Chinese 'communists' exploits Greek commie workers

[Tim Cornelis]

Some bitter irony here. Or perhaps not since no one considers the Communist Party of China actually socialist.

Anyway, the Chinese government-owned business COSCO has invested in Port of Piraeus, slashing workers' rights, salaries, work safety, etc.


PIRAEUS, Greece — The captain gazed from his elegant office overlooking this port on the Aegean Sea and smiled as towering cranes plucked container after container from a giant ship while robotic transport vehicles fanned out to transfer the cargo to smaller vessels bound for the Mediterranean.

...
The salaries of some workers reached $181,000 a year with overtime; Cosco is typically paying less than $23,300. On the Greek side of the port, union rules required that nine people work a gantry crane; Cosco uses a crew of four.


Rest of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/business/global/chinese-company-sets-new-rhythm-in-port-of-piraeus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And here are some communists in Port of Piraeus striking:

http://static1.trouw.nl/static/photo/2012/1/8/12/20121016163640/media_xl_1391067.jpg

Are there still revlefters who insist China is a workers' state after A Marxist Historian was banned? Maybe the KKE and CPC when the both of them participate in the next International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meeting_of_Communist_and_Workers'_Pa rties) could work it out--or are they too friendly?

[Conscript]

What a shame. I know comrades that don't think China is imperialist, it's as if they think it's a western phenomenon, not something reached by bourgeois nation-states as a final, pinnacle stage of capitalism.

[erupt]

What a shame. I know comrades that don't think China is imperialist, it's as if they think it's a western phenomenon, not something reached by bourgeois nation-states as a final, pinnacle stage of capitalism.

I know people who believe this, as well. It's almost like Soviet Imperialism, the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, and recent Chinese exploitation of underdeveloped, third-world countries just has never and is not happening. Would it be correct to call these people capitalist apologists, or state-capitalist apologists?

Just look at those few examples aforementioned. The Soviets most certainly engaged in imperialism. Just look at the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact slicing apart Poland before World War II, or the Soviet-Afghan War. The Cambodian-Vietnamese War was mentioned because Vietnam occupied Cambodia for close to a decade after pushing the Khmer Rouge deep into the jungle, I believe. These random historical tidbits just illustrate the fact that many "Communist" countries are not virgins to imperialism, even in their infancy.

The third example also shows how a country can espouse socialism and internationalism, but turn around and do the exact opposite, all in the name of the mighty dollar. Chinese manufacturers and government are continuously exploiting the third-world, most obviously with oil and now, specifically because China owns the world market for all seventeen of them, rare-earths. At some point, this heightened activity will at some point enlighten many people whom I consider psuedo-socialist imperialism apologists and/or tools that don't question rhetoric when they hear it.

[l'Enfermé]

In the Soviets' defense, their actions re. Poland, Finland, the Baltic, Afghanistan, etc, were NOT imperialism, as theorized by Lenin.

edit: i mean not imperialism as defined by Lenin

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I know people who believe this, as well. It's almost like Soviet Imperialism, the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, and recent Chinese exploitation of underdeveloped, third-world countries just has never and is not happening. Would it be correct to call these people capitalist apologists, or state-capitalist apologists?

Just look at those few examples aforementioned. The Soviets most certainly engaged in imperialism. Just look at the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact slicing apart Poland before World War II, or the Soviet-Afghan War. The Cambodian-Vietnamese War was mentioned because Vietnam occupied Cambodia for close to a decade after pushing the Khmer Rouge deep into the jungle, I believe. These random historical tidbits just illustrate the fact that many "Communist" countries are not virgins to imperialism, even in their infancy.

The third example also shows how a country can espouse socialism and internationalism, but turn around and do the exact opposite, all in the name of the mighty dollar. Chinese manufacturers and government are continuously exploiting the third-world, most obviously with oil and now, specifically because China owns the world market for all seventeen of them, rare-earths. At some point, this heightened activity will at some point enlighten many people whom I consider psuedo-socialist imperialism apologists and/or tools that don't question rhetoric when they hear it.

"Soviet Imperialism" does not exist. The USSR (even under the State-Capitalist Socialists under Khrushchev) bought goods from third world and brother countries above market prices.

"Vietnam 'occupied' Cambodia" That was because Cambodia was a near failed State with loose-cannon armed sectarian cults who were even less Marxist-Leninist than the Viet-Minh.

"Molotov Ribbentrop" The UK, Poland and quite a few other countries signed a Non-Aggression Pact before the USSR. Hitler told the USSR that he will invade Poland and it was obvious that if a Non-Aggression pact were not signed the USSR would lose a lot of ground for the inevitable war with Fascism. Anyway, fuck Poland, it had a proto-Fascist government with its own concentration camps that had occupied foreign territory as far as the city of Minsk (Belarussia) under Pilsudski. Signing a non-aggression pact with Germany was the best option which bought the USSR another two years to move vital industry east, industrialise further and buffer the inevitable invasion coming from Nazi Germany.

