Communist Colonisation?

[liberlict]

How do you guys feel about communist colonisation (in the hypothetical sense)?
For example, say that a communist revolution breaks out in a country with a significant military, would you support that country using its power to take over capitalist states and liberate their workers?

[Sabot Cat]

I think supporting workers' struggles abroad and colonization are two different things. The international anti-fascist militias in the Spanish Civil War should illustrate what the former looks like.

[liberlict]

OK, don't call it 'colonisation'. I wasn't sure what to call it actually. 'Communist Liberation'?
But the idea is a communist country using its military to liberate workers in other countries (by deposing their governments).

[Brutus]

You mean like the Soviet invasion of Georgia and Poland?

[tachosomoza]

Socialist colonization is an oxymoron, considering that it is a fundamentally anti-imperialist order of things.

And no, I personally wouldn't support using military force to attack states with the undoubtedly noble aspiration of "liberating workers". My hypothetical socialist country is just one little state among almost 200 others, most of which are controlled by the international bourgeoisie and are ready, willing and capable to utterly and completely fuck our shit up if we invade one of their hydra heads. That is, if they don't fuck us up during or immediately after the revolution.

Very naive.

[consuming negativity]

This is such a situational question. It's like saying, "should I go get something to eat?" Well I don't fucking know, are you hungry? Did you just eat? If you eat, are you going to ingest literal poison? Ask us again when we're in the situation and we can see it for what it is.

[liberlict]

You mean like the Soviet invasion of Georgia and Poland?

Well, I suspect that most here would not accept the USSR as an authentically communist state. But, if it WAS, then yeah.

[liberlict]

Socialist colonization is an oxymoron, considering that it is a fundamentally anti-imperialist order of things.

And no, I personally wouldn't support using military force to attack states with the undoubtedly noble aspiration of "liberating workers". My hypothetical socialist country is just one little state among almost 200 others, most of which are controlled by the international bourgeoisie and are ready, willing and capable to utterly and completely fuck our shit up if we invade one of their hydra heads. That is, if they don't fuck us up during or immediately after the revolution.

Very naive.

Yeah, you gotta use your imagination a bit. Pretend that the socialist nation is hegemonic. I know this is unrealistic at the moment. It's the principle i'm interested in.

[liberlict]

This is such a situational question. It's like saying, "should I go get something to eat?" Well I don't fucking know, are you hungry? Did you just eat? If you eat, are you going to ingest literal poison? Ask us again when we're in the situation and we can see it for what it is.

Imagine the situation like this. Country X is the hegemonic superpower (something akin to the United Stated at the moment). There are no hegemonic rivals---No China's, Russia's or Israel's. Basically the working class has taken over the military of the worlds only superpower.

How would you like it to approach international relations?

[Blake's Baby]

It couldn't happen unless there are very substantial class-war movements in the rest of the world. In fact, it's more likely that 'the world's only superpower' would be preceded by several (at least) other states falling to the revolution. So, it's a pretty meaningless hypothetical.

But 'should the Soviet Republic have invaded Poland in 1919?' or whatever is a reasonable question.

No of course it shouldn't. That's not because we don't "accept the USSR as an authentically communist state", as there's no such thing as "an authentically communist state". But it was the best thing around at the time. Even so, it shouldn't have invaded Poland. Nothing to do with the nature of the state, but the nature of the revolution. You can't export it an the end of a bayonet; you don't 'free' the working class of Poland by killing them when they enlist in the army of the Polish state (any more than you 'free' Iraq by bombing and invading it).

What a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat should be doing is giving every material and political aid it can to the revolutionary workers' movements in the as-yet-unliberateed areas.

[tachosomoza]

Well, I suspect that most here would not accept the USSR as an authentically communist state. But, if it WAS, then yeah.

There is no communist state, in practice or in theory. Communism is the stage at which abolition of the state has succeeded, the transitional stage to communism we call socialism, which is workers' control of the state apparatus, or dictatorship of the proletariat.

So, the process is: Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie/totalitarian state -> workers' revolution -> dictatorship of the proletariat to establish socialism -> communism.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think it would be a very outlandish situation where I would say that I think a socialist country should "invade" another capitalist country for the idea that that is internationalist revolution. There have been times, though, and I assume there will be again where a socialist country needs to step in to militarily support a liberation movement or socialist revolution or to stop an outright capitalist restoration. In that situation I would support socialist intervention.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

It couldn't happen unless there are very substantial class-war movements in the rest of the world. In fact, it's more likely that 'the world's only superpower' would be preceded by several (at least) other states falling to the revolution. So, it's a pretty meaningless hypothetical.

But 'should the Soviet Republic have invaded Poland in 1919?' or whatever is a reasonable question.

No of course it shouldn't. That's not because we don't "accept the USSR as an authentically communist state", as there's no such thing as "an authentically communist state". But it was the best thing around at the time. Even so, it shouldn't have invaded Poland. Nothing to do with the nature of the state, but the nature of the revolution. You can't export it an the end of a bayonet; you don't 'free' the working class of Poland by killing them when they enlist in the army of the Polish state (any more than you 'free' Iraq by bombing and invading it).

What a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat should be doing is giving every material and political aid it can to the revolutionary workers' movements in the as-yet-unliberateed areas.

So if the workers in, say, Penza or Tambov guberniyas, had refused to follow the orders of the Soviet government, the authorities should simply have let them be? After all you "can't export a revolution at the end of a bayonet", according to your post. In fact the White and interventionist armies were also made of workers - should the Bolsheviks not fought them, then?

I think it is a matter of the ability of the invading state to effectively project state power into the occupied region and socialize the means of production - which the Soviet government was able to do in Georgia and which it might have done in Poland.

[argeiphontes]

I think it is a matter of the ability of the invading state to effectively project state power into the occupied region and socialize the means of production - which the Soviet government was able to do in Georgia and which it might have done in Poland.

So, as long as you are strong enough to do it, it is OK?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

So, as long as you are strong enough to do it, it is OK?

Well, since national independence is at best a democratic demand subservient to the task of overthrowing capitalism, yes.

[Blake's Baby]

So if the workers in, say, Penza or Tambov guberniyas, had refused to follow the orders of the Soviet government, the authorities should simply have let them be? After all you "can't export a revolution at the end of a bayonet", according to your post. In fact the White and interventionist armies were also made of workers - should the Bolsheviks not fought them, then?...

Government? Authorities? Do you mean, the anti-working-class dictatorship of the Bolsheviks?

Invasion is completely the same as not-invasion, of course it is (?). I don't even understand your question. What is the connection between invading Poland, and being attacked by the Whites?


...I think it is a matter of the ability of the invading state to effectively project state power into the occupied region and socialize the means of production - which the Soviet government was able to do in Georgia and which it might have done in Poland.

By 'might have done' you mean 'couldn't do', do you?

How can you possibly think it's justified for a revolutionary dictatorship to invade its neighbours?

Now whether there should ever have been an independant Poland in the first place is a different question. Rosa said it would necessarily be a tool of German imperialism and she was right. But that doesn't mean you set it up and then declare war on it, that's just idiocy.

[argeiphontes]

Now whether there should ever have been an independant Poland in the first place is a different question. Rosa said it would necessarily be a tool of German imperialism and she was right.

Not to derail the thread, but out of curiosity, how was Poland a tool of German imperialism? From what I know, they had no love for the Germans, Russians, or Austrians.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Government? Authorities? Do you mean, the anti-working-class dictatorship of the Bolsheviks?

Yes - of course if you consider the Bolshevik authorities to have been an "anti-working-class dictatorship", the question becomes moot, doesn't it? One capitalist state invading another - these things happen.


Invasion is completely the same as not-invasion, of course it is (?). I don't even understand your question. What is the connection between invading Poland, and being attacked by the Whites?

Do you think the Bolsheviks invaded Penza and Tambov, then? Did they invade Moscow? Or do you think the violent, military projection of state power assumes a different character if it happens over an imaginary state boundary?

I mentioned the composition of the White army because you tried to appeal to the possibility of proletarian Poles being drafted into the army. But if these were militant, communist Polish proles, they would have turned their guns against their officers - assuming of course the Bolshevik government was proletarian, which I do, and which you deny. If not, how are they any different from proletarian Whiteguards?


By 'might have done' you mean 'couldn't do', do you?

The Bolshevik invasion was beaten back - so we can only speculate what the Soviets might have accomplished in Poland.


How can you possibly think it's justified for a revolutionary dictatorship to invade its neighbours?

In the same way I think it was justified to attack Moscow and to send detachments of the Red Army into Tambov - I don't think the revolution needs a plebiscite in every community, or that there is a democratic right to refuse to participate in the revolution, and I don't hold state boundaries to be sacred.

[Blake's Baby]

Not to derail the thread, but out of curiosity, how was Poland a tool of German imperialism? From what I know, they had no love for the Germans, Russians, or Austrians.

In the age of imperialist domination there is no 'independence' of smaller states, merely finding a bigger patron to become client to. Poland's choices were Russia or Germany. Poland picked Germany. What has 'love' to do with it?

[argeiphontes]

What has 'love' to do with it?

Love determines whether or not it's only a marriage of convenience. :grin:

edit: It looks like Rosa was wrong. There's an interesting read in the Wikipedia article about Piłsudski, starting about here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilsudski#cite_ref-Urb_291_80-0). Any subsequent siding with Germany would have been understandable.

[Jambo]

What a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat should be doing is giving every material and political aid it can to the revolutionary workers' movements in the as-yet-unliberateed areas.

That is pretty much my position. I don't think you could liberate a country by invading it. If the proletariat within that area are not yet ready to rise up themselves then invading will probably only play into the hands of the Bourgeois and give validity to their nationalistic propaganda. What should and must be done is to maintain solidarity with proletariat in that country by the provision of material, educational and training support.

[Ritzy Cat]

At the very least, it would be an excuse for imperialist tendencies.

Unless for whatever reason the resources existent in the country are not able to sustain the population (which can very easily be done if all the capital is taken out of the bourgeoise's hands), invading any other country would be an imperialist excuse.

Even my scenario above could be an imperialist excuse, as well.

If the governing body in the socialist nation finds reason to invade other countries, then the bourgeoisie are obviously still existent, and it is not even a socialist nation.

[Jambo]

At the very least, it would be an excuse for imperialist tendencies.

Unless for whatever reason the resources existent in the country are not able to sustain the population (which can very easily be done if all the capital is taken out of the bourgeoise's hands), invading any other country would be an imperialist excuse.

Even my scenario above could be an imperialist excuse, as well.

If the governing body in the socialist nation finds reason to invade other countries, then the bourgeoisie are obviously still existent, and it is not even a socialist nation.

I thought I'd share something I've just been reading as it is relevant to the discussion.

"Instead of socialism being spread through mobilizing workers, the Bolsheviks came to believe that what N.I Bukharin called 'red intervention' was the best means of furthering socialism. In 1920, without the least embarrassment, the leading Bolshevik, K.B. Radek could claim: 'We were always for revolutionary war. The bayonet is an essential necessity for introducing communism'." - The Russian Revolution: A very short introduction, S. A. Smith.

Here is a clear example of the emergence of those Imperialist tendencies which flies in the face of the Communist ideal of global proletarian solidarity.

[Leftsolidarity]

At the very least, it would be an excuse for imperialist tendencies.

Unless for whatever reason the resources existent in the country are not able to sustain the population (which can very easily be done if all the capital is taken out of the bourgeoise's hands), invading any other country would be an imperialist excuse.

Even my scenario above could be an imperialist excuse, as well.

If the governing body in the socialist nation finds reason to invade other countries, then the bourgeoisie are obviously still existent, and it is not even a socialist nation.

