Wang Enming and Yang Shouming: The Centenary of Lenin's Death: New Progress in Foreign Lenin Studies
January 21, 2024, marked the centenary of Lenin's death. At this historical juncture, the international academic community has seen a surge in commemorations and research on Lenin. Journals and periodicals such as Monthly Review, Jacobin, Platypus Review, Morning Star, In Defense of Marxism, Communist, International Communist Review, and Peoples Democracy have either opened dedicated columns, published commemorative special issues, or released editorials and book reviews. Left-wing institutions, including the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung in Germany, "In Defense of Communism" in Greece, and "Countercurrents" in India, have published several deep-dive analytical articles on their respective websites. Furthermore, left-wing political parties such as the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) and the Workers World Party (WWP) in the USA, along with international organizations like the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) and the International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR), held a series of events. These multidimensional and interdisciplinary seminars centered on themes such as Lenin studies, showcasing the latest theoretical landscape and academic trends in Lenin research abroad.
I. Commemorative and Seminar Activities on the Centenary of Lenin's Death
First, the international academic community utilized media platforms such as left-wing websites, academic journals, and party newspapers to publish a series of theoretical articles. These works carry a tone of remembrance and defense while highlighting critical scrutiny, attempting to "reposition Lenin’s life and thought within an ever-shifting historical landscape" (1) through academic tracing, analysis, and debate. Representative articles include: Lenin’s World Dialectics and the State Tasks of the Proletarian Revolution and the Development of the Soviet State published by the Union of Communists of Ukraine (CKY); Reflections on Lenin’s Dialectics by Pyotr Kondrashov, Chief Researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences; The February Revolution and Lenin’s Attitude Toward the Liberals by British left-wing activist and editor Dylan Cope; Lenin Lives! Towards a Revolutionary Communist Party! by Rob Sewell; Lenin and the Importance of the Workers’ Press by James Kilby; Lenin, Dialectics, and Trans Liberation by American scholar Alex Adamson; The Crisis of Leninism in Latin America and its Critique by Bruno Bosteels; Lenin's Socialism: A Perspective Based on the Future by Hungarian Marxist theorist Tamas Krausz; In Defense of Genuine Leninism by Shaun Morris; and Saving Lenin by Argentine political scientist Atilio Boron. Additionally, Marie Frederiksen, editor of the Danish newspaper Revolution, published Lenin, Communism and Women’s Liberation, and Spanish scholar Jaime Pastor published The Evolution of Lenin’s Thought on the National Question: Self-Determination, Secession and Federalism, among others.
Second, the international academic community organized a series of seminars. On January 20, 2024, the Marx Memorial Library in the UK held a seminar in London titled "Lenin in Britain," focusing on Lenin’s reflections on imperialism and the labor aristocracy [1], as well as his book The State and Revolution (2). From January 21–22, the Marx 21 Association (L'associazione Marx 21) in Italy hosted an online seminar themed "Reflections by Communists on an Extraordinary Theoretical and Political Legacy." From January 21–24, the Lenin Centenary Coordinating Committee held an international conference in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, titled "Lenin, Leninism, Africa and the World." Discussions covered topics such as "The History and Contemporary Development of Marxism-Leninism and its World Significance," "Marxism-Leninism as a Tool for Analysis and Political Practice," and "Neoliberalism, Globalism, the Changing Multilateral World, and the Rise of BRICS" (3). From January 21–27, the Platypus Affiliated Society held its 6th European Conference in Berlin with the theme "What is the Left? 100 Years After Lenin," aiming to "critically examine the legacy of the failure of the 20th-century world revolution" and "contribute to clearing the obstacles facing the future Left" (4). On January 22, Cuba’s flagship television program Mesa Redonda (Round Table) aired a special episode titled "Lenin is the Banner of Socialism," inviting renowned Cuban philosophers to discuss "Lenin’s contributions to Marxism," "Lenin’s inspiration for today’s anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles," and the concept of "Returning to Lenin" (5). From January 27 to May 5, with the joint initiation and academic support of journals such as Historical Materialism, Jacobin América Latina, and Viento Sur, as well as the Juan Marinello Cultural Research Institute (JMCICR) in Cuba, over 60 figures from politics, academia, and media across more than 20 cities held a series of academic commemorations both online and offline under the theme "100 Years with Lenin, 100 Years without Lenin," including keynote conferences, roundtables, dialogues, and book launches (6).