"Soviet-Aghan War" Again, the government in Afghanistan was a Socialist government which was unable to cope with the CIA/Pakistani Fascists' funded Islamists like Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen. The USSR never, here again, used force or ever did extract capital from other states. Had it done what the Imperialists did and do, it would certainly have gotten insanely rich; but it didn't because it was a workers' state.

"Mighty Dollar" Rubbish, the Chinese are not doing anything for the mighty dollar, they are trying to become the mighty Renminbi now and will fail because western (hence global) Capitalism (on which China's economy depends) is about to collapse.

"Communist countries are not Virgins of Imperialism" Read a Book. I suggest starting with Imperialism as the Highest stage of Capitalism- Lenin.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Lenin's theory that imperialism is the final stage of capitalism obviously hasn't held up through history.

[The Douche]

Lenin's theory that imperialism is the final stage of capitalism obviously hasn't held up through history.

What stage of capital are we in now, then?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I know people who believe this, as well. It's almost like Soviet Imperialism, the Cambodian-Vietnamese War


The Cambodian-Vietnamese War was mentioned because Vietnam occupied Cambodia for close to a decade after pushing the Khmer Rouge deep into the jungle


Total fucking destruction of native rights and blatant social imperialism yo, what with destroying a tyrranical blanquist-primitivist-fucking-pogrom dictatorship that was holding not only slaughterfields of ethnic minorities but also held the idea of all knowledge and logic being satanic, and it's benefactors shot to appease Pot's mental illness.

Fuck you and your anti-marxist, 'radical self-determination' bullshit. The artificial Cambodian 'culture' would have ended in the deaths of millions if the Vietnamese Army had not intervened and saved lives.

How blatantly reactionary can you get, defending a hitler-esque regime like that!?

[Geiseric]

The soviet invasions of other countries were often in reaction to a threat of an ultra reactionary force coming to power, such as Afghanistan, or the threat of a Nazi invasion.

I'm not justifying it, I wouldn't of supported any of the crazy shit they did, however the standard of living in the eastern bloc was higher than in the U.S.S.R. So it's unfair to call it imperialism. The bureaucracy was interested in creating buffers in the case that NATO decided to invade.

They were interested in making sure their positions stayed secure, which meant that they had to make sure nobody could invade. That explanation makes sense for Poland and Finland pretty well. However all of those countries had planned economies, so imperialism as Lenin put it doesn't even slightly apply.

[erupt]

Total fucking destruction of native rights and blatant social imperialism yo, what with destroying a tyrranical blanquist-primitivist-fucking-pogrom dictatorship that was holding not only slaughterfields of ethnic minorities but also held the idea of all knowledge and logic being satanic, and it's benefactors shot to appease Pot's mental illness.

Fuck you and your anti-marxist, 'radical self-determination' bullshit. The artificial Cambodian 'culture' would have ended in the deaths of millions if the Vietnamese Army had not intervened and saved lives.

How blatantly reactionary can you get, defending a hitler-esque regime like that!?

Read what I typed. Now I may not appeal to your tendency, but I never once said anything positive about the Khmer Rouge. My basic point was that communist countries will still fight each other and rearrange borders. If somebody has another word for it let me know.

But honestly, show me where I miscommunicated that I was in support of, let alone in defence of, Democratic Kampuchea, or Pol Pot.


"Soviet Imperialism" does not exist. The USSR (even under the State-Capitalist Socialists under Khrushchev) bought goods from third world and brother countries above market prices.

"Vietnam 'occupied' Cambodia" That was because Cambodia was a near failed State with loose-cannon armed sectarian cults who were even less Marxist-Leninist than the Viet-Minh.

"Molotov Ribbentrop" The UK, Poland and quite a few other countries signed a Non-Aggression Pact before the USSR. Hitler told the USSR that he will invade Poland and it was obvious that if a Non-Aggression pact were not signed the USSR would lose a lot of ground for the inevitable war with Fascism. Anyway, fuck Poland, it had a proto-Fascist government with its own concentration camps that had occupied foreign territory as far as the city of Minsk (Belarussia) under Pilsudski. Signing a non-aggression pact with Germany was the best option which bought the USSR another two years to move vital industry east, industrialise further and buffer the inevitable invasion coming from Nazi Germany.

"Soviet-Aghan War" Again, the government in Afghanistan was a Socialist government which was unable to cope with the CIA/Pakistani Fascists' funded Islamists like Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen. The USSR never, here again, used force or ever did extract capital from other states. Had it done what the Imperialists did and do, it would certainly have gotten insanely rich; but it didn't because it was a workers' state.

"Mighty Dollar" Rubbish, the Chinese are not doing anything for the mighty dollar, they are trying to become the mighty Renminbi now and will fail because western (hence global) Capitalism (on which China's economy depends) is about to collapse.

