Commie against Commie

[Ctisphonics]

I only want Communist talking about this one, it's something I've always wondered about:

China VS. Soviet Union, China VS. Vietnam, Vietnam VS. Khmer Rouge........Soviet Union in support of Vietnam, China in Sopport of Cambodia, China in support of Pakistan, Soviet Union in Support of India, the whole race for Africa between Soviets and Chinese for influence that never really got off.......

I though Communism was suppost to eliminate war, why did it continue to go on between Communist Countries, how would you prevent it from happening again in the far future if Communism ever reverses it current fortunes?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I though Communism was suppost to eliminate war, why did it continue to go on between Communist Countries, how would you prevent it from happening again in the far future if Communism ever reverses it current fortunes?



Again, there has never been a communist country. Communism is only possible once the ENTIRE globe is free from capitalism. Until then we will fight and we will fight dirty.

[Ctisphonics]

Against one another of the same political persuasion?

[Vinny Rafarino]

We will make this easy;



If one country is "versus" another, then they do not share the same political ideology.

[elijahcraig]

I think this thread proves this person knows nothing about Marxism.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Yeh its not like cappie countries fight, as mr Bush will tell you.

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Um People's Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021114/cartoon20021114.gif

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Um People's Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.
really!? your intelligence astounds me, you should be fighting crime in the city my dumbass cappie friend.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by Babylon5 [email protected] 25 2003, 11:42 AM
Um People's Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.
Perhaps they reflect on your personal ideas of different forms of communism? I am pretty sure they don't reflect the ideas or forms of communism by most the members of this board. Kind of like in America right now, there are many different ways capitalism can by interperted to be by many different people. It can mean absolutely no laws or restricions by the government, heavy regulation and constantly in check by the government, it can mean no corporations, no monopolies, no global scaled companies, or it can mean unchecked power and strenght to the companies.

I'll admit that there is some parts of communism in China and Soviet Russia. It wasn't a form of communism, because there really is no form of communism out there that says, have a party in charge of a nation, call it a communist party but use capitalist control methods over the people.

It might be better to say that they were stages of communism. What we saw and what we are currently witnessing is countries that tried to setup communism through the people on their own while at the same time in a constant battle with capitalist controlled nations.

Communist gained control of Russia. Communism was trying to propogate to that area. Unfortunetly communism isn't designed to go one on one with capitalism. That isn't to say communism is worse that capitalism because it can't win a fight with captialism. That is like saying Stephen Hawkings is worse than Mike Tyson because he can't beat up Mike Tyson.

All you are seeing in China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Union, Cuba, is countries that began the procress to economical freedom through communism, but was halted in progress by other countries not following suit and a ruling class in the Western World that was going to do anything neccessary to stop them from threatening their position of power and control.

[Vinny Rafarino]

really!? your intelligence astounds me, you should be fighting crime in the city my dumbass cappie friend.



Send a criminal to fight crime! It's so crazy it just might work!


Babble-on,


Please show us how both of these countries were communist.

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 25 2003, 08:31 PM


Please show us how both of these countries were communist. You
USSR was born under the idea of Communism and Marixism. God what was Lenin? A communist. Anybody nation who supports the ideas of Lenin and Marix is a Communist.

Communist States:
People's Republic of China
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Republic of Cuba

authoritarian socialist; one-man dictatorship (Stalin Like Government)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Source: www.cia.gov

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Babylon5 [email protected] 25 2003, 06:42 PM
Um People's Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.



If you had read some of Marx's works, you would know that marxism/communism isn't about creating personal cults for the "great" partyleader or shutting everyone down andso limiting the intellectual life.

And communism can't coexcist with captalism, untill then it stays impossible creating a 100% commie country.

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by CCCP+Sep 25 2003, 09:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CCCP @ Sep 25 2003, 09:28 PM)
Babylon5 [email protected] 25 2003, 06:42 PM
Um People&#39;s Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.



If you had read some of Marx&#39;s works, you would know that marxism/communism isn&#39;t about creating personal cults for the "great" partyleader or shutting everyone down andso limiting the intellectual life.

And communism can&#39;t coexcist with captalism, untill then it stays impossible creating a 100% commie country. [/b]
ok then tell me what kind of Government were China, Cuba and the USSR.

