#1
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
someone posted this back on the tank crew thread:

if lenin knew what an ICBM was he'd probably have calmed down on the whole global class struggle thing



the way i usually hear this voiced is about nuclear weapons. thoughts?

#2
[account deactivated]
#3
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
that's certainly a picture of a man
#4
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
the theory of peaceful coexistence can only be understood with respect to the entire revisionist post-stalin era of the soviet union. peaceful coexistence was not simply trying to be careful for obvious geopolitical reasons. peaceful coexistence was a strategy for consolidation of the soviet sphere as a power bloc within a world capitalist system.

a large number of poor countries officially oriented towards socialism in the early period of decolonization. orthodoxy tended to criticize these nations as being bourgeois-democratic because they failed to build a real communist party based on the working class and because their economies were not fully planned. this policy was changed over time towards one that emphasized a "non-capitalist path of development". such changes allowed the soviet union to praise a wide number of countries as potential allies. importantly, it changed the primary task of communist parties in most countries from building socialist revolution towards supporting the bourgeois-democratic revolution in these countries. this often integrated communist parties into coalitions with the liberal bourgeoisie. in many countries this had already become standard practice as a result of the war against fascism - for example, CPUSA became fervent New Dealers and mostly integrated into the Democratic Party apparatus.

this was all connected to the bureaucratization of the soviet union and its close allies in general. a broad swath of the bureaucracy was convinced that a sort of semi-market socialism (like hungary) was the only reliable way to manage an economy on a socialist basis. likewise, the enormous security/military complex privileged geopolitical factors over popular class struggle - even the existence of class struggle within the USSR was denied (see khrushchev's theory of the "state of the whole people"). also, later on, trade with the capitalist world (oil sales, for example) was so important to the bureaucracy that high-level cooperation with the west was important.
#5
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: +
if lenin knew what an TCBY was he'd probably have calmed down period
#6
Post rating: +

getfiscal posted:

the theory of peaceful coexistence can only be understood with respect to the entire revisionist post-stalin era of the soviet union. peaceful coexistence was not simply trying to be careful for obvious geopolitical reasons. peaceful coexistence was a strategy for consolidation of the soviet sphere as a power bloc within a world capitalist system.

a large number of poor countries officially oriented towards socialism in the early period of decolonization. orthodoxy tended to criticize these nations as being bourgeois-democratic because they failed to build a real communist party based on the working class and because their economies were not fully planned. this policy was changed over time towards one that emphasized a "non-capitalist path of development". such changes allowed the soviet union to praise a wide number of countries as potential allies. importantly, it changed the primary task of communist parties in most countries from building socialist revolution towards supporting the bourgeois-democratic revolution in these countries. this often integrated communist parties into coalitions with the liberal bourgeoisie. in many countries this had already become standard practice as a result of the war against fascism - for example, CPUSA became fervent New Dealers and mostly integrated into the Democratic Party apparatus.

this was all connected to the bureaucratization of the soviet union and its close allies in general. a broad