"Communist countries are not Virgins of Imperialism" Read a Book. I suggest starting with Imperialism as the Highest stage of Capitalism- Lenin.If there is no Soviet Imperialism, what would it correctly be called? I'm aware about the Soviet Union buying goods at above market prices for "brother" countries. What does that have to do Soviet foreign policy not concerning those "brother" countries?

Regarding the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, I attempted to illustrate that countries that claim they are "socialist" or "Marxist" will still go to war with each other concerning territory. I certainly agree the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge probably made it much easier to gain popular support in the newly independent Vietnam for a new, regional war.

Concerning the WWII era discussion points, I agree that realpolitik-wise, it bought the USSR time. But I must disagree that because Poland had a "proto-fascist government," it should be partitioned.

Finally, concerning late 1970's Afghanistan, you don't think that Brezhnev wouldn't have minded an "Afghani Soviet Socialist Republic?"

EDIT: Concerning China, how could you not agree that a country dependent on global capitalism that is undergoing massive growth doesn't have somewhat of a cash culture, where the "mighty dollar" reigns supreme?

Finally, as I have said above, imperialism might not be the best word to use, but I don't know of a better or more accurate one. I'll happily use it, though.

[Tim Cornelis]

The soviet invasions of other countries were often in reaction to a threat of an ultra reactionary force coming to power, such as Afghanistan, or the threat of a Nazi invasion.

I'm not justifying it, I wouldn't of supported any of the crazy shit they did, however the standard of living in the eastern bloc was higher than in the U.S.S.R. So it's unfair to call it imperialism. The bureaucracy was interested in creating buffers in the case that NATO decided to invade.

They were interested in making sure their positions stayed secure, which meant that they had to make sure nobody could invade. That explanation makes sense for Poland and Finland pretty well. However all of those countries had planned economies, so imperialism as Lenin put it doesn't even slightly apply.

I don't have a source right now but I was taught that the USSR had a reverse Marshall plan in the eastern bloc: resources were drained from its satellite states into the USSR to rebuild its ravaged economy.

If true, this would certainly qualify as imperialism: the USSR maintained unequal economic relations to its benefits.


My basic point was that communist countries will still fight each other and rearrange borders

Your basic point is then clearly derived from a basic lack of understanding of communism. How warped of a view one must have of communism to reconcile it with territorial wars and bloodshed over resources.

EDIT:

Wikipedia:


By the end of World War Two, most of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union in particular, suffered vast destruction.[53] The Soviet Union had suffered a staggering 27 million deaths, and the destruction of significant industry and infrastructure, both by the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Soviet Union itself in a "scorched earth" policy to keep it from falling in Nazi hands as they advanced over 1,000 miles to within 15 miles of Moscow.[53] Thereafter, the Soviet Union physically transported and relocated east European industrial assets to the Soviet Union.[53]

This was especially pronounced in eastern European Axis countries, such as Romania and Hungary, where such a policy was considered as punitive reparations (a principle accepted by Western powers).[54] In some cases, Red Army officers viewed cities, villages and farms as being open to looting.[55] Other Eastern Bloc states were required to provide coal, industrial equipment, technology, rolling stock and other resources to reconstruct the Soviet Union.[56] Between 1945 and 1953, the Soviets received a net transfer of resources from the rest of the Eastern Bloc under this policy roughly comparable to the net transfer from the United States to western Europe in the Marshall Plan.[56]

We can therefore qualify the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union as imperialism, which extended over all nominally socialist states except Albania and Yugoslavia.

[erupt]

I don't have a source right now but I was taught that the USSR had a reverse Marshall plan in the eastern bloc: resources were drained from its satellite states into the USSR to rebuild its ravaged economy.

If true, this would certainly qualify as imperialism: the USSR maintained unequal economic relations to its benefits.



Your basic point is then clearly derived from a basic lack of understanding of communism. How warped of a view one must have of communism to reconcile it with territorial wars and bloodshed over resources.

No, no no! It's not reconciled with anything. I read the first two paragraphs and I was thinking "That's what I'm trying to say," and then I read the last paragraph.

I never said that fighting over territory and resources was positive for anything. I was stressing that two countries who claim they are Communists can still care about borders and resources and go to war over those borders and resources.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, no no! It's not reconciled with anything. I read the first two paragraphs and I was thinking "That's what I'm trying to say," and then I read the last paragraph.

I never said that fighting over territory and resources was positive for anything. I was stressing that two countries who claim they are Communists can still care about borders and resources and go to war over those borders and resources.

No country has ever claimed to be communist, and that's not without reason.

[Crimson Commissar]

If there is no Soviet Imperialism, what would it correctly be called? I'm aware about the Soviet Union buying goods at above market prices for "brother" countries. What does that have to do Soviet foreign policy not concerning those "brother" countries?