Third, several left-wing scholars, media outlets, and publishing houses published or reprinted a large number of Lenin’s works, biographies, and research monographs. Representative works include: A Guide to "What Is to Be Done? — Burning Questions of Our Movement" edited by Prakash Karat, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]; a revised edition of Selected Works of Lenin edited and translated by Japanese historian Haruki Wada; Social Revolution: Lenin and Latin America by Chilean political scientist Marta Harnecker; War and Lenin in the 21st Century by Gary Wilson, editor of the "Struggle-La Lucha" website; the two-volume biography In Defence of Lenin by Alan Woods and others; and Lenin: The Heritage We (Never) Renounce co-edited by Bolivian writer Hjalmar Eichhorn and Canadian scholar Patrick Anderson.
II. Tracing and Re-interpreting the Theoretical Origins of Lenin’s Philosophical Thought
In the process of leading the revolution, Lenin emphasized not only political action and organizational building but also philosophical exploration and theoretical innovation, producing immortal works such as the Philosophical Notebooks and Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Foreign scholars have positively evaluated the original contributions of Lenin’s dialectical materialist thought to the enrichment and development of Marxist philosophy, as well as his sublation [2] and transcendence of Second International theory and the ideas of Russian thinkers.
Kondrashov pointed out that the transition from the dialectics of the objective material world to the dialectics of socialist revolution and construction represents Lenin’s comprehensive development of dialectical materialism. He argued that Lenin conducted in-depth research on dialectical materialism and applied it across all fields: from the dialectics of the objective material world to the dialectics of the revolutionary process and the building of a socialist society. "Social dialectics" is Lenin’s new interpretation and development of dialectical materialism, encompassing the "dialectics of social processes" and the "dialectics of social practice." This society is not automatically generated by abstract historical necessity but is created by the people themselves, for the people are the creators of their own history (7).
Kevin B. Anderson, an American scholar who has long studied Lenin’s philosophy, linked Lenin’s dialectical thought to his classic works on imperialism, anti-colonial movements, and the state. He traced Lenin’s study of Hegelian philosophy, clarifying how Hegelian dialectics provided the philosophical foundation for Lenin’s revolutionary dialectics after 1914 and highlighting Lenin’s original contributions to the development of Hegelian dialectics. Anderson also examined the influence of the Philosophical Notebooks on Western Marxism (8).
Another American scholar, Carlos L. Garrido, argued that Materialism and Empirio-criticism developed Marxist materialism by critiquing Machist idealism and its negative impact on the spread of Marxism in Russia, while the Philosophical Notebooks contained Lenin’s philosophical development of the Marxist worldview. In Garrido’s view, although Marx did not leave a formalized text on "dialectics," Lenin’s philosophical research in Switzerland in 1914—particularly his critical reading of Hegel’s Science of Logic—provides us with a materialist interpretation of Hegel and the Marxist sublation of his dialectical worldview, thus representing one of the greatest advances in dialectical materialism (9).
French scholar Michael Löwy traced the process of Lenin’s "intellectual leap" by which he derived the ideas of the April Theses from his Philosophical Notebooks. In his view, the April Theses represented Lenin’s complete rupture with the pre-WWI Bolshevik traditional political theory. As early as 1905, Lenin advocated for a revolutionary alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry and the thorough deepening of the revolution without—and even against—the liberal bourgeoisie. From this perspective, the "New Bolshevism" born in April 1917 is the true successor to "Old Bolshevism." He argued that while the Philosophical Notebooks constituted Lenin’s philosophical rupture with early Leninism, it must be acknowledged that the method employed in his political writings prior to 1914 was already more dialectical than that of Plekhanov or Kautsky (10).
III. Contemporary Interpretations and Discussions of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism
In 1916, Lenin provided a penetrating analysis of imperialism in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. More than a century later, the basic characteristics of imperialism outlined by Lenin—exploitation, plunder, inequality, war, and destruction—have further intensified. International finance capital runs rampant, and there is a noticeable rise in neoliberalism, racism, chauvinism, and neo-fascism (11). These new changes in contemporary capitalism have driven foreign scholars to re-study and re-examine Lenin’s theory of imperialism. These scholars believe that the theory of imperialism, as a core theory expanding the connotations of Marxism, is a signature concept of Leninism and a groundbreaking theoretical advancement (12). Lenin’s research on global politics and economics—particularly monopoly capitalism and modern imperialism—gave him a keen awareness of the broad applicability of Marxism on a global scale, thereby deepening the Marxist understanding of the political economy of the monopoly capitalist stage of imperialism (13).
