Is it okay to invade another country to spread socialism?

It will cause too much instability and people wont have faith in the system you set up because youre an outsider.

True but if you have a big enough revolutionary army to route them long enough bring them a modern socialist industrial state then that it might be feasible. For example hypothetically if the USSR really want to put a cannon to the feudal aristocracy of Afghanistan it could have if the USSR put as much men in Afghanistan as sent against Hitler and had a full a armoured division guarded every last strategic point of Afghanistan while Afghanistan is industrialized to the point all the Afghan nobles are proletarianized at the barrel of a tank.

This.

Sad thing is that, regardless of how popular the support for a revolution in-nation is, the import of significant non-domestic forces will almost always be sold as "propping up unpopular change" at best and "invasion" at worst by the rest of the world.

But then an imperial capitalist country will be more likely to jump in and try to "liberate" the country from the socialists then constantly spread more propaganda on how evil socialism is..

The proletarian is by essence international. So must be its party and its state. Having a national party or a national state is the first step on the way to fun stuff, as we saw in the USSR.

So, speaking of a true proletarian state, which is by essence an international state, talking about "invasion" doesn't make sense.

I meant "degeneracy". Looks like my autocorrect likes fun stuff.

Yes, but not in the conventional way.

You should fund and support communist groups, which will then (hopefully) gain support of the people.

If the country has mass support for communism, and the government of that country suppresses the workers, they will probably start armed struggle. At this point you can, at a tactical time, help out by sending armed forces.

I agree it has to be international, but having a national party attempting to gain a foothold or control of a national state, is the first step towards creating the parts that build up the internationalism aspect.

If it then, rejects, the rest of the world, you would have a point - but it has to start somewhere, and it has to start with the communities of which it actually resides in.

Massive unions and strike solidarity is not built by a general "strike movement", it's built by unionizing for each workplace effectively taking into account that workplace.

The internationalism comes as each unit organizes (and doesn't specifically reject internationalism). Whatever the fuck you want to call that unit.

Earlier on when I was more idealistic I would have said "no muh imperialism is never ok no matter from who" but I cant see anything wrong with this now tbh. Whatever brings us closer to world revolution and international communism can't be a bad thing regardless whether it's forced from above/outside or has a large human toll.

Is it common for leftcoms to support this? (Forcefully spreading revolution into capitalist countries through invasion)

To add, delaying or halting international communist revolution is the most barbaric and inhuman thing you can do. I think all commies need to start looking at things this way. We can't wait centuries longer for the perfect conditions.

I agree.

What I wanted to point out was the fact that the international character of the party that seize power in one country must precede this seizure. Otherwise this is gonna be the USSR all over again. That implies that today, when we shouldn't be able to seize power in any country in a foreseeable future, we must put the emphasis on getting well prepared for the next historic opportunity, by building an international party in which the global strategy of the proletariat always comes before the perspective of a local success.

The materialist view shpuld tell you this, there is no absolute correct response to that question.

It depends on circumstances, the political situation of the country, the strategical possibilities, the strenght of the communist movement in said country… You have to analyze the situation and make a decision based on the circumstances.

"When a powerful nation conducts a war of liberty it arises in its entirety, it marches under leaders that it has chosen from the most zealous defenders of equality and the general interest. At the time it declares [a war of liberty] formidable preparations are in place to assure the success of its enterprise. Its object is sublime; its force invincible; its measures wise and grand; its attacks prompt and irresistible … It does not purchase a painful victory through torrents of blood."

"Unhappy French, Belgian, German slaves of the tyrants who divide the human race like base herds, you will be free; doubt it not; I swear it by the burning of Courtrai; by the children of Brabançons, murdered in their mother’s wombs and carried blood-soaked on the points of Austrian bayonets; I swear it by the shades of Avignon who perished at the hands of our common enemies; I swear it by our wives and children slaughtered by cowards on the Champ de Mars; by the defenders of the fatherland … by the patriots; I swear it by the foreign armies … and by the traitors who summoned them … I swear it by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, so solemnly promulgated and insolently violated; by the disasters of twenty centuries; by our ancestors whom we must avenge, by our descendants whom we must liberate, and by ourselves whom we must save."

-Robespierre 1791

bump

No

What about invading other countries to help their revolutionary forces?

HA! NICE SPOOKS NERD