Both the PRC and DPRK are socialist. Both are ruled by the working class, specifically communist parties (Marxism-Leninism Xi Jinping Thought in the CPC, juche socialism in the DPRK), and both have social ownership of the means of production and distribution as the principal, ie rising (in quantity and quality) and dominant aspects of their economies.

No, China and DPRK are indeed socialist countries. They have a dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP if you see that acronym, that’s what it means) and are led by a communist party. But to reiterate what Awoo already said, neither Russia nor Iran are socialist. But a country does not have to be socialist to be anti-imperialist, they need only to be fighting the imperialists and not extracting superprofits from poorer, vulnerable nations. The imperialists are those countries that keep their proverbial boots on the necks of the global south countries, forcing unequal exchange for the extraction of superprofits, keeping those countries forever indebted while siphoning away their raw materials and exploiting the cheap labor, cheap labor which the imperialists enforce by forcing those countries into defacto vassalage, often installing a comprador government (as we see is happening with Venezuela) to do the bidding of the imperialists, namely the US, usually against the will of their people.

The superexploitation of global south countries is similar to how capitalism steals the surplus labor of workers, only it is at the scale of nation states interacting with each other. The US is the hegemonic leader of this exploitation and extraction that defines imperialism, and its western capitalist vassals (who also happen to be largely made up of the countries that in the past engaged in direct colonization and open enslavement of the global south countries who are still being exploited - see the British Empire as one clear example), are the beneficiaries of these superprofits. Russia and Iran are considered enemies of this US-led hegemonic order, they do not engage in this extraction and unequal exchange and are not beneficiaries of the US’s imperialism. Instead, they are both actively fighting against this imperialist world order. And that is why Russia and Iran are included in the anti-imperialist bloc despite not being socialist countries (in Russia’s case, they are not socialist anymore sadly, not after the collapse of the Soviet Union which was one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century).

Hopefully that clears some things up for you and doesn’t confuse you even more. u/Cowbee no doubt would have done better.

Those are both communist countries with a DOTP led by a marxist-leninist party and a juche party respectively, you just don’t actually understand anything about their theory because you don’t read anything they write or listen to anything they say.

Ok but they’re an imperialist side with who though? Imperialism is an international system, a web of international bourgeois interests that interlink into a system of cooperation.

Who are the bourgeois interests? Who are they interlinking with? Someone in asia? The middle east? Africa? Latam? Where is Russia’s equivalent of the IMF? No is the obvious answer to all of these.

They are not imperialist. They are a single sovereign country with ambitions to become imperialist, pursuing their own country’s interests rather than some cabal of international bourgeois interests. Their capitalism is not developed enough to reach the level of imperialism and the ACTUAL imperialists have a system already so none of them really align with Russia as the existing developed system already serves their interests.

Unless you want to argue that BRICs is imperialist. But it’s obviously not. Could it become the basis of a new imperialist system after displacing the existing US-led imperialism? Yes it could. But it’s not right now.

The concept of inter-imperialist competition only really made sense when the various powers of the world had not merged into these 2 camps. There is really only imperialism, anti-imperialism, and neutrals trying to play both sides. Even liberals recognise this to some extent although they put it in liberal words. President Alexander Stubb’s essay “The West’s Last Chance” analyses the world in more or less the same way we do, but uses liberal words for it all. I made a long comment analysing his essay and comparing it to our view of the world here: https://hexbear.net/comment/6720293

He uses the words “multilateralists” and “multipolarists” instead of our words but it’s fundamentally the same analysis of the world in two camps with the same members of each camp. Obviously, from our perspective he’s a servant of the imperialist camp so we read his words through that lens.

I can address these things but as you have been banned I want to be clear I am not trying to “have the last word”, just offer information.

The RF was subjected to “shock therapy” of privatization at the hands of the IMF and US, without any supports that were given to other Eastern Bloc countries (though it was frequently disastrous there as well). The result was rapid privatization, of prior public guarantees, their degradation into either monopoly profit centers or just no longer existing in a recognizable form. Poverty shot up immediately, with little work, few to no safety nets, and a massive increase in mortality, tens of millions dying from the trim position of capitalism on Russia. As part of this degradation, “foreign investment” ballooned. This actually means foreign ownership buying up industry at pennies on the dollar. Foreign ownership means the national bourgeoisie don’t own it. Simultaneously, assets were liquidated and the capital was rushed out if the country. The RF was also saddled with a host of Western-declared debts, many of them bullshit. This treatment of the RF, again, contrasts with the treatment of many other former Soviet states: the RF was already being treated antagonistically and the common people were paying the price. As the RF stabilized somewhat under a new nationalist reorganization, this was also viewed as antagonistic by Western powers who continued to view successes of Russia as losses to their own positions in the imperialist system. This zero sum game is typical of the actors under the unipolar imperialist order. The greatest “crime” of the RF was the renationalization of oil and gas, the US wanted to own and control that industry in Russia, and that is when you get the now longstanding demonization of Russia as a supplier of energy to the rest of Europe. Simply doing the typical thing of selling a commodity on the market is evil hen Russia does it.

Dividing up the crown jewels and turning into an oligarchy was done for Russians, by Russians.

This is so ahistorical I’m not even going to respond to it.