The Cold War

[Comrade Raz]

I was just wondering what you guys opinions would be on this.
I am including China although they were not strictly part of the cold war.
The question is which of the three superpowers would serve us best in todays world: USA(I'm guessing no but who knows maybe), China or the USSR.
I find it difficult to know which power i'd support. Fundemently USSR, but it got pretty fucked up there with Stalin so probably China.

[Pete]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=419)

[Eastside Revolt]

To be honest it would not be a good thing if either had won. But we are probably alot worse off now that the US came out on top.

[Sean Reynolds]

Not to mention it was nothing but an ego booster for Reagan. I'm so FUCKING sick of hearing how great that jackass was.

[the SovieT]

the cold war was started by Churchill with his "iron curtain" speeche, with the suport pf the western forces to fight the union of the soviet republics..
it was directly aimed at CCCP...

China was not envolved onthe cold war, and it only had some tensions against the America...

wille the soviet union had tensions against all western countrys that were in NATO...

(Edited by the SovieT at 12:58 am on June 21, 2003)

[Sensitive]

If the Western imperialists would not have been constantly threatening the Soviet Union with destruction, our Soviet comrades could have spent A LOT less resources on the military and spent more on developing an advanced socialist system. However, the Soviet Union did not have that luxury, and the West crushed most of revolutionary movements that were working within their territories. So here we are today...

[CubanFox]

And they could've eliminated those longarse queues.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from the SovieT on 12:56 am on June 21, 2003
the cold war was started by Churchill with his "iron curtain" speeche, with the suport pf the western forces to fight the union of the soviet republics..
it was directly aimed at CCCP...

(Edited by the SovieT at 12:58 am on June 21, 2003)


Winston Churchill did not start the Cold War.

The "Iron Curtain" speech was delivered in March 1946. This way was after the Cold War had begun.

The origins of the Cold War lay not in the Second World War but back in 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution was a complete rejection of Wilson's ideas for the post-War world which he outlined to the World. And, indeed, Wilson's ideas were a complete rejection of the Bolshevik Revolution. Preaching for a free global market economy with representative governments the world over was a public condemnation of the USSR. This is where it all started essentially, way before Churchill's speech.

Then of course there was the Nazi-Soviet Pact, again, way before Churchill's speech.

Stalin's iron fist rule spreading thoroughout Eastern Europe, sometimes brutally, before the speech.

USSR and USA's public post-WW2 proposals. America wanted it's democracy throughout the world. Stalin wanted his sphere of influence firmly secured. These proposals were made a few years before the speech.

Truman's casual declaration to Stalin at Postdam that USA had the bomb. A year before the speech.

They are just a few reasons for the growth of the Cold War. Churchill's speech simply added petrol to the flame. By no means did it start the Cold War. Such a claim is ridiculous.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 3:33 pm on June 22, 2003)

[Kapitan Andrey]

USSR didn't loosed cold war...IT CONTINUES!!!

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 10:09 am on July 6, 2003

USSR didn't loosed cold war...IT CONTINUES!!!

But the USSR doesn't exist anymore, Andrey...how is that a victory?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Glad to see I'm not the only one under the impression that the USSR is no longer

[CienfuegosJnr]

Che Guevara was right to be angry at the USSR for forceing the Cubans to continue tradeing Sugar cane for materials ....
But the Chinese stab there socialist counter parts in the back, such the Invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and there support of those INKATA butchers in Angola against the Cubans.

But I'd support either of the two faced powers over the Americans any day ...

[CienfuegosJnr]

Quote: from CienfuegosJnr on 8:23 am on July 6, 2003
Che Guevara was right to be angry at the USSR for forceing the Cubans to continue tradeing Sugar cane for materials ....
But the Chinese stab there socialist counter parts in the back, such the Invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and there support of those I UNITA butchers in Angola against the Cubans.

But I'd support either of the two faced powers over the Americans any day ...

