What was the Cold War all about?

[Hexen]

I've been thinking deeply about this lately, especially I've been wondering what was the original purpose of the Atomic Bomb and why would they create such a destructive weapon?

I think my reasoning goes that the weapon was originally created to insure the world bowed down to US imperialism as it's dominant power but the entire reason other countries such as the USSR and such obtained nuclear weapons was simply because they wanted to protect themselves against the US to prevent the same fate of what happened to Hiroshima & Nagasaki....as if it was a backlash against the US's originally intended plans.

Well the more I think about this the more realize that the only way for a Nuclear Weapons free world is if the US collapses or get's overthrown because it shows how much a threat the US really is to the world.

Thoughts?

[Ostrinski]

Inter-imperialist conflict

I think the atom bomb was developed for the same reason weaponry ever advanced in the first place: It's better to have bigger and better shit than your enemies

[Hexen]

Inter-imperialist conflict

Or we should just abandoned the term "Cold War" (same with the term "World War #"...those are just bourgeois terms) and just call it that.


I think the atom bomb was developed for the same reason weaponry ever advanced in the first place: It's better to have bigger and better shit than your enemies

Yep, and not only that it also had to do with American Exceptionalism if you studied US (especially military) history deep enough.

[Franz Fanonipants]

a repeated pattern of us belligerence/thread

e: capitalist belligerence sorry

[Ostrinski]

Or we should just abandoned the term "Cold War" (same with the term "World War #"...those are just bourgeois terms) and just call it that.You could accurately refer to the Cold War as WWIV and it'd be accurate (first being the Seven Year's War).


Yep, and not only that it also had to do with American Exceptionalism if you studied US (especially military) history deep enough.I guess so. But I don't really see it as anything different than any other state would have done.

[Bostana]

Two nation's that were scared that the other might invade them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

nope guys sorry US had no fear of soviet invasion just wanted to harsh on SU

[Ostrinski]

Two nation's that were scared that the other might invade them.I really don't think either the Americans or Soviets were worried about invasion.

[Comrade Samuel]

I really don't think either the Americans or Soviets were worried about invasion.

On the other hand one bringing down hellish nuclear death one another was a very real possibility...

[Arlekino]

There was news program in Soviet Times "Vremia" majority population used watched, I remember all the time news used telling to us how USA dangerous it can be attack Soviet Union. I see now with a little irony.

[Bostana]

I really don't think either the Americans or Soviets were worried about invasion.

You're right,
the idea of a nuclear war that could kill mankind as we know it must of been a silly idea

[Pretty Flaco]

the cold war was a geopolitical game of dominance between the US and USSR over spheres of influence, and each attempting to destabilize the other without ever escalating to a "hot war". it was a "cold war" because the US and USSR never engaged in a war against eachother but used proxies.

[Ostrinski]

You're right,
the idea of a nuclear war that could kill mankind as we know it must of been a silly ideaWhich has fuck all to do with invasion.

[Bostana]

Which has fuck all to do with invasion.

Bombs always take the lead in an invasion

[Geiseric]

what would there be to invade? shit... The U.S.S.R. was trying to social imperialize the rest of the 3rd world, while the U.S. was trying to do imperialism in the old fashioned way, which ended for the fSU in failure. Thus was the cold war. Now we can get on with persuading people to try communism again.

[Caj]

Bombs always take the lead in an invasion

I'm pretty sure an invasion wouldn't follow a nuclear bombing.

[Bostana]

what would there be to invade? shit...

Trust me,
I am sure the U.S. wouldn't care if the world was on a pile of ashes. Just as long as it's their world

[Lobotomy]

[...] but the entire reason other countries such as the USSR and such obtained nuclear weapons was simply because they wanted to protect themselves against the US to prevent the same fate of what happened to Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Not always. for example, Pakistan started developing nuclear weapons in response to India's development of nuclear weapons.

[Geiseric]

I don't think anybody's insane enough to end the world. Thinking seriously about doing that would need somebody who is like Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden, Nixon, Margeret Thatcher, Hitler, and Tony Montana all wrapped into one.

It scares me how many Capitalists could lose their shit and bomb Iran.

[Bostana]

It scares me how many Capitalists could lose their shit and bomb Iran.

Me and you both.

But that's hardcore Imperialism

[Tommy4ever]

One weaker imperialist power (the Soviet Union) wished to dethrone one considerably stronger imperialist power (the United States) as the world's leading power. The fall of the European Empires and a wave of 3rd World revolutions caused a shift towards the Soviets whilst the immense military power of the Russians and some not unimpressive economic feats made it seem at times that the shift might take place. However the weaker power eventually collapsed, ending its challenge and allowing the stronger imperialist power to become the last man standing.

Pretty much it.

[Positivist]

If the Us collapsed there would still be other nuclear powers to intimidate eachother.

[KurtFF8]

what would there be to invade? shit... The U.S.S.R. was trying to social imperialize the rest of the 3rd world, while the U.S. was trying to do imperialism in the old fashioned way, which ended for the fSU in failure. Thus was the cold war. Now we can get on with persuading people to try communism again.