What are you implying here? That Soviet policy outside of the already Socialist states was imperialist? The USSR, unlike the USA, did not attempt to illegally depose of governments that lied outside of what was already considered it's sphere of influence. Infact, history showed I think that the Soviets were quite eager at any point to position themselves as anti-imperialists when it came to the third world's issues, what with their support for the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions, and the funding and education they gave many Africans and the Socialistic movements within their countries throughout the Cold War. You could probably argue that Soviet policy was much more imperialistic within it's own bloc, if you'd like to class 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia as such a thing.


Regarding the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, I attempted to illustrate that countries that claim they are "socialist" or "Marxist" will still go to war with each other concerning territory. I certainly agree the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge probably made it much easier to gain popular support in the newly independent Vietnam for a new, regional war.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did territorial disputes play into the Vietnamese-Cambodian war? I was under the impression they intervened just to kick out the Khmer Rouge, but I don't know much about it to be honest.


Concerning the WWII era discussion points, I agree that realpolitik-wise, it bought the USSR time. But I must disagree that because Poland had a "proto-fascist government," it should be partitioned.

It's strongly debatable whether or not the territory that was Eastern Poland at that time could really be considered "Polish". Many would probably claim it was more of a reunification with Soviet Belarus and Ukraine than a partitioning.


Finally, concerning late 1970's Afghanistan, you don't think that Brezhnev wouldn't have minded an "Afghani Soviet Socialist Republic?"

Hard to say. But while we can spend all day debating about what Brezhnev or any other Soviet leader might have done or wanted to do, what matters is what actually happened. And I personally don't think the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan can be claimed as an invasion in any way. The Afghan Communists brought themselves to power entirely on their own, and by overthrowing a government that was already relatively pro-Soviet beforehand. They actually requested the Soviet Army to intervene after the rise of the Mujahideen and as the USA began to get their hands in the whole affair.


I don't have a source right now but I was taught that the USSR had a reverse Marshall plan in the eastern bloc: resources were drained from its satellite states into the USSR to rebuild its ravaged economy.

If true, this would certainly qualify as imperialism: the USSR maintained unequal economic relations to its benefits.

Pretty sure this was exactly what happened, yeah. Particularly in East Germany where the Soviets had large parts of it's industry stripped out to repair their territories that had been ravaged by the war. I don't think many could really approve of their actions at the time, but considering what an utter state Europe was in back then I don't think it's much use slapping labels of "imperialism" here, there, and everywhere when it's clear that said policies didn't continue after the situation had stabilised in the 50s and 60s.



By the end of World War Two, most of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union in particular, suffered vast destruction.[53] The Soviet Union had suffered a staggering 27 million deaths, and the destruction of significant industry and infrastructure, both by the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Soviet Union itself in a "scorched earth" policy to keep it from falling in Nazi hands as they advanced over 1,000 miles to within 15 miles of Moscow.[53] Thereafter, the Soviet Union physically transported and relocated east European industrial assets to the Soviet Union.[53]

This was especially pronounced in eastern European Axis countries, such as Romania and Hungary, where such a policy was considered as punitive reparations (a principle accepted by Western powers).[54] In some cases, Red Army officers viewed cities, villages and farms as being open to looting.[55] Other Eastern Bloc states were required to provide coal, industrial equipment, technology, rolling stock and other resources to reconstruct the Soviet Union.[56] Between 1945 and 1953, the Soviets received a net transfer of resources from the rest of the Eastern Bloc under this policy roughly comparable to the net transfer from the United States to western Europe in the Marshall Plan.[56]

We can therefore qualify the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union as imperialism, which extended over all nominally socialist states except Albania and Yugoslavia.

I somewhat agree. But as I said before, this wasn't a permanent situation. What was a very rocky and unstable relationship between the USSR and Eastern Europe immediately after the war transformed into one of mostly co-operation in later years. Massive efforts were made by the populace and the local Socialist governments to rebuild the cities of the Eastern Bloc, just as was the situation in the west. And while the Marshall Plan did do it's own amount of good for Europe I don't think we can call it much better when it was effectively bribery by the USA to keep European nations from straying to the red side, it's own form of imperialism that was readily accepted by the rulers of the west.

[Tim Cornelis]

Apologies in advance for being a grammar nazi.



Pretty sure this was exactly what happened, yeah. Particularly in East Germany where the Soviets had large parts of it's [sic!] industry stripped out to repair their territories that had been ravaged by the war. I don't think many could really approve of their actions at the time, but considering what an utter state Europe was in back then I don't think it's much use slapping labels of "imperialism" here, there, and everywhere when it's clear that said policies didn't continue after the situation had stabilised in the 50s and 60s.