Imperialism isn't a notion or a tendency. Imperialism is global system of finance capital which uses its state to dominate, by force, new markets and hold on to old ones. Military intervention by itself is not inherently imperialist and a state, particularly a socialist state, isn't always in the service of imperialism. Imperialists will try to bring those workers' states into the orbit of imperialism and separate them from the socialist camp but that doesn't mean that a socialist state intervening militarily is imperialist or has "imperialist tendencies".

[argeiphontes]

Imperialists will try to bring those workers' states into the orbit of imperialism and separate them from the socialist camp but that doesn't mean that a socialist state intervening militarily is imperialist or has "imperialist tendencies".

Which "worker's states" do you mean? Like when Soviet forces rolled into Hungary in 1956?

[liberlict]

It couldn't happen unless there are very substantial class-war movements in the rest of the world. In fact, it's more likely that 'the world's only superpower' would be preceded by several (at least) other states falling to the revolution.

Well that's O.K. Imagine that The U.S. and all of South America and two or three other countries had been taken over by the proletariat.


But 'should the Soviet Republic have invaded Poland in 1919?' or whatever is a reasonable question.

No this is precisely the specific example I want to avoid, because many will just say that USSR was never authentically communist.


No of course it shouldn't. That's not because we don't "accept the USSR as an authentically communist state", as there's no such thing as "an authentically communist state".

O.K, not a 'state' then. Whatever the term is for a country run by the proletariat. 'Commune'?



What a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat should be doing is giving every material and political aid it can to the revolutionary workers' movements in the as-yet-unliberateed areas.

Would this include armaments? "Giving material and political aid" sounds a lot like the america's policy towards Israel.

[Rafiq]

An offensive war of conquest is likely in the event of any proletarian revolution. Victory in Poland could have saved the October revolution.

[liberlict]

An offensive war of conquest is likely in the event of any proletarian revolution. Victory in Poland could have saved the October revolution.

It would certainly make sense to me. Why give international capitalists the opportunity to reassert control?

[argeiphontes]

An offensive war of conquest is likely in the event of any proletarian revolution. Victory in Poland could have saved the October revolution.

How's that, exactly? Resistance would have caused increased problems and bigger excuses for centralization and crackdowns against workers in the home country. Just like during the civil war, you could always be claiming some state of emergency.

Besides, what would they import from a conquered Poland? Democracy? :laugh: The loss was right before Kronstadt anyway, by which time the Revolution was over.

Or did they need a period of primitive accumulation or something? (Imperialism.) That happened after WWII.

[Leftsolidarity]

Which "worker's states" do you mean? Like when Soviet forces rolled into Hungary in 1956?

Well our party views Hungary in the sense of that it was appropriate for the Soviets to intervene to stop a full scale counter-revolution that would bring Hungary back into imperialist control.

[argeiphontes]

Well our party views Hungary in the sense of that it was appropriate for the Soviets to intervene to stop a full scale counter-revolution that would bring Hungary back into imperialist control.

But Soviet control of Hungary isn't imperialist? Wouldn't that just shift Hungary from Soviet to US satellite status? Which Hungarians actually wanted since the revolution was home grown? Nobody wanted to live under Soviet freedom, apparently.

edit: liberlict, sorry if I'm derailing with another Soviet example.

[Baseball]

Imperialists will try to bring those workers' states into the orbit of imperialism and separate them from the socialist camp but that doesn't mean that a socialist state intervening militarily is imperialist or has "imperialist tendencies".

Ho! Ho! Ho! Orwell anybody???

[genjer]

While we're at it, why not write a Communist Cryptocurrency and build a Communist Seastead? As Dave Chapelle said, "Why? Because fuck 'em, that's why."

[Leftsolidarity]

But Soviet control of Hungary isn't imperialist? Wouldn't that just shift Hungary from Soviet to US satellite status? Which Hungarians actually wanted since the revolution was home grown? Nobody wanted to live under Soviet freedom, apparently.

edit: liberlict, sorry if I'm derailing with another Soviet example.

That's if you're under the illusion that the Soviets were somehow an imperialist state, which is pretty absurd. It isn't a difference of being a "satellite" for either or. It's about whether the Soviets would allow a workers' state to be overthrown and brought back under imperialist exploitation and further weaken the socialist camp. I think it's a duty for workers' states to intervene in such a critical circumstance to not let the false notion of "neutrality" to disable us in our ability to defend socialism against counter-revolution. And that also plays into the assumption that it was homegrown and that they weren't under the influence of the imperialists (which they were). There were genuine grievances and those should be reviewed and thoroughly dealt with by the state. That doesn't mean we should support the overthrow of it and allow it to be brought into the imperialist camp.

[liberlict]

It couldn't happen unless there are very substantial class-war movements in the rest of the world. In fact, it's more likely that 'the world's only superpower' would be preceded by several (at least) other states falling to the revolution. So, it's a pretty meaningless hypothetical.



Thinking more about this, why do you think it couldn't happen in isolation? People here romantasise about the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War. Yes, these enclaves were smashed by reactionary forces, but it's not improbable that it could happen in a larger country and that communists could win. As an example, if America had have been flattened in WWII, there would have been a complete geopolitical vacuum the USSR could have expanded as they pleased.

[liberlict]

edit: liberlict, sorry if I'm derailing with another Soviet example.

No it's no problem. Derail all you like. As long as everybody knows where I'm coming from.

[Ember Catching]

How's that, exactly? Resistance would have caused increased problems and bigger excuses for centralization and crackdowns against workers in the home country. Just like during the civil war, you could always be claiming some state of emergency.

Besides, what would they import from a conquered Poland? Democracy? :laugh: The loss was right before Kronstadt anyway, by which time the Revolution was over.

Or did they need a period of primitive accumulation or something? (Imperialism.) That happened after WWII.
The revolution in fact died with the promulgation of "Socialism in One Country" and "Anti-Fascism" as Bolshevik and Comintern policy, though I'm not sure what your analysis is worth at all, given your out-and-out reactionary tendencies.


"To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to world-wide conflagration. March upon Vilnius, Minsk, Warsaw, and onward to Berlin over the corpse of Poland!"

— General Tukhachevsky's orders of the day for 2nd July 1920

Red Army strategy in the invasion of Poland was to eventually link up with the November Revolution in Germany and provide the various German soviet republics with military support against the terror of the Reichswehr, Freikorps and Stahlhelm counterrevolution. Germany was rightly considered to have a central role to play in the world revolution that announced itself with fanfare in Petrograd in March of 1917, not just because its proletariat was among the largest in the world and the most organized and class-conscious outside of Russia, but largely due to the enormous size of German industry and the country's central geopolitical position in Europe, which was in practice expected to mean an explosion of proletarian insurrection throughout the world upon revolutionary success in Germany, and would enable the combined Soviet, Polish and German proletariat to join forces with the Hungarian proletariat and support the latter in its revolutionary war against Czechoslovak Sokols and Magyar, Romanian and Yugoslav monarchists, whilst not letting up the advance "right up to London and Paris."

To the extent that the Red Army's failure to conquer Poland was not solely a consequence of military manoeuvrings and a breakdown in morale, it can be attributed to the 1905 split between the Old and Young factions of the Polish Socialist Party — the former of which rejected proletarian dictatorship in favor of the chimera of total Polish independence from Russia, and whose leader Piłsudski would eventually command Polish forces for Austria-Hungary and subsequently against the Red Army fourteen years after the split — which would leave the truly revolutionary, Bolshevik-allied Communist Workers Party of Poland — a merger of the declining Young Faction with the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania of Rosa Luxemburg fame — without the numbers nor the arms needed to support the revolutionary invasion of 1919.

Some have suggested the attempted Red Army invasion of Europe could not export the revolution, which is a thesis I emphatically reject. Military intervention in foreign countries, conducted by the World Army of the Proletarian Revolution — that is to say, a projection of proletarian state power — orchestrated by the collaborative efforts of the invaded country's revolutionary communist party — whose situation is obviously more advantageous and tenable the more its national proletariat stands behind it — in concert with all true communist parties in the world, resulting in the seizure of state power by a party whose programme conforms to the proletarian historical mission, in no way repudiates the watchword "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" — except, of course, for those who advance the naïve thesis that the revolutionary watchword necessarily translates to "dictatorship of 50% + 1 proletarians" or the equally absurd "dictatorship of proletarian compatriots" rather than "dictatorship of the historical moment." Such a revolutionary war surmounts social-chauvinism, constitutes the highest form of proletarian internationalism in practice, and, insofar as it establishes by despotic means the immediate preconditions for a revolution in the social relations of production, in no way contradicts scientific socialist conceptions of communist political and social revolution. Finally, any characterization of the attempted Red Army invasion of Europe as "colonial" or in any way motivated by an imperialistic compulsion to offset a falling rate of profit by sourcing cheaper and less competitive markets is completely invalidated by the necessary ultimate consequences of a successful revolutionary invasion being the complete destruction of private property, wage-labor, the value-form, and politics.

[Blake's Baby]

...

O.K, not a 'state' then. Whatever the term is for a country run by the proletariat. 'Commune'?....

It was a state. It wasn't 'communist'.

Having a party that calls itself 'Communist' in power doesn't make a state 'communist', any more than having a party called 'Democrats' in power makes a state 'democratic'.

The working class had lost power by the time the invasion of Poland happened. The Communist Party had already usurped the power of the working class.

In answer to the question, I think the proper term for a state in which the proletariat has taken power, but which is still surrounded by capitalist states, is a 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. But this is not 'communist' because communism comes after capitalism not at the same time. You can't have some 'communist' countries and some capitalist countries; what you can have is some revolutionary countries and some reactionary countries. Until there are no more reactionary countries (ie until the revolution successfully smashes capitalism throughout the world) you don't get to communist society.


Thinking more about this, why do you think it couldn't happen in isolation? People here romantasise about the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War. Yes, these enclaves were smashed by reactionary forces, but it's not improbable that it could happen in a larger country and that communists could win. As an example, if America had have been flattened in WWII, there would have been a complete geopolitical vacuum the USSR could have expanded as they pleased.

For a successful revolution, the proletariat needs to be stronger (not just as strong) than the state it's trying to overthrow. Strong proletariat v strong state means win for state (say, Britain in 1980s, France today). Weak proletariat and weak state equals win for state (Bolivia perhaps). Strong proletariat and weak state (eg Russia 1917) means win for proletariat. Weak (disorganised) proletariat and strong state (as in USA today) means win for state.

Revolution, at least to begin with, might be more likely where the state is weak (this is Lenin's weakest link theory), but the proletariat still has to be strong. But you're asking what happens if the working class takes power in 'the world's only superpower'. So the working class has to take power in a strong state, and therefore it must be 'extra' strong. It's not feasible that the proletariat in one state can be extra-strong without the proletariat in other parts of the world being strong enough to overthrow states that are less strong. The proletariat's strength is related to the strength of the proletariat in other countries. If the US proletariat is that advanced, it's inconceivable that the proletariat in Germany, Japan, Britain, Italy, Canada, France and other advanced capitalist countries would be terribly weak.

On the other hand, you then say 'what if the USA gets destroyed?' - well then it's not 'the only superpower' is it? It can't both be 'the only superpower' and a blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland. They're two different things. So which of those contradictory questions do you want answered? There's no answer that can cover both 'the USA is the most powerful nation on earth' and 'the USA has been bombed back into the Stone Age'.

And, please, get over the notion that Soviet Union after WWII was 'the Communists'. What different capitalists states do to each is not really the concern of the working class, except that they should oppose all of it.

[liberlict]

It was a state. It wasn't 'communist'.