What exactly does "trying to social imperialize" mean?

And where was the USSR trying to do this? If anything, the Soviet Union (especially in the imediate post-WWII period) was quite hands off in terms of the places where it had influence. It was only after Western non-cooperation/aggression with the USSR that things changed. The division of Germany and even Korea are good examples here: the USSR did not want either to be divided, and for Germany wanted a united country that would be demilitarized. The US refused this plan and West Germany was declared before East Germany.

The idea that the USSR was "just another imperialist power" and thus the Cold War was an inter-imperialist rivalry ignores the very real differences between those countries and how the Cold War itself developed in my opinion.

[daft punk]

@ the OP

What was the cold war about?

At the end of WW2 Russia's aim was for other countries to become capitalist. This was part of a deal with Britain and the USA, but also what suited Stalin. Revolutions had to be opposed or his own regime might be revolted against.

However he failed abysmally. Truman got fed up of Stalin failing when Greece got out of control, so he started the cold war.

Some say Stalin just went through the motions of trying to establish capitalism, but he definitely tried. It's just that capitalism had no chance in these countries. So they got absorbed into the Eastern block in the end.

[KurtFF8]

Aside from the personal motivations of Stalin (which you focus on more than a historical materialist should in my opinion), I think we can actually agree that the Cold War was the result of the West's stance on the East rather than the other way around.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

To put it simplisticly, the Cold War was a war of ideology between the Socialist East and the Capitalist West. Both sides fought for ideological supremacy, and the Soviets in my opinion were largely the target of attempted American economical imperialism in the "First Cold War" as historians call the period from 1949 to the late mid 60s with Bhrezhnev's rise to power. It wasn't until China entered the war did the Cold War lose it's ideological base and instead become a war between the Imperialist USSR and Imperialist USA during the "Second Cold War" period (1979-1989).

[KurtFF8]

^It's also to point out that the idea of the USSR acting as "an imperialist power" is quite controversial amongst the Left.

It frustrates me to see posters on sites like RevLeft give "answers" to questions like "what was the USSR?" being "state capitalist" or something along those lines with no disclaimer that such a position is actually quite contested.

I'm not saying those positions are invalid or less legitimate than others, but I think it's important for people coming into these things to know that there isn't a unified "left answer" or perspective to some of these important questions.

[Kyu Six]

@ the OP

What was the cold war about?

At the end of WW2 Russia's aim was for other countries to become capitalist. This was part of a deal with Britain and the USA, but also what suited Stalin. Revolutions had to be opposed or his own regime might be revolted against.

However he failed abysmally. Truman got fed up of Stalin failing when Greece got out of control, so he started the cold war.

Some say Stalin just went through the motions of trying to establish capitalism, but he definitely tried. It's just that capitalism had no chance in these countries. So they got absorbed into the Eastern block in the end.


Care to elaborate on this fantasy of yours? You know, with like, actual facts?

[Bostana]

@ the OP

What was the cold war about?

At the end of WW2 Russia's aim was for other countries to become capitalist. This was part of a deal with Britain and the USA, but also what suited Stalin. Revolutions had to be opposed or his own regime might be revolted against.

However he failed abysmally. Truman got fed up of Stalin failing when Greece got out of control, so he started the cold war.

Some say Stalin just went through the motions of trying to establish capitalism, but he definitely tried. It's just that capitalism had no chance in these countries. So they got absorbed into the Eastern block in the end.

Okay, you're reading too much conspiracy theories

[#FF0000]

Actually the US went fucking nuts over building weapons and atom bombs because folks in the weapons industry convinced them that the soviets had more bombs than they did and that they were arming themselves rapidly (they were not).

Like they literally just said 'yo we must not allow a doomsday gap, gentlemen' and washington was like 'welp here's the money' and so the cold war was born.

[KlassWar]

State Socialism/State Capitalism vs "Liberal"*-"Democratic"* Market Capitalism.

Vanguardist dictatorship "on behalf of" the proletariat/toiling masses vs Petty Bourgeois Republicanism/Bourgeois Democracy/Fascist or semi-fascist dictatorships...

An ideological clash between Marxism Leninism/Marxism Leninism Maoism and Social Democracy/Liberalism/Conservatism/Fascism.

An indirect struggle between grand powers, fighting proxy wars for spheres of geopolitical influence and trade...

All that and much more. Fascinating period, really. :tt2:


*Offer void in Spain, Portugal, Chile, colonial and semi-colonial nations, feudal/theocratic holdovers like Saudi Arabia...

[Geiseric]

I suppose it would make alot more sense to assume that the West was largely at fault for the Cold War. The ideological clash was the same as any capitalist country to any non capitalist country.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It was 2 powers needing an external enemy to scare their population and have them submit to the government. That's pretty much it.

[Deicide]

Chomsky explains Cold War in 5 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z05xyGB0c

''We (United States) are as much interested in democracy, as the Russians are interested in socialism''.

