Is it ethical to invade countries to spread socialism?

how the fuck is it reductionist? just apply a bit of logic to your reasoning. The very act of imperialism is exploiting the natural resources of another state and of another people, or the exploitation of the labor of foreign peoples, so that the class contradictions of your society is less evident. It is a way of outsourcing exploitation so you do not have to deal with the effects of class contradictions in a way that would threaten your hegemony. Explain to me when has a socialist country exploited another country, post-liberation?

The only case I could think of is the soviet use of baltic coal in the war effort, and that was a necessary evil to keep the war machine going versus fascism in WWII. The mines were relinquished post war, same goes with Iran oil fields.

Well it depends on what you mean by imperialism. If you're talking about politically dominating other countries without the consent of their people then that's something that socialist countries are guilty of. Liberating the people of a country has been the excuse for imperialist conquest for countless empires for centuries, so bringing socialism could easily fall into the same category.

I'm not saying don't spread socialism, I'm saying don't use military force to impose socialism on countries, especially if the people there don't want it.

well it depends

are these troops aiding an already growing revolution ?

read marx you apolitical scumbag

You do understand that Marx didn't invent socialism right?

indeed, he only set up the philosophical superstructure for materialist socialism while pointing out the clear source of class conflict, and the material conditions behind not only capitalist but socialist and communist society.
Because socialist idealism got us so far in the past. Read teachings of the paris commune.

Not saying the Marx want brilliant or important, just that you don't have to be a dogmatic Marxist to be a socialist.

That's beside the point anyway, how can you justify forcing socialism at the point of a gun? Liberation against one's will is an oxymoron. How do you propose to liberate the proletariat while robbing them of their sovereignty and their right to choose their own government? This would inevitably require authoritarian control, which would only be possible by restricting their rights and freedom further. Doesn't sound like liberation to me.

If on the other hand you want to provide political and material support to socialist movements in other countries, or even intervene while a revolution is in progress, then I'm totally on board.

A better question would be, is it ethical to genocide millions upon millions for the sake of some utopia that's not even for you, but instead for a certain group of people labeled by the Talmud?

That's what I thought.

...

Rolled 11 (1d20)
Magic Missile!

Stop reading Robert conquest satannazi

your post is full of assumptions and liberalism, there are so many errors.

Firstly, you cannot force socialism against anyone but the bourgeois, because socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production. Even if the workers were not politicized prior to the liberation war they will become so as the political system in place changes to one that is managed by themselves. Do not forget, the party is there to keep an ideological line so people do not reform back to capitalism and to stop the influence of the bourgeois in society, while the workers actually run the workplaces and government. The first generation of people living under socialism will always have militants against it, since they will be the generation that grew up under capitalism and/or feudalism and will be developed to those material conditions.
And if you read a fucking word of Marx you'd know that matter is the basis of consciousness, and that industry is the material basis of society. Therefore if you changed the material basis of society, ie by collectivizing industry, you'd have people who supported the socialist system because they grew up under it, and were class conscious due to having an active roll in the ownership of the means of production.

>AAAHHH you fascist! If people want to be systematically exploited by the bourgeois let them! Implying it was ever a choice
They have ownership over the means of production as well as authority in state functions, they cannot choose the ruling government for they are the ruling government.
Literally read Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism, you are a fucking embarrassment coming into this thread saying anything about imperialism without reading a book, you are a joke and full of contradictions, and I hope to god you are using that flag ironically because Tito would be rolling in his grave, you liberal coward.

If simply implementing socialism will change the material basis of society and cause later generations to embrace socialist thinking, then why did literally every Soviet satellite state defect to the West as soon as the Russian boot was off their necks despite 40 years under socialism?

You absolutely can, if the people lack class consciousness and still have faith in capitalism and reject socialism, then implementing socialism through military action is forcing it on them.

You assume that just because a system is better for people that they would want it, but the truth is that as long as the proletariat lack class consciousness they will support capitalism, and an outside force will be unable to implement socialism without bringing about political repression and authoritarian control, which defeats the entire purpose of abolishing capitalism.

There's no need to be upset.

