How do you feel about war?

[Aware]

To present my question easily, I'll present polar views.

In relation to communism, particularly anarchist currents, is war completely immoral, a tool of terror perfected by the state never to be used?

Or

Does any communist movement have a duty to war with the brutal regimes of this world, and liberate their fellows human beings?

If you can't tell from the voice I was using, I favor the latter view.

What do you think?

[Blake's Baby]

Those are the options?

Neither.

[Bala Perdida]

War, as I see it, should be a last resort solution (I'm not sure what else to call it). Basically after all other means have been attempted and exhausted or destroyed by the regime should warfare be used. The other means being protest and civil disobedience, this involves turning the enforcement (police and military) against enforcer (regime) .
If you are going to launch a war you have to be as clean with your army as possible. To much atrocities leads to public discontent and state propaganda against the opposition.

Today war is used by most regimes to get their way or strengthen their grip. It should be avoided for as long as possible before being executed.

[Aware]

Those are the options?

Neither.
Those aren't the only options, of course. Ideally, I would hope any successful revolution anywhere would have the strength to also lead revolution across the planet. To some, the ideal might mean a completely bloodless revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Right. I reject your polarisation of the question into 'pacifism v humanitarian war'.

Neither. Present better options.

[erupt]

To present my question easily, I'll present polar views.

In relation to communism, particularly anarchist currents, is war completely immoral, a tool of terror perfected by the state never to be used?

Or

Does any communist movement have a duty to war with the brutal regimes of this world, and liberate their fellows human beings?

If you can't tell from the voice I was using, I favor the latter view.

What do you think?

If I had to pick from these two, I'd have to say that an armed struggle is almost always going to happen. It's terrible it usually occurs this way, but if it does, I don't oppose fighting back violently..which I consider "war".

It might seem stupid, but an analogy might help:

In school, let's say a child is being bullied. Usually, the only way to stop the bully, is for the bullied kid to stand up for himself. Sometimes "telling" on the bully may work, but it usually continues again if that happens. So, a confrontation usually resolves, or at least drastically alters, the situation.

[Aware]

I wasn't trying to. I'm asking what your specific view would be in regards to that question.

[AmilcarCabral]

Of course wars are evil, wars are legalized mass murdering of people. But we have to analyze imperialist wars from a scientific point of view, and realize that wars are the consequence of big nations with lots of corporations and businesses and a hungry wealthy ruling class hungry for the robbery of resources and wealth from other nations and for example installing Mcdonalds, Wal Marts, Burger Kings, Exxon gas stations in other nations and the neoliberal economic model thru the military invasion of other countries

In the book "The Republic" by Plato, it says that wars was a consequence of the expanding economy of the Roman Empire

In other words wars are not waged because the ruling class of imperialist military nations decide to kill a bunch of people from other nations. But they are the natural consequence of big economies

And socialism (workers-dictatorships) and its next stage: communism (anarchist-communism) is the only solution to see a world without wars


.


To present my question easily, I'll present polar views.

In relation to communism, particularly anarchist currents, is war completely immoral, a tool of terror perfected by the state never to be used?

Or

Does any communist movement have a duty to war with the brutal regimes of this world, and liberate their fellows human beings?

If you can't tell from the voice I was using, I favor the latter view.

What do you think?

[Aware]

If I had to pick from these two, I'd have to say that an armed struggle is almost always going to happen. It's terrible it usually occurs this way, but if it does, I don't oppose fighting back violently..which I consider "war".

It might seem stupid, but an analogy might help:

In school, let's say a child is being bullied. Usually, the only way to stop the bully, is for the bullied kid to stand up for himself. Sometimes "telling" on the bully may work, but it usually continues again if that happens. So, a confrontation usually resolves, or at least drastically alters, the situation.
I agree. Those in control would never willingly give up their power. They must be forced out. To me, trying to avoid a war with them is pointless.