I somewhat agree. But as I said before, this wasn't a permanent situation. What was a very rocky and unstable relationship between the USSR and Eastern Europe immediately after the war transformed into one of mostly co-operation in later years. Massive efforts were made by the populace and the local Socialist governments to rebuild the cities of the Eastern Bloc, just as was the situation in the west. And while the Marshall Plan did do it's [sic!] own amount of good for Europe I don't think we can call it much better when it was effectively bribery by the USA to keep European nations from straying to the red side, it's [sic!] own form of imperialism that was readily accepted by the rulers of the west.

Notice: regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of Eastern Europe and the subsequent draining of its resources, you say we can't or shouldn't be slapping labels of "imperialism" on it, but regarding the US aid to Europe (which was undoubtedly self-interested, and perhaps even imperialist) you do slap on the label imperialism. When clearly, the USSR's control of Eastern Europe was closer to imperialism than US' control over Western Europe.

I was going to add in my previous message that indeed this drain of resources lasted only up until 1955 (I'm not sure of the exact date), and so it's dubious to call it imperialism after that. But then Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 made me doubt whether this is true. Hoxha called this social-imperialism and I wonder what the basis of this argument were.

I don't think that we should be making excuses for imperialism. Clearly, to me, your Marxist-Leninist ideology clouds your judgement makes you adopt a more apologetic attitude than warrants the situation. We could insist that the post-World War II situation of the Netherlands was chaotic and marked by the need to rebuild the Netherlands and therefore say that, while not justified, the imperialist war against Indonesia was understandable (you adopt a similar position regarding the USSR's role in the Eastern bloc, with the same logic). But this is clearly not a justifiable position to adopt.

To admit the USSR was imperialist in at least some regards is to open the door to the notion that the USSR was state-capitalist rather than lower-phase communist. Which is irreconcilable with Marxism-Leninism. So understandably you are wary of admitting this--from your ideological stance, at least.
While you seem to condemn, at least in part, the occupation, you are still too defensive of imperialism. Whether this imperialism extended beyond 1955 is not relevant whether we call the occupation of Eastern Europe from 1944-1955 imperialism or not.

[Crimson Commissar]

Notice: regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of Eastern Europe and the subsequent draining of its resources, you say we can't or shouldn't be slapping labels of "imperialism" on it, but regarding the US aid to Europe (which was undoubtedly self-interested, and perhaps even imperialist) you do slap on the label imperialism. When clearly, the USSR's control of Eastern Europe was closer to imperialism than US' control over Western Europe.

I admit that, and I saw this coming to be honest. :lol: I suppose I wasn't trying to be a hypocrite here, just pointing out that traces of imperialism can be found in the USA's immediate post-war strategies as well.


I was going to add in my previous message that indeed this drain of resources lasted only up until 1955 (I'm not sure of the exact date), and so it's dubious to call it imperialism after that. But then Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 made me doubt whether this is true. Hoxha called this social-imperialism and I wonder what the basis of this argument were.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia were different kind of situations I think. It's good to keep in mind though that the Soviets did not simply re-impose the status quo after intervening in those incidents. The People's Republic of Hungary still experienced positive Socialistic reform post-1956, and I've heard some people describe the system as having similarities to Titoism in a way. "Goulash Communism", I think it was called. In fact, as a whole most of the Eastern Bloc states were quite a bit more liberalised than the Soviet Union itself, with the obvious exception of Romania.


I don't think that we should be making excuses for imperialism. Clearly, to me, your Marxist-Leninist ideology clouds your judgement makes you adopt a more apologetic attitude than warrants the situation. We could insist that the post-World War II situation of the Netherlands was chaotic and marked by the need to rebuild the Netherlands and therefore say that, while not justified, the imperialist war against Indonesia was understandable (you adopt a similar position regarding the USSR's role in the Eastern bloc, with the same logic). But this is clearly not a justifiable position to adopt.

I could, but a full-on war in a colonised country is a much different thing to a post-war occupation. And really the only place it can be considered a true occupation is East Germany, which of course didn't gain independence until 1949. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania etc. had their native governments reinstalled after the war, and most of them didn't even turn fully Communist until around 1948. I fully recognise that the USSR was responsible for detrimental effects on Eastern Europe in the first 10 years after the war, I just don't think that means I need to dismantle my entire ideological position over it.


To admit the USSR was imperialist in at least some regards is to open the door to the notion that the USSR was state-capitalist rather than lower-phase communist. Which is irreconcilable with Marxism-Leninism. So understandably you are wary of admitting this--from your ideological stance, at least.
While you seem to condemn, at least in part, the occupation, you are still too defensive of imperialism. Whether this imperialism extended beyond 1955 is not relevant whether we call the occupation of Eastern Europe from 1944-1955 imperialism or not.

Maybe I just have a more broader definition of what state-capitalism could be defined as. Considering that Soviet imperialism, in the traditional sense of attempting to extract profit from another nation for your own nation's gain, didn't really exist post-1955 I still assert that Soviet policy was strongly Socialist in all other regards. In fact, most of the instances that I often see given as examples of the Soviet Union's "imperialistic nature", such as Hungary '56 and Czechoslovakia '68, were based entirely around the need to maintain Communist political control over the region rather than to economically exploit those countries.