I think the point of Yugo flag poster is trying to approach is that there are socialists who do not follow this kind of line. By that I mean: they define socialism not as the socialization of the means of production, in the hand of the workers, but rather their "statization", in which the state (which would be a workers state, supposedly) would own the MoPs. The workers would, here, own indirectly the means of p. through the state.

saging because not adding nothing to the discussion tbh

I'm honestly more focused on the fact that any externally imposed socialist regime would by necessity have to be undemocratic and authoritarian. If you implement socialism in a country where the people don't want it, you can't allow them to govern themselves, because they will immediately dismantle the socialist state. This means that in order to maintain socialism in these conditions the government would have to be an authoritarian one.

Socialism is a means to an end, and that end is a free and just society. If in building socialism you deprive people of their freedom, then you have already made that goal an impossibility.

Genocide is and always has been a Jewish ideal, just look in the Bible. Gentiles have never genocided any other group of Gentiles or even Jews, though at this point we ought to

s-satan chan is that you?

Rolled 7 (1d20)
I cast: Lightning Bolt

If it really is satanposter, then we are approaching good times.

I am the one people frequently identify as "Satannazi", yes

I missed you soo much don't leave me ever again

Why do you feel anything but hatred for me? I'm the enemy. I represent everything that your kind hates and wants to exterminate. Why pretend to have some affection for me?

Because the soviet union failed to revisionism, and ultimately reintroduced capitalist elements into it's society trough reforms as time went by. And if you really want to be anal about it and look at statistics most post-soviet countries statistically miss the benefits of socialism. The appearance of russian hegemony came from two things

1#, the fact that demographically russians were the most numerous people in the soviet union and democratically could exert their will over the minority. It is simple math, if 100 million people voted on issue y and 50 million voted on issue x it stands to reason the 100 million voters would get their way, and this happened often. You had the same situation in Yugoslavia.
2# External propaganda and the growing influence of capitalism in socialist society due to reformism.

you will always have progressive elements in society who will form a socialist government under the backing of a military power, you had this since the French revolution all up to the soviet liberation of europe, and beyond. And it is what happened, historically.

I never assumed this, I said they'd become politicized with the change of their relations to the means of production, which would cause the vast majority to conform to the new society.
There is a reason why class warfare is called what it is, it is because it is a very real conflict between a ruling and a servant class, and no revolution will be won trough pacifism, because pacifism is the acceptance of your class enemies violence. So class conflict is violent by default, it is not like any socialist advocated for reasonless murder. Has the transition from slavery to feudalism, or from feudalism to capitalism, been peaceful historically?

of course, but as I stated before, material conditions change consciousness, and the implementation of a socialist economy, which's integrity is guarded by the ideological vanguard, is a breeding ground for socialism. And even though the 20th century socialists ultimately failed to transition to communism they still progressed society and brought about 80 years of class consciousness within the proletariat that the capitalists are still suppressing to this day, this is how much it shook the work, you have to look at matters historically. All the benefits of today's society to workers could directly or indirectly be attributed to 20th century socialism.

Of course, I do not deny this. Monarchists and nationalists should be purged and ostracized in socialist society.
I don't see how it's authoritarian if a worker can become a part of the party if he has appropriate knowledge of marxist praxis, which is available to him in every school. And in some cases not even this was required, as with Yugoslavia opening the party (big mistake) in the late 70's and with the soviet union opening the party at a similar date if I remember correctly.

Establishing the collective ownership of property defeats the purpose of abolishing capitalism?

pic related

because you're cute and amusing
I promise to not kill you if it ever gets to the purge phase bb
but I really do love you

Consider the following user. A socialist country invades a non socialist country where the proletariat still support capitalism and sets up a socialist government. This government cannot be democratic, because if it were then it would immediately be dismantled by the population who want to see the return of capitalism. So, because democracy isn't an option in this situation, the socialist government has to be structured around a clique of sympathizers and collaborators who by necessity exclude the vast majority of the population from the political process, thus forming an oligarchy. For convenience sake we assume that this is a traditional state socialist government in the style of the USSR.