''As far as I can see.. There are two forces in the world that are attempting to carry out, in my view, the most ludicrous attempt to identify the soviet union with communism. One is the soviet leadership itself, which are trying to exploit the positive image of the egalitarian communist tradition for their own benefit. And the other is the United States, the American propaganda system, which would also like to undermine that egalitarian image by associating it with Russian totalitarianism''.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

^It's also to point out that the idea of the USSR acting as "an imperialist power" is quite controversial amongst the Left.

It frustrates me to see posters on sites like RevLeft give "answers" to questions like "what was the USSR?" being "state capitalist" or something along those lines with no disclaimer that such a position is actually quite contested.

I'm not saying those positions are invalid or less legitimate than others, but I think it's important for people coming into these things to know that there isn't a unified "left answer" or perspective to some of these important questions.

The Soviets did act as an imperialist power under the latter half of the Brezhnev era, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan being a prime example. In my opinion though, this only occured really after the death of Stalin and the revisionist policies of Khrushcev. Maybe it wasn't as overt as the Americans, but was still prevelent during those years. Of course this being my opinion being based off I being an MLM.

[KurtFF8]

The Soviets did act as an imperialist power under the latter half of the Brezhnev era, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan being a prime example. In my opinion though, this only occured really after the death of Stalin and the revisionist policies of Khrushcev. Maybe it wasn't as overt as the Americans, but was still prevelent during those years. Of course this being my opinion being based off I being an MLM.

Indeed, this is the common line about Soviet imperialism: "look at Afghanistan!" To which I always want to know a bit more about how that is imperialism exactly.

It was that logic that lead the Chinese to support American imperialism in the very same arena of course which is quite problematic to say the least.

[Grenzer]

Indeed, this is the common line about Soviet imperialism: "look at Afghanistan!" To which I always want to know a bit more about how that is imperialism exactly.

It was that logic that lead the Chinese to support American imperialism in the very same arena of course which is quite problematic to say the least.

I don't really see how it wasn't.

The Russians were responsible for tens thousands of Afghan deaths and the ruination of millions of others. They used military, economic, and political force to coerce another country into doing what they wanted. They just kicked out the civilian government and took over. It's just straight up imperialism. It just seems insanely hypocritical when you guys denounce the United States doing it, but support anyone else so long as they do it with a red flag.

If the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan can be justified, then so too can the US invasion. It seems many of the pro-imperilaist people justify it by talking about "improvement in living conditions"(i.e. reformism), and also ignore the fact that they fucked things up for far more people than they helped.

I think when you have everyone, including the Stalinists and Maoists, denouncing it as imperialism, then we have a problem. It seems like only the Marcyites and those Brezhnevites which go under the banner of "The Spartacist League" are willing to support Russian imperialism in this case, which is particularly flagrant and blatant.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The Cold War started off with US imperialism after WWII that was set on destroying the liberation movements of the oppressed people of the world and the proletariat by attacking the places where the glory of Marxism-Leninism threatened capitalism. During this time, Stalin supported the liberation of Eastern Europe without any imperialist goals (read "With Stalin-Memoirs from My Meetings with Stalin" written by Enver Hoxha, an Eastern European leader (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/stalin/intro.htm)). Khrushchev, however, decided to form a neo-empire that ran on sly brinkmanship, capitulation to imperialism, and open peaceful coexistence that never really worked out. Soon, Brezhnev began to get sexually excited when he saw his tanks invade other nations. Throughout this whole time, the US was just being its old imperialist self, so I do not need to explain.

Sorry I did not write so much. I am writing from my iPhone.

[daft punk]

Aside from the personal motivations of Stalin (which you focus on more than a historical materialist should in my opinion), I think we can actually agree that the Cold War was the result of the West's stance on the East rather than the other way around.

Please state your reasons for saying that you think I focus on Stalin's personal motivations more than a historical materialist should.

I have said many many times that Stalin was the personification of the degeneration of the revolution which was the result of it's isolation in a backward country.
But historical materialism is not just materialism. It is dialectical materialism. And so it acknowledges the role of the individual.

The cold war was started by the west because Stalin could not manage to keep his side of the deal. A pro-capitalist deal he should never have made in the first place.

[daft punk]

"What was the cold war about?

At the end of WW2 Russia's aim was for other countries to become capitalist. This was part of a deal with Britain and the USA, but also what suited Stalin. Revolutions had to be opposed or his own regime might be revolted against.

However he failed abysmally. Truman got fed up of Stalin failing when Greece got out of control, so he started the cold war.

Some say Stalin just went through the motions of trying to establish capitalism, but he definitely tried. It's just that capitalism had no chance in these countries. So they got absorbed into the Eastern block in the end."

Care to elaborate on this fantasy of yours? You know, with like, actual facts?


To Terebin to be passed to Mao Zedong.

