Communist imperialism

[Mazdak]

We (for the most part), here at che lives are anti imperialist. However, this is because it is usually capitalist nations that are imperialistic.

However, picture this scenario-
Mexico becomes communist(and a world power). Meanwhile, the US has become a despotic facist regime which oppresses its people (i know its a stretch). The people are suffering here...

Is it justified that mexico invades and liberates the americans from their despotic government?

What i am trying to say is...
Is it justifiable for a communist regime to give aid the oppressed around the world(world revolution). I know this is somewhat trotskyist, but i think it is fine.

Any opinions and such?

[Supermodel]

Communist regimes have proven in the past to be every bit as imperial as Capitalist or Monarchist regimes.

For example, China's taking of Tibet, Russina invasion of Afghanistan.

Not usually a good idea. But then again, all borders are artificial, except for shores.

[Mazdak]

I know this, but not everyone here supports those regimes...

What about a regime that everyone supports. Lets say Mexico succeeeds and becomes a comunist paradise. Shouldnt it be allowed to make the world the way it is?

[Supermodel]

The real question is, what divides us as nations? Many borders are artifical and arcane. Some make sense only because they are shores (Iceland, Australia)

So if there are relatively communist states such as California and Minnesota, surely the Mexicans would leave those alone.

Really all a government can do is take away your possessions and take away your life. They then use these two resources to do the same to overcome other nations. Destroy the concept of nations, and humanity must search for a different definition of its subgroups.

[Mazdak]

Nothing divides us as nations except for imaginary lines on maps.

If there are communistic states here, then there is no need to take them over. All communist nations are not individuals, in my opinion, they are one massive land mass. They all should work collectively. But if there is a nation between them that is a problem. Is it not right to capture it.

[Conghaileach]

from Supermodel:
Russina invasion of Afghanistan.

Did the Russians not go into Afghanistan to aid the leftist government? RAWA (the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) says that this was the most progressive government the country had ever known.

[Lardlad95]

No nation should force another nation into a form of government that its people don't wish to be

[Mazdak]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 10:10 pm on Aug. 13, 2002
No nation should force another nation into a form of government that its people don't wish to be

That is our difference.... you think people will do things on their own accord, while i think force should be used at all times.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from Mazdak on 10:53 pm on Aug. 13, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 10:10 pm on Aug. 13, 2002
No nation should force another nation into a form of government that its people don't wish to be

That is our difference.... you think people will do things on their own accord, while i think force should be used at all times.
I used to think that way. You can't govern people through fear and force, this produces a society with clearly defined classes. Those who has power and those who do not.

[komsomol]

In the case of the example you have used Mazdak, I would totally be behind the action taken. This is because they are Liberating the people, if they were perfectly happy in thier present system then I would not support action. Mexico would only serve as being an example of Communism and be involved in diplomacy.

However, the best way to take such action would be simply to put a revolutionary infrasctructure that the Native people could lock on to, Mexico would supply the spark and the weapons for the people to Liberate themselves.

[Mazdak]

Actually, if you leave those countries who are "happy" and stable alone and help overthrow those who are corrupt and are begging for help.... alot of times, the prosperous countries will begin to decline.

[perception]

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:00 pm on Aug. 13, 2002


Is it justified that mexico invades and liberates the americans from their despotic government?



no. Imperialism is imperialism. If Mexico is such a Communist paradise, the peoples of the world will liberate themselves or move there.

[Nateddi]

I wouldnt call what mazdak mensioned as imperialism though.

I side with the USSR on afghanistan, e. berlin, and hungary.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from perception on 3:15 am on Aug. 15, 2002

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:00 pm on Aug. 13, 2002


Is it justified that mexico invades and liberates the americans from their despotic government?



no. Imperialism is imperialism. If Mexico is such a Communist paradise, the peoples of the world will liberate themselves or move there.


agreed. Imperialism is more where you invade another country for their resources and raw materials.