[Che Jexster]

I think the best case scenario for the cold war would be if everyone living in the 3 of the super-powers went "you guys are all the same and you justify your own atrocities by the atrocities of others fuck you guys im not putting up with your shit anymore" and had a revolution. It's useless ascribing blame to a nation its all class. Stalin was undeniably the highest member of a bourgeois class as was Mao. It's not America that's the problem it's the richest most powerful people across the world. It's everyone who spawns war to sell more munitions and gain access to greater markets, it's the media mogul's censoring any voice that does not coincide with their opinion. I know we're all socialists and that it's easy to get caught up in the romanticism of so called socialist nations but lables and the connotations of symbols that have become grossly perverted do not hide the blood stains many of these so called "people's revolutions" have left throughout history. It's time to recognize that 90% of the people in America are just as oppressed by the rich and powerful as well.
Like to hear your thoughts on this.

[RedComrade]

If your asking which country would I have rather lived in/had win the Cold War then my answer given the three choices is the U.S of course.

[革命者]

The Cold War was invented by the only super-power present, the US-- the USSR was a super-power long gone at the end of the Cold War.

The vast power of the USSR was made up by the US to frighten us and to side us with their doctrine.

Winston Churchill was just the messenger at the time of the "iron curtain" speech.... (nonetheless he hated the reds, of course).

[革命者]

And I definitly would rather live in the USSR!!!

[Che Jexster]

Like I said before your missing the pooint it isnt a nation its a class. It wasnt only the US playing the fear of the population off of the USSR it was the USSR playing off the fear of America. Stalin, Reagan and Hitler were are in the same boat they just thought of different ways to get into power and force their ideal (with them and their friends at the top) state on the rest of the population.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I have to agree with Comrade Che Jexster. By the time Reagan became president in 1981, the three world powers (USA, USSR, China) all had ruling classes in place that were not acting in the interests of the proletariat.

The Cold War was about imperial credibility... asserting your legitmacy because your ideology is better than what the other side is preaching. The "Communist" nations (championed by the USSR and China) carried with them the dogma of a Stalinist distortion of Marxism. The "West" (championed by the USA and NATO) took into battle a dogmatic, hysterical "anti-Communism".

The real winners of the Cold War were the capitalists, especially the American corporations. The losers of the war were all the workers of the world...

The USA, a nation that could not give a shit if a working man or woman lives or dies, emerged as the most powerful force since the Roman empire.

The USSR, a nation that had been the most promising power to the proletariat, disintegrated... leaving behind little more than worthless nuclear weapons and a bunch of Eastern Europeans to be exploited by the West.

China retained its authoritarian structure, but abandoned any real shred of socialism to become the USA's number-one sweatshop.

American workers have lost nearly all of the reforms of FDR's New Deal and Johnson's "Great Society". Russians no longer have the safety nets of the USSR. The Chinese are back where they were before Mao... being prostituted to the West by their ruling class.

And we cannot forget about the third world. That is where the real battlefields of the Cold War were. The best things to happen were the revolutions in Cuba and Nicaragua. Cuba has had to battle constantly with the United States, a battle that has become much more difficult without the aid of the USSR. And Nicaragua... after a successful revolution, Reagan unleashed a terrorist, mercenary army (the "Contras") that destroyed the promising revolution.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was countered by the CIA training and arming Osama bin Laden. Afghans were killed for no justifiable reason, and a terrorist was given plenty of pointers for when it came time to turn his weapons on other parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, the US).

And how many fascist regimes were propped up to protect the people of the world from "Communism"? El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile... on and on and on...

[CopperGoat]

I totally agree with Marxist in Nebraska..

[tresa909]

very well, i am impressed with many of the posts on this thread. according to what i have read, russia exemplified more of a national socialism and not communist utopia. amazing how the people have allowed media sources to create enemies in our thoughts. you guys are great!

[tresa909]

something i wrote a while back, its not very good only it replaces a thought that i can't explain it very well.

free falling

desiderate!
fecund word to the masses
nefarious
the sound
falling
as it cuts through the classes
ask 'em to raise up
enumerate
what their task is
still wandering and wounded
can't let it be
so raise yo fist
now!
and set yo selves free!

i know its weird...thanks for reading :wub:

[YKTMX]

NEITHER MOSCOW NOR WASHINGTON!!!!!!!

[crazy comie]

I totaly agree with Marxist in Nebraska as well.

[Palmares]

The only thing I disagree with you guys on is that the Cold War began after the fourth Allied meeting of World War 2. I think it might have been Yalta, but the REAL tensions didn't come out until the dividing of the conquered land began. Churchill's speech simply made this blatantly obvious (and possibly more justifiable) to the world public and from there Truman used it as something to gain some patriotism in an effort to fight off the growing popularity of the Republicans and the downfall of his Democrat party.