Having a party that calls itself 'Communist' in power doesn't make a state 'communist', any more than having a party called 'Democrats' in power makes a state 'democratic'.

The working class had lost power by the time the invasion of Poland happened. The Communist Party had already usurped the power of the working class.

In answer to the question, I think the proper term for a state in which the proletariat has taken power, but which is still surrounded by capitalist states, is a 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. But this is not 'communist' because communism comes after capitalism not at the same time. You can't have some 'communist' countries and some capitalist countries; what you can have is some revolutionary countries and some reactionary countries. Until there are no more reactionary countries (ie until the revolution successfully smashes capitalism throughout the world) you don't get to communist society.



For a successful revolution, the proletariat needs to be stronger (not just as strong) than the state it's trying to overthrow. Strong proletariat v strong state means win for state (say, Britain in 1980s, France today). Weak proletariat and weak state equals win for state (Bolivia perhaps). Strong proletariat and weak state (eg Russia 1917) means win for proletariat. Weak (disorganised) proletariat and strong state (as in USA today) means win for state.

Revolution, at least to begin with, might be more likely where the state is weak (this is Lenin's weakest link theory), but the proletariat still has to be strong. But you're asking what happens if the working class takes power in 'the world's only superpower'. So the working class has to take power in a strong state, and therefore it must be 'extra' strong. It's not feasible that the proletariat in one state can be extra-strong without the proletariat in other parts of the world being strong enough to overthrow states that are less strong. The proletariat's strength is related to the strength of the proletariat in other countries. If the US proletariat is that advanced, it's inconceivable that the proletariat in Germany, Japan, Britain, Italy, Canada, France and other advanced capitalist countries would be terribly weak.

On the other hand, you then say 'what if the USA gets destroyed?' - well then it's not 'the only superpower' is it? It can't both be 'the only superpower' and a blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland. They're two different things. So which of those contradictory questions do you want answered? There's no answer that can cover both 'the USA is the most powerful nation on earth' and 'the USA has been bombed back into the Stone Age'.

And, please, get over the notion that Soviet Union after WWII was 'the Communists'. What different capitalists states do to each is not really the concern of the working class, except that they should oppose all of it.

If you haven't noticed, I don't particularly care about what qualifies as a 'state', or whether the USSR was 'communist'. I realize these are important issue to you, but not to me, or my question.

I think you know what my question is by now. Others have managed to understand it and answer it with no fuss at all.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer, but from my perspective youre just being semantical at the expense of the point.

[Blake's Baby]

If you haven't noticed, I don't particularly care about what qualifies as a 'state', or whether the USSR was 'communist'. I realize these are important issue to you, but not to me, or my question.

I think you know what my question is by now. Others have managed to understand it and answer it with no fuss at all.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer, but from my perspective youre just being semantical at the expense of the point.

No, really I don't know which you're asking. Try again.

Do you want to know about a hypothetical where the USA is the only superpower, or a hypothetical where it's a wasteland, do you want to know about the proletariat taking power, or do you want to know about an invasion by the USSR?

[Blake's Baby]

Love determines whether or not it's only a marriage of convenience. :grin:

It was more like rape at gunpoint.


edit: It looks like Rosa was wrong...

Oooh, I expect you can back that up.


... There's an interesting read in the Wikipedia article about Piłsudski, starting about here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilsudski#cite_ref-Urb_291_80-0). Any subsequent siding with Germany would have been understandable.

[argeiphontes]

That's if you're under the illusion that the Soviets were somehow an imperialist state, which is pretty absurd.

Absurd? All of Eastern Europe was under the Soviet yoke. Troops were stationed in Eastern bloc countries. Not to mention Afghanistan. Everybody was forced to learn Russian. I have lots of relatives who would be willing to tell you exactly how "absurd" it actually was.

[argeiphontes]

Oooh, I expect you can back that up.

Yeah, read the Pilsudski link.

[Blake's Baby]

I did. Can't see where Rosa was wrong, Poland could be a tool of German imperialism, or a tool of Russian imperialism. It became a tool of German imperialism, thereby vindicating Rosa's prognosis.

[argeiphontes]

I did. Can't see where Rosa was wrong, Poland could be a tool of German imperialism, or a tool of Russian imperialism. It became a tool of German imperialism, thereby vindicating Rosa's prognosis.

I'm sorry but I just skimmed a bunch of Wikipedia and I can't see where Poland was a "tool of German imperialism." Are you angry that they defeated the Bolsheviks or something? ;)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I did. Can't see where Rosa was wrong, Poland could be a tool of German imperialism, or a tool of Russian imperialism. It became a tool of German imperialism, thereby vindicating Rosa's prognosis.

By the way - this position wasn't unique to Luxemburg. Lenin also cautioned against the Polish left raising the slogan of Polish independence. Where Lenin and Luxemburg differed is that Lenin considered Polish independence a possible democratic demand, whereas Luxemburg did not. But of course neither thought democratic demands are absolute - unlike some "Leninists" who turn the slogan of national self-determination into a parody of itself.


Absurd? All of Eastern Europe was under the Soviet yoke. Troops were stationed in Eastern bloc countries. Not to mention Afghanistan. Everybody was forced to learn Russian. I have lots of relatives who would be willing to tell you exactly how "absurd" it actually was.

No one was forced to learn Russian, although Russian was a very popular subject (as was French, at least in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia). And the presence of troops is not imperialism - that requires certain economic mechanisms outlined by Leftsolidarity.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry but I just skimmed a bunch of Wikipedia and I can't see where Poland was a "tool of German imperialism." Are you angry that they defeated the Bolsheviks or something? ;)

Really? Try reading more.

'angry that they defeated the Bolsheviks'... the Bolsheviks that I've already described as imperialists and utterly wrong to invade Poland, you mean?

[argeiphontes]

No one was forced to learn Russian, although Russian was a very popular subject (as was French, at least in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia). And the presence of troops is not imperialism - that requires certain economic mechanisms outlined by Leftsolidarity.

"Russian was a popular subject" implies that everybody was in love with the Soviet Union. In reality their would have been pressure to learn it. People in Poland hated Soviet domination and they did in the rest of the Eastern bloc as well. The Russian teacher was not the most popular person in school, contrary to what you're saying.

In Yugoslavia they learned English instead of Russian, thanks to Tito's independence from the Soviet Union. I've been there and heard this from the people there. This was probably not coerced IIRC.

You can redefine Imperialism to mean anything you like, but that doesn't change the facts of Soviet domination. You can add it to the list of redefined terms like 'idealism' and 'utopian'. :lol:

[argeiphontes]

Really? Try reading more.


You'll have to point it out to me, otherwise the null hypothesis holds.


the Bolsheviks that I've already described as imperialists and utterly wrong to invade Poland, you mean?

Yes, those Bolsheviks.

[Blake's Baby]

Why would be angry at Poland defeating the Bolsheviks, if I thought that the Russian invasion of Poland was an act of imperialism?

[argeiphontes]

Why would be angry at Poland defeating the Bolsheviks, if I thought that the Russian invasion of Poland was an act of imperialism?

Because you would support the Bolsheviks over some nation's right to self-determination. Communists don't believe in national self-determination, remember? Maybe you would blame lack of revolution in Germany on Polish independence because Russian troops couldn't march into Germany to aid it.

edit: Maybe you would adopt the definition of imperialism offered above, where only capitalist nations can be imperialist, by definition?

[argeiphontes]

Why would be angry at Poland defeating the Bolsheviks, if I thought that the Russian invasion of Poland was an act of imperialism?

Actually, never mind. I'm falsely accusing you of siding with the Soviet invasion. I apologize. Too little coffee...

[Rafiq]

Ho! Ho! Ho! Orwell anybody???

Imperialism refers to a specific stage in capitalist development, and has a distinguishable summation of social relations and the role of capital in geopolitics. The domination of one state over another, the "bullying" of a country alone is not imperialism, though often it is because it occurs within the context of capitalism.

To answer agriphones, great resistance would be unlikely considering the power of the socialist movement in Poland. And you're a fool, to add, when Napoleon conquered European territories he abolished serfdom. A war of revolutionary conquest would politically lay the basis for a polish dictatorship of the proletariat, it would defeat the organs of the polish bourgeois state that would repress an attempted revolution. The same goes for the rest of Europe.

[Rafiq]

Because you would support the Bolsheviks over some nation's right to self-determination. Communists don't believe in national self-determination, remember? Maybe you would blame lack of revolution in Germany on Polish independence because Russian troops couldn't march into Germany to aid it.

edit: Maybe you would adopt the definition of imperialism offered above, where only capitalist nations can be imperialist, by definition?

National autonomy... Cack! The autonomy of those in power to do as they please in their respective nations! In Germany, the proletariat determined the overthrow of the state, and they were crushed by the power of the state. How's that for national autonomy.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't believe in national self-determination. I think it was idiocy on behalf of Lenin to allow the Polish and Finish bourgeoisies to create independent states in Poland and Finland, which coul then suppress the working class in Poland and Finland.

Having done it, to then attack them was lunacy.

I do think 'only capitalist states are imperialist' by definition, because there's no definition of 'socialist states'. But I've already said that the invasion was imperialist, because I think it was imperialist. The working class has no interest in imperialist wars. Whatever was positive in the Soviet Republic in 1917-18 had really been lost by 1920.

I don't want to say 'it served the Russians right' but I'm going to go back to saying that you can't export the revolution at the point of a bayonet. It was 'a huge mistake' at best and a failed imperialist adventure at worst.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

"Russian was a popular subject" implies that everybody was in love with the Soviet Union.

No, it implies that Russian was a popular subject. Likewise, English is a popular subject now, although most people hold to some half-digested anti-Americanism.


In reality their would have been pressure to learn it.

Pressure arising from its use as a lingua franca of sorts in the USSR and throughout the Eastern block. Before WWI, a similar pressure to learn French existed - longer in Yugoslavia and other members of the Little Entente - but France didn't extend imperialist domination over the entire European continent.


People in Poland hated Soviet domination and they did in the rest of the Eastern bloc as well.

What "Soviet domination" might that be?


In Yugoslavia they learned English instead of Russian, thanks to Tito's independence from the Soviet Union. I've been there and heard this from the people there. This was probably not coerced IIRC.

Russian was popular in the forties, the fifties, the sixties and a good part of the seventies. After that, French seems to have been the most popular choice of second language - German in some areas, perhaps Italian - English was definitely present, from the fifties at least, but it wasn't as widespread as you allege.


You can redefine Imperialism to mean anything you like, but that doesn't change the facts of Soviet domination. You can add it to the list of redefined terms like 'idealism' and 'utopian'. :lol:

That's what "imperialism" means in Leninist theory. That's all.

[argeiphontes]

What "Soviet domination" might that be?


None of THIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Initial_control_process) happened in your parallel universe I take it? Or is it just looked upon favorably by people who adopt Lenin's definition of imperialism? I personally recall that 1989 was a very happy year.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

None of THIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Initial_control_process) happened in your parallel universe I take it?

It did happen - it's just that this doesn't constitute "Soviet domination" by any stretch of the word. The Red Army ensured public safety in the states that would make up the Eastern Bloc, assisted in the pursuit of quislings and remnants of Nazi Forces, and refused to starve Germans in the SVAG territory. Sure, the Soviet government wasn't above extracting a favor or claiming some kind of benefit here and there. But the relation between the Soviet Union and the new states was much more complex than "Soviet domination".


Or is it just looked upon favorably by people who adopt Lenin's definition of imperialism?

Of course there is a lot to criticize about the conduct of the official communist parties - their alliances with the bourgeoisie for example. But presumably you would criticize them for the things they got right - at least as far as I'm concerned - such as nationalization, the smashing of quislings etc.