I don't personally, sympathize imperialism in any situation.

I don't support other powerful countries helping particular groups in other countries either.

I didn't agree with the U.S.S.R's assistence given to some of the latin american countries that it did. A country's internal affairs are the business of the inhabitants of that country and nobody else. If the people want communism they will have communism, if the people want capitalism, they will have capitalism. It is not up to another country as to what the economic and political policies of another country will be. A country must learn to solve it's own problems without help from the outside world.

[Nateddi]

This may actually surprise some people, but the USSR didn't aid a great deal of communist struggles world wide. Ive read up on it, most populist governments would actually kept distant ties with the Communist bloc throughout the cold war. The several occasion of european intervention are questionable, though i stay pro-soviet on them.

[maoist3]

I have another couple twists on this question.

What if the country being invaded is itself
occupying indigenous people's land?

What if the country being invaded is mostly
exploiters, because that country turned into
a nation of petty-bourgeoisie through imperialism?

What about the invasion of Germany at the end
of World War II? Wasn't the Soviet Union right
to do it and put those people down by force since
they fought for Hitler to the end and never overthrew him?

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Nateddi on 2:27 am on Aug. 17, 2002
This may actually surprise some people, but the USSR didn't aid a great deal of communist struggles world wide. Ive read up on it, most populist governments would actually kept distant ties with the Communist bloc throughout the cold war. The several occasion of european intervention are questionable, though i stay pro-soviet on them.


I know, it is no surprise to me. I was just trying to cite an example, whether or not it may be historically acurate or not.

[Mazdak]

So you arent in favor of a sort of, delayed World revolution?

[oki]

I allso think that country's should do it themself.If the us was a facist state,the people would eventually rebel,I'm sure...

something else,if a country is allready sosialist/communist,but in a different way then mexico,they wont be a collective.we've seen this happen with china and the cccp.what about that?

[Mazdak]

But i am saying if they are collective. Like the Soviet Union's 15 republics

[suffianr]

The grass is always greener on the other side. Imperialism goes by a hundred and one excuses, and needs none but greed. Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, Russia's pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan (it took the US ten years after the cold war to figure another way in), Great Britain's vain conquest of India...come on now, it's all the same. No one wanted them there. The so-called "need" for external involvement has always been fabricated out of political gerrymandering, and sabre-rattling diplomats nervous for the sake of their own interests. Don't tell me you'd hold your hand out to a stranger who's about to rape your wife and thank you for it, would you? :)

[Mazdak]

But this is what we are stressing... if the imperialism is for the benefit of everyone except the corrupt government that is being attacked. Isnt that justifiable?

[oki]

only if it's on a base of equality.imperialism is not the right word I think.the country that is running the imperium is clearly the boss.
if a corrupt gouv.is removed,then the country can form a new gouv. after that they can work together.

[suffianr]

But, Mazdak, that's the whole point! It is almost always seems justified, whether through the legitimate sovereignty or not. Popular consent, public endorsement, public opinion, what do those words mean? Do they stand for everyone's feelings, thoughts and ideas? Or are they random populations in statistical surveys? Are they the vanguard? But you do have a point. It largely depends on the context of imperialism, whether or not it is colonialism out of apparent necessity for a place to live, or ethnic or political unity, or just another crude invasion to rape and pillage a country's resources simply for the fact that you can do it i.e. Japan (WWII- Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines), Indonesia, US & Australia (East Timor), India & Pakistan (Kashmir), ah, the list is endless... :)

[anti machine]

it is necessary for communist countries to imperialize-how else will communism survive? The answer lies in global unification. The soviets realized this and began to imperialize. they werent' wrong for doing so, their brand of communism just wasnt to my liking. imperialism can be interpreted as revolution.

[Mazdak]

Good. More support. Thank you anti machine.

Exactly. Although i disagree with trotsky, i do believe the world should eventually entirely be revolutionized.

[anti machine]

anytime mazdak :)