BTW, does anyone know if there is a good site that has information on what both sides (US, USSR) did overtly/covertly against each other (and at other countries expenses)?

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I have to agree with the basic sentiments expressed by most of you in this thread (ie. that by 1980 neither the US nor the USSR were good choices to dominate world politics). However, I think that many of you are placing the Cold War too early. To me the term 'Cold War' implies a state of generally accepted mutual hostility between the US and USSR which created a world-wide dichotomy. It's roots definitely lie in 1917 and the war time conferences, but US and Soviet politicians only began to truly dispair of cooperation in 1946/7. If you watch US news reels from 1946 they are very positive (although patronising) about Russian and UNRA aid to Stalin, while by 1947 they portray the 'Soviet Menace'. To me this shift from cloaked to open hostility is the true starting point of the Cold War.

BTW, when Churchill made the Iron Curtain speech many people were shocked by it and the official political line in the US was still one of conciliation with the USSR.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I would not say that the Cold War started immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution. Cold War means there is no direct combat between the two parties, right? The U.S. DID send a military force to restore the czar or some other capitalist schill, so the conflict between the USA and USSR could not be considered a "cold war" until the early '20s after the U.S. military withdrew from the Soviet Union. The Cold War is recognized as starting in the aftermath of the Second World War, but I suppose this could be seen rather as an intensification period in the conflict.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

The Cold War in terms of US-Soviet relations obviously began in the 1920s, and WWII was merely a period of thawing. However, from a global perspective it only began post-WWII. In many ways the war and its aftermath provided what was necessary to globalise the conflict: it elevated the status and power of the US and USSR, and inceased their 'spheres of influence' (or hegemony as was more accurately the case).

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 11 2003, 07:34 PM
I have to agree with Comrade Che Jexster. By the time Reagan became president in 1981, the three world powers (USA, USSR, China) all had ruling classes in place that were not acting in the interests of the proletariat.

The Cold War was about imperial credibility... asserting your legitmacy because your ideology is better than what the other side is preaching. The "Communist" nations (championed by the USSR and China) carried with them the dogma of a Stalinist distortion of Marxism. The "West" (championed by the USA and NATO) took into battle a dogmatic, hysterical "anti-Communism".

The real winners of the Cold War were the capitalists, especially the American corporations. The losers of the war were all the workers of the world...

The USA, a nation that could not give a shit if a working man or woman lives or dies, emerged as the most powerful force since the Roman empire.

The USSR, a nation that had been the most promising power to the proletariat, disintegrated... leaving behind little more than worthless nuclear weapons and a bunch of Eastern Europeans to be exploited by the West.

China retained its authoritarian structure, but abandoned any real shred of socialism to become the USA's number-one sweatshop.

American workers have lost nearly all of the reforms of FDR's New Deal and Johnson's "Great Society". Russians no longer have the safety nets of the USSR. The Chinese are back where they were before Mao... being prostituted to the West by their ruling class.

And we cannot forget about the third world. That is where the real battlefields of the Cold War were. The best things to happen were the revolutions in Cuba and Nicaragua. Cuba has had to battle constantly with the United States, a battle that has become much more difficult without the aid of the USSR. And Nicaragua... after a successful revolution, Reagan unleashed a terrorist, mercenary army (the "Contras") that destroyed the promising revolution.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was countered by the CIA training and arming Osama bin Laden. Afghans were killed for no justifiable reason, and a terrorist was given plenty of pointers for when it came time to turn his weapons on other parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, the US).

And how many fascist regimes were propped up to protect the people of the world from "Communism"? El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile... on and on and on...
"I have to agree with Comrade Che Jexster. By the time Reagan became president in 1981, the three world powers (USA, USSR, China) all had ruling classes in place that were not acting in the interests of the proletariat. "

once again that word "ruling class" replacing the term vanguard :rolleyes:

"The USSR, a nation that had been the most promising power to the proletariat, disintegrated... leaving behind little more than worthless nuclear weapons and a bunch of Eastern Europeans to be exploited by the West."

And is that really USSR fault?
or certain "individuals" such as Gorbatchov?