We have received both letters from Comrade Mao Zedong from 30 November 1947, and 15 March 1948. We could not react to them immediately because we were checking some information necessary for our answer. Now that the facts are verified, we can answer both letters. First. The answer to the letter of 30 November 1947. We are very grateful for the information from Comrade Mao Zedong. We agree with the assessment of the situation given by Comrade Mao Zedong. We have doubts only about one point in the letter, where it is said that “In the period of the final victory of the Chinese Revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties except the CCP should leave the political scene, which will significantly strengthen the Chinese Revolution.” We do not agree with this. We think that the various opposition parties in China which are representing the middle strata of the Chinese population and are opposing the Guomindang clique will exist for a long time. And the CCP will have to involve them in cooperation against the Chinese reactionary forces and imperialist powers, while keeping hegemony, i.e., the leading position, in its hands. It is possible that some representatives of these parties will have to be included into the Chinese people’s democratic government and the government itself has to be proclaimed a coalition government in order to widen the basis of this government among the population and to isolate imperialists and their Guomindang agents. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie. With Communist greetings

Stalin
20 April 1948 http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=CA9A2341-EFF8-0392-03026972E39F2528&sort=Coverage&item=China

So, Stalin reiterates to Mao that it must be a bourgeois democracy.

however this is only one little piece of evidence. If this surprises you the real truth will shock you 1000 times more. Mao started a war on the KMT in 1945, just after Stalin wrote this to Chiang, leader of the KMT:

"Thank you for your congratulations on the occasion of the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance as well as the agreements between China and the U.S.S.R., signed on August 14. I am sure that this Treaty and the agreements will provide a solid base for an ultimate development of friendly relations between the U.S.S.R. and China for the well-being and prosperity of our peoples and the reinforcement of peace and security in the Far East and in the whole world.
I beg you, Mr. President,to accept my congratulations on the occasion of the confirmation of these historical documents."


Stalin 1945
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/31.htm



Stalin backed the KMT right up to the above telegram, 1948. In other word he backed the capitalist side Mao was fighting.


But Mao was a Stalinist. he did not want China to go communists either:


Mao 1945


"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism"


"Our Party must also have a specific programme for each period based on this general programme. Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm


So, Stalin and Mao both wanted China to be capitalist for several decades or whatever. So why did Mao fight the KMT? Because the KMT, who Stalin wanted Mao to merge with, had massacred the Communists many times.

[daft punk]

Same sort of thing for all the other countries. Stalin wanted them to be capitalist and it is easy to prove once you look.

[islandmilitia]

To put it simplisticly, the Cold War was a war of ideology between the Socialist East and the Capitalist West

To represent the Cold War in these terms seems to lose much of what was most important about that historical period. The post-war period, we should remember, was the period in which national liberation movements across the colonial world entered into armed struggle against colonial or neo-colonial governments and won victories across the world - the most important instances being the independence of Algeria in 1962 and then the final victory of the Vietnamese struggle in 1976. These struggles were informed by and also contributed to an emergent Third World consciousness, as represented by the Non-Aligned Movement, whose supporters demarcated themselves from both the United States and also from the Soviet Union. This movement and individual struggles like the struggle in Vietnam were part of what allowed for the emergence of a militant New Left inside the main imperialist countries (especially in light of the vacillating policy of official communist parties like the CPUSA) and also constituted the broader global context in which the Soviet and American governments conducted their international policies.

[#FF0000]

They just kicked out the civilian government and took over.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no. The government of Afghanistan was already falling apart and the Russians came in to prop it up.

Of course, prior to that, the 'communist' Afghan government was rather independent of Moscow and sorta wanted to stay that way. Russia jumping in the way it did would've sorta meant an end to that either way. Plus Russia's involvement was sort of the last nail in the government's coffin in regards to its legitimacy, you know?

So yeah like no.

[gorillafuck]

Well the more I think about this the more realize that the only way for a Nuclear Weapons free world is if the US collapses or get's overthrown because it shows how much a threat the US really is to the world.that's ridiculous. there are many countries that are nuclear armed.

[MotherCossack]

look... i am a young dinosaur.... i remember the tale end of the cold war....was born in 67..... so became politically aware about 10/11 years later.
i spent most of my youth worrying about ...the BOMB.
i joined CND at the earliest opportunity and spent a lot of time at meetings, leafleting, on demos, and around greenham common.... but mostly i just worried about the BOMB.
it was properly scary... especially the ludicrous proliferation of massively destructive superbombs.
at CND we watched loads of videos of worst case scenarios.... involving bombs that could destroy the planet 1000000000 times.
i used to know all the stats...... like what size bomb would incinerate what amount of the country and render the place uninhabitable for what amount of years...
50 megatons and england would be gone for a very, very long time.
and we knew that once it started there would be no cease fire...not til there was nothing left to save.
when you are talking about destroying the place 1oo times v. 124 times!.... not much point in trying to win that war!...
i remember being very concerned.... it was at least as worrying as climate change.... sometimes more.
soviets did not behave very well either ..... but it is hardly surprising ....

as a species we are so disappointingly easy to provoke, manipulate and derail. like headless chickens..... we flap about....talking nonsense and hoping for the worst.... brandishinjg huge big sticks that are far too big...
imagine what a pushover we would be for a superior alien race ....that was so inclined..... we would be toast!!!!!!
the cold war!! the two superpowers. run by idiots, irresponsible, little men with their hands on technology that was far too dangerous for the likes of them to be trusted with...

evidently US started it all off and incidentally incinerated 300 000[ish] innocent japanese folk.
i'd like to know how we would react to such an atrocity served to us one sunny day!
not very charitably.... i suspect!!!!

