should we support the ivasions and wars started by the communist amd socialist nations. since the invasions they do does spread the class war. it speeds it up and we need to speed it up! if we don't speed it up wars for profit, global starvation, super bacteria and global warming will destroy the world. and a lot of these wars have been to counter fascism which is a good goal. so the point is, imperialism caused by socialist nations is justified. you can debate me sure i will probaply not respond i am bad at debating.
Should we support the ivasions and wars started by the communist amd socialist...
If only they actually succeed.
They would have if Gorbachev had not betrayed them.
ivasions and wars started by the communist amd socialist nations
<Uses Afghanistan as an example
I get what your point was, but Afghanistan is not an example of that. The Government of Afghanistan had become highly socialist, and with soviet support continued to be so. The USA decided to fuck around, created the Mujaheds and incited a terrorist war. The Afghani government asked the soviets to intervene and assist, and if they had held out a little longer instead of being betrayed by Gorby, they would have succeeded
imperialism caused by socialist nations is justified.
Doesn't matter, imperialism is economically impossible for socialists.
producing Military equipment is not part of the productive economy.
Military equipment for defence can be produced in competition with capitalists, because defence does not need to win wars it just needs to make an invasion too expensive. Meaning in an arms-race you can spend less than capitalist, and still be safe, while preserving a greater economic efficiency in terms of diverting more to productive parts of the economy, and hence afford better relative living conditions and investment.
For capitalists military production is temporarily productive because they can loot other countries. So if you want to have a socialist country outcompete capitalists militarily it will have a serious economic penalty, in terms of having a much less productive economy, that is something socialists usually cannot afford.
You are likely better off to wait for capitalists to imperialize each other and support the weaker in exchange for political concessions like allowing a proper communist party and creating economic dependencies. And then wait for the population to be receptive for communist ideas before you push further. This greatly decreases your economic productivity penalty, and this has the advantage of actually not breaking any international laws, and you gain soft-power because you will be seen as a defender not a bully, and hence a less risky ally.
If you want to play the game of proxy conflict, do not replicate the Soviets, they tried to copy paste their system onto other countries without much regard whether or not material conditions of these countries allowed for this. As a result they had enormous deficits in the captured territories, in addition to the cost of having to defend against stuff like CIA sabotage. The correct method here is to stabilize what ever form of government or social organisation that provides useful services to the population, and focus the rest of your resources on derailing capitalist efforts. Once you can reliably and efficiently repel capitalist imperial powers you would slowly invest in development, with the goal creating multiple generations that experience the influence of socialism as increase in quality of life, to cement socialist developmental reasoning as default common sense path towards prosperity.
There are a few principles to take into account:
everything is about economics, geopolitics can be seen to a game of increasing the cost and decreasing the revenues of other countries.
everything is about class, in geopolitics it is a great mistake to treat capitalist countries as a unit, your enemy is never the working class of any country do not attack the standards of living of working class people in capitalist countries, only target sectors that matter to capitalists, their personal luxury, their vanity projects or what ever. Keep in mind that emisserating a population is ineffective at toppling governments, Even third rate propagandists will be able to create unity from that type of external pressures.
Keep in mind the overall structural goal of socialists fussing about with power-games like this is to produce the material structures that make exploitation harder and eventually impossible. And the lessons to be taken from the 20 century stuff is, to build structures that cannot be undone. Capitalism builds structures that make it impossible to go back to feudalism. Socialism needs to build structures that make it impossible to go back to capitalism.
and if they had held out a little longer instead of being betrayed by Gorby, they would have succeeded
That isn't really true. So long as the Mujahideen were able to freely move in and out of Pakistan and obtain foreign arms, neither the Afghan army nor even the Soviet Army could prevent large swathes of the countryside from being in Mujahideen hands. Also, the government gained more legitimacy under Najibullah by dropping Marxist rhetoric, affirming the Islamic nature of the country, and emphasizing national reconciliation.
The Afghan army under Najibullah was capable of holding onto urban areas, but the war with the Mujahideen would have continued indefinitely had Gorby and Yeltsin agreed to keep supplying the government after 1991 and the '92 coup against Najibullah not happened.