In Karat's view, Lenin was a Marxist who shattered traditional perceptions. He perceived how imperialism, driven by the internal requirements of monopoly capitalism, had developed into a world system, and he integrated the theory of imperialism with the strategy and tactics of the world proletarian revolution. Lenin further pointed out that in the era of imperialism, a revolution would erupt provided the weakest link [3] in the chain of global capitalist exploitation was broken. Consequently, Lenin's understanding of imperialism laid the foundation for linking the working-class struggle in advanced capitalist countries with national liberation struggles in the colonies. (14)
Indian economist Prabhat Patnaik argues that Lenin's theory of imperialism developed Marxism in five significant aspects. These include: incorporating the countries of the "outlying regions of the world"—which Hegel regarded as having no history—into the scope of world revolution; expanding Marxism from a theory of proletarian revolution in developed capitalist countries into a theory of world revolution; providing a brand-new explanation for the "moribund" [4] nature of capitalism; establishing socialism as the goal of all revolutions; and proposing the view that imperialism uses a portion of the surplus value it seizes to buy off a "labor aristocracy," thereby revealing the internal reasons for the prevalence of reformism and various forms of opportunism within the European labor movement. (15)
At the same time, some foreign scholars have noted that in the era of economic globalization, faced with new changes in imperialism—such as the replacement of state monopoly capital by international financial monopoly capital and the hegemony of international finance capital manifested as a neoliberal order—there is a need for new research and interpretation of the imperialist tendencies inherent in the brutal expansion of the logic of capital during the era of neoliberal globalization. For instance, Indian scholar Sunanda Sen and others point out that the old model of imperialism in the works of John Hobson, Rudolf Hilferding, and Lenin was constructed against the background of colonial relations between dominant states and subject colonies, where the former established the basis for economic dominance through political conquest and military occupation. However, imperialism and its systems and modes of oppression have undergone significant changes. Unlike the traditional forms of the colonial era, the "new imperialism" of contemporary capitalism is marked by the hegemony of international finance capital, globalization, and neoliberal policies. It exercises diverse rule through financialization and neo-mercantilism, which in turn affects the economic and political sovereignty of nation-states and the lives of working people. (16) These changes do not mean that the aggressive and predatory nature of imperialism has diminished. The internal contradictions of imperialism have not triggered wars between imperialist powers; rather, they have led to imperialist alliances waging wars against national liberation movements to maintain hegemony, imposing economic blockades and coercive sanctions against countries that obstruct their hegemonic designs, and accumulating capital by plundering and exploiting the resources of developing countries. (17)
IV. Reflections on Lenin’s Theory of Socialist Revolution and Construction
Foreign academic circles believe that Lenin achieved the unity of the theoretical practitioner and the practical theorist. His thought is an extremely rare combination of theory and practice, movement and organization. They emphasize that in the field of revolutionary practice, Lenin pioneered the revolutionary strategy for the industrial proletariat and the peoples of colonies and oppressed nations, as well as the strategy of the worker-peasant alliance, and proposed the idea of the revolutionary party as the vanguard of the working class. (18)
First, Lenin’s exploration and practice regarding the worker-peasant alliance. Mary Davis, a visiting professor at the University of London, explored Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory and practice and their relationship to the major events of 1917. She proposed that Lenin developed Marxism in three important and interrelated aspects: the theory of victory in one country, the theory of imperialism, and the analysis of the land question and the role of the peasantry. (19) Ashok Dhawale, president of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), believes that Lenin creatively proposed the worker-peasant alliance as the core of the socialist revolution, which propelled the victory of socialist revolutions in Russia as well as in China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. In the era of imperialist globalization, as right-wing forces continue to rise, the importance of establishing and strengthening worker-peasant alliances in all countries becomes prominent. Only by strengthening the unity of the two great classes of workers and peasants can the onslaught of neoliberalism be resisted. (20)
Second, Lenin’s theory regarding the new type of proletarian political party. Karat analyzed Lenin's concepts such as class consciousness, the proletarian vanguard, centralization, and democratic centralism. The proletarian vanguard is composed of politically conscious working-class activists; it supports not only the working class but all oppressed strata in society. To create a party that achieves political unity under centralized political leadership, the proletarian vanguard must be organized from the top down. The core of the issue of democratic centralism lies not only in the party's organizational structure but also in its fundamental role. For a proletarian party committed to overthrowing the order of capitalism and its ruling class and ultimately replacing it with socialism, it must be an instrument capable of engaging in political, ideological, and organizational struggle against a powerful state apparatus and ruling class. Such an instrument is built through class struggle and mass movements and is capable of functioning under all legal, semi-legal, and illegal conditions, which necessitates a centralized party. Karat believes that the historical experience of 20th-century revolutions proved the effectiveness of Lenin's organizational theory and the practice of democratic centralism. For a party based on Marxism and class struggle, democratic centralism is the most suitable organizational principle. (21) In the view of Francesco Helbling, a Swiss left-wing youth leader, the Leninist party structure and organizational model are not only crucial for pursuing political goals but also serve as a solution to the current ideology of extreme individualism in capitalism. Unlike other parties, the Leninist party is more like an organism, capable of adjusting and developing according to the needs of the historical stage and adopting the most effective line. (22)