[Grenzer]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no. The government of Afghanistan was already falling apart and the Russians came in to prop it up.

Of course, prior to that, the 'communist' Afghan government was rather independent of Moscow and sorta wanted to stay that way. Russia jumping in the way it did would've sorta meant an end to that either way. Plus Russia's involvement was sort of the last nail in the government's coffin in regards to its legitimacy, you know?

So yeah like no.

Are you trying to justify the invasion by saying they were invited because the regime was teetering? Sorry, but that's bullshit. The official who made the plea for help really wasn't in a position to represent anyone.

Your logic is inconsistent. You say the government was independent, yet you also say Russia "propped it up"; so which is it? If the Russians came in, then by default they essentially took over the state and made it into their puppet. Whether the prior civilian government was effectual or not is entirely irrelevant.

Aren't you aware that it was the government under Nur Taraki which made the call for assistance which lead to the Russians coming to Afghanistan in the first place, and that the Russians later had him executed? Your denial that the Russians rearranged the civilian government to the way they wanted it flies completely in the face of the facts.

[KurtFF8]

I don't really see how it wasn't.

The Russians were responsible for tens thousands of Afghan deaths and the ruination of millions of others. They used military, economic, and political force to coerce another country into doing what they wanted. They just kicked out the civilian government and took over. It's just straight up imperialism. It just seems insanely hypocritical when you guys denounce the United States doing it, but support anyone else so long as they do it with a red flag.

If the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan can be justified, then so too can the US invasion. It seems many of the pro-imperilaist people justify it by talking about "improvement in living conditions"(i.e. reformism), and also ignore the fact that they fucked things up for far more people than they helped.

I think when you have everyone, including the Stalinists and Maoists, denouncing it as imperialism, then we have a problem. It seems like only the Marcyites and those Brezhnevites which go under the banner of "The Spartacist League" are willing to support Russian imperialism in this case, which is particularly flagrant and blatant.

In this post you don't examine how it was imperialism, you just keep claiming that it was. The Soviet Union was also responsible for thousands of deaths while fighting Fascist Germany and used " military, economic, and political force to coerce" Germany to surrender to the USSR and the Allies. Would you consider that to be imperialism as well? Obviously this is rhetorical question to point out that the criteria you have laid out for what counts as "imperialist" is inadequate at best.

As for kicking out the civilian government, I wasn't aware that that happened. And you can't try to compare the US and Soviet invasions, they are quite different in content, reasons, context, etc.


Please state your reasons for saying that you think I focus on Stalin's personal motivations more than a historical materialist should.

I have said many many times that Stalin was the personification of the degeneration of the revolution which was the result of it's isolation in a backward country.
But historical materialism is not just materialism. It is dialectical materialism. And so it acknowledges the role of the individual.

The cold war was started by the west because Stalin could not manage to keep his side of the deal. A pro-capitalist deal he should never have made in the first place.

Because you constantly focus on the individual of Stalin and his personal motivations instead of the economic, political, and social/cultural structures of Russia that existed at the time.

And you claim that he is a personification of the degeneration of the USSR, yet you seem to hardly move beyond personifying the USSR!

Your last two sentences are the most telling and are examples of what I'm talking about. The entire Cold War, in your narrative, is the result of what Stalin did, not the contradictions found in the West and the East and how those contradictions played out in the geopolitical space, the economic conditions, etc.

You place this bizarre conspiracy theory like motivation behind Stalin as the prime mover of all that was bad in the USSR at the time and since (and even things that happened well after Stalin was dead)

[Art Vandelay]

In this post you don't examine how it was imperialism, you just keep claiming that it was. The Soviet Union was also responsible for thousands of deaths while fighting Fascist Germany and used " military, economic, and political force to coerce" Germany to surrender to the USSR and the Allies. Would you consider that to be imperialism as well? Obviously this is rhetorical question to point out that the criteria you have laid out for what counts as "imperialist" is inadequate at best.

As for kicking out the civilian government, I wasn't aware that that happened. And you can't try to compare the US and Soviet invasions, they are quite different in content, reasons, context, etc.


I believe I can accurately state that yes Grenzer would describe WWII as an inter-imperialist war.



Because you constantly focus on the individual of Stalin and his personal motivations instead of the economic, political, and social/cultural structures of Russia that existed at the time.

And you claim that he is a personification of the degeneration of the USSR, yet you seem to hardly move beyond personifying the USSR!

Your last two sentences are the most telling and are examples of what I'm talking about. The entire Cold War, in your narrative, is the result of what Stalin did, not the contradictions found in the West and the East and how those contradictions played out in the geopolitical space, the economic conditions, etc.