"The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was countered by the CIA training and arming Osama bin Laden. Afghans were killed for no justifiable reason, and a terrorist was given plenty of pointers for when it came time to turn his weapons on other parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, the US)."

OK..
First of all the soviet union never invaded Afghanistan, in fact, it helped the Afghani state uin the fight against the religious fanatics, the Mujaidin or whatever those assholes are called..
surprise surprise they were trained by the CIA..
about the Afghans being killed for no justifiable reason, you might say taht for the fanatics, the Soviet crimes of war were commited by desesperated individuals, that were not correctly punished by theyr superiors due to the high amount of corruption in the red army...

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 9 2003, 06:24 AM
"The USSR, a nation that had been the most promising power to the proletariat, disintegrated... leaving behind little more than worthless nuclear weapons and a bunch of Eastern Europeans to be exploited by the West."

And is that really USSR fault?
or certain "individuals" such as Gorbatchov?

"The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was countered by the CIA training and arming Osama bin Laden. Afghans were killed for no justifiable reason, and a terrorist was given plenty of pointers for when it came time to turn his weapons on other parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, the US)."

OK..
First of all the soviet union never invaded Afghanistan, in fact, it helped the Afghani state uin the fight against the religious fanatics, the Mujaidin or whatever those assholes are called..
surprise surprise they were trained by the CIA..
about the Afghans being killed for no justifiable reason, you might say taht for the fanatics, the Soviet crimes of war were commited by desesperated individuals, that were not correctly punished by theyr superiors due to the high amount of corruption in the red army...
On the first part of the quoted exchange:
My quote does not blame the USSR for its collapse. The Soviet Union failed because it was a socialist (or would-be socialist, depending on one's point of view) state trying to survive in a capitalist world. Marx articulated the need for worldwide communist revolution, and the Soviet Union failed to achieve that. In that sense, then the USSR certainly did fail. For the USSR to try to match the USA's war machine dollar for dollar despite having a smaller economy put a tremendous strain on the Soviet Bloc and the arms race is what ultimately bankrupted the USSR.

It was hardly the gameplan of Soviet leaders to get into an economic war of attrition that they could never win, and so I would not be so bold as to blame the USSR for its own collapse. The weapons produced were a deterrent to the aggressive American Empire, and thus protected Russia and its satellites. But without worldwide revolution to break capitalism, the demise of the USSR was inevitable. Blaming Gorbachev for the disintegration of the USSR is like blaming the Goths for the fall of the Roman Empire. The empire was already crumbling, and at most, the Goths/Gorby only accelerated the process.

On the Second Part:
The USSR did indeed invade Afghanistan. Moscow built a relationship with an unpopular reformist government, the PDPA, and eventually sent in the military to protect them. The USSR's actions parallel those of the USA when the latter propped up the unpopular regime of South Vietnam. Unimpressed with the PDPA and now being attacked by the USSR, the Afghan working class forged an alliance with the semi-feudalist warlords in an alleged "jihad" against the "atheistic communists." The invasion actually made the CIA's lackeys, bin Laden's Mujahadeen, into righteous holy warriors!

The Soviets are said to have destroyed 12,000 villages in Afghanistan. If that number is close to accurate, it reflects a massive destructive effort that cannot be passed off as when you said, "the Soviet crimes of war were commited by desesperated individuals." Any effort that destroys thousands of villages is a systematic effort taking coordination top to bottom. Here is an excerpt of an article from the Militant--see the rest of the article at Militant Archives (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6037/6037_12.html)

In a culmination of its disastrous policy toward Afghanistan, Moscow sent tens of thousands of troops to prop up the increasingly unpopular PDPA regime in December 1979. Over the next decade, Soviet troop strength in Afghanistan reached 115,000. In addition, the Afghan government and Soviet forces carried out a widespread bombing campaign in the countryside with the aim of breaking the strength of the rebel militias. By the time the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in February 1989, they had destroyed some 12,000 villages.

The arrival of the Soviet military to prop up the discredited PDPA regime violated the Afghan people's right to national sovereignty and broadened support for the rightist-led opposition.

In a resolution adopted in November 1980, the National Committee of the Socialist Workers Party explained, "The Kremlin's policy in Afghanistan has set back the revolutionary process opened in April 1978, and has had a dampening effect on the class struggle."

