I think socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class, which is one reason why we believe in the self-determination of all peoples.
Spreading socialism by military force may not be wrong, per se, but if the working class within that country do not lead the revolution within it, the democratic institutions that are necessary to continue the socialist project are either stunted or never formed.
If socialism is in essence the workers' management of the economy, you then cannot by definition force socialism on unwilling workers. The ideological hegemony of capitalists in a country must be subverted with agitation, education, and organization, at least to a point where there is a solid movement of socialists within that country.
Yeah, I think this is one of the flaws of the Soviet model of exporting revolution. No matter how righteous your crusade is, if the revolution isn't home grown then it's so much easier to stoke up reactionary fear about foreign invaders trying to take away your way of life, and that you need to grab a gun to defend your god, government, and flag from the dirty commie invaders.
It's not like the west would've left them in peace regardless, but maybe the red scare propaganda that was used to drum up anti-communist fervor wouldn't have been as effective.
Nobody should be spreading anything with military force. You need to defend yourself, fine, but that's a whole different ballgame than invading another country. There is no worse waste of lives, resources, and sanity than war. War is a fuck.
The Soviets needed to keep going to Berlin in order to beat the enemy that had attacked them. It was necessary for self-defense. So did the European members of the Western Allies. America got involved because that's what America does, and it's not super obvious that America's involvement was a good or necessary thing.
There's a difference between a violent revolution in your own country as a means of self-liberation and inflicting military destruction on another country because you think you have the right or prerogative to do so. Socialism is also a humanitarian ideology. How do you reconcile socialism with causing death and misery through an unnecessary war?
Spreading the socialist revolution against reactionary states and territories with the use of military force isn’t inherently wrong.
I won't disagree with you on a moral basis but has this ever worked? (Outside of Germany maybe and I actually need to read more on them to decide). At least invading Czechoslovakia to stop liberalization didn't work out too well (from what I know).
Didn't Tibet have a civil war too with their own leftist guerrilla force? For example this guy (people have recommended reading about this guy's life but I haven't gotten around to that yet :P ) At least his wiki page is fairly interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phuntsok_Wangyal
deleted by creator
I think socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class, which is one reason why we believe in the self-determination of all peoples. Spreading socialism by military force may not be wrong, per se, but if the working class within that country do not lead the revolution within it, the democratic institutions that are necessary to continue the socialist project are either stunted or never formed.
If socialism is in essence the workers' management of the economy, you then cannot by definition force socialism on unwilling workers. The ideological hegemony of capitalists in a country must be subverted with agitation, education, and organization, at least to a point where there is a solid movement of socialists within that country.
Yeah, I think this is one of the flaws of the Soviet model of exporting revolution. No matter how righteous your crusade is, if the revolution isn't home grown then it's so much easier to stoke up reactionary fear about foreign invaders trying to take away your way of life, and that you need to grab a gun to defend your god, government, and flag from the dirty commie invaders.
It's not like the west would've left them in peace regardless, but maybe the red scare propaganda that was used to drum up anti-communist fervor wouldn't have been as effective.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Of course, there are always extenuating circumstances, but there are drawbacks to socialism by force, even in cases where you could make an argument.
Nobody should be spreading anything with military force. You need to defend yourself, fine, but that's a whole different ballgame than invading another country. There is no worse waste of lives, resources, and sanity than war. War is a fuck.
deleted by creator
The Soviets needed to keep going to Berlin in order to beat the enemy that had attacked them. It was necessary for self-defense. So did the European members of the Western Allies. America got involved because that's what America does, and it's not super obvious that America's involvement was a good or necessary thing.
There's a difference between a violent revolution in your own country as a means of self-liberation and inflicting military destruction on another country because you think you have the right or prerogative to do so. Socialism is also a humanitarian ideology. How do you reconcile socialism with causing death and misery through an unnecessary war?
I won't disagree with you on a moral basis but has this ever worked? (Outside of Germany maybe and I actually need to read more on them to decide). At least invading Czechoslovakia to stop liberalization didn't work out too well (from what I know).
deleted by creator
I would not call Tibet a success given the tensions still there 75 years later.
Didn't Tibet have a civil war too with their own leftist guerrilla force? For example this guy (people have recommended reading about this guy's life but I haven't gotten around to that yet :P ) At least his wiki page is fairly interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phuntsok_Wangyal