[Nobody]

Comrade RAF

Babble-on

Oh my&#33; Some one has used my moniker for Babble-on&#33;

I&#39;ll so proud&#33;

In response to Babbe-on, I think we could say they were socialist, they were (at one time) trying to move towards communism. while they might put the word Communism in their name, all admit they were only moving towards communism.

Didn&#39;t Lenin say the NEP was to build up Russia to a point where they could become a true Communist nation? Wasn&#39;t Stalin&#39;s big idea "Socialism in one country"? Someone correct if I&#39;m wrong.

[Vinny Rafarino]

And a big cheers to you for that gem.


I mistakenly gave the credit to another comrade when I first used it.

[Iepilei]

The governments were and are republics. The economic structure is socialist.

It&#39;s really not that hard a concept to understand.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Babylon5 Crusade+Sep 25 2003, 10:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Babylon5 Crusade @ Sep 25 2003, 10:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 09:28 PM

Babylon5 [email protected] 25 2003, 06:42 PM
Um People&#39;s Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.



If you had read some of Marx&#39;s works, you would know that marxism/communism isn&#39;t about creating personal cults for the "great" partyleader or shutting everyone down andso limiting the intellectual life.

And communism can&#39;t coexcist with captalism, untill then it stays impossible creating a 100% commie country.
ok then tell me what kind of Government were China, Cuba and the USSR. [/b]
Note that I speak of "100%" communistic, which stays impossible untill captalism exists.

In the days of the USSR the world was far removed from cappie free.

[Severian]

Silly people, actually semi-serious issue.

The Communist Manifesto says "In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end. "

There were different classes in all the countries mentioned, including a privileged bureaucracy (the "nomenklatura") that was politically dominant. So the fact of occasional armed conflict between them hardly disproves the Manifesto on this point.

The record shows they were less prone to far-flung imperial adventure than capitalist countries are, however.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:52 PM
China VS. Soviet Union, China VS. Vietnam, Vietnam VS. Khmer Rouge........Soviet Union in support of Vietnam, China in Sopport of Cambodia, China in support of Pakistan, Soviet Union in Support of India, the whole race for Africa between Soviets and Chinese for influence that never really got off.......

I though Communism was suppost to eliminate war, why did it continue to go on between Communist Countries, how would you prevent it from happening again in the far future if Communism ever reverses it current fortunes?
The situation you are talking about refers to the Sino-Soviet dispute. This is something I have written before that will let you understand what the Sino-Soviet dispute is:

The Sino-Soviet dispute followed what had been a Sino-Soviet Alliance. The Chinese Communists modelled themselves on the Soviet system and militarily the cooperation in the Korean War strengthened this alliance against the west.

Ideologically the Chinese and Soviets were very similar. Once Khrushchev came to power and started his program of &#39;de-Stalinisation&#39; the relationship soured to a dispute. By 1957 the powers were deeply divided. Ideologically the Soviets were making all sorts of revisionist sentiments, such as Marx and Lenin were wrong etc.

Read Mao Zedong&#39;s &#39;On Khrushchev&#39;s Phoney Communism&#39; to see the ideological difference. This is where Mao shows that Stalin had correctly followed Marx and Lenin theory and he uses the works of Marx and Lenin to show that Khrushchev&#39;s policies are distinctly contradictory towards Marx and Lenin.

By the 50&#39;s the USSR had become a great superpower and China was also a major player on the world stage and had the potential should it be able to achieve the same economic success as the Soviets to become a third superpower. Thus Mao called for a far more hostile policy towards the capitalists in the world since the Soviet Union and China could afford it as together they were extremely powerful and could bring about the victory of world socialism.

However, the Soviet foriegn policy had become highly concillatory and said that rather than fight the Americans they should cooperate to bring peace. Mao knew that capitalism and communism were so ideologically opposed and that communism was supposed to bring an end to capitalism that they could not cooperate at all.

As the Soviets reached the 50&#39;s era of a great superpower and China had gone through its bolshevik style revolution he said: &#39;the east wind prevails over the west wind&#39;.

The traitor to socialism, Khrushchev, however had different ideas and denied any kind of socialist, anti-imperialist alliance.

From ideological foundations the dispute escelated. The USSR refused to give the Chinese nuclear weapons. And whilst the Chinese were urging militant revolution worldwide the Soviets were rather expanding their influence unjustly in eastern-europe. The Chinese could never achieve dominance over the Soviets since economically the Soviets were far stronger.