Third, Lenin’s theory on the national-colonial question and the right to national self-determination. Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), pointed out that while leading the Russian Revolution and construction, Lenin also closely followed and supported the liberation struggles of oppressed nations in the colonies. He historically combined the domestic people's movements in Russia with the global anti-imperialist struggle. Building on Marx and Engels' slogan "Workers of the world, unite!", he proposed the fighting slogan "Workers of the world and oppressed nations, unite!" Thus, Lenin’s program on the colonial question laid both the theoretical foundation for a global anti-imperialist united front—combining the proletarian revolutionary movement with national liberation struggles—and the theoretical foundation for linking the national liberation movements of all colonial countries with the global anti-imperialist struggle. (23) In the view of American scholar Jonah Henkle, Lenin’s suggestion to smash the racial and national chauvinism that attempts to divide the working class was not intended to crudely eliminate national, religious, or ethnic differences, but rather to develop internationalism, democracy, and socialism within every country. (24) Pastor, on the other hand, pointed out that Lenin understood the right to national self-determination as the right to secede from the state to which the oppressed nation belonged, arguing that the working class must seek a democratic solution to the national question by recognizing the self-determination of oppressed nations. (25)
Fourth, Lenin's theory and practice regarding the world proletarian revolution. From the victory of the October Revolution until the early to mid-1920s, the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Comintern, and Soviet Russia (and later the USSR), based on Lenin’s theory of imperialism, combined class struggle in imperialist countries and revolutionary movements in European countries with liberation struggles in colonial countries, actively promoting the world-proletarian socialist revolution. Regarding this, the Union of Communists of Ukraine proposed: the proletarian socialist revolution is the core of the dialectical process of revolution, and its most profound contradiction is that between the world tasks and the national tasks of the proletariat. Lenin broke through the traditional "theory of common victory" [5] and creatively proposed and practiced the "theory of victory in one country." After achieving the victory of the October Revolution, proceeding from the "international character" that is the essential feature of the proletarian revolution, he utilized the domestic victory to maximally promote the development of the world revolution, striving for the final victory over capitalism on a global scale. However, as the wave of European revolution receded, a pattern of European balance of power formed, and the leadership of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was adjusted, the revolutionary strategy of the Soviet Union also shifted from "world revolution" to "socialism in one country." (26)
Fifth, Lenin’s preliminary exploration of the transitional stage to socialism. Italian scholar Andrea Catone, starting from the interpretation of the concept of "transition," introduced Lenin's The State and Revolution, pointing out that Lenin viewed transition as a multi-stage process occurring in different fields and at different times. Catone used the Russian question as a case study to analyze the problem of transition to socialism in backward countries. By comparing it with the concept of transition in Nikolai Bukharin's The Economics of the Transition Period, Catone analyzed the specificity and complexity of the transitional period in Soviet Russia (USSR) from 1921 to 1923. In his view, it is difficult to give a unified answer to the question of when and why the Soviet transformation stagnated, as this requires a careful study of nearly 70 years of Soviet history. Lenin viewed transition as a multi-stage process occurring in different fields and at different times. (27) Klaus analyzed Soviet Russia's shift from the policy of War Communism to the New Economic Policy. In his view, the main direction of Lenin's socialist theory and political activities was to gradually break away from the capitalist system; the specific historical experience he summarized remains of practical significance today before we fully realize socialism. (28)
Sixth, Lenin's strategy and tactics for the proletarian revolution. Brazilian historian Valerio Arcary, taking the four tactical shifts made by Lenin between the February Revolution and the October Revolution as examples, focused on elucidating Lenin’s strategic clarity and tactical flexibility. On this basis, he explored how to transform these into effective methodological tools directly applicable to analysis, providing a reference for opposing the rise of far-right forces in Latin America and the world. (29) Nazareno Godeiro, a researcher at the Latin American Institute of Social and Economic Research, praised Lenin as "the greatest revolutionary in human history," believing that "his entire contribution to Marxism is reflected in the constant struggle of the international workers' movement against opportunism and sectarianism, and in the resolutions of the first four congresses of the Communist International." In his view, all the tactics implemented by the Bolshevik Party under Lenin's leadership served the strategy of seizing power for the proletariat and building a socialist society—for example, encouraging economic struggle, launching guerrilla warfare, fighting for reforms, participating in parliament and elections, and forming various alliances. (30)
V. The Essence of Leninist Thought and Its Contemporary Significance
As a fierce critic of global capitalism and the inaugural practitioner of world socialism, Lenin’s grasp of the issues of the times and his vision for the future society remain instructive today. Consequently, re-examining the practical significance of Leninism in the 21st century has become a hot topic among foreign scholars.
