“the truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist.”This is just a brief summary of his theory. If you want to hear more, I can convey his arguments, 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.
- The economic essence of imperialism is monopoly capitalism
Lenin's theory: Lenin pointed out that the fundamental economic characteristic and essence of imperialism is the "replacement of free competition by monopoly." To ensure the "survival" and continued growth of domestic capital, monopoly capital groups are compelled to export capital globally and seize resources and markets.
Yang Heping's arguments:
The Russia-Ukraine War: He argues that Russia not only harbors territorial ambitions reminiscent of the Tsarist era, but its regime is also essentially controlled by a monopoly-oligarchic capitalist class that emerged following the "restoration of capitalism." Russia's invasion of Ukraine was not merely an act of geopolitical security defense; rather, it was an act of aggressive expansion driven by its domestic monopoly capital seeking to advance its own interests and carve up spheres of influence.
US-Iran/US-Russia conflicts: As the world's most powerful "super-monopoly" imperialist state, the US wages wars (such as the Iraq War) to consolidate the hegemony of the US dollar and secure control over core resources like oil.
Any other late-developing nation that embarks on the path of capitalism and develops monopoly capital will inevitably follow the same path of striving for global dominance.
- The Law of Uneven Political and Economic Development in Capitalism
Lenin’s Theory: Lenin posited that "uneven development is an absolute law of capitalism." Established imperial powers decline while emerging ones rise, leading to shifts in the balance of power.
Yang Heping’s Argument: He applies this theory to explain the imperial rivalries between the US and Russia, and between the US and China. He points out that the US is not the world's sole imperialist power; the essence of the Russia-Ukraine war lies in a struggle to re-divide spheres of influence between an "established hegemon" (US imperialism) and a "rising imperial power" (Russia).
As long as capitalism exists, the ultimate "fundamental solution" to the conflicts between interest groups driven by uneven development is war.
- Lenin’s Assessment of the Nature of “Imperialist War”
Leninist Theory: During World War I, Lenin distinguished between “unjust imperialist wars of plunder” and “just wars of national liberation.” He argued that determining the nature of a war depends not on which side fired the first shot (a matter of diplomatic history), but on the class character of the ruling classes of the belligerent nations.
Yang Heping’s Argument: Yang Heping uses this framework to sharply criticize the nationalist double standards held by the “pro-Russia” faction within the country. He emphasizes that the ruling classes on both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict are bourgeois; consequently, for Russia, this is an unjust, predatory imperialist war of aggression, whereas for the Ukrainian people, it is a struggle against aggression. One must absolutely not rationalize Russia’s act of aggression as a “just anti-imperialist” action simply out of opposition to US imperialism.
- Thorough Critique of "Social Pacifism" and the "Theory of Ultra-imperialism"
Lenin’s Theory: Lenin sharply criticized Kautsky’s "theory of ultra-imperialism" (the notion that imperialism could peacefully divide the world through negotiation rather than war) as well as "social pacifism," which obscured underlying contradictions.
Yang Heping’s Argument: Yang Heping argues that, in an era when imperialist powers are locked in chaotic conflict and vying for hegemony, it is extremely naive to imagine that these nations could sit down and achieve genuine peace. He invokes this Leninist theory to urge the Left not to pin its hopes on compromises between major imperialist powers; instead, the proletariat must recognize the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie on both sides of the conflict, rather than maintaining a so-called "neutrality" between the aggressor and the victim of aggression.
- Distinguishing between "Traditional Friction" and "Modern Imperialist Expansion"
Lenin's Theory: Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, possesses unique economic dynamics that distinguish it from the aggression associated with slavery, feudalism, or early capitalism.
Yang Heping's Argument: He illustrates this distinction through comparison. He argues that historical conflicts—such as the "India-Pakistan conflict" or the "Iran-Iraq War" of the 1980s—while involving warfare and plunder, were essentially traditional struggles for power and spoils among exploiting classes; they did not constitute the modern imperialist behavior of monopoly capital, which operates on the principle of "expand or perish."
In contrast, conflicts such as those between the US and Iran or Russia and Ukraine are irreconcilable struggles for spheres of influence driven entirely by modern monopoly capital.
Yang Heping’s line of reasoning could even be described as dogmatic, as it remains consistently grounded in Lenin’s original texts; your arguments, by contrast, are almost entirely based on geopolitics. I do not believe you can effectively refute him from the perspective of Lenin’s own writings. Lenin’s objective was always to destroy all the capitalist nations involved in World War I—including his own homeland, Tsarist Russia—rather than to pursue "multipolarity" or "improvements in the working class's living conditions"; his aim was to "launch an international revolution and immediately establish a proletarian regime."