who starts the beef first, socialists or capitialists? - who

[lostsoul]

i was wondering if anyone know of communist(or social) revolutions were communints or socialists attacked first?

I only recently started to study history so i don't know much :-(

i know china's communist party was peaceful and attacked by the nationalist first(then the communist struck back), Castro was kicked out of paraliment and not allowed to run(not sure if he was attacked..then he attacked the barracks), Gandhi's india was constantly being attacked but they never struck back.

so do you know of any social revolutions that attack without being attacked first(could be either voilence, or social discremination, or anything else like that).


Also when people think of communists they think of voilence, why? Many of the communists i read about(including mao, che, ho chi minh, and even stalin) only wanted peace, they seemed to think "a little voilence will bring a lot of peace"(thats a quote from me..not anyone of them). Many of the people involved in militarys are not communists usually(from my obervations) are right wing, why don't people think of voilence and war when you mention capitilism?

Take care

[chamo]

Many of the people involved in militarys are not communists usually(from my obervations) are right wing, why don't people think of voilence and war when you mention capitilism?

Ahem! Capitalism is the main encouraging factor of war and imperialism. To get more resources, cheap labour and exploitation of countries, nations such as the USA, backed by the multinational companies, wage war on other countries then steal their oil and labour.
One just has to look at all the South American countries which the USA has "liberated" from their Spanish colonialists before exploiting them. Look at the Panama canal for instance. Since the 1900's the American governments policy of "anti-imperialism", by which they free countries of their old colonialists. This happened such with Hawaii, Puerto Rico and even Cuba being broken of Spanish rule.
They also have a policy of installing Military Dictators in South America, such as Batista. Also, toppling democratically elected presidents, usually socialist ones, such as Salvador Allende and the Chilean coup in 1973 which brought Pinochet into power as well as the military coup against Jacobo Arbenz in the Guatemalan "liberation" of the leftist regime to install CIA backed Castillo Armas, which cost many lives in the bombing of Guatemala.

I seem to have gone off-track quite a bit, but "communist" countries have mostly been peaceful ones, with the exception fo the Soviet Unions invasion of Eastern European countries and quelling anti-Soviet uprisings. Comrade Lenin would not have been pleased at the country's behaviour during and after Stalin's rise to power.

An example of the red's striking first that comes to mind is the Korean war when the northern communists invaded the south right the way down to Seoul, before being pushed right back up to the Chinese border before settling at the current situation. Not really a revolution, but a war.

Revolutions come to pass because of oppression, the Russian Revolution when the people had finally had it with the Tsarist feudal regime, the Cuban revolution to end Batistas military dictatorship and end American rule. There are no revolutions occur when the people have not been oppressed, it is technically not an actual "revolution" if there is no oppression to rise up against.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

In the Russian revolution the storming of the Winter Palace was essentially an act of war. This began the Russian civil war, although other capitalist states were agressors as they actively chose to get involved in Russian internal affairs.

[chamo]

The Winter Palace storming was not the first move though, and it was virtually bloodless. (This is the story of the Bolsheviks entering the White Room at exactly 2:10 isn't it?)

The Tsar, Nicholas II, had earlier that year had his troops fire on the student crowd protesting in the grounds of the palace, Russia's Bloody Sunday. Then in March his troops refused to fire on protestors and he was forced to abdicate. So the storming of the Winter Palace happened in October when the provisional government was set up. Thus ensued the civil war between the Whites and Reds. The first violent attack on people was made by the Tsar.

To sum up my views and opinion on the original question, I move that it is the Socilaist who may start the first uprising or attack, but it is always the Capitalist who first oppress the people to their own demise.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from happyguy on 5:40 pm on May 20, 2003
The Winter Palace storming was not the first move though, and it was virtually bloodless. (This is the story of the Bolsheviks entering the White Room at exactly 2:10 isn't it?)

The Tsar, Nicholas II, had earlier that year had his troops fire on the student crowd protesting in the grounds of the palace, Russia's Bloody Sunday. Then in March his troops refused to fire on protestors and he was forced to abdicate. So the storming of the Winter Palace happened in October when the provisional government was set up. Thus ensued the civil war between the Whites and Reds. The first violent attack on people was made by the Tsar.

To sum up my views and opinion on the original question, I move that it is the Socilaist who may start the first uprising or attack, but it is always the Capitalist who first oppress the people to their own demise.

with castro, i am reminded of the students being shot at also,(where camilo got shot in the leg).

As far as i can tell right now, some of the most succesful revoltions have been where the revolutaries have been attacked first(while they were peaceful).

I am reading my first post, to me it seems unclear, let me rephase the question:
"do you know of any socialists revoltions that went straight to voleience,without being provoked or without going first through the peaceful route?"

[chamo]

"do you know of any socialists revoltions that went straight to voleience,without being provoked or without going first through the peaceful route?"

No, I don't think revolutions are violent attacks. They are always provoked. And I don't know of any "revolutions", only wars.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from happyguy on 7:24 pm on May 20, 2003
"do you know of any socialists revoltions that went straight to voleience,without being provoked or without going first through the peaceful route?"

No, I don't think revolutions are violent attacks. They are always provoked. And I don't know of any "revolutions", only wars.

i was refering to socialist civil wars. Why is it when i hear people talking about communists, they seem to think communists are warmogers who's only goal is to destroy their world? Where are these thoughts coming from? (north korea and south korea is an example, but are their others?)

[PandorasBox]

cappies start it first!

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from happyguy on 5:40 pm on May 20, 2003
The Winter Palace storming was not the first move though, and it was virtually bloodless. (This is the story of the Bolsheviks entering the White Room at exactly 2:10 isn't it?)

Yes, but it was the first formal move by the Bolsheviks. Bloody Sunday and the Tsar should not be directly equated with opposition to the Provisional Government, which was primarily made up of socialists and anti-Tsarist (it just was not communist). There were similarities between the two, but I feel that events like Bloody Sunday had a much more tangible effect on the February revolution than the October revolution.

[chamo]

Bloody Sunday and the Tsar should not be directly equated with opposition to the Provisional Government, which was primarily made up of socialists and anti-Tsarist (it just was not communist).

Good, thanks for clearing the air on that issue.:)

It looks like there is going to be alot of technical difficulties in this thread about who started what, and if it was anything. Oh well.

Why is it when i hear people talking about communists, they seem to think communists are warmogers who's only goal is to destroy their world?

Anyone who thinks so is, quite frankly, an ignorant fool. One of Communism's main aims is to stop wars and save the world. It is ridiculous that people think Communists are warmongers. Communist are not pro-war now and they were not in the past. There are very few examples of wars, excluding the Korean War, where Socialism is actually involved as a main aggressive cause, and none that have been started by Communists. It has always been America that has attacked newly elected communist leaders and governments first.
Capitalism is far more associsted with war than Communism.

(Edited by happyguy at 4:45 pm on May 21, 2003)