[Aware]

Of course wars are evil, wars are legalized mass murdering of people. But we have to analyze imperialist wars from a scientific point of view, and realize that wars are the consequence of big nations with lots of corporations and businesses and a hungry wealthy ruling class hungry for the robbery of resources and wealth from other nations and for example installing Mcdonalds, Wal Marts, Burger Kings, Exxon gas stations in other nations and the neoliberal economic model thru the military invasion of other countries

In the book "The Republic" by Plato, it says that wars was a consequence of the expanding economy of the Roman Empire

In other words wars are not waged because the ruling class of imperialist military nations decide to kill a bunch of people from other nations. But they are the natural consequence of big economies

And socialism (workers-dictatorships) and its next stage: communism (anarchist-communism) is the only solution to see a world without wars


.
Wars are not always waged for economic reasons. Most wars were fought for religion/ideology, and it is only until relatively recently in human history that war started becoming more and more economic in motivation (given that a society's understanding of economics is molded by ideology anyway).

If revolution were to succeed in whichever country, the remaining capitalist countries would probably intervene, war being one of their tactics. How could the revolutionary country not participate in war? Either that or they would be guaranteed to perish. Even though most wars are indeed evil, not all need be.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What do I think about war? War! HUH. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

[d3crypt]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljs98xRQWY1qh7ydmo1_500.jpg

[FreedomForAll]

I've always seen war as two men fighting who have nothing against the other. The vast majority of wars have been over greed from one nation wanting what the other has or religious and political ideological conflicts. I'm against war, and I don't think anyone has a duty to engage in it. Rarely does war ever result in positive things. A revolution can be head in those nations of whose duty you say it could be ours to save, not needed from a foreign nation.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I've always seen war as two men fighting who have nothing against the other. The vast majority of wars have been over greed from one nation wanting what the other has or religious and political ideological conflicts. I'm against war, and I don't think anyone has a duty to engage in it. Rarely does war ever result in positive things. A revolution can be head in those nations of whose duty you say it could be ours to save, not needed from a foreign nation.

You don't think you have a "duty" to fight for a revolutionary movement? You probably should if there's a communist revolution which will undoubtedly be attacked from all sides by other armies. I hope other allies wouldn't share the same view but would feel compelled to physically put their lives on a battlefield if need be.

War doesn't work positively for who? How many rich war mongers could we name connected to the "defense" industry? How many times has the state rolled through a country closely followed by McDonalds and Walmart? There are always winners and losers in wars, what is considered positive is entirely up to your perspective, where you fit in the capitalist system, etc, etc. Coming from a lower class background, it's easy to see how wars negatively effect us historically because we don't make the politics, we are going to go die for their interests that run diametrically opposed to ours. "not needed from a foreign nation". I don't really understand what your last sentence says but if a "foreign" workers state extended their hand to help out you wouldn't take it? Why? Because they're people from a different land?

[FreedomForAll]

You don't think you have a "duty" to fight for a revolutionary movement? You probably should if there's a communist revolution which will undoubtedly be attacked from all sides by other armies. I hope other allies wouldn't share the same view but would feel compelled to physically put their lives on a battlefield if need be.

Ah forgive me, I was referring to wars in general. Of course I would fight in a communist revolution for our side! I'm not afraid to physically risk my life for the greater good of the people. I would not risk my life in a regular war for corporate interests or for those ideals which are not communistic in their origin, but would definitely fight for a communist revolution on a large scale or one occurring nearby.


War doesn't work positively for who? How many rich war mongers could we name connected to the "defense" industry? How many times has the state rolled through a country closely followed by McDonalds and Walmart? There are always winners and losers in wars, what is considered positive is entirely up to your perspective, where you fit in the capitalist system, etc, etc.

Indeed that is all very true what you posted. I would state that the only ones who benefit are big corporations and the politicians who are sitting in their pockets. If you aren't a major arms dealer or some corporation benefiting after the war as you stated, you have only much to lose.


Coming from a lower class background, it's easy to see how wars negatively effect us historically because we don't make the politics, we are going to go die for their interests that run diametrically opposed to ours.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. When the rich go to war, the poor die, to quote someone I've since forgotten. The working class pays the price, but gains no benefit from the war's outcome, unless as you previously stated, it is a Revolutionary War - which is less a war of one nation against another, but rather an uprising of the people against the state's forces.


"not needed from a foreign nation". I don't really understand what your last sentence says but if a "foreign" workers state extended their hand to help out you wouldn't take it? Why? Because they're people from a different land?

Ah yes I would indeed take the help if given. I think it was my poor grammar in my previous post that may have confused you. What I meant to say is that I would gladly fight in a revolutionary conflict but not in a senseless nation vs nation war that only advances an ideology I don't agree with.