First, seeking human liberation through the continuous exploration of historical laws is the highest pursuit of Leninism. Boron pointed out that we are living at the beginning of a new era; we must treat Lenin, this great revolutionary theorist and practitioner, with justice, re-read Lenin’s works, restore Lenin’s theoretical heritage, and dialectically combine it with the changes of the times to promote world revolution on a larger scale and end the dictatorship of capital and the atrocities of imperialism. (31) Mexican scholar Jaime Ortega believes that Leninism served as a catalyst for Latin American Marxism when facing new revolutionary situations and conditions, and also as a helpful reference for the Latin American revolution. This is not because Latin America is similar to early 20th-century Russia or because Leninist thought is flawless, but because Leninism shows us the power of thinking about politics. (32)
Second, empowering the people through the revolutionary transformation of society is the practical concern of Leninism.
In the view of Paul Le Blanc, most countries today lack the mass labor and socialist movements that existed during Lenin's time; for this reason, he calls for the reconstruction of a global mass socialist movement. [6] (33) Carlos Martinez also pointed out that Marxism-Leninism in the 21st century means returning to a worldwide anti-imperialist united front composed of socialist states, oppressed nations, and the working class in imperialist countries; it means resolutely opposing imperialist hegemony, racism, sexism, and all forms of exploitation and oppression, and fighting for a socialist future. (34)
Third, striving for fairness and justice through scientific answers to the questions of the times is the political pursuit of Leninism.
Luca Cangemi, a leader of the Italian Communist Party, explores the issue of global justice from the perspective of the relationship between East and West. He believes that the Russian Revolution and Lenin's thought ignited the East and generated a strong response among radicals and intellectuals on the subcontinent. For the Bolshevik Party, the "East" had at least three layers of political meaning: the Muslim East and India, the Far East and China, and the Global East. Currently, the scope of the "Global East" extends beyond Africa and Latin America to include countries that are not geographically eastern but belong to the East from a political perspective. The East has become a synonym for colonial issues and anti-imperialism, and current discussions regarding the "Global South" are also related to this. (35) Giuseppe Amata emphasized that discussions about Lenin must never be left to bourgeois historians who manipulate facts to fit the current geopolitics of the "collective West." Left-wing theorists must demonstrate the basic principles of communism for all humanity through empirical comparison and discussion, as well as by outlining a vision of the revolutionary class leading the people toward social liberation and the realization of common goals. He believes that the working class and revolutionary forces of all countries share common goals on the road ahead—for example, maintaining peace, opposing imperialist hegemony, and demanding equal treatment for small and large nations on issues such as environmental pollution, climate change, disarmament, and economic relations based on reciprocity. (36)
VI. Conclusion
Looking at the overall progress of contemporary foreign Lenin studies, whether it is the theoretical tracing of Lenin’s philosophical thought, the reactivation of the contemporary value of his theory of imperialism, or the realistic scrutiny of his theories on socialist revolution and construction, all fully prove that Lenin’s status in political theory is beyond doubt. His contributions to dialectical materialistic epistemology and the building of a new type of proletarian party are indelible; furthermore, he has exerted a profound influence on revolutionaries worldwide, including Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Josip Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. Faced with the new situation in the world today, many left-wing parties and progressive figures have issued a call to "Return to Lenin." This not only demonstrates the relevance of Leninism to the current era but also foreshadows that Marxism and world socialism will inevitably radiate vigorous vitality in the 21st century. Of course, regarding the views put forward by foreign scholars in commemorative seminars, we should make scientific judgments through analysis and differentiation, and clearly state our position.