I personally recall that 1989 was a very happy year.

I'm sure the millions of people who were impoverished by Freedom and Democracy would see it that way - along with the minorities in Estonia, women in Afghanistan, just about everyone but the emigres in Bosnia etc. etc.

[liberlict]

While we're at it, why not write a Communist Cryptocurrency and build a Communist Seastead? As Dave Chapelle said, "Why? Because fuck 'em, that's why."

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I'd love to know more! Can you elaborate?

[Blake's Baby]

If you're back again liberlict, I'd like you to have a go at this please:


No, really I don't know which you're asking. Try again.

Do you want to know about a hypothetical where the USA is the only superpower, or a hypothetical where it's a wasteland, do you want to know about the proletariat taking power, or do you want to know about an invasion by the USSR?

[liberlict]

If you're back again liberlict, I'd like you to have a go at this please:

Don't worry about it.

[Blake's Baby]

Am I to assume then that you're not talking about anything?

What was the point in opening the thread then?

[liberlict]

Am I to assume then that you're not talking about anything?

What was the point in opening the thread then?

No it's just that I'm not interested in discussing the USSR or America or any other country.

In any case I can deduce your answer from your comments like this:


I don't believe in national self-determination. I think it was idiocy on behalf of Lenin to allow the Polish and Finish bourgeoisies to create independent states in Poland and Finland, which coul then suppress the working class in Poland and Finland.

Thanks anyway.

[G4b3n]

Liberation is the task of the oppressed. While worker's states or communes could assist a revolution in bourgeois states (and I use the term assist in a very loose sense), they can not carry them out. History has affirmed this pretty well, as Brutas has mentioned in regards to Lenin. It is simply too easy for the reactionaries to paint foreign liberators as foreign invaders.

[Blake's Baby]

It's more than that. You can't liberate someone by shooting them, it's that simple.

[liberlict]

It's more than that. You can't liberate someone by shooting them, it's that simple.

Taking over another country is not always a violent affair. If there's a huge disparity in military power one country will often roll over for invaders.

Also, assuming a communist country is taking over a capitalist country, wouldn't the resistance movements just be reactionary? Is it a problem to fight with reactionary armies? If it is, communist movements are at pretty big geopolitical disadvantage.

[liberlict]

Liberation is the task of the oppressed. While worker's states or communes could assist a revolution in bourgeois states (and I use the term assist in a very loose sense), they can not carry them out. History has affirmed this pretty well, as Brutas has mentioned in regards to Lenin. It is simply too easy for the reactionaries to paint foreign liberators as foreign invaders.

I think propaganda is going to be a very useful tool for communists in the new digitalised age. 'Propaganda', in the old, non-pejorative sense meaning something like 'spreading information'. Back in the Nineteenth Century activists had to stand on corners and hand out pamphlets to spread the word. With the ubiquity of computers and computer networks it's so much easier. As Iran has shown, not even the most oppressive of regimes can prevent people accessing information. The 'democratisation of knowledge' has been a godsend for activists (left and right).

[Blake's Baby]

Taking over another country is not always a violent affair. If there's a huge disparity in military power one country will often roll over for invaders...

Oh, it's all right to invade then if they surrender. Just like it's all right to rob someone if they don't actually fight back, or rape someone if they're too frightened to resist.

It's not our job as communists to invadde non-communist countries. You may think it's your right as an American that your government sends troops in to other countries but FUCK NO is what I say.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Oh, it's all right to invade then if they surrender. Just like it's all right to rob someone if they don't actually fight back, or rape someone if they're too frightened to resist.

It's not our job as communists to invadde non-communist countries. You may think it's your right as an American that your government sends troops in to other countries but FUCK NO is what I say.

Do you think nations have some kind of abstract right to not be invaded?

It's very odd for a left communist to place so much emphasis on the alleged right of states to non-intervention. Furthermore, communists oppose imperialism not because we think that Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are great or that they have a sacred right to not be invaded, but because of the nature of imperialist intervention.

[Blake's Baby]

'Abstract right'? No. I think it's a terrible idea. I already said that I think it was a huge error to allow the Finnish and Polish bourgeoisies to create Finland and Poland in the first place - bourgeois states that then oppressed the working class of former provinces of the Russian Empire. So it's not that I think Finland and Poland should have been 'left alone' out liberal sympathy with nationalism. They should never have existed in the first place.

Rather that, having stupidly set something on fire, attempting to douse the flames by covering your face with petrol and leaping head-first into the flames is not going to end well.

I agree about 'the nature of imperialist intervention'. And Russia's imperialist intervention is no better than anyone else's imperialist intervention. Any 'proletarian power' that is contemplating sending an army into its neighbours has already departed a long way from being the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and a long way to becoming another state power, if it's not there already. You cannot free the population of a country with 'communist guns' any more than can with capitalist guns, especially when the 'communist guns' are just capitalist guns draped in a red flag.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

'Abstract right'? No. I think it's a terrible idea. I already said that I think it was a huge error to allow the Finnish and Polish bourgeoisies to create Finland and Poland in the first place - bourgeois states that then oppressed the working class of former provinces of the Russian Empire. So it's not that I think Finland and Poland should have been 'left alone' out liberal sympathy with nationalism. They should never have existed in the first place.

Rather that, having stupidly set something on fire, attempting to douse the flames by covering your face with petrol and leaping head-first into the flames is not going to end well.

I agree about 'the nature of imperialist intervention'. And Russia's imperialist intervention is no better than anyone else's imperialist intervention. Any 'proletarian power' that is contemplating sending an army into its neighbours has already departed a long way from being the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and a long way to becoming another state power, if it's not there already. You cannot free the population of a country with 'communist guns' any more than can with capitalist guns, especially when the 'communist guns' are just capitalist guns draped in a red flag.

I don't recall that many Bolshevik cartels operating in Poland or Georgia; they must have been hidden in the same basement as the Stock Exchange.

Once again, I have to ask you - were the Bolsheviks (and PLSR and others) correct when invading Moscow? Was it admissible to invade the territory of the KomUch, the Idel-Ural State, the People's Republic of Belarus? If no, do you think the revolution requires a plebiscite in every municipality? That is even more insane than what the SPGB proposes. And if it was, how was invading Georgia any different?

[Blake's Baby]

I don't recall many US cartels operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does that mean they weren't imperialist invasions?

Poland and Finland had already been surrendered to the nationalist bourgeoisies. Do you not get that? I explained in a very colourful metaphor that I thought it was a very bad idea, akin to setting things on fire. Subsequently (after the national bourgeoisie had consolidated its power, in the Finnish case at least by massacring communists) the Bolsheviks invaded. That was an even worse idea than the original idea, akin to trying to put out the flames you lit, using your petrol-covered face. Did you really not get that it has little to do with 'rights of nations' (which is bourgeois bullshit) and much more to do with the inability to export revolution? I even said to liberlict posts and posts ago that it wasn't a question of the nature of the state but the nature of the revolution.

You can't shoot people to freedom. Do you get that?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I don't recall many US cartels operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does that mean they weren't imperialist invasions?

It would mean precisely that - but there are quite a few American cartels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Haliburton is a particularly notorious example. But no, I don't think any military invasion is imperialist, otherwise you get nonsense like the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, which bled Vietnam dry and resulted in a Chinese invasion, being imperialist.


Poland and Finland had already been surrendered to the nationalist bourgeoisies.

So had, for the time being, the KomUch territory, much of Central Asia etc. Was it wrong for the Bolsheviks to retake these territories when the military situation improved?


Do you not get that? I explained in a very colourful metaphor that I thought it was a very bad idea, akin to setting things on fire. Subsequently (after the national bourgeoisie had consolidated its power, in the Finnish case at least by massacring communists) the Bolsheviks invaded. That was an even worse idea than the original idea, akin to trying to put out the flames you lit, using your petrol-covered face. Did you really not get that it has little to do with 'rights of nations' (which is bourgeois bullshit) and much more to do with the inability to export revolution? I even said to liberlict posts and posts ago that it wasn't a question of the nature of the state but the nature of the revolution.

You can't shoot people to freedom. Do you get that?

Yeah. But the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't an abstract "freedom"; in fact it is concentrated oppression of the reactionary forces and the violent transformation of society. For that, guns are not only admissible but necessary. You still haven't given us a reason why a class-for-itself that had seized state power in one region shouldn't project this power into other regions - your entire argument sounds very democratic-fetishist.

[argeiphontes]

Communists should make it their duty to invade every noncommunist territory, kill everybody opposed to Communism, kill everybody opposed to foreign invasion, kill everybody opposed to killing, and then annex their territory and incorporate the tiny segment of the population that remains into their preexisting Communist utopia, known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

A few million dead proletarians aren't going to matter in 100 years, are they? They are just the barbarian lovers of abstract rights and democracy that have no place in true Communism, anyway. What will matter is that Communists finally achieved the world that Marx promised them in his books. It is written that Communism is an obvious historical necessity. Only the nonbelievers say otherwise. Communists are merely the midwives of the great historical necessity of world-wide Communism. Since Communism in one country is impossible, it is the unselfish duty of all Communists to spread the doctrine by the leaflet if possible, but by the sword if necessary.

"Over the corpse of the proletariat to Communism!" I say. Let Armageddon begin!

[liberlict]

Oh, it's all right to invade then if they surrender. Just like it's all right to rob someone if they don't actually fight back, or rape someone if they're too frightened to resist.

It's not our job as communists to invadde non-communist countries. You may think it's your right as an American that your government sends troops in to other countries but FUCK NO is what I say.

No I actually I agree with you. I'm an isolationist. I was just trying to think in terms of communist strategy. Good luck with the 'Gandhi method', though. It's a pretty powerless position to becoming from. Especially for the 'revolutionary' left.

[Blake's Baby]

It would mean precisely that - but there are quite a few American cartels in Iraq and Afghanistan...

I said were. Your argument about the invasion of Poland is that there weren't any Russian cartels operating there. Before the invasion. So it wasn't imperialist. Just like there weren't American cartels operating in Iraq before the invasion. So it wasn't imperialist.

Or, is it only imperialism if you win?


No I actually I agree with you. I'm an isolationist. I was just trying to think in terms of communist strategy. Good luck with the 'Gandhi method', though. It's a pretty powerless position to becoming from. Especially for the 'revolutionary' left.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe in class war. I think Lenin was completely right when he said 'turn the imperialist war into civil war'. I believe that every soldier should shoot his commanding officer, and if the army starts shelling my neighbourhood I'll be volunteering to go over the barracades to blow up the guns. I don't want to, not being some sociopathic gun-nut who gets a hard-on for the idea of killing, I'd much rather we could sort it out without the kerfuffle, but that's not a terribly realistic picture, is it?

But 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war' doesn't mean 'become a new imperialist power and start acting like any other capitalist state'. If that's what we're revolting for, no thanks.

[argeiphontes]

I'd much rather we could sort it out without the kerfuffle, but that's not a terribly realistic picture, is it?


I guess I will never understand this. If enough class consciousness is built, why do you need a violent revolution? You can just have a sit-down strike and begin dictating your terms.

The same goes for foreign countries. If they do not want a revolution, what business is it of anybody else's to come in and "liberate" them. If they were in need of such liberation, they would already have an active revolutionary movement, and the paragraph above would apply.

(Not to derail the thread, but, come to think of it, why not just use the freedom available in the modern liberal state to build your own institutions, like anarchists generally recommend? That sounds like the most logical way to proceed to me.)