"once again that word 'ruling class' replacing the term vanguard"

Yes, I find ruling class a more accurate term for the ruling regime in the USSR during this period. The USSR had ceased to be revolutionary by this time, and saying vanguard indicates a revolutionary regime. If you consider the USSR of the 1980s revolutionary, please explain why.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:06 AM
I totally agree with Marxist in Nebraska..
Yes, Comrade MIN has said it all...I have no words to add...I'm all out of things to say...thats it...Comrade Che Jexster made good points too, oh if only they taught about impeirial warfare in school. :hammer: mmm communism good!

[Kez]

First off, good post Nebraska dated july 11

2ndly, the term cold war may well have come about from post WW2, however the ideas behind it stem from when the workers of the Russian Empire revolted to form the USSR.

Lenin said that a revolution must be international, in order for it to be able to withstand the constant attacks from the capitalists. This was demonstrated by the whites and the imperialist US, Britain, France and the Czech Legion (wtf?) attacking the workers state.
It is clear that capitalists will ALWAYS attack the workers state in order to maintain their interests (ie their pockets). However, as we know Stalin decided not to become international, but rather national. And with this the USSR degenerated from a workers state to a deformed workers state.

However, this does not mean that it was the same shit as the USA. Most certainly not. We must always support the USSR as a more progressive state than a capitalist one, however we should maintain that a workers revolution was needed to overthrow the beurocrats and instill a true workers democracy such as pre-stalin.

However deformed the USSR was, it was better than the capitalist nations, as we can see from the fact that simply down to the planned economy of socialism, the USSR was able to smash the fascists almost single handedly, despite Stalin murdering the best generals....

The imperialists were not the reason for the downfall of the USSR, as they could have made 10 times more weapons than the USA, had the production mode been made of democratic process, and not the beurocrats clogging up the production system within the USSR.

comrade kamo

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 04:25 AM
However, this does not mean that it was the same shit as the USA. Most certainly not. We must always support the USSR as a more progressive state than a capitalist one, however we should maintain that a workers revolution was needed to overthrow the beurocrats and instill a true workers democracy such as pre-stalin.

However deformed the USSR was, it was better than the capitalist nations, as we can see from the fact that simply down to the planned economy of socialism, the USSR was able to smash the fascists almost single handedly, despite Stalin murdering the best generals....
Comrade TavareeshKamo,
The post-Stalin USSR was not the "same shit" the USA was. They both had faults--a few in common such as conquering weaker nations around them, but their more distinct faults are those that they did not share. The USSR was more authoritarian, but provided for the people in material terms. The USA was content to let people starve, but granted more social freedoms. The people should not be forced to choose between freedom and material welfare.

The second paragraph of your post that I have quoted makes some good points. The USSR made a lot happen despite having fewer resources and fewer national allies than the USA. Central planning does deserve credit here. The USSR was vital to the victory of Hitler in World War II, but they hardly did it single-handedly. The British fought the Nazis from 1939 on. The French complicated things by providing the resistance they did to the Vichy regime and occupation. And, from 1942 on, the United States attacked the Nazis, too. All parties above deserve credit for Hitler's fall. Also, the cold Russian winter contributed to the failure of Hitler's backstabbing invasion of the USSR. The USSR deserves great credit, but not all of it.

[Kez]

Comrade TavareeshKamo,
"The post-Stalin USSR was not the "same shit" the USA was."
i never said it was...were agreeing on this point, i think u mistakenly read my post incorrectly comrade

[Vinny Rafarino]

but it got pretty fucked up there with Stalin

That's just plain coo-coo.



as we know Stalin decided not to become international


As WE know? More like as YOU interpret.



once again that word 'ruling class' replacing the term vanguard

That's odd. Marx called it "the ruling class" in the Manifesto only to have the name changed to "vanguard" by comrade Lenin. You kats are mixed up.



However deformed the USSR


Do you even know what "deformed" actually means? Or are you simply blurting out nonsense the Trots have your head filled with?



The term "cold war" really not applicable until at least 1949 when the Soviets developed atomic weapons and really did not go into "full effect" until the 1955 signing of the Warsaw Pact. It to climaxed in '61 and continually downgraded until the USSR dissolved.