First, we must maintain a firm stance on the issue of evaluating Lenin within foreign academic circles.
During Lenin's lifetime, serious differences and heated discussions occurred within the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the international socialist camp regarding fundamental issues such as Leninism, the Russian Revolution, and Soviet socialist construction. After Lenin's death, Stalin moved to lead and facilitate the Soviet model of socialism; however, while this model achieved historic successes, it gradually became rigid. Various defects became increasingly prominent after World War II, becoming important historical roots for the later dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe. [7] Currently, under the influence of the wave of "de-Sovietization" and historical nihilism, [8] some Western scholars and politicians continually use various arguments to "demonize" Lenin, attempting to "completely bury" Lenin, the October Revolution, and the historical achievements of Soviet socialism. However, it is precisely thanks to Lenin's theory and practice that human society could witness the leap of socialism from theory to reality. In response, we should follow historical materialism, place all of this under the specific historical conditions of the era and society of the 20th century for comprehensive, historical, and dialectical analysis, and summarize the experiences and lessons therein.
Second, we must have a clear understanding of the political and historical logic behind the commemoration of Lenin in foreign academic circles.
Currently, parties, organizations, and scholars outside of socialist countries who harbor interest in or sentiment for Lenin roughly come from three types of groups. First are the Communist party factions within various national communist movements that take Marxism-Leninism as their guiding ideology. Most of these were established under Lenin's inspiration, influenced by the October Revolution and aided by the Comintern; to this day, they persist in Leninism politically, theoretically, and organizationally, and are thus called "Leninist parties." They pay more attention to Lenin's critiques of non-Marxist and erroneous social trends of thought, believe in the theory of violent revolution, and affirm that Lenin developed and enriched Marxism in the era of imperialism regarding the proletarian party, revolutionary violence, the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, imperialism, the peasant question, the women's question, the national question, and imperialist war. Second are the Trotskyist parties, organizations, and groups that are quite active among the radical left in the West and Latin America. They often carry distinct political tendencies, regarding themselves as the "orthodox" heirs to the spirit of Leninism and the legacy of the Russian Revolution. Imagining themselves to be closer to the original source of Marxism-Leninism and communist revolution, they attempt to "build a bridge" from Lenin to Trotsky by praising Lenin and disparaging Stalin, thereby sustaining the international Trotskyist movement and their respective political theories. Third are some independent left-wing scholars, socialist intellectuals, and Marxists who hold aspirations for the cause of socialism while maintaining a critical stance toward capitalism; they use universities, research institutes, and academic groups as their primary positions. From the spectrum of the broad left, the values, political positions, and ideologies of these three groups share certain similarities with Lenin as a symbol of revolution and liberation; all are committed to exploring the laws of human social history by critically revealing modern capitalism and imperialism to strive for the liberation of the proletariat.
Third, we must make scientific judgments on the major theoretical and practical issues that trigger debate in foreign academic circles.
In the century since the publication of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, human society has experienced what Eric Hobsbawm called the "short twentieth century" and the "age of extremes." Particularly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, new changes in contemporary developed capitalism have further posed severe challenges to scientific socialism, triggering continuous discussion in international left-wing theoretical circles regarding the stages of capitalist development, the themes of the times, and the development stages of socialist revolution. From the highly complex socio-historical concept of "imperialism," various research propositions and explanatory paradigms have been derived, such as "neo-imperialism," "post-imperialism," "neoliberal imperialism," "super-imperialism," "hegemonic imperialism," "late imperialism," "digital imperialism," "financial imperialism," "cultural imperialism," and "ecological imperialism." Compared to the intense criticism of the US-led West in the traditional sense, some left-wing scholars and organizations also link the rise of emerging market countries and changes in the world system to the replacement of old imperialism with new, and the confrontation for hegemony within the world capitalist system. The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and others have even stated that "it is necessary to follow Lenin's instructions on the issue of imperialist war," believing that "today, Lenin's elaboration on the issue of imperialist war, based on proletarian internationalism, is more important than ever before" (37). In response, we must profoundly absorb the historical experiences and lessons of Lenin and the Soviet Union, and moreover, "apply Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to observe and analyze the world, truly understand the challenges of the times, profoundly grasp the direction of world development, and clearly recognize the general trend of development for China and the world" (38).