The Soviets, after the death of Stalin had sabotaged world socialism and soon after Deng Xiaoping took a similar revisionist line. The Sino-Soviet dispute continued until the fall of Mao by 1976.

[man in the red suit]

Um People&#39;s Republic of China and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were all forms of Communism.



If you had read some of Marx&#39;s works, you would know that marxism/communism isn&#39;t about creating personal cults for the "great" partyleader or shutting everyone down andso limiting the intellectual life.

And communism can&#39;t coexcist with captalism, untill then it stays impossible creating a 100% commie country.
ok then tell me what kind of Government were China, Cuba and the USSR.
[/QUOTE]
If you had read some of Marx&#39;s works, you would know that marxism/communism isn&#39;t about creating personal cults for the "great" partyleader or shutting everyone down andso limiting the intellectual life.

And communism can&#39;t coexcist with captalism, untill then it stays impossible creating a 100% commie country. [/QUOTE]

ok then tell me what kind of Government were China, Cuba and the USSR.


socialist unitary republics

[Ctisphonics]

Severian, Chairman Mao, thanks for your frank but direct comments.

So, my next question is, if every nation on earth had a revolution an established a independant communist government (or at least governments lead by communist) there would still be war....right? Would the nature of war change? What would Communism&#39;s perceived aim&#39;s be against opponents with similar aims?

[CubanFox]

There&#39;d probably be a Trotskyist vs Stalinist war. Because the two subdivisions of communism despise each other so much.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I don&#39;t despise Tros. They are simply wrong. In the event of of the re-establishment of socialism through revolution or economic collapse, they will come around. Just like Trotsky did in the beginning.

[Severian]

That&#39;s a dead dispute....Trotskyism is today a term without definite meaning, and Stalinism is mostly dead. Dying to the extent it isn&#39;t already dead.

Future revolutions are unlikely to be led by either, any more than the Cuban revolution was. If a future revolution degenerates, it&#39;s possible that Stalinism might re-emerge...probably under another name. But the material circumstances that led to the development of Stalinism have shifted in a number of respects.

Back on the original topic:
In a classless society, there will be no war. For the reason given by the Manifesto.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 08:01 PM
Severian, Chairman Mao, thanks for your frank but direct comments.

So, my next question is, if every nation on earth had a revolution an established a independant communist government (or at least governments lead by communist) there would still be war....right? Would the nature of war change? What would Communism&#39;s perceived aim&#39;s be against opponents with similar aims?
What Severian said is right. At this stage there would definately be large changes and there would certainly be no need for war.

[Lunacharsky]

Comrades,

I think we can all agree that the aim of socialism is to smash the stranglehold that private ownership has on the means of production. But that also requires the liquidation of the nation-state as such. After all, "the working men have no country", and capital certainly is international in this era of imperialism. My question is this: following a world revolution, wouldn&#39;t the national distinctions be blurred or even outright abolished? In principle, if the revolutionary working class were led by a Marxist party, they would certainly have no disagreement on this point.

And this relates to the Sino-Soviet dispute quite clearly. The mention of China modeling itself on the Soviet Union begs the question: which? Was it the model of a semi-state outlined by Lenin in State and Revolution and codified by the October Revolution? Or was it the USSR of Stalin in 1949 where the state was fully entrenched, political democracy was nonexistent and the planned economy was the only visible socialistic feature? The capitalist counter-revolution in Russia and the movement towards a market economy in China prove one thing - for a Stalinist bureaucracy, accumulating and preserving privlege is far more important than any noises about "socialism." :o

The talk of "forming an anti-imperialist bloc" is pure rubbish. The most effective alliance of that sort would have been a socialist federation of Eurasia. The Warsaw Pact, of course, showed just how committed the Russian bureaucracy was to internationalism (as if the liquidation of the Comintern in 1943 wasn&#39;t enough of a hint). To put it another way, pooling the resources of the USSR, China, and the Eastern European countries in which a planned economy had been created would not only have been an impressive "anti-imperialist bloc", it would also have been an indication that Moscow and Beijing paid more than lip-service to the Communist Manifesto.


Bolshevik regards,

Lunacharsky :engles:

PS I wonder if the reason the USSR wouldn&#39;t give China nukes was the same reason Stalin sold Mao out to Chiang Kai Shek in 1926-27? Or maybe they were worried about revenge?