To sum up my position: the only conflicts worth fighting are those which advance the interests of the people at large, not just the elite. Conflicts of nations really goes against our ideology, unless the nation in conflict is a communistic one, in which case it is our duty to defend it if we can and especially if we reside inside it, but not our duty to fight in senseless wars which do not benefit our cause or the people.

Hopefully I clarified, sorry if my poor grammar made that confusing.

[Kris]

War should be waged against the state. Not between states.

[Guerillero]

I think war can be the cleaning of an unbearable piece. Imagine, Nazi Germany wouldn't have started WWII, but killed Jews and opponents, wouldn't it be necessary to start war against it? I think the condemnation of war could lead to a peace which is dominated by economic arbitrariness, but of course in general war should be avoided and reduced to a defensive measure.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://davidwaterston.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/war_is_groovy_by_paul_myers.jpg

In a nutshell, it's pretty lame, a fancy way of saying murder, treachery and mayhem, really.

[redblackandgay]

Those aren't the only options, of course. Ideally, I would hope any successful revolution anywhere would have the strength to also lead revolution across the planet. To some, the ideal might mean a completely bloodless revolution.

This. Ideally no blood will be spilled and we can figure our shit out without resorting to war, which is of course, evil, but will most likely be necessary on some level. Even when the majority is awake, aware and ready to revolt, those in power will not give it up so easily. They have proven their indifference to human suffering, we have seen the weapons at their disposal and when they are exposed, I doubt there will be much to stop them from using their full destructive force to make us submit. Which is exactly why we can't. Those in the higher echelons of government, military etc. are probably going to have to die, it's ok though, they don't have souls.

[RedBen]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a248/skinheadoioicrap/idontlikeit.jpg

[Lokomotive293]

I don't agree with either of your options. I think there are certain progressive wars that Communists have a duty to fight (e.g. civil war in a revolutionary situation, or defensive wars of a socialist country), but I don't think we should attack capitalist countries and bring them socialism through the bomb, which is what your second option seems to be.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that talking about war in the abstract is pretty useless - akin to saying "are you for or against politics?" Well, what politics?
After all, a certain level of violence - what Tiqqun calls "civil war" - is implicit in the context of "empire". So, for example, at our current juncture, where do we draw the distinction? Is Canada at war with Haiti? There have been boots on the ground there for 10 years come March. Is Canada at war with Indigenous nations within its borders? At what point does the degree of violence become suitably "exceptional" as to constitute war? In what circumstance is counter-violence acceptable, and what is a sufficiently "military" target?
My point being, I don't think it makes any sense to draw a distinction between war and peace at this point - though there are certainly specificities that need to be grappled with (The USA isn't the DRC, Korea - officially at war - is not Afghanistan, etc.).

[boiler]

The only way to defeat imperialist powers is through waging war. These imperialist powers invade smaller weaker countries, are countries just suppose to let themselves be invaded and taken over by imperialists, the people just let themselves be in slaved? No they fight. The same imperialist powers will just keep doing the same things, unless they are defeated themselves. It will just go on and on. So I think war is necessary to defeat these powers.

[Blake's Baby]

'Countries'. Like, capitalist states, do you mean?

[Geiseric]

"war is simply the continuation of politics by other means," Carl Von Clausewitz. The working class has no option to wage a revolutionary war against bourgeois states because those states will stop at nothing to crush any revolutionary movement, as we've seen happen again, and again, and again.

[boiler]

'Countries'. Like, capitalist states, do you mean?

Some would be capitalist states, some wouldn't be exactly a capitalist state.

[LiamChe]

Most wars are bourgeoisie and chauvinist, but I agree with Boiler that war is necessary for the Proletariat to free themselves from the Bourgeoisie. WWII, the Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Chinese Civil War etc are all good examples of how sometimes it is necessary for the Proletariat to wage war on the Bourgeousie and Fascism, of course circumstances were obviously different in WWII in that it was a fight between global imperialist powers, fascism, the USSR, and the global proletariat. There is no room for pacifism in the struggle for communism.

[Sabot Cat]

Excepting of course those I love who make life worth living, I am one who values my life above all else, for without it I could not value other things, and as such I cannot say that I would be willing to participate in a war with the knowledge that I could and probably will die. Therefore, I do not feel personally justified in reclining in a comfortable armchair and calling for others to fight.