Imo it depends on the context. In some cases it may be impossible to spread socialism by force simply because the population of a country may not want it, and imposing it will require indefinite occupation and undemocratic rule of the country in question. This will be a ripe environment for corruption, revisionism, bureaucratization etc. and is sure to end in disaster, see: Poland, Romania, etc. In other cases, the intervention may serve the national interests of the occupying state in question rather than the cause of socialism, and as such would be unjustified, see: Hungary. Finally, there may be cases where military intervention is simply unproductive and unlikely to succeed, and where other methods would be superior, see: Afghanistan.
Yes but also no
I'm glad anprims can freely share their controversial opinions in this board.
oh i did't know. maybe finland ould be a better example?
but do you still agree wit my point?
and imposing it will require indefinite occupation and undemocratic rule of the country in question
Why not simply exterminate the part of population that doesn't want to accept socialism? It has worked plenty of times before and only didn't at times when it wasn't carried out to the very end, as in your further examples. A bullet costs less than the unkeep of people with a non-socialist mindset.
not this shit again. No, by the end of the war, the Mujaheds were losing, the USA couldn't feasibly keep up with the massive losses they incurred as well as the massive waste of resources. They were about to lose, when Gorbachev went and pulled out, giving the mujaheds the breathing room to recover and the USA to resupply them for a final push.
Most definitely so and Yes I do agree with your basic point.
Why not simply exterminate the part of population that doesn't want to accept socialism?
If you can’t see the issue with exterminating half or more of the working class of a country then I don’t know what to say to you.
Less working force, less mouths to feed, it all checks out and even more - less anti-socialist elements to disrupt the way forward.
Marx dedicates his life to explaining how capital and the state put the proletariat in bondage
Lenin and Stalin combine the two and wage imperialist wars
yeah dude let’s just commit Nazi tier genocide against millions of workers and peasants just because they lack class consciousness
You’re like one of those people who believes all the lies about the USSR but insists that they were actually good things. Fuck off with your edgy bullshit, our goal is to liberate humanity.
Our goal isn't to liberate humanity, but create the conditions for humanity to liberate itself.
In either case just murdering anybody who isn’t class conscious is a retarded idea.
Most people are passive and don't really care either way. You can easily keep it below 10%, a good estimate for the reactionaries is the richest 10%.
I generally agree, but someone who supports far-right parties or likes people like thatcher will always be a cancer and there should be a cleansing of them to prevent far bigger harm.
Of course, I kinda understand (for example, comparing with that poster) all those "nuke america" posts and shit. Probably every communist who isn't american has wanted to nuke the US at some point (myself included). But genociding an entire nation just cause you believe they're the most reactionary of all isn't how you establish socialism. And I'm not disagreeing that the US is the most reactionary country of Earth, but it isn't a solution.
Most people are passive and don't really care either way.
They won’t stay passive if you start killing their neighbours by the thousands. In fact you’re more likely to turn even socialists against you with this shit.
They are not evenly distributed, wealthy neighborhoods should not even exist. Regardless, you are clearly not willing to do what is necessary. Remember that the capitalists and their fascist dogs are.
They are not evenly distributed, wealthy neighborhoods should not even exist.
Yes but I’m specifically talking about a country where workers and peasants are not in favour of socialism. By your logic we would need to murder literally millions of workers.
you are clearly not willing to do what is necessary
And your idea of what is necessary is spring from the mind of an edgy 14 year old. A country where the majority of workers aren’t supporters of socialism or at east indifferent is not a country where socialism is viable. The working class must liberate itself, the party is a means of doing that, and it can’t be done unless the workers actually want to be liberated. Repression against reactionaries will be necessary, but if we need to repress most of the country then we will inevitably fail, just like every attempt to impose socialism from without.
No, by the end of the war, the Mujaheds were losing
Define "losing" though. Like yeah in terms of actually defeating the government they were farther away from that goal at the time of the Soviet troop pullout than in 1979. In fact the Soviet pullout initially weakened the Mujahideen further, since many fighters had joined specifically because of the Soviet troop presence.
But the Mujahideen still held vast areas of the countryside, and the US government in 1990-91 made clear it would continue to support them. Najibullah was still trying in vain to convince the Mujahideen factions to lay down their arms and engage in talks whereas the latter sought nothing less than the end of his government and the banishment of the PDPA from Afghanistan's political life.
thank you! it is refreshing to see i am not thr only one who thinks this way.