In this case the state controls the means of production, but the workers (aside from any lucky enough to be included in the oligarchic elite) do not control the state, essentially creating state capitalism. This means that any such state would immediately degenerate into an authoritarian state capitalist oligarchy that is only supported by the military might of its foreign benefactor.

Even if life under this regime would instill socialist mentality, this would take many years, and the longer that the oligarchy holds power the more entrenched it becomes, and the harder it is to remove.

The whole point is to have economic prosperity, freedom from exploitation AND personal and political freedom.

I am not "cute and amusing", and I know damn well that you dont think that either. Your very essence wants me destroyed, and likewise mine. You are incapable of loving Gentiles, and now that I know the truth I am incapable of loving Jews. Sorry, but this wont work

Consider the following user. A socialist country invades a non socialist country where the proletariat still support capitalism and sets up a socialist government. This government cannot be democratic, because if it were then it would immediately be dismantled by the population who want to see the return of capitalism. So, because democracy isn't an option in this situation, the socialist government has to be structured around a clique of sympathizers and collaborators who by necessity exclude the vast majority of the population from the political process, thus forming an oligarchy. For convenience sake we assume that this is a traditional state socialist government in the style of the USSR.

You cannot believe the irony of posting this with a Yugo flag, or are you wearing it on an ethnic basis pederu?

Tell me user, what is the basis of capitalism?

historically it took 30 if it didn't fall to revisionism, which is what it takes for a new generation to grow up and functionally replace the old one. And if this new state is capitalist as you say, for the means of transcending to socialism, how is it actually a bigger cruelty than the old system? You think liberal capitalism is really a more fair system than transitional capitalism? On what basis do you claim this, if comparably the same organs are used to defend the ruling class?
Because I'd have no problem with a transitional period of 30 years if it meant transition to socialism, as it isn't a sudden, but a gradual change and it would be felt at every level of society. First with the nationalization of education and thus higher education becoming available to the masses, breeding a new generation of people that can choose their profession based on their will and not on their material privviledge, as is done with private higher schooling, then you would see the workplace management of factories by workers. Yes, horrible being coerced into running a factory yourself isn't it? Hilariously enough, I can't find one historical example where workers refused to do this, other than during the french revolution when peasants refused to become workers, wishing to keep their crops. Managers are elected by the workers, and these managers congregate state-wide to plan the economy. These are called soviets. If any given manager exploits the surplus value of his workers, the party removes him from his position.
Then the generation of people that grew up with basic provisions supplied to them as a direct output of their/their families labor, and take up education that was before totally prohibited to their labor class due to the low amount of his produced value he'd receive, he'd be unable to pay for the service his own labor made possible before. These people become the new bureaucrats, and new members of the government, rising from the working class themselves but with a higher political education. The generation of people who were opposed to socialism see their children break from the traditional role their family line played in society, seeing their children becoming doctors, scientists and governors despite coming from the producer class, and they start to truly value the socialist system not for giving themselves this security, but their offsprings, which was usually the main concern of traditional society at the time.

Now you will always have those of the older generation that cling to tradition, but they are usually forced not by coercion but by the change of the material conditions of society to change themselves, as the various factors I mentioned above take place.

Only if the majority of the people want but are systematically denied the tools to achieve it. Otherwise it would probably be counter-productive and help the counter-revolutionaries mobilize out of nationalistic mentality.

Jesus loves you!

These, plus also a matter of morality. Yeah yeah, spooky, I know.

I never said against morality, as morality is defined by the development of human consciousness. I, in fact, would consider it immoral not to overthrow a capitalist country if it was economically and militarily possible.

If the soviet union had the chance, was it supposed to let capitalism in the USA go on just because the people there had years of propaganda forced upon them? oh so non violent Why would it be considered unethical to do this?

Oh I didn't imply you were against morality, I was just adding another bullet point to the discussion.

The thing with that hypothetical is that it's too reductionist. It's not just a matter of "they invade, capitalism is overthrown, the end", there's an infinity of other factors that make predictions impossible. So we have to rely on historic examples, and the times socialism was imposed by force didn't turn out so hot.

