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.