[jookyle]

Not only does China surpress actual communists in their own country but now they're doing it elsewhere. It's like they're America or something.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Not only does China surpress actual communists in their own country but now they're doing it elsewhere. It's like they're America or something.
China is like the Neoliberal's wet dream. The capitalists have completely taken control of and are synonymous with the government. There will never be any economic or political restrictions placed on businesses in the PRC because they practically run the state.

[erupt]

What are you implying here? That Soviet policy outside of the already Socialist states was imperialist? The USSR, unlike the USA, did not attempt to illegally depose of governments that lied outside of what was already considered it's sphere of influence. Infact, history showed I think that the Soviets were quite eager at any point to position themselves as anti-imperialists when it came to the third world's issues, what with their support for the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions, and the funding and education they gave many Africans and the Socialistic movements within their countries throughout the Cold War. You could probably argue that Soviet policy was much more imperialistic within it's own bloc, if you'd like to class 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia as such a thing.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but did territorial disputes play into the Vietnamese-Cambodian war? I was under the impression they intervened just to kick out the Khmer Rouge, but I don't know much about it to be honest.



It's strongly debatable whether or not the territory that was Eastern Poland at that time could really be considered "Polish". Many would probably claim it was more of a reunification with Soviet Belarus and Ukraine than a partitioning.



Hard to say. But while we can spend all day debating about what Brezhnev or any other Soviet leader might have done or wanted to do, what matters is what actually happened. And I personally don't think the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan can be claimed as an invasion in any way. The Afghan Communists brought themselves to power entirely on their own, and by overthrowing a government that was already relatively pro-Soviet beforehand. They actually requested the Soviet Army to intervene after the rise of the Mujahideen and as the USA began to get their hands in the whole affair.



Pretty sure this was exactly what happened, yeah. Particularly in East Germany where the Soviets had large parts of it's industry stripped out to repair their territories that had been ravaged by the war. I don't think many could really approve of their actions at the time, but considering what an utter state Europe was in back then I don't think it's much use slapping labels of "imperialism" here, there, and everywhere when it's clear that said policies didn't continue after the situation had stabilised in the 50s and 60s.



I somewhat agree. But as I said before, this wasn't a permanent situation. What was a very rocky and unstable relationship between the USSR and Eastern Europe immediately after the war transformed into one of mostly co-operation in later years. Massive efforts were made by the populace and the local Socialist governments to rebuild the cities of the Eastern Bloc, just as was the situation in the west. And while the Marshall Plan did do it's own amount of good for Europe I don't think we can call it much better when it was effectively bribery by the USA to keep European nations from straying to the red side, it's own form of imperialism that was readily accepted by the rulers of the west.

The Eastern Bloc is by far a better example, I know.

Concerning the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, I have been under the impression that the Vietnamese did not pack up and return to Vietnam; I believe they held a presence/influence in the eastern portion of Cambodia for ten years after the fact.

If it was in fact Soviet Belarus or Soviet Ukraine instead of Poland, it makes no difference. What happened to the people there says everything, and I can't say I'm happy at all with what the Soviets did, let alone the Nazi occupation in the western sphere. I know the Soviets were buying time, but this allowed for the Germans to gain a foothold for what became Operation Barbarossa.

You're also correct about the "what if" scenario, but I must say that whether or not it was warranted or asked for by the Afghanis, it's still considered an invasion to me. When the 26th of July Movement landed in Cuba and fought the dictatorial, thuggish Batista regime, I still call it in invasion; just like when American imperialism once again reared it's ugly head in the Bay of Pigs debacle.

[Crimson Commissar]

Concerning the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, I have been under the impression that the Vietnamese did not pack up and return to Vietnam; I believe they held a presence/influence in the eastern portion of Cambodia for ten years after the fact.

Was this really an act of imperialism, however? I suppose it depends what we're defining it as here. Did the Vietnamese have anything to gain other than political influence by remaining in Cambodia?


If it was in fact Soviet Belarus or Soviet Ukraine instead of Poland, it makes no difference. What happened to the people there says everything, and I can't say I'm happy at all with what the Soviets did, let alone the Nazi occupation in the western sphere. I know the Soviets were buying time, but this allowed for the Germans to gain a foothold for what became Operation Barbarossa.

I don't quite understand. You think it would have been better for the Soviets to allow the territory to fall into Nazi hands? The inhabitants there were much better off under the USSR rather than with the threat of Nazi dictatorship and extermination of their people looming above them. And the Germans would have only had even more of a foothold if they had control over what was then Eastern Poland before starting Barbarossa, even if not by much.