You place this bizarre conspiracy theory like motivation behind Stalin as the prime mover of all that was bad in the USSR at the time and since (and even things that happened well after Stalin was dead)


That is because it is quite clear to anyone who regularly reads DP posts that he is not a materialist and subscribes to the great man of history theory.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by Daft punk
"Please state your reasons for saying that you think I focus on Stalin's personal motivations more than a historical materialist should.

I have said many many times that Stalin was the personification of the degeneration of the revolution which was the result of it's isolation in a backward country.
But historical materialism is not just materialism. It is dialectical materialism. And so it acknowledges the role of the individual.

The cold war was started by the west because Stalin could not manage to keep his side of the deal. A pro-capitalist deal he should never have made in the first place. "


Because you constantly focus on the individual of Stalin and his personal motivations instead of the economic, political, and social/cultural structures of Russia that existed at the time.

No I don't, I always put Stalin's actions in context. The man was massively powerful, maybe the most powerful individual in the world, ever. Don't ignore that. Don't accuse me of not being materialist when my position is that Stalinism is the product of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country.




And you claim that he is a personification of the degeneration of the USSR, yet you seem to hardly move beyond personifying the USSR!

what? What is that supposed to mean? Please explain with examples or whatever. The objective conditions in the USSR in the 1930s-50s were the existence of a planned economy ruled by a bureaucratic elite around Stalin. Their mission- self preservation (of themselves as a bureaucracy and individually).






Your last two sentences are the most telling and are examples of what I'm talking about. The entire Cold War, in your narrative, is the result of what Stalin did, not the contradictions found in the West and the East and how those contradictions played out in the geopolitical space, the economic conditions, etc.


Truman started the cold war against Stalin because Stalin failed to establish capitalism in Eastern Europe. Truman wanted to intervene in Greece where Stalin was failing to stop the communists. The material reality was that Stalin could not establish capitalism because of the reasons Trotsky explained many times. The reasons the Russian revolution happened, plus other reasons (eg the capitalists had collaborated with the Nazis, or had been killed by them.)

The cold war was actually a continuation of Truman's policy before, even though it seems like an abrupt change from holding hands with Stalin. It was all about America becoming dominant on the world scene. Both America and Stalin were scared of socialism, so they worked together, but Stalin failed for reasons a Trotskyist could predict in his sleep. So Truman tried Marshall aid but that backfired, and then he tried the cold war which obviously got out of hand but did serve America quite well (and in fact the USSR too in many ways).





You place this bizarre conspiracy theory like motivation behind Stalin as the prime mover of all that was bad in the USSR at the time and since (and even things that happened well after Stalin was dead)

It is not bizarre or a conspiracy theory it is straightforward observation. I have proved it a thousand times. what does this say?


"To Terebin to be passed to Mao Zedong.

We have received both letters from Comrade Mao Zedong from 30 November 1947, and 15 March 1948. We could not react to them immediately because we were checking some information necessary for our answer. Now that the facts are verified, we can answer both letters. First. The answer to the letter of 30 November 1947. We are very grateful for the information from Comrade Mao Zedong. We agree with the assessment of the situation given by Comrade Mao Zedong. We have doubts only about one point in the letter, where it is said that “In the period of the final victory of the Chinese Revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties except the CCP should leave the political scene, which will significantly strengthen the Chinese Revolution.” We do not agree with this. We think that the various opposition parties in China which are representing the middle strata of the Chinese population and are opposing the Guomindang clique will exist for a long time. And the CCP will have to involve them in cooperation against the Chinese reactionary forces and imperialist powers, while keeping hegemony, i.e., the leading position, in its hands. It is possible that some representatives of these parties will have to be included into the Chinese people’s democratic government and the government itself has to be proclaimed a coalition government in order to widen the basis of this government among the population and to isolate imperialists and their Guomindang agents. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie. With Communist greetings

Stalin
20 April 1948 "

Mao had already said in 1945 he was aiming for capitalism. But here is Stalin in 1948 reminding him not to go for socialism.


Your response to this?

[KurtFF8]

There is no response, it's just more of the same of your "Stalin just really wanted capitalism" thesis which is exactly what I'm talking about.

What is it about the material conditions of the Soviet Union as a state and social structure that would have lead it to push for bourgeois countries?

The only answer I've seen you come up with so far is "It's what Stalin wanted to happen because he hated socialism" followed of course by "And this is why Trotsky was right and Stalin was the worst thing, etc. etc."

Another example of your focus on Stalin being problematic is that you haven't even chimed in in terms of the question of the nature of the Cold War. You seem only able to reference the personal motivations of folks like Stalin and Truman. This is a substitution for a lack of analysis of the structures of those countries.

[Zav]

The two nations were showing off the sizes of their capitalistic penises for half a century. That's about it.

[daft punk]

That is because it is quite clear to anyone who regularly reads DP posts that he is not a materialist and subscribes to the great man of history theory.

It has become clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Marxism stresses the material conditions and the actions of individuals equally, as dialectics would expect, to interconnected opposites.

Did Lenin go with "the point is to change it", or the point is to do nothing as history will take care of itself?