In both of these cases, the presumption is that a minority somehow has a right to dictate to the majority, by use of violence. That doesn't make much sense to me. If the ideas were so great, there shouldn't be any need to do that. The "necessity of violent revolution" that's preached sounds like an excuse to gloss over the fact that the ideology has not been successful. Look at Venezuela, they just voted in their revolutionary government. No guerillas in the hills or anything.

[Rafiq]

Mikhail Tukhachevsky saw a coming global civil war that Soviet invasions would play an active part in. Not a patriotic war of conquest, but a proletarian one. He wished to utilize the Komintern in militarizing the proletariat of all countries in preparation and desired to amass an army of all nationalities and ethnicities for the conquest of first Europe, and then the world. His desires were largely ignored, with Trotsky betting on the success of revolution in Europe, which he was worried could be obscured my Soviet military operations. The fool he was. And Stalin, who along with Buddyony and Vorolshlov and their guerilla tactics, had been opposed to him from the very beggining. He sought to expound on the notion of Lenins civil war as distinct from imperialist war. What is most interesting to me, is the utilization of an international as an organ of global military strategy.

[Ember Catching]

Or, is it only imperialism if you win?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe in class war. I think Lenin was completely right when he said 'turn the imperialist war into civil war'. I believe that every soldier should shoot his commanding officer, and if the army starts shelling my neighbourhood I'll be volunteering to go over the barracades to blow up the guns. I don't want to, not being some sociopathic gun-nut who gets a hard-on for the idea of killing, I'd much rather we could sort it out without the kerfuffle, but that's not a terribly realistic picture, is it?

But 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war' doesn't mean 'become a new imperialist power and start acting like any other capitalist state'. If that's what we're revolting for, no thanks.
It all boils down to this: do you think the attempted Red Army invasion of Europe was a measure undertaken to conquer or prop up cheaper and less competitive markets? Can you provide evidence for that, aside from a naïve notion that, in the imperialist epoch, every war fought by a country retaining the capitalist mode of production must necessarily be of an imperialistic character (cf. "start acting like any other capitalist state")? How does your evidence compare to the stated objectives of the Bolsheviks and the Red Army in the invasion of Poland?

Additionally, I don't think Lenin's call to turn the imperialist war into a civil war was constrained by our modern and ultimately bourgeois diagnostic criteria for "civil war", which in this case can only serve to obscure the internationality of the proletariat within bourgeois civilization. I disagree that this civil war should necessarily have independently reached a certain stage of development within its territorial confines before its belligerents could accept foreign support — that is to say, although the civil war should optimally have began as "revolutionary action against one’s own government", I disagree that it should have reduced itself to respecting national demarcations when the imperialist war it developed from certainly did not. The essential point of Lenin's demand was not to confine proletarian insurrection between the borders drawn up at various international conventions, but to fraternize in the trenches and to transform the "home front" into something truly worthy of the name, wherever the bourgeoisie considered themselves at home, and without respect to where the rank and file of the World Army of the Proletarian Revolution hailed from.

[PhoenixAsh]

kill everybody opposed to foreign invasion, kill everybody opposed to killing,

These two make no sense at all. Why would we want to do that?

It would be a strategic wisdom to kill everybody but these two groups. Those opposed to killing won't be killing you. Those opposed to foreign invasion won't invade you back.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I said were. Your argument about the invasion of Poland is that there weren't any Russian cartels operating there. Before the invasion. So it wasn't imperialist. Just like there weren't American cartels operating in Iraq before the invasion. So it wasn't imperialist.

Or, is it only imperialism if you win?

"Before the invasion" is your, ah, creative addition. Military intervention that aims to introduce one section of imperial capital into a new market is also imperialist; in fact it is the dominant type of imperialist military intervention in the last few decades. My point was that, in Georgia, and in Polish territories liberated from the Pilsudski regime, there were no Russian imperialist cartels.

I will note that this is the second time you refused to answer my questions about the invasion of Moscow, Tambov, KomUch territory, the Far-Eastern Republic, whatever.


I guess I will never understand this. If enough class consciousness is built, why do you need a violent revolution? You can just have a sit-down strike and begin dictating your terms.

And get killed.


The same goes for foreign countries. If they do not want a revolution, what business is it of anybody else's to come in and "liberate" them. If they were in need of such liberation, they would already have an active revolutionary movement, and the paragraph above would apply.

Because communists do not divide the world into countries, but classes. National sections of the proletariat don't have some sort of special privilege; they are either revolutionary, in which case they should welcome an intervention, or reactionary.


Look at Venezuela, they just voted in their revolutionary government. No guerillas in the hills or anything.

No revolution in sight either.

[argeiphontes]

These two make no sense at all. Why would we want to do that?

It would be a strategic wisdom to kill everybody but these two groups. Those opposed to killing won't be killing you. Those opposed to foreign invasion won't invade you back.

By the first group, I meant the people who might sympathize but are against you because you are foreign invaders. The second was people who might resist your valiant efforts at pacifying the local population by killing them. Everyone who opposes communism must be killed, so I didn't want to miss any group that might fall under that rubric.

[Blake's Baby]

"Before the invasion" is your, ah, creative addition. Military intervention that aims to introduce one section of imperial capital into a new market is also imperialist; in fact it is the dominant type of imperialist military intervention in the last few decades. My point was that, in Georgia, and in Polish territories liberated from the Pilsudski regime, there were no Russian imperialist cartels...

Except, you know, the Soviet ministries were state corporations. So, your argument fails on that count.


I will note that this is the second time you refused to answer my questions about the invasion of Moscow, Tambov, KomUch territory, the Far-Eastern Republic, whatever...

Note away. I'm not aware that the Soviet Government set up a bourgeoise Moscow republic that it then invaded, perhaps you could tell me about it?

[argeiphontes]

Because communists do not divide the world into countries, but classes. National sections of the proletariat don't have some sort of special privilege; they are either revolutionary, in which case they should welcome an intervention, or reactionary.


It's a good thing this is never going to happen. It's Genghis Khan's kind of "communism" I suppose. "Those who are not with me are against me" said a wise man, eh?



No revolution in sight either.

It's not the revolution you want, but it's apparently the one they want. There is formation of communes and movement toward some kind of state control of the economy. It's like a dictatorship of the proletariat. They are dictating terms to private enterprise. There is no requirement that they desire a communist revolution, it's up to them as the people. I support their right to national self-determination.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Except, you know, the Soviet ministries were state corporations. So, your argument fails on that count.

Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

For one thing there were no "Soviet ministries" at the time of the Georgian and Polish invasions; there were "people's commissariats" that sometimes acted as ministries, but these did not directly manage the economy.

Now, if you want to make an argument that the food dictatorship, the rubber trust etc. were competing imperial-capitalist entities, I think you have your work cut out for you, what with the partial negation of the law of value, the reliance on non-market mechanisms, the lack of market competition in conquered areas etc. etc.


Note away. I'm not aware that the Soviet Government set up a bourgeoise Moscow republic that it then invaded, perhaps you could tell me about it?

You really have an odd fetish for the formal trappings of state power. I suppose you also think the Bonn regime didn't exist as a sovereign state until the nineties?

The soviet government allowed the remnants of the Provisional Government, the Committee for Salvation etc. to remain in power in Moscow for a very brief period, since the military situation was unfavorable to an immediate takeover.

As soon as the military situation improved, the troops of the soviet government assaulted Moscow, reduced the Kremlin nearly to rubble (and Luncharsky, the petit-bourgeois romantic, to tears) by artillery fire, had a few uppity junkers shot, etc.

There we have it - the Bolsheviks had allowed a bourgeois authority to exist for a time in a definite territory, and were now annexing that territory by military force, without waiting for an internal revolution of the Moscow proletariat.

So it follows that either: (1) there is some mystical quality of state borders that makes the invasion of Moscow pukka but the invasion of Georgia a horrible atrocity; or (2) the revolution requires a plebiscite in every territory, no matter how small, no matter what its class structure; or (3) there was nothing wrong about the Bolshevik government invading Georgia and Poland - at least not as far as the concept of the invasion was concerned.


It's a good thing this is never going to happen. It's Genghis Khan's kind of "communism" I suppose. "Those who are not with me are against me" said a wise man, eh?

There is something to be said for the intelligence of extreme reactionaries; those, at least, tend not to fetishize democracy and plebiscites, and many of them understand that beneath the peaceful facade of modern society lies a savage war - although they are on the wrong side of that war.

Of course, Mussolini happens to have been wrong, at least as far as his squadristi were concerned. The Liberals, for example, were not with them, but they were not against them that much either. But in a revolutionary situation, the dictum holds - it is impossible to be neutral when all of the contradictions of the old society are coming to the fore, in their most acute form.


It's not the revolution you want, but it's apparently the one they want.

It might be what "they" want (who are "they"? some mythical "pueblo Venezuelano"?), but it isn't a revolution, no matter how you look at it. The bourgeois state apparatus hasn't been smashed, the means of production haven't been socialized etc. etc.


There is formation of communes and movement toward some kind of state control of the economy.

"Some kind of state control", just as you can get served "some kind of meat" in dodgy restaurants, heh. All of these things happened under Peron as well. Was the "justicialist" coup some kind of revolution, then? I recall that a young Moreno came very close to saying something like that, but had the good revolutionary sense to reject the conclusion.


It's like a dictatorship of the proletariat. They are dictating terms to private enterprise.

There is no dictatorship of the proletariat in Venezuela, given that even the bourgeois state apparatus hasn't been smashed.


There is no requirement that they desire a communist revolution, it's up to them as the people. I support their right to national self-determination.

Who are "the people"?

[argeiphontes]

Who are "the people"?

The people who keep voting for the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. I guess they are bourgeois to you or something. Reactionaries for sure.

[argeiphontes]

There we have it - the Bolsheviks

There was a time on this board when a few people at least decried the Bolsheviks as usurpers of the revolution. The Soviet Union used to be considered State Capitalist. I guess that was before your time, though.

[liberlict]

"Before the invasion" is your, ah, creative addition. Military intervention that aims to introduce one section of imperial capital into a new market is also imperialist; in fact it is the dominant type of imperialist military intervention in the last few decades. My point was that, in Georgia, and in Polish territories liberated from the Pilsudski regime, there were no Russian imperialist cartels.

I will note that this is the second time you refused to answer my questions about the invasion of Moscow, Tambov, KomUch territory, the Far-Eastern Republic, whatever.



And get killed.



Because communists do not divide the world into countries, but classes. National sections of the proletariat don't have some sort of special privilege; they are either revolutionary, in which case they should welcome an intervention, or reactionary.



No revolution in sight either.

I'm trying to image how you managed to fuck that post up so badly that you quoted me three times on things I never said. I could understand once, but 3? :confused:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm trying to image how you managed to fuck that post up so badly that you quoted me three times on things I never said. I could understand once, but 3? :confused:

Alcohol.


The people who keep voting for the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. I guess they are bourgeois to you or something. Reactionaries for sure.

I imagine most of them are not bourgeois, but that doesn't mean anything. It's not as if communists have ever claimed that everything done by proletarians is sacred - proletarians usually support bourgeois parties due to a lack of class-consciousness. The PSUV is such a party.

The revolution is not up for a vote.


There was a time on this board when a few people at least decried the Bolsheviks as usurpers of the revolution. The Soviet Union used to be considered State Capitalist. I guess that was before your time, though.

Well, I'm sorry for your loss.

[liberlict]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe in class war. I think Lenin was completely right when he said 'turn the imperialist war into civil war'. I believe that every soldier should shoot his commanding officer, and if the army starts shelling my neighbourhood I'll be volunteering to go over the barracades to blow up the guns. I don't want to, not being some sociopathic gun-nut who gets a hard-on for the idea of killing, I'd much rather we could sort it out without the kerfuffle, but that's not a terribly realistic picture, is it?

