“In the late 1970s, he became the national secretary of the Workers International League, the Greek section of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). His elevation to this position came after the removal of two previous leaders over political differences that were never clarified within the ICFI.”

What political differences?  How was the removal achieved?  Can we see more theory and discussion about this topic of “political differences that were never clarified” or the absence or curtailment of discussion?

“The glorification of Stalin as a great national leader has far more in common with fascism than anything that could be legitimately described as socialist.”

See Trotsky’s “Their Morals and Ours”, warning against the confounding of Stalinism and fascism.

“Underlying this neo-Pabloite perspective is the conception that Putin has the potential to present some sort of anti-imperialist alternative, a counterweight to the domination of US imperialism. Under conditions in which both China and Russia have attempted to expand their influence within Latin America, this outlook has concrete implications in terms of state policy.”

Thank you for clarifying this position.  In other articles, there were arguments that because of China’s low level of foreign direct investment or Russia’s relative economic weakness, they could not be classified as imperialist and were therefore creating a counter-balance to imperialism.  However, whatever their weaknesses are, they can be used as the cutting-edge instruments of imperialism for that precise reason.  They can serve as economic or political excuses for imperialist intervention, or follow in the lead of the imperialists by expanding their power over colonial possessions or “corporate investments” or “extraction contracts”, as they would call them.