You're also correct about the "what if" scenario, but I must say that whether or not it was warranted or asked for by the Afghanis, it's still considered an invasion to me. When the 26th of July Movement landed in Cuba and fought the dictatorial, thuggish Batista regime, I still call it in invasion; just like when American imperialism once again reared it's ugly head in the Bay of Pigs debacle.

Well, I'd argue that an invasion by your terms isn't necessarily an act of imperialism then. Unless you're trying to tell me that the Cuban Revolution was imperialistic too. :p

[l'Enfermé]

^Soviet-occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, annexed after the German-Soviet invasion of Poland, didn't receive a much gentler(if gentler at all) treatment than German-occupied Western Poland during the 1939-1941 period(i.e until Barbarossa). Around a million and a half people were deported to Kazahstan, Northern Russia, etc. Of these, around 700,000 are said to have died, a third of them children. The last big wave of deportations actually occurred in June, the month Hitler betrayed his pretend-ally and invaded the USSR.

[erupt]

Was this really an act of imperialism, however? I suppose it depends what we're defining it as here. Did the Vietnamese have anything to gain other than political influence by remaining in Cambodia?

I don't quite understand. You think it would have been better for the Soviets to allow the territory to fall into Nazi hands? The inhabitants there were much better off under the USSR rather than with the threat of Nazi dictatorship and extermination of their people looming above them. And the Germans would have only had even more of a foothold if they had control over what was then Eastern Poland before starting Barbarossa, even if not by much.

Well, I'd argue that an invasion by your terms isn't necessarily an act of imperialism then. Unless you're trying to tell me that the Cuban Revolution was imperialistic too. :p
Regarding the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea, I agree. The only thing, even in Western sources, that I see or have heard of that they would "gain" is territory. But, in this regard, if their was nothing to gain, as you've said and which I find hard to believe, I agree that in no way is it imperialistic.

Concerning Poland, the people weren't "much better off," although, yes, I'd rather be under the Soviet Union's thumb rather than Nazi Germany's simply because of the Third Reich's "policy" regarding "inferior" ethnicities, races, etc.

I don't understand your logic, to be frank, concerning the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, if nothing was signed, war may have started earlier, but here we go with "maybes" again. From what I understand, just like the Soviet Union had to buy time to recover, so did Nazi Germany. In my opinion, it was nothing but a land grab that Hitler had in mind for new land for Germans while buying time, but it was also a land grab of Stalin's in that he wanted a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and Germany, while buying time. To keep their geographical sides ready for impending battle with one another, both nations ruled with an iron fist..with lead in the middle. In other words, in my opinion, Poland became like a sort of vast demilitarized zone between Germany and the Soviet Union, with a country's amount of people in it. I will not condone the subjugation by either side in any manner.

Regarding invasions in relation to imperialism, in no way are all invasions imperialistic, as I mentioned above. The way I understand it, invasions existed long before feudalism, capitalism, or socialism, therefore it existed long before imperialism, for the most part. I still say their are some instances from antiquity where us leftists would consider certain city-states, nations, certain groups of cavemen even, "imperialistic," though.

No, I wouldn't or couldn't call the Cuban Revolution, let alone hardly any revolution, communist or not, imperialist. There usually isn't much to gain from a revolution, other than political, social, or economic power.

[hetz]

Soviet-occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, annexed after the German-Soviet invasion of Poland, didn't receive a much gentler(if gentler at all) treatment than German-occupied Western Poland during the 1939-1941 periodExcept that the Soviets didn't build gas chambers and kill some 5 million people.

[Omsk]

Stalinets, pay little attention to the nationalist Borz, or his weak attempts to portray the liberation of Ukraine and Belarus as a wild, genocide. He does not care for facts, but he has a wild imagination, and has a good understanding of English, so he can go on an on about things.

This information below is for you, read it and construct your own arguments, and argue with them, since i don't have the time to debate, and since i am not feeling too good again. I think this is more than enough.
Here is some information about the stance of many of the Eastern-Europeans who were present in Poland when the Soviet liberation started:
The arrival of the Red Army was not only unopposed by the population; there are evidences that it was hailed with passionate joy. "Russian troops went into Poland without firing a shot and were seen marching side-by-side with the retiring Polish troops," said the first Associated Press dispatch.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 165


Ukrainian girls hung flowers on the tanks of the arriving Red Army.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 168


Few people who know the racial composition of Eastern Poland doubted that the population had resented the rule of Warsaw and felt "liberated" when the Red Army came.... Even the Polish Government--in--Exile did not venture to declare the Red Army's march an act of war.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 169


Deputies from Grodno told how the Jewish and Byelo-Russian workers of the city had organized their own militia before the Red Army came and had rushed out and helped build a bridge for it into the city under the fire of Polish officers.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 169

These fragments are about the treatment of the people who were transported to the USSR, because of the danger of a German attack on the border and because of the chaotic situation in the East.

