporary MLs, there is quite the consensus regarding the primary global contradictions for some time now.

Yay I won

We don't generally believe these countries will reform their way to socialism. Revolutionary means by which socialism is established will still likely be required, even in a state like Russia where the KPRF occupies seats in the Duma.

I believe the easiest way to connect your perspective with ours is in tying your stated concept of "support for utility" with the English term "critical support." The "critical" refers to, essentially, the fact that we do not support their actual systems in the long term, merely their actions in relation to imperialism and neocolonialism. This is a strategic form of support.

With respect to "Actually Existing Socialism," such as the PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, former USSR, and Cuba, we simply state that we support them. This does not mean we believe any of these are perfect and don't critique them, but instead that support is more broad, general, and aligned with the actual mode of production and distribution.

It wasn't long ago that I was reading news out of China about popular support in China for Iran's fight against US Imperialism, they (people, not the state) were trying to send financial aid to help the Iranian's against the US that has been bombing them, 1.4 Billion people is a lot of people, there are going to be liberals, there are going to be all kinds of socialists full of all kinds of errors, making all kinds of mistakes, that does not however mean they are a majority. Also important, it is not a popularity contest, something is not true or not based on popularity, unless that something is "is this thing popular?", that applies to the non-imperialist status of Iran and Russia, even if there are wrong ideas out there that say otherwise, as also that is applies to the Science of Socialism, which is not determined by popularity on whether or not it is true, unless the question itself is of if this thing is popular.

Edit: Seems Cowbee is probably right with it being a translation issue, as “the truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist.” doesn't seems to go against what we are saying, or the concept of critical support.

“the truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist.”

I am happy to tell you that not everyone here is a westerner, and even fewer adhere to the Western Marxism school of thought.

Based on what you've written in other replies I think your position is more akin to what we usually call ultra-leftist or third campism. You'd be hard pressed to find an ML here who view the current CPC as revisionist or state-capitalist -- simply because this is a position mostly connected to Trotskyism and not Leninism.

Lenin wrote extensively on the National Question and explicitly supported national liberation struggles even when they were led by the national bourgeoisie or monarchies, provided they weakened global imperialism. As an example, in The Foundations of Leninism (Chapter IV - The National Question) Stalin writes:

"The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism."

Luckily for you this has been written about extensively for the last 100 years or so, -- you can still catch up to the rest of us if you'd like (I recommend starting with the work mentioned above).