That is more of an emotive reason than a rational one, so I shall expound upon the latter as well. I believe that all people should value their lives as I do, because their lives are similarly superlative in preciousness. Thus as a general rule, armed conflict is something that should be avoided because it almost always scars, maims and destroys the people who are affected. The only exception to this maxim is the scenario in which the lives of those sacrificed will be less than the lives spent by refraining from war; but such utilitarian arithmetic is often impracticable without the benefit of hindsight. This is the case with Nazi Germany, as I believe that the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union could have easily banded together and crushed the fascist incursion before the dread machinery of the Holocaust ever began whirring. Furthermore, what could have been done about the inhumanities of Pol Pot, or the many victims of the Rwandan Genocide, if any powerful nation had truly raised their weapons against them? So despite my personal disdain for war, I can recognize that there are some cases in which armed struggle would be more ethical than abstaining from it.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yo, this is theory not chit-chat. Pictures and other one-liners shouldn't be posted in here.

[Rafiq]

The Communists will gift to the world a thousand years of war. Communism is an ideology of war, it is only through war that we attain power. We will bring upon the Earth an eternal war that will dwarf the wars of capitalist powers. Our war will set fire to the hearts of the revolution's children, and the world will know that finally, the true war has begun.

[Lily Briscoe]

The Communists will gift to the world a thousand years of war. Communism is an ideology of war, it is only through war that we attain power. We will bring upon the Earth an eternal war that will dwarf the wars of capitalist powers.
This has got to be literally the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.

[Rafiq]

"war is simply the continuation of politics by other means," Carl Von Clausewitz. The working class has no option to wage a revolutionary war against bourgeois states because those states will stop at nothing to crush any revolutionary movement, as we've seen happen again, and again, and again.

Precisely. The revolution in Russia would have lasted longer had the likes of Frunze or Tukhachevsky (the military) attained power, as they would likely wage an offensive war of conquest on the rest of Europe.

[Rafiq]

This has got to be literally the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.

Communism is the ideology of the class conscious proletariat. The proletariat, in a state of class consciousness necessarily is opposed to the existing state of things. That alone already entails war.

[Rafiq]

I don't agree with either of your options. I think there are certain progressive wars that Communists have a duty to fight (e.g. civil war in a revolutionary situation, or defensive wars of a socialist country), but I don't think we should attack capitalist countries and bring them socialism through the bomb, which is what your second option seems to be.

I think in cases where a revolution in a hostile capitalist state is impossible, then war is inevitable. Imagine if there was a revolution in the United States (the most likely contender of all of the world, in the long term). It would be besieged by every known capitalist power as Russia was.

[Logical seal]

Well bro, The fact of life right now is, The capitalists are brutel, Real fucking brutel, Peaceful elections wont get us shit, They assassinate/arrest the leaders or make them entirely anoymous.


And a peaceful revoultion wont happen cuz'dey just start shooting us down


We need to take down every single capitalist motherfucker with firearms and blood, and if they unarmed, trainquilised and jali.

[Lokomotive293]

I think in cases where a revolution in a hostile capitalist state is impossible, then war is inevitable. Imagine if there was a revolution in the United States (the most likely contender of all of the world, in the long term). It would be besieged by every known capitalist power as Russia was.

The Bolsheviks were right not to just start a global "revolutionary war of conquest" or whatever, but to make peace with Germany, even on very unfavorable terms. That gave them time to rebuild their country (which had already gone through three years of war), and start building a socialist economy. Don't forget that the demands of the revolution were "Peace, Land and Bread".
Russia was not able to fight a "revolutionary war" against Germany, neither logistically, nor would they have had the support of the people. They would have lost, and the first socialist country in the world would have been pretty short-lived.
Instead, the USSR became so strong in such a short time that they were not only able to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII, but also became the center of a worldwide anti-imperialist and socialist movement that was able to hold the Imperialists in check for quite some time.

I will not say this is how it will always be, because that depends on the specific situation (The truth is always concrete). However, it is a situation that we can learn from. Also keep in mind that most people won't like it too much if you invade their country and say "Now, I will bring you socialism.", and that there is no socialism, unless the self-conscious masses build it.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I feel it is awful given it's capacity to cause harm to millions through death, maiming, rape and destruction. It gives human beings free license to do whatever the fuck they want to other human beings provided they are 'the enemy' and it's for a 'good cause' / backed by their government.
Icky politicians the world over deal in it far too often and treat it far too lightly (because they, and those they care for, are not the ones being employed to go and fight).