But 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war' doesn't mean 'become a new imperialist power and start acting like any other capitalist state'. If that's what we're revolting for, no thanks.

I don't understand the need to distinguish between civil class war and international class war. For communists, nations are just meaningless lines on a map, are they not? Why care so much about the concept of nation now when in other contexts it's always dismissed?

[Blake's Baby]

You honestly don't understand what the last sentence of my post means?

I'm prepared to fight the British government; I'm a worker in Britain, I'm going to fight the class war here. I'm not going to invade Iran as a member of an imperialist army but with a red flag.

Let's assume for a moment that the UK is the first state to be overthrown by the revolution; a revolutionary dictatorship is declared under the name 'the United Communes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That dictatorship needs to make sure other states come over to the revolution; the best way to do that in my opinion is to support the revolutionary workers in those states. In the meantime, it should be doing everything it can to help the working class in its own territory. If the UC(GBNI) starts to assemble a 'red army' to invade Belgium (involving as it is likely to do the militarisation of labour) then that to me is no longer 'defence of the revolution' it's 'pursuing the foreign policy aims of the UC(GBNI) government', in other words, the protection of British national capital. In my view, the correct position for a revolutionary (assuming efforts to 'correct the course' are unsuccessful) is to take up the class war against the new government of the UC(GBNI) as I would say that it had passed over to the bourgeoisie.

[argeiphontes]

I would really appreciate if my posts got a response instead of BB and argeiphontes weaseling their way out of doing so.

You want an answer to this?



Finally, any characterization of the attempted Red Army invasion of Europe as "colonial" or in any way motivated by an imperialistic compulsion to offset a falling rate of profit by sourcing cheaper and less competitive markets is completely invalidated by the necessary ultimate consequences of a successful revolutionary invasion being the complete destruction of private property, wage-labor, the value-form, and the state.


There was state capitalism in the USSR. Just having a conjecture about what maybe possibly could have happened (i.e. these supposed "necessary consequences") if this other thing went down, doesn't do anything for me. If only the German revolution had succeeded, we'd all be living in a stateless post-scarcity paradise? Bullocks. If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts then every day'd be Christmas, for communists.

First of all, I believe in democracy and local self-determination so any attempt to invade people in order to help a small segment of the population (the segment of the proletariat who wants invasion) is illegitimate, or complicated at best. I can support an intervention like that of Vietnam into Cambodia but there was no other choice.

The other problem is, of course, that the Soviet Union was shit. It was an empire forged in blood and repression that was destined to fall apart as soon as possible, 1991 when the Baltic states seceded. Socialism is about worker control over production, which was destroyed by Lenin. Why would anybody support a state capitalist nation invading somebody else to make them state capitalist as well? Western capitalism is much better, so I'm glad the Soviet Union didn't spread any further West than it did, and I'm sorry that Poland and the Eastern bloc were under their domination for so long.

Finally, there are ethical questions of proportionality and rights. The idea that people who are taking surplus labor from another group should be subject to merciless slaughter, as CH and EC is suggesting, is questionable at best. Maybe you support stand your ground laws, too? If the ideas of communism are so great, they should spread through the population which will then either vote in a suitable government, or revolt themselves, in which case they can be aided. What ever happened to "The liberation of the working class must be an act of the working class itself"? It's a little insulting to think that people are unable to do what's best for them, and you are an angel come to liberate them from afar.

If I've answered the wrong question, let me know. I'll be glad to provide more commentary. ;)

[Baseball]

Imperialism refers to a specific stage in capitalist development, and has a distinguishable summation of social relations and the role of capital in geopolitics. The domination of one state over another, the "bullying" of a country alone is not imperialism, though often it is because it occurs within the context of capitalism.


This "stage" is a result of looking for more favorable areas of production. Its not clear why a socialist community would not be interested in the same objective.

[Rafiq]

This "stage" is a result of looking for more favorable areas of production. Its not clear why a socialist community would not be interested in the same objective.


Actually no, colonisation and state domination is something that has existed since antiquity, imperialism is a system in itself.

[Baseball]

Actually no, colonisation and state domination is something that has existed since antiquity, imperialism is a system in itself.


Yah like I said in the response-- its actually looking for more favorable areas of production. Its not at all imperialism.
The stuff of "antiquity" has been practiced by regimes claiming to be socialist since 1918. Hence my amusement to that earlier post.

[argeiphontes]

\its actually looking for more favorable areas of production.

Sometimes it's just theft or perhaps "primitive accumulation".



The last Polish–Soviet territorial exchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_territorial_exchange) took place in 1951. Some 480 km2 (185 sq mi) of land along the border were swapped between the People's Republic of Poland and the Soviet Union. The adjustment was made to the decisive economic benefit of the Soviet side due to rich deposits of coal given up by Poland. Within eight years following the exchange, the Soviets built four large coal-mines there, producing 15 million tons of coal annually.

[Baseball]

Sometimes it's just theft or perhaps "primitive accumulation".

But hang on-- the comment was about imperialism being a stage of capitalism.
What I am pointing out is that when productive is more favorable in one area rather than another, resources will gravitate toward the former. Socialists mischaracterize this and call it "imperialism."

The example you cite is in fact imperialism, and in fact is the only conceivable and logical way for a socialist community to achieve those same ends. It can't buy the land; it can't invest in the coal operation. It has to physically possess that production unit.

[argeiphontes]

But hang on-- the comment was about imperialism being a stage of capitalism.
What I am pointing out is that when productive is more favorable in one area rather than another, resources will gravitate toward the former. Socialists mischaracterize this and call it "imperialism."

The example you cite is in fact imperialism, and in fact is the only conceivable and logical way for a socialist community to achieve those same ends. It can't buy the land; it can't invest in the coal operation. It has to physically possess that production unit.

I suppose so. Although, the Soviet Union wasn't actually socialist in this way and could have bought it or contracted with the Polish government to provide the coal. The land grab was just more profitable.

I disagree that imperialism is a stage of capitalism. That is, it may very well be a stage of capitalism, but it's not only that. Imperialism is imperial activity, whenever or wherever it takes place, regardless of the nature of the state that causes it.

The other thing is that some people think that socialism is necessarily world-wide, therefore imperialism is impossible by definition. If there is imperialism, it means there is no socialism. I don't share this belief.

[Blake's Baby]

I would really appreciate if my posts got a response instead of BB and argeiphontes weaseling their way out of doing so.

Definitely no weasling. Owling, maybe. I wasn't aware you'd posted. What were you asking?

[Rafiq]

Yah like I said in the response-- its actually looking for more favorable areas of production. Its not at all imperialism.
The stuff of "antiquity" has been practiced by regimes claiming to be socialist since 1918. Hence my amusement to that earlier post.

If it was just about looking for other areas of production, than the colonialist of the 16th century would be caragorized as imperialism. Imperialism is a specific stage in capitalist development which is a result of machinations in the capitalist mode of production, not the other way around. I don't, by the way, have any qualms with a proletarian dictatorship invading other countries - it is a means from which our cause will be spread

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm prepared to fight the British government; I'm a worker in Britain, I'm going to fight the class war here.

What an incredibly parochial view. Your socialism seems to fit very comfortably inside one country.


I'm not going to invade Iran as a member of an imperialist army but with a red flag.

And please tell us, what is this "Iran" that would be invaded? Surely you mean the bourgeois Iranian government. So you would refuse to fight the bourgeoisie in Iran. Why? Because you think that workers are divided into "British workers", "Iranian workers", etc., and that it is the "duty" of "Iranian workers" to fight against the Iranian state.

But this is a deeply anti-internationalist stance. An internationalist recognizes the essential unity of objective interest that exists within the global proletariat, unlike the bourgeoisie which is necessarily divided into competing national groups. Why should the reactionary mood of one "national section" of the proletariat drag the rest of the global proletariat down?


Let's assume for a moment that the UK is the first state to be overthrown by the revolution; a revolutionary dictatorship is declared under the name 'the United Communes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That dictatorship needs to make sure other states come over to the revolution; the best way to do that in my opinion is to support the revolutionary workers in those states. In the meantime, it should be doing everything it can to help the working class in its own territory. If the UC(GBNI) starts to assemble a 'red army' to invade Belgium (involving as it is likely to do the militarisation of labour) then that to me is no longer 'defence of the revolution' it's 'pursuing the foreign policy aims of the UC(GBNI) government', in other words, the protection of British national capital.

Imperialism isn't driven by any sort of capital - certainly small shop capital has little to gain from imperialism, for example - but by imperialist capital, capital that has reached a certain stage and is structures in a particular manner. Capital subordinated to the dictatorship of the proletariat obviously can't have this structure; if it does, there is no DoP.


In my view, the correct position for a revolutionary (assuming efforts to 'correct the course' are unsuccessful) is to take up the class war against the new government of the UC(GBNI) as I would say that it had passed over to the bourgeoisie.

And where did this new bourgeoisie come from? It seems to have formed, at an alarming pace, as soon as the proletarian authorities made one decision you consider to be incorrect.


First of all, I believe in democracy and local self-determination so any attempt to invade people in order to help a small segment of the population (the segment of the proletariat who wants invasion) is illegitimate, or complicated at best.

Well that's nice. But communists do not think this way - we are the party of the proletariat, not "of the entire people". To turn your question around, why should the militant workers of Cambodia have to suffer because they are surrounded by the peasantry and reactionary workers?

Apparently you place more importance on lines on a map than the class struggle - which is to be expected, since you're not a communist.


The other problem is, of course, that the Soviet Union was shit. It was an empire forged in blood and repression that was destined to fall apart as soon as possible, 1991 when the Baltic states seceded. Socialism is about worker control over production, which was destroyed by Lenin.

Lenin couldn't destroy socialism in the Soviet Union, even if he wanted to, bless him, because there was no socialism in the Soviet Union. What did exist in the SU was a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, growing increasingly conservative, sclerotic and bureaucratic due to the failure of the German revolution and the destruction of the better part of the Russian proletariat - in both meanings of the word "better" - in the civil war.

Of course, as a "market socialist", your notion of "workers' control" is probably some Titoite autogestion nonsense, which is not what the communist slogan of workers' control over the means of production means.


Why would anybody support a state capitalist nation invading somebody else to make them state capitalist as well? Western capitalism is much better, so I'm glad the Soviet Union didn't spread any further West than it did, and I'm sorry that Poland and the Eastern bloc were under their domination for so long.

So talk to someone in Poland - anyone except the extreme Radio Marija crowd, really - and ask them how glad they are that mean old Russian-imposed socialism is gone and that patriotic freedom-loving free forces of freedom led by Solidarity have won.


Finally, there are ethical questions of proportionality and rights. The idea that people who are taking surplus labor from another group should be subject to merciless slaughter, as CH and EC is suggesting, is questionable at best.

What is questionable is your comprehension of what me and Ember Catching have been saying. Personally, I would like it if the revolution could be resolved without a single bullet, shell or guided missile being fired. I would also like to live forever and shoot laser beams out of my eyes, but that won't happen either. Moral or immoral - and morality is, and has always been, a tool of the ruling classes - the revolution will require the suppression of the old ruling classes and their supporters. Of course, if a former member of the bourgeoisie wishes to support the proletarian authorities, that's great. Conversely, no mercy should be shown to proletarian whiteguards.


If the ideas of communism are so great, they should spread through the population[...]

Communism isn't a "great idea" - I mean, for the bourgeoisie, it's a horrible idea. And the bourgeoisie happen to control the entire ideological apparatus of the modern state.


What ever happened to "The liberation of the working class must be an act of the working class itself"?