Did the October revolution happen because people like Lenin and Trotsky organised it? Or were they irrelevant to it?

How about Hitler? Can it be said with certainty that everything would have happened exactly the same if he had not existed?

Why did Marx stress that communists should be politically active in trying to change the world?

“Men make their history themselves”, wrote Engels in January 1894, “but not as yet with a collective will according to a collective plan or even a definite, delimited given society. Their aspirations clash, and for that very reason all such societies are governed by necessity, the complement and form of appearance of which is accident. The necessity which here asserts itself athwart all accident is again ultimately economic necessity. This is where the so-called great men come in for treatment. That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at a particular time in a particular country is, of course, pure chance. But cut him out and there will be a demand for such a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found.”

“That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own warfare, had rendered necessary, was chance; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man was always found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc.”

Yes, but there is also the crucial role of the subjective factor.

"Helvetius once said that every epoch calls forth persons of adequate stature, and if it cannot find them, invents them. In regard to Wellington, Engels remarked, “He is great in his own way, as great as one can be without ceasing to be a mediocrity.” Such a description could easily apply to Stalin, whose narrow personality certainly left its stamp on the character of the political counter-revolution in the Soviet Union. While Trotsky represented the period of revolutionary upsurge, Stalin represented the period of retreat and counter-revolution."

http://www.marxist.com/role-individual-history091205.htm


Engels: "Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the resultant of these many wills operating in different directions and of their manifold effects upon the outer world that constitutes history." (Ludwig Feuerbach).

[daft punk]

There is no response, it's just more of the same of your "Stalin just really wanted capitalism" thesis which is exactly what I'm talking about.



Its a fucking quote from Stalin ffs what more do you want? Did you actually realised that? It had his name at the bottom.








What is it about the material conditions of the Soviet Union as a state and social structure that would have lead it to push for bourgeois countries?

As Stalin, he wrote it.

Ask Mao, he wrote the same stuff.


It's called Two Stage Theory and Popular Frontism. Google these terms. It means capitalism is the agenda for all countries outside the USSR.

The simple answer is that it was an excuse by Stalin to crush any revolutions, as they could have sparked a revolution for socialism, in Russia itself.






The only answer I've seen you come up with so far is "It's what Stalin wanted to happen because he hated socialism" followed of course by "And this is why Trotsky was right and Stalin was the worst thing, etc. etc."

Another example of your focus on Stalin being problematic is that you haven't even chimed in in terms of the question of the nature of the Cold War. You seem only able to reference the personal motivations of folks like Stalin and Truman. This is a substitution for a lack of analysis of the structures of those countries.


Stalin said China was to be capitalist. Mao said the same. Which bit do you not understand?

This was the case for all the Eastern European countries too, plus Vietnam, Korea etc. I have proved it 1000 times.


Above is Stalin clearly saying it and it still doesnt seem to have sunk into your head.

[Kyu Six]

It's called Two Stage Theory and Popular Frontism. Google these terms.

I wonder if you realize that Two-stage theory is fundamental Marxism, not something Stalin invented. It was actually Trotsky who went against Marx and came up with the theory of permanent revolution. It's true that Marx and Engels weren't married to stagism--they saw it as dependent on historical circumstances--but it originates with them nonetheless. Trotsky, as always, thought he knew better than Marx, Engels, Lenin, or anybody. It's no wonder that Lenin put Stalin in charge of the party and not Trotsky. Trotsky was a demagogue and an opportunist who did not understand even basic Marxism. Don't even get me started on "degenerated" and "deformed" workers' states. Just more crap Trotsky pulled out of his bum! :laugh:

[KurtFF8]

daft, your response just continues to demonstrate my point. You are only able to appeal to Stalin (and in this case Mao as well) and not any other sort of analysis.

[daft punk]

I wonder if you realize that Two-stage theory is fundamental Marxism, not something Stalin invented. It was actually Trotsky who went against Marx and came up with the theory of permanent revolution. It's true that Marx and Engels weren't married to stagism--they saw it as dependent on historical circumstances--but it originates with them nonetheless. Trotsky, as always, thought he knew better than Marx, Engels, Lenin, or anybody. It's no wonder that Lenin put Stalin in charge of the party and not Trotsky. Trotsky was a demagogue and an opportunist who did not understand even basic Marxism. Don't even get me started on "degenerated" and "deformed" workers' states. Just more crap Trotsky pulled out of his bum! :laugh:

No offence, but are you new to all this? 90% of that is sheer rubbish.

It is true that Trotsky invented PR but M&E had sorta hinted at it here and there.

But in 1917 Lenin decided on Trotsky's position and had to drag the Bolsheviks to that line.

When the fuck did Lenin put Stalin in charge of the party??!!!