I remember reading somewhere that this exact same dilemma was a part of the French Revolution, and whether they should "force the people to be free".

never meant to do this, I apologize if I did. But it is no better to simply say 'overthrow of bourgeois=imperialism'
Of course, it all depends on the material conditions in place.
An interesting tidbit about the east/west germany dillema, there was actually a suggestion by the soviet union under Stalin in the UN that Germany be re-unified as an unaligned country and a general election take place. No NATO member state accepted this proposal, and ironically they laid the groundwork for the wall that was erected years later by Hruschev.

that's pretty interesting user.

Fair point.

I had no idea about the unaligned Germany thing. Fucking hell, they kept the country split on purpose and then shat on commies because of the wall. Porky got to keep his cake and eat it too.

Sure. Provided you are Socialist and they are running on Capitalism or Feudalism.

For example, Napoleon was a progressive influence on Europe.

The word does not mean what you think it means.

They already have one. You are being Socialist. That is enough.

Yeah. Which is why UK almost declared war on Soviets in 1927. Totally not giving casus belli.

Stop thinking that everyone is America. IRL, when you sponsor revolution in another state, it is already a cause more than sufficient for war.

They didn't.

It's like saying - Why all people started supporting Nazis, once their oppressive governments got overthrown by Reich liberation army? They obviously were secretly Nazi and recognized superiority of Aryan race.

Socialism is based on voluntary desire. You can't spread voluntary desire.

Because its not just a 1v1 fight versus the armies of capitalism and then you win forever. You invade a country and are instantly demonized by the locals, leading to resistance and hatred for you and the socialist cause. Right or wrong things will be spun that way; just look at the soviets in Afghanistan.

Everyone is far better off with support from the socialist country until they can take the reins of their own economic development, rather than forcing it.

Now, if there was a civil war and socialist side called for your help, I think that is different.

you have to be forced to be free

I'm glad you use a trip, because 99% of what you say is ridiculous.

How about not just capitalist leaders ganging up on you, but the working class of those nations, too.

If the workers were developed enough to not listen to their capitalist masters, support a socialist cause, and see their own nations armies as soldiers for capital, then why do you need to invade them to have a revolution? Sounds like they are not far off doing it themselves.

Is there some point being made?

Because I'm quite certain that you will not become magically invulnerable to the bullets of "working class" if you will follow One True Anarcho-Socialist strain.

Moving goalposts should be done less obviously.

the proper term is social-imperialism Yugoposter

My point:
If you need to invade a country to eliminate capitalism then you will be turning the working class of that nation (and others) against you. The working class that potentially up until then could relate to and sympathise with the working class of your own nation.

This is a bad thing because socialism, despite what stalinists think, is run by the working class.

You are turning the working class against you.

My second point is that for a socialist army from a foreign nation to be successful in any war, they would need the absolute support of the working class, and if the working class is developed enough to be in majority support of socialism, then they don't need an invasion to propogate socialism. How is that moving goalposts when we are talking about socialism, invasions, and the outcome of such ideas?

If you have sufficient technological and industrial superiority that you can overthrow their government with minimal bloodshed, then yes. Where the line for "minimal bloodshed" is drawn is very subjective though.

Yes.

If you truly have socialism you can't really be imperialist, because imperialism is:
Which is not what you do. Rather, you overthrow the government there, set up a socialist system in that country for the people of that country, so you can be stronger together.

You are presupposing that the government would allow workers to actually choose their managers, and that an oligarchic authoritarian regime would actually stay true to the principles of socialism. What I am arguing is that for a government to rule over a people that do not want to be governed, it has to do so almost entirely through force. This means that socialism can not truly exist under such conditions, because any attempt at giving workers control of the economy or government will lead to them using it against the socialist system.

Because liberal capitalism is capable of protecting some freedoms such as limited democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. Authoritarian oligarchies typically do a pretty shit job of protecting these freedoms.

You are arguing that socialism would reshape the public consciousness to support the socialist system, and its failure to do this throughout history has been the result of revisionism. But any such government wouldn't be able to give the people democratic control over anything, because they would immediately mobilize in any way they could against the state. So you wouldn't even be talking about socialism, and if that's the case then how can this inspire socialist modes of thought?