Nothing - in fact we are reaffirming this slogan in opposition to those who want to amend it into "the liberation of the British working class must be an act of the British working class itself".

[argeiphontes]

Lenin couldn't destroy socialism in the Soviet Union, even if he wanted to, bless him, because there was no socialism in the Soviet Union.


You know what I'm talking about--the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviets.



Of course, as a "market socialist", your notion of "workers' control" is probably some Titoite autogestion nonsense, which is not what the communist slogan of workers' control over the means of production means.


How do you know this? Have I ever mentioned Tito?



So talk to someone in Poland - anyone except the extreme Radio Marija crowd, really - and ask them how glad they are that mean old Russian-imposed socialism is gone and that patriotic freedom-loving free forces of freedom led by Solidarity have won.


I've never met anyone from Poland who was in favor of the Soviet Union dominating it. And I've met a lot of people from Poland.

[liberlict]

You honestly don't understand what the last sentence of my post means?

I'm prepared to fight the British government; I'm a worker in Britain, I'm going to fight the class war here. I'm not going to invade Iran as a member of an imperialist army but with a red flag.

Let's assume for a moment that the UK is the first state to be overthrown by the revolution; a revolutionary dictatorship is declared under the name 'the United Communes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That dictatorship needs to make sure other states come over to the revolution; the best way to do that in my opinion is to support the revolutionary workers in those states. In the meantime, it should be doing everything it can to help the working class in its own territory. If the UC(GBNI) starts to assemble a 'red army' to invade Belgium (involving as it is likely to do the militarisation of labour) then that to me is no longer 'defence of the revolution' it's 'pursuing the foreign policy aims of the UC(GBNI) government', in other words, the protection of British national capital. In my view, the correct position for a revolutionary (assuming efforts to 'correct the course' are unsuccessful) is to take up the class war against the new government of the UC(GBNI) as I would say that it had passed over to the bourgeoisie.

I think I understand what you mean by it, something along the lines of "imperialism is bad full stop". But I don't understand why you are so moral about this while managing to utter things like "soldiers should shoot their commanding officers" and "I don't believe in self determination". You even have "destroy all nations" in your signature for havens sake :laugh:. How is it that Lenin destroying Polish resistance (which you wish he had done) does not constitute imperialism?

These phrases you use like "support the revolutionary workers in those states" and "give aid to" are very vague and call for some specificity. Support how?

When powerful countries “support” foreign countries it's usually by sending over cargo ships full of weapons, which is just a de facto form of imperialism---much like America's support for Israel, as I said.

Really I'm not trying to disagree with you on any particular point, just trying to understand how all your statements form a coherent whole.

Your position would have it that it's OK for a soldier to shoot reactionaries in the “United Communes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, yet if he were get the Eurotunnel to France to shoot a reactionary some sacrosanct principle is being violated.

[Blake's Baby]

What an incredibly parochial view. Your socialism seems to fit very comfortably inside one country.



And please tell us, what is this "Iran" that would be invaded? Surely you mean the bourgeois Iranian government. So you would refuse to fight the bourgeoisie in Iran. Why? Because you think that workers are divided into "British workers", "Iranian workers", etc., and that it is the "duty" of "Iranian workers" to fight against the Iranian state...

Not sure how one could 'invade' a government. And I didn't say that I would refuse to fight the Iranian government at all. I might very well go to Iran to help in the class struggle of the working class in Iran. If I knew anyone in the country, had a clue about the local situation, could speak the language, and thought could be of help (which I don't).

Interesting that you think that 'fighting the Iranian government' is necessarily the same thing as what I said which was 'invade Iran as part of an imperialist army'. Presumably then you have no objection to the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as they're merely fighting a bourgeois government (or are they 'invading' that government?).



...

And where did this new bourgeoisie come from? It seems to have formed, at an alarming pace, as soon as the proletarian authorities made one decision you consider to be incorrect...

Well there's a sleight of hand. The leadership of the proletarian power doesn't have to actually become a bourgeoisie in order to have gone over to the bourgeoisie. Do you think the leaders of social democracy in 1914 all became factory owners on August 1st? They didn't become a new bourgeoisie, they went over politically to the bourgeoisie. If the leadership of the proletarian power goes over politically to the bourgeoisie it has ceased to act in the interests of the working class, and it's the job of revolutionaries to work for the overthrow of the new masters just like the old.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

You know what I'm talking about--the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviets.

What "Bolshevik takeover"? The fact that the Bolsheviks had a majority in the proletarian soviets? The attempt of the PLSR central committee to drag Russia back into an imperialist war, after which the Left Esers broke up and most of the party eventually joined the Bolsheviks?


How do you know this? Have I ever mentioned Tito?

I can make an educated guess - (what is popularly conceived to be) Titoist "self-management" was quite popular in market "socialist" circles, from Pablo to the pretender to the throne of Spain. (I say "was", because market "socialism" doesn't really exist anymore.)


I've never met anyone from Poland who was in favor of the Soviet Union dominating it. And I've met a lot of people from Poland.

Ha, when you phrase it like that of course no one is in favor of "Russian domination". That's the equivalent of gauging support for legal abortion by going around and shouting "ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF KILLING BABIES?". But ask them about their living standard, before and after the glorious restoration of glorious democracy.


Not sure how one could 'invade' a government.

"Government" can mean either the cabinet, or the entire state apparatus - i.e. we talk about "the Soviet government", not necessarily meaning the SovNarKom or the VTsIK. Of course, the Iranian state apparatus is what any invasion would attack - "Iran" is simply a word, a blob on the map, you can't attack that.


Interesting that you think that 'fighting the Iranian government' is necessarily the same thing as what I said which was 'invade Iran as part of an imperialist army'.

"Imperialist army waving a red flag", which is how you described the Soviet invasion of Poland as well. I simply ignored the petty sniping.

So, Blake's Baby, do you think there is something magical about state borders, or do you think every municipality needs to join the revolution by plebiscite? You still haven't answered that, probably because any answer would require you to bite a bullet.


Presumably then you have no objection to the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as they're merely fighting a bourgeois government (or are they 'invading' that government?).

I do object to imperialist intervention, but not because I think the state borders of Iraq or Afghanistan are inviolable, because I'm not a fucking liberal. Honestly, who cares about the former governments of Iraq or Afghanistan? No communist, that's for sure. I object to imperialist intervention because it harms the proletarian movement in those countries, in addition to imposing extra hardships on an already badly battered third-world proletariat. Now, if a dictatorship of the proletariat were to invade Iraq for example, things would be different. Yes, the sacred state border would still be violated, but who cares?


Well there's a sleight of hand. The leadership of the proletarian power doesn't have to actually become a bourgeoisie in order to have gone over to the bourgeoisie. Do you think the leaders of social democracy in 1914 all became factory owners on August 1st? They didn't become a new bourgeoisie, they went over politically to the bourgeoisie. If the leadership of the proletarian power goes over politically to the bourgeoisie it has ceased to act in the interests of the working class, and it's the job of revolutionaries to work for the overthrow of the new masters just like the old.

Ha, now it's my turn to split hair over semantics. You said that the government would have "passed over to the bourgeoisie", which is not the same as "going over" to the bourgeoisie. But what bourgeoisie would the government have gone over to? The British bourgeoisie? But in your hypothetical scenario, that section of the bourgeoisie has been smashed.

You also never said why the capital managed by the proletarian dictatorship was structured like imperialist capital, but I've given up on getting a straight answer from you. No skin off my back, though. Every time you try to dodge answering direct questions you lose credibility.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Ha, now it's my turn to split hair over semantics. You said that the government would have "passed over to the bourgeoisie", which is not the same as "going over" to the bourgeoisie...

Yes it is, exactly the same.


...
But what bourgeoisie would the government have gone over to? The British bourgeoisie? But in your hypothetical scenario, that section of the bourgeoisie has been smashed...

'the bourgeoisie... that section of the bourgeoisie'. Yes, 'the bourgeoisie'. The bourgeoisie is an international class. As only (in our hypothetical situation) the bourgeoisie of the UK has been expropriated, 'the bourgeoisie' still exists.

In so far as the leaders (however they're generated) of the new proletarian power act in the interests of the working class worldwide (which as you've already said doesn't include attacking them) they are still on the side of the proletariat. In so far as they act against the interests of the working class (for example, in so far as they seek to consolidate national capital as a 'gain for the revolution', or project state power into other states) they are acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie (not 'this' bourgeoisie, or 'that' bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie). They have gone over, or passed (transitive verb implying movement from one place to another, in other words in this instance a synonym for gone as in 'I've passed over the bridge' and 'I've gone over the bridge') over to the bourgeoisie, not by becoming bankers or industrialists as you suggest, but by acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie against the interests of the working class. Defence of national capital = defence of bourgeois interests, no matter what your class background is.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

'the bourgeoisie... that section of the bourgeoisie'. Yes, 'the bourgeoisie'. The bourgeoisie is an international class.

But unlike the proletariat, whose interest are generally speaking the same across national borders, the bourgeoisie is divided into several national, regional, industrial etc. sections. Labor is united, in terms of objective interest if not politically, but capital is necessarily composed of multiple competing capitals.

So one can't "go over to the bourgeoisie" without going over to a specific section of the bourgeoisie. The German SDP certainly didn't "go over" to the Entente imperialist bourgeoisie, they went over to the German bourgeoisie. The same bourgeoisie was perfectly happy to see the Russian bourgeoisie overthrown.


In so far as the leaders (however they're generated) of the new proletarian power act in the interests of the working class worldwide (which as you've already said doesn't include attacking them) [...]

That depends. The class interest of the proletariat is often at variance with the individual interests of specific proletarians. The interest of the proletarians who fought for the White armies certain;y didn't include being shot - but the class interest of the proletariat certainly demanded the smashing of the Whites.

If proletarian state power is projected into a new region as a consequence of a military invasion, that is in the interest of the proletariat of that region, even if the majority of them are against the invasion due to nationalist false consciousness.

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry Liberlict, didn't see this post earlier for some reason.


I think I understand what you mean by it, something along the lines of "imperialism is bad full stop". But I don't understand why you are so moral about this while managing to utter things like "soldiers should shoot their commanding officers" and "I don't believe in self determination". You even have "destroy all nations" in your signature for havens sake :laugh:. How is it that Lenin destroying Polish resistance (which you wish he had done) does not constitute imperialism? ...

Lenin was instrumental in creating the bourgeois Polish state. He shouldn't have done, the Polish working class was as instrumental in overthrowing Tsarism as the Russian working class. What the 'Soviet Government' did was cut off the Polish workers and hand them to 'their own' bourgeoisie. That was a massive error.

The 'Soviet Government' then compounded that error by invading the state that they'd been instrumental in creating. this is the metaphor of the fire that I keep bringing up. Having set the house on fire, the Bolsheviks tried to douse the flames with their petrol-covered faces. 'But why shouldn't they try to douse the flames?' you cry. 'You didn't even want them to burn the house down, you should support their petrol-covered face-craziness'.

Well, no. I didn't want them to set the house on fire sure, but as they had, the best move is almost anything other than covering their faces with petrol and smashing them into the flames.


...These phrases you use like "support the revolutionary workers in those states" and "give aid to" are very vague and call for some specificity. Support how? ...

Give any support to the Iranian (I think our example is) working class it can, political, military, culinary (what's the term I'm looking for here?), technological, medical, whatever. Whatever it can that the working class in Iran is asking for. Can that include a 'red army'? Yes, it could. But if the Red Army of the United Communes is going to Iran (or maybe Belgium) at the invitation of the working class in Iran (or Belgium) that's different to the government of the United Communities deciding to invade Iran (or Belgium) against the working class.