Poles in fairly large numbers were deported to various places in the Soviet Union. Letters received by their relatives in Europe and America showed that they were scattered all over the USSR; the sending of the letters also indicated that they were not under surveillance but merely deported away from the border district. The Soviet authorities claimed that former Polish officers and military colonists had done considerable sabotage and kept the people disturbed by rumors of imminent invasions by Romanian and British troops.... Most of them then stated that they fully understood the necessity of the Red Army's march into Poland.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 170


As for the treatment of the Baltic Germans, read this segment:

They [the Baltic Germans--ed.] formed the upper class in the Baltic states. For centuries they had been the outpost of German imperialism eastward; they owned the big estates and dominated the industries. At the time of the Russian revelation, much of the native population sided with the Bolsheviks; it was the Baltic Germans who overthrew the local Red governments, calling the troops of the Kaiser to their aid. The removal of these Baltic Germans by Soviet pressure on Hitler scattered what was, for the USSR the most dangerous Nazi fifth column anywhere in Europe. Baltic newspapers expressed regret mingled with pleasure at their going, and remarked that it gave the natives a chance at the better -- paid jobs.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 178

This is also important: Americans still speak of Stalin as "Hitler's accomplice" in cynically dividing Poland. But Winston Churchill said in a radio broadcast October 1st: "The Soviets have stopped the Nazis in Eastern Poland; I only wish they were doing it as our allies." Bernard Shaw, in the London Times, gave "three cheers for Stalin," who had given Hitler "his first set-back." Even Prime Minister Chamberlain sourly told the House of Commons, October 26: "It has been necessary for the Red Army to occupy part of Poland as protection against Germany." The Polish government-in-exile, which was in flight through Romania at the time but reached London some weeks later, never ventured to declare that Soviet march an act of war.
The population of the area did not oppose the Russian troops but welcomed them with joy. Most were not Poles but Ukrainians and Byelorussians. U.S. Ambassador Biddle reported that the people accepted the Russians "as doing a policing job." Dispatches told of Russian troops marching side-by-side with retiring Polish troops, of Ukrainian girls hanging garlands on Russian tanks. The Polish commander of the Lvov garrison, who for several days had been fighting against German attacks on three sides, quickly surrendered to the Red Army when it appeared on the fourth side, saying: "There is no Polish government left to give me orders and I have no orders to fight the Bolsheviks."
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 80


This is also crucial: Units of the Byelorussians and Kiev special military districts met no resistance in crossing the Polish frontier. Stalin read dispatches from Timoshenko, Vatutin, Purkaev, Gordov, Khrushchev and others. One from Mekhlis drew his special attention:
"The Ukrainian population is meeting our army like true liberators.... The population is greeting our troops and officers; they bring out apples, pies, drinking water and try to thrust them into our soldiers’ hands. As a rule, even advance units are being met by entire populations coming out on to the streets. Many weep with joy.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 359

The troops were allowed to use their weapons only if attacked. Only isolated armed clashes took place. There was in fact no resistance. The ethnic majority, being Ukrainians and Byelorussians, sincerely welcomed the arrival of the Soviet forces.
...In June 1940 the Soviet government succeeded in recovering Bessarabia and the northern Bukovina by peaceful means, and by agreement with the Rumanian government the frontier was re-established along the rivers Prut and Danube. The Moldavian Soviet Republic had been formed.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 361

[The CPSU Chairman]

Regarding the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, I attempted to illustrate that countries that claim they are "socialist" or "Marxist" will still go to war with each other concerning territory. I certainly agree the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge probably made it much easier to gain popular support in the newly independent Vietnam for a new, regional war.

The Vietnamese-Cambodian war wasn't about territorial expansion. It also wasn't about economic exploitation, so it wasn't imperialistic by either of those definitions. It started because the Khmer Rouge was a racist anti-Vietnamese regime that kept launching raids across the border and slaughtering Vietnamese peasants. In response, Vietnam launched an invasion and ended the Khmer Rouge regime, putting a more Soviet-style government in its place.


Concerning the WWII era discussion points, I agree that realpolitik-wise, it bought the USSR time. But I must disagree that because Poland had a "proto-fascist government," it should be partitioned.

The Soviets only took back what Poland had stolen from the Soviet Union 20 years prior. The people of the territory that the Soviet Union took from Poland were, by and large, not Poles; they were Byelorussians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians, all of whom were second-class citizens under Polish rule.


Finally, concerning late 1970's Afghanistan, you don't think that Brezhnev wouldn't have minded an "Afghani Soviet Socialist Republic?"

What do you base that on? The Afghan communists had to beg Brezhnev for over a year before he finally acquiesced to their increasingly desperate requests for military intervention.

[hetz]

This information below is for you, read it and construct your own arguments, and argue with them, since i don't have the time to debate, and since i am not feeling too good again. I think this is more than enough.Thanks for the info, but I don't feel like arguing anymore after what he wrote about the "national-liberation" struggle of Chechens in 1940-1944 and so on.