And do you expect this oligarchy which has spent 30 years ruling with an iron fist to simply just give up all its power? 30 years of oligarchy doesn't create a climate of socialism and democracy, it creates a climate and political conscience of oligarchy.

Is it unethical for Santa Claus to enter your home uninvited? No, because his intentions legitimize what would normally be considered breaking and entry.
Socialist invasion is the same, but instead of handing out gifts to good kids and coal to the naughty, we will be giving the means of production to the proletariat, and gulag for the bourgeois and their collaborators.

Why the fuck would I care?

Still, imposing an economic system on a country from outside is going to create a lot of resentment with the population and may harm our movement more than it's useful.

absolutely. as communists, we by default work towards global revolution as we recognize that socialism (let alone communism) cannot exist alongside capitalism for the two are antithetical and it's kill or be killed.

a better question would be: how far do you go in enforcing authority upon those proletarian individuals actively working against their material self-interest by siding with ruling ideology?

I would love to see the outcomes of DPRK supporters announcing they will be supporting a north Korean invasion of the USA.

someone played too much computer games

The proletariat is international by essence and, it will have to take every single piece of land from the hands of the bourgeoisie in order to get to socialism.

wewest of tops.

Your concept of freedom is the one of bourgeois society, and it only exists because you were raised in the conditions of bourgeois society. And if you really think people have more liberties under unregulated capitalism than they do under a socialist state, even a reformist one, you have no business being on this board as you obviously have no historical knowledge of the socialist movement of the 20th century aside from what you read on wikipedia or got from media.

I don't think that people have more freedoms under capitalism than they do under socialism. I think people have more freedoms under democratic liberal capitalism than they do under authoritarian state capitalism, which is the inevitably result of forcing socialism upon a population that doesn't want it.

Right, because the USSR and PRC were definitely not authoritarian shitholes.

Lenin said that it is the only war the proletariat should be willing to join, as it is a war for the proletariat themselves, rather than bourgeois war.

He said that going to war in order to aid proletarian uprising is the only way to attain peace.

I agree tbh.

you still haven't even given me the definition of capitalism, which leads me to believe you do not understand the relation of property ownership that defines class society in the first place. It is quite ironic that you use that flag, considering that you are an anarchist ideologically.

>b-but I support the state!
so do anarchists, they just don't call it one, functionally you are an anarchist.

Aiding proletarian uprising is different from invading a country and imposing socialism though.

You're changing the subject. A socialist state imposed upon a population that does not want socialism can not be democratic, since a democratic state by definition has to abide by the will of its people and in this case that would entail dismantling socialism. This means that an authoritarian socialist state is necessary, in which case it would have to be run by an oligarchic vanguard party. Not only does this deprive workers of the control of the means of production, but this oligarchy will abuse its power and exploit its people, just as every other oligarchy has throughout history. Once it does this, the material conditions have been altered in such a way as to make continued exploitation of the workers by the oligarchs part of the material interests of those oligarchs, who will then do everything they can to perpetuate this exploitation. Imposing socialism is impossible even by a classical Marxist perspective, because it would require an authoritarian oligarchy which would inevitably develop its own interests and exploit the workers.

So now the workers are still being exploited, but in addition to that they have lost whatever freedoms they might have been guaranteed under liberalism. Not only is this a failure to progress, but it is actually a regression to an even more oppressive system.

Proletarians have no countries.

Yeah but they're spooked into thinking that they do.

All the more reason to get "their countries" out of Porky's grasp.

mate, before I can take you seriously at all, you need to define capitalism for me because I think you have no idea what I am talking about. And I am not changing the subject, this is a vital point, as it will decide if I should even bother discussing further with you.
I asked you this question 4 posts ago, and you haven't answered it. If anyone's dodging questions it's you.

Terror without virtue is fatal; virtue without terror is impotent.
- t. ropesber

I would define capitalism as an economic system characterized primarily by for profit production, free markets, private property backed by state power, wage labour, capital accumulation and private/undemocratic control over the means of production.