... When powerful countries “support” foreign countries it's usually by sending over cargo ships full of weapons, which is just a de facto form of imperialism---much like America's support for Israel, as I said.

Really I'm not trying to disagree with you on any particular point, just trying to understand how all your statements form a coherent whole...

Well, weapons, food, medicine, tractors, machinery for the oil pipelines, technical specialists in power generation, blankets... anything the working class in Iran (or Belgium) needs. If that includes 'willing volunteers to join the Iranian (or Belgian) workers' militia' then yes that too. If that includes 'two divisions of battle hardened British workers' militia and 100 tanks' then that too. But that should be the decision of the working class in Iran (or Belgium) not in Milton Keynes (where the new government's been established).


... Your position would have it that it's OK for a soldier to shoot reactionaries in the “United Communes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, yet if he were get the Eurotunnel to France to shoot a reactionary some sacrosanct principle is being violated.

'Soldier'? Do you mean worker?

And by 'reactionary' do you mean 'worker' as well?

Is it alright to shoot reactionaries in Britain? Any loss of life is regrettable, but if people are taking up arms in defence of capitalism it might be necessary to shoot them. But we don't form communist death squads that travel the world taking out 'reactionaries'. If the working class in France is so weak, the revolution in France is going so badly, that it needs assassins from Britain to do its dirty work, I think the writing is already on the wall for all to see.

[Baseball]

If it was just about looking for other areas of production, than the colonialist of the 16th century would be caragorized as imperialism. Imperialism is a specific stage in capitalist development which is a result of machinations in the capitalist mode of production, not the other way around. I don't, by the way, have any qualms with a proletarian dictatorship invading other countries - it is a means from which our cause will be spread

The colonialists of the 16th century were not looking to shift resources about to find more favorable areas of production.
Those are the alleged "machinations" of capitalism, of which, again, a socialist community would need to, but unable to engage.

The militaristic nature of spreading socialism, is of course, entirely reasonable and logical within such a system. It is of course also far worse than than the alleged "imperialism" of the capitalist communities.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Lenin was instrumental in creating the bourgeois Polish state. He shouldn't have done, the Polish working class was as instrumental in overthrowing Tsarism as the Russian working class. What the 'Soviet Government' did was cut off the Polish workers and hand them to 'their own' bourgeoisie. That was a massive error.

What the Soviet government did was retreat in face of an extensive collapse of the front, the uselessness of sailors' detachments etc. That is why a bourgeois Poland in the German sphere of influence was created - instead of a proletarian Poland allied to the Russian Bolshevik government as had happened in LitBel etc.


If the working class in France is so weak, the revolution in France is going so badly, that it needs assassins from Britain to do its dirty work, I think the writing is already on the wall for all to see.

Replace "France" and "Britain" with "Tsarskoe Selo" and "Petrograd", and what do we get? Nonsense. So why is it alright for the Petrograd workers and soldiers to invade Ts. Selo, but not for British workers to invade France?

[argeiphontes]

Lenin was instrumental in creating the bourgeois Polish state. He shouldn't have done, the Polish working class was as instrumental in overthrowing Tsarism as the Russian working class. What the 'Soviet Government' did was cut off the Polish workers and hand them to 'their own' bourgeoisie. That was a massive error.


Interesting. That's the first I've heard of it. Is there somewhere I can do some reading about this since I'm interested in Polish history?

[argeiphontes]

The colonialists of the 16th century were not looking to shift resources about to find more favorable areas of production.
Those are the alleged "machinations" of capitalism, of which, again, a socialist community would need to, but unable to engage.

What a minute. What do you mean "need to... engage"? First of all, the system they are envisioning is already world-wide so there is the ability to move production to whatever areas.

Second, the internal pressures and logic are different because there is no profit. Now, the US might engage in imperialism and install a puppet regime in Honduras to make things nice for the United Fruit Company. Why would these same forces exist in socialism? What would a socialist system have to gain from cheaper labor if there is no money? There is no way to exploit other workers.

[Baseball]

What a minute. What do you mean "need to... engage"? First of all, the system they are envisioning is already world-wide so there is the ability to move production to whatever areas.

How? The means of production are supposed to be owned the workers.
The workers in the car factory in the germanic areas can't just ship that wealth to the workers in the american areas because the costs of production are less in the latter than the former.


Second, the internal pressures and logic are different because there is no profit. Now, the US might engage in imperialism and install a puppet regime in Honduras to make things nice for the United Fruit Company. Why would these same forces exist in socialism?

One would think that people who live in a socialist community that is not favorably disposed to production of bananas would nevertheless wish to continue to consume bananas in a socialist community.
There is pressure right there for that socialist community-- to ensure that this foodstuff is still available to the people who reside there. And since this socialist community is supposed to be a democracy, its a much greater and a more -legitimate- (at least from a socialist perspective) pressure.


What would a socialist system have to gain from cheaper labor

The same gain which any rational community gains-- labor is freed up for work in more demanding and skilled areas of production.

[RealYehuda]

The leftist crackas in the united states want to colonise the african-american nation with their communist ideology

[argeiphontes]

How? The means of production are supposed to be owned the workers.
The workers in the car factory in the germanic areas can't just ship that wealth to the workers in the american areas because the costs of production are less in the latter than the former.


How are the costs of production less in America if both are part of a worldwide communist planned economy?



One would think that people who live in a socialist community that is not favorably disposed to production of bananas would nevertheless wish to continue to consume bananas in a socialist community.

There is pressure right there for that socialist community-- to ensure that this foodstuff is still available to the people who reside there. And since this socialist community is supposed to be a democracy, its a much greater and a more -legitimate- (at least from a socialist perspective) pressure.


So what are they going to do? If the people refuse to produce bananas, they will sharpen some sticks and invade? Or maybe institute trade sanctions? I don't think that's the same as imperialism, but it's not my argument so maybe somebody else has an answer.



The same gain which any rational community gains-- labor is freed up for work in more demanding and skilled areas of production.

I guess I wasn't clear. How is labor cheaper in one area than in another in a worldwide planned economy? In an economy like that, you can put a production unit anywhere it is needed to ensure maximum efficiency. Theoretically, of course.

[aristos]

What the Soviet government did was retreat in face of an extensive collapse of the front, the uselessness of sailors' detachments etc. That is why a bourgeois Poland in the German sphere of influence was created - instead of a proletarian Poland allied to the Russian Bolshevik government as had happened in LitBel etc.


Exactly, I was just going to say this. The Bolsheviks did not actually "create" the Polish bourgeois republic, they just abandoned that particular territory to focus their forces elsewhere. Besides, it was part of the peace treaty with Germany. Had the Bolsheviks not abandoned Poland the slaughter at the hands of German troops would have renewed. A good chunk of the popular goodwill towards the Bolsheviks and their subsequent legitimacy rested upon keeping their promise to get out of that war, is it seriously being suggested they should have betrayed it?

[Blake's Baby]

Well there you go, here's me thinking that the Bolsheviks declared national self-determination for Poland and Finland, and it seems I was wrong. Mea culpa.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well there you go, here's me thinking that the Bolsheviks declared national self-determination for Poland and Finland, and it seems I was wrong. Mea culpa.

They did - as a bourgeois-democratic demand and as a weapon against nationalism. Obviously the socialist revolution takes precedence over bourgeois-democratic demands - and even before that, Lenin advised the Polish communists to not pursue independence as independence in the context of an inter-imperialist war would lead to subservience to one of the imperialist camps.

Of course, national self-determination does not necessarily mean national self-determination under a bourgeois government - the independence of the Ukraine was recognized by the RSFSR, for example, under a workers' government.

[Blake's Baby]

... a bourgeois-democratic demand and as a weapon against nationalism...

And yet you fail to see the irony of this formulation.

'... a weapon for nationalism and a weapon against nationalism...'

Fixed that for you.

[Baseball]

How are the costs of production less in America if both are part of a worldwide communist planned economy?

Depends upon what is being produced




So what are they going to do?

No doubt they will rely upon that mysterious "somebody" to solve the problem.
The reality will probably be what actually happened in the socialist communities of the 20th century-- shortages.


If the people refuse to produce bananas, they will sharpen some sticks and invade? Or maybe institute trade sanctions? I don't think that's the same as imperialism, but it's not my argument so maybe somebody else has an answer.

However, the problem still remains for the "market socialist" community. They cannot invest resources in the same way a capitalist community, in the same way the socialist cannot. Thus face the same problem.




I guess I wasn't clear. How is labor cheaper in one area than in another in a worldwide planned economy? In an economy like that, you can put a production unit anywhere it is needed to ensure maximum efficiency. Theoretically, of course.

Maximum efficency includes accounting for labor costs. Having highly trained machinists picking bananas comes at the cost not having the labor of the machinists.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

And yet you fail to see the irony of this formulation.

'... a weapon for nationalism and a weapon against nationalism...'

Fixed that for you.

Except national self-determination isn't nationalism.

Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology that tries to swindle the proletariat into thinking their interests are the same as those of "their" bourgeoisie. It is, of course, incorrect. Yet national oppression does exist - from the oppression of Russians in the glorious new Baltic democracies to the oppression of the Palestinians in Israel. By raising the slogan of self-determination - where it is applicable - communists neutralize nationalist attempts to divide the workers, and fight against chauvinism by the dominant nationality.

[Blake's Baby]

Except every time its ever been tried of course. But apart from that the theory's fine.

Oh, no, wait, it's rubbish. National self-determination is a capitulation to liberal ideology and a trap for the working class.

[aristos]

National self-determination is a capitulation to liberal ideology and a trap for the working class.

And yet you view the Polish bourgeois state in the 20s as sacrosanct and the Soviet attempt to dismantle it as a sacrilege.

[boiler]

How do you guys feel about communist colonisation (in the hypothetical sense)?
For example, say that a communist revolution breaks out in a country with a significant military, would you support that country using its power to take over capitalist states and liberate their workers?

I would support it in some cases like in a country where there was strong support for a communist revolution. But I wouldn't support it if a workers army invaded a country that there was no support for a communist revolution.

[aristos]

But I wouldn't support it if a workers army invaded a country that there was no support for a communist revolution.

Why not, do you judge due process to be more important than the outcome?

[Blake's Baby]

And yet you view the Polish bourgeois state in the 20s as sacrosanct and the Soviet attempt to dismantle it as a sacrilege.

Don't know where you got that shit from, but if you take it back you might be able to get a refund.

I regard the Polish state as a dangerous and stupid mistake. That's hardly 'sacrosanct. But if you 'accidently' on-purpose set a bomb ticking, the smart move isn't to start battering with hammers.

'You don't want to hammer bombs/stick pins in tigers/wrestle a giant squid? You think these things are sacrosanct!'

No not really. Just not stupid enough to shake a wasp's nest then put my head in it to see what's happening.

[aristos]

But if you 'accidently' on-purpose set a bomb ticking, the smart move isn't to start battering with hammers.

No, the solution is obviously to douse your face in petrol, light it on fire and start battering the bomb with your burning face.

Unfortunately, we only have your word for that being what the Bolsheviks were doing. One could conversely see their actions as diffusing the bomb. Or to put it in real word terms (you seem be infatuated with using metaphors) they were trying to salvage the situation once they felt to be up to the task.

Or do you pledge allegiance to the principle of no second chances.

[liberlict]

I would support it in some cases like in a country where there was strong support for a communist revolution. But I wouldn't support it if a workers army invaded a country that there was no support for a communist revolution.

Yeah, that's the way I might support it too. If there was a big working class movement repressed by a dictatorship then interventionism seems like an acceptable idea. I do worry though that the side-effects could make matters worse. Like in the Kosovo War or Iraq; you solve one problem whilst creating others.