No, after April 1917 stagism was totally abandoned (some Bolshies were kinda highly reluctant to change), it was the Mensheviks who clung to it.

ok this is a mainstream history site:

"When Lenin returned to Russia on 3rd April, 1917, he announced what became known as the April Theses (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSapril.htm). Lenin attacked Bolsheviks (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbolsheviks.htm) for supporting the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm). Instead, he argued, revolutionaries should be telling the people of Russia that they should take over the control of the country. In his speech, Lenin urged the peasants to take the land from the rich landlords and the industrial workers to seize the factories. Albert Rhys Williams (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSwilliamsR.htm) got to know Lenin during this period. He later argued: "He was the most thoroughly civilized and humane man I ever have known, as nice a one as I ever knew, in addition to being a great man." Williams was convinced that the Bolsheviks would become the new rulers: "The Bolsheviks understood the people. They were strong among the more literate strata, like the sailors, and comprised largely the artisans and labourers of the cities. Sprung directly from the people's lions they spoke the people's language, shared their sorrows and thought their thoughts. They were the people. So they were trusted."
Lenin accused those Bolsheviks (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbolsheviks.htm) who were still supporting the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm) of betraying socialism and suggested that they should leave the party. Some took Lenin's advice, arguing that any attempt at revolution at this stage was bound to fail and would lead to another repressive, authoritarian Russian government.
Joseph Stalin (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm) was in a difficult position. As one of the editors of Pravda (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpravda.htm), he was aware that he was being held partly responsible for what Lenin had described as "betraying socialism". Stalin had two main options open to him: he could oppose Lenin and challenge him for the leadership of the party, or he could change his mind about supporting the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm) and remain loyal to Lenin.
After ten days of silence, Stalin made his move. In Pravda (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpravda.htm) he wrote an article dismissing the idea of working with the Provisional Government (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSprovisional.htm). He condemned left-wing members of the government such as Alexander Kerensky (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkerensky.htm) and Victor Chernov (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSchernov.htm) as counter-revolutionaries, and urged the peasants (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpeasants.htm) to form committees to prepare to takeover the land for themselves."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htm




"When Lenin presented his famous April Theses to the party, in which he called for the overthrow of the Provisional Government, they were published in his name alone: not one of the "leaders" of the party was prepared to associate his name with a position which ran directly counter to all the statements, manifestos, articles and speeches issued by them since the February revolution. The very day after the publication of Lenin's theses Kamenev wrote an editorial in Pravda under the heading "Our Differences", in which it was emphasised that the theses represented only Lenin's "personal opinion". The article ended with the following words:

"Insofar as concerns Lenin's general scheme, it appears to be unacceptable, since it starts from the assumption that the bourgeois revolution is finished and counts on the immediate transformation of the revolution into a socialist revolution.''
Note these words well, reader: this is not Lenin arguing against Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, but the "Old Bolshevik" Kamenev indicting Lenin for the heinous crime of Trotskyism! The arguments of Kamenev and Co. in 1917 read like a parody of the words of Plekhanov at the Stockholm Congress of 1906: the proletariat is bound to take power in a proletarian revolution, but the revolution is bourgeois and therefore it is our duty not to take power! The wheel had gone full circle, and the "confusion" of the "Old Bolsheviks" manifested itself in 1911 in a return to the threadbare reformist ideas of the Mensheviks. The "algebraic equation" of Lenin laid itself open to such misinterpretation, while Trotsky's "arithmetical" formula was quite precise."
http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/chapter04.html

[daft punk]

daft, your response just continues to demonstrate my point. You are only able to appeal to Stalin (and in this case Mao as well) and not any other sort of analysis.

We were arguing over whether Stalin wanted capitalism in other countries. I proved it in his own words. That went over your head. Now you say I am appealing to Stalin.

You think what? That he wanted socialism but told Mao to aim for capitalism as a joke?

The material conditions were that if a political revolution took place for democratic socialism in Russia he would lose his position of dictator, and socialism in another country could precipitate that.

Plus he was desperate to keep Britain and America happy.

Anyway, that my last reply to you, you had your chance. Byeee.

[chronix]

...they created such perilous weapon for protection and obviously for greediness, they used it to rule and threaten other country; talk about tyranny.:closedeyes:

[Invader Zim]

You could accurately refer to the Cold War as WWIV and it'd be accurate (first being the Seven Year's War).


What of the Napoleonic Wars? They were also 'Atlantic' in scope.

As for the term 'cold war' I think it is adequate. It was 'cold' as in the two main conflicting powers never came to formal blows and where the 'war' did become 'hot' it was through intervention in comparatively minor wars, such as the American intervention in Vietnam and Korea and Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe and Afganistan. The term marks a longstanding diplomatic conflict and period of emnity as opposed an actual war. As such 'cold' seems an apt title.

The problem with the term is one of definition, because how do you easily mark the beginning an end of a period of diplomatic rivalry. Do you mark its beginning with the Berlin Blockade? Or do you go back a little earlier to the Soviet invasion and annexation of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands? Or do we go back still further and consider the Soviet-American partnership duing the Second World War a blip in what was otherwise a period of diplomatic hostility and consider the entire inter-war period a part of the Cold War? I think the OP's question is an interesting one without an easy answer.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

In a nutshell: the Cold-War was a pissing contest between two capitalist super-powers.