[Aware]

Thank you, logical seal! I don't hear that very often. The war is already very much real, they have simply gotten good at covering it up, even right in front of us. People forget that.

[reb]

The Communists will gift to the world a thousand years of war. Communism is an ideology of war, it is only through war that we attain power. We will bring upon the Earth an eternal war that will dwarf the wars of capitalist powers. Our war will set fire to the hearts of the revolution's children, and the world will know that finally, the true war has begun.

Are you Conan the Barbarian now?

[Aware]

Dude. Rafiq. Idk whether to scream fascist or hug you. But like you said before, yes, all the other capitalist countries would invade and "aid the restoration of the American government." Just like in any country. They are a united global front, nations and states at this point are nothing but playthings to them, things to draw up, redraw, invaded, invest in, deplete, and etc. etc. there is no American capitalist class, there is no European, or Chinese, or Indonesian capitalist class, because they are all one class; a revolution in one country is a threat to the entire system. Finally doing away with capitalism would require constant warfare, because at this point, the technology they posses, would allow them to sustain warfare on a scale that would dwarf WWII. They will never willing give up. And with the bipedal military and mini tank robots that are coming online, they could fight with a tiny operating population.

[Rafiq]

The Bolsheviks were right not to just start a global "revolutionary war of conquest" or whatever, but to make peace with Germany, even on very unfavorable terms. That gave them time to rebuild their country (which had already gone through three years of war), and start building a socialist economy. Don't forget that the demands of the revolution were "Peace, Land and Bread".
Russia was not able to fight a "revolutionary war" against Germany, neither logistically, nor would they have had the support of the people. They would have lost, and the first socialist country in the world would have been pretty short-lived.
Instead, the USSR became so strong in such a short time that they were not only able to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII, but also became the center of a worldwide anti-imperialist and socialist movement that was able to hold the Imperialists in check for quite some time.

I will not say this is how it will always be, because that depends on the specific situation (The truth is always concrete). However, it is a situation that we can learn from. Also keep in mind that most people won't like it too much if you invade their country and say "Now, I will bring you socialism.", and that there is no socialism, unless the self-conscious masses build it.

These conditions would not likely apply to the United States. For a time an offensive war is unrealistic, but towards the beginning of the NEP it was certainly a viable course of action.

[Rafiq]

Are you Conan the Barbarian now?

I'm not familiar with that.

[reb]

I'm not familiar with that.

You should maybe read the books, you might learn some new phrase for your bellicose posts.

[Per Levy]

The Communists will gift to the world a thousand years of war. Communism is an ideology of war, it is only through war that we attain power. We will bring upon the Earth an eternal war that will dwarf the wars of capitalist powers. Our war will set fire to the hearts of the revolution's children, and the world will know that finally, the true war has begun.

you know, if you switch communism with satan and capitalism with christianity you'll have a good start for a black metal song.


I'm not familiar with that.

by crom, conan was everywhere, movies, cartoons not to mention the kinda lovecraftian books by robert e. howard.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm not familiar with that.

Conan the Barbarian was a pulp fiction protagonist in a series set in a low fantasy or sword and sorcery interpretation of the prehistoric past, which glorified brute force typified by victory in combat and war. He was the creation of Robert E. Howard, a prolific author for magazine publications and a longtime correspondent of H.P. Lovecraft (who spawned the entire Cthulhu mythos); Howard could also be characterized, not without accuracy, as a racist reactionary who often incorporated many of the tropes that would become central to Nazi Germany's national myth of a superior white race with mystical prehistoric roots. That might not be entirely fair, as he did have some interesting and noteworthy world-building, but he is nonetheless one who appeals to a bloodthirsty pathos.

[RedGuevara]

Personally I think every means of fighting imperialism and Capitalism should be exhausted but if the day comes when the money bags start firing on comrades or the day come when war is a necessity, I'll put my chips on the table and get ready for a fight. I don't want to fight if I don't have to but I won't turn a blind eye. War seems inevitable before liberation can occur and I'll always support a Communist fight even if it's with my own two hands.

[Rafiq]

Conan the Barbarian was a pulp fiction protagonist in a series set in a low fantasy or sword and sorcery interpretation of the prehistoric past, which glorified brute force typified by victory in combat and war. He was the creation of Robert E. Howard, a prolific author for magazine publications and a longtime correspondent of H.P. Lovecraft (who spawned the entire Cthulhu mythos); Howard could also be characterized, not without accuracy, as a racist reactionary who often incorporated many of the tropes that would become central to Nazi Germany's national myth of a superior white race with mystical prehistoric roots. That might not be entirely fair, as he did have some interesting and noteworthy world-building, but he is nonetheless one who appeals to a bloodthirsty pathos.

Sounds like something Mongol esque. The cause of the barbaric hoards we have found so much in history is a trivial, simplistic one. A war of conquest akin to Alexander or Napoleon is what I mean when I speak of it. You just don't understand, the lot of you. As a social myth, a useful one, Communism must necessarily be the true and final cause of the human species, one that will divide the entire Earth into two factions, one that will shake the very foundations of our universe, that will violate the laws of nature itself. Communism must necessarily be apocalyptic. This is not dishonest or objectively untrue, it reflects a deeper, rational drive that can most effectively be expressed through mysticism, namely the class struggle. The forces bourgeois revolution did not know the objectively real nature of their struggle as marx did, but their mystifications and ideology were expressions of that very real struggle, when Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe he did so with a social myth driving him, he did not attempt to explain (perhaps maybe he did not know himself) that he was a result of complex changes in Frances superstructure and that he was securing the political and social institutions of Europe to make way for capitalist production.

[Rafiq]

I realize it (Conan) is a joke, but it is a false joke, the fact that that was your first impression is a bigger one.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

It's been said that war is the health of the state. I don't believe that's always the case, but it can definitely be blamed on the State 9 times out of 10.

That being said, I do not believe that socialism (and communism) will neccessarily end all war as we know it. People will always disagree with each other. And where there is disagreement, there is the eternal seed of war.

[Rafiq]

That being said, I do not believe that socialism (and communism) will neccessarily end all war as we know it. People will always disagree with each other. And where there is disagreement, there is the eternal seed of war.

War will end with class conflict. If you think war is a result of disagreements between people, you don't understand it. Yes there will always be fights and petty conflicts on personal and individual levels, but war is 100% systemic, and 100% tied to social relations. A bar fight isn't a minimized war. Let me put it this way, war is political. With an end to class antagonism, it ceases to exist.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

War is just organized violence. Violence can be a solution but it should only be the last resort. If a person feels obligated to fight for the purpose of "liberating their fellow human beings" then that it is entirely their business but should not expect the right to conscript others.

[Lensky]

You should maybe read the books, you might learn some new phrase for your bellicose posts.

This liberal shit is mad depressing, we need an ideology of action, not pacifism and intellectualism.

[Lokomotive293]

This liberal shit is mad depressing, we need an ideology of action, not pacifism and intellectualism.

Pacifism is wrong. But so is glorifying violence. Socialism is an ideology of peace. We will fight if we have to, but I think the kind of bloodlust some people on here are showing is kind of alarming - even though, of course, what people post on some forum will most likely not reflect how they would act in a real life situation.


These conditions would not likely apply to the United States. For a time an offensive war is unrealistic, but towards the beginning of the NEP it was certainly a viable course of action.

Germany in the 1920s was in a massive state of counter-revolution, right-wing gangs were running wild, killing people, and the elites were already planning the restoration of the "Old Reich". Also, France and England wouldn't have liked the Russians attacking Germany too much.
The USSR, on the other hand, had just come out of a bloody civil war (which was, btw. not just a civil war, but also one against foreign intervention), had finally established peace, and could now only really start building socialism. Food, education, work, the beginning of industrialisation were all things they had to think about.
The USSR won a war against Germany. But that was after they had industrialised (in record time) and built up a stable socialist economy. And it was still hard.
The USSR occupied a part of Germany and helped them build a democratic and socialist state. But that was at a time, when the country had just been liberated from fascism (=the most brutal form of capitalism), and even in the West, the conservative party was talking about socialism and expropriation of the war criminals (=the richest monopolies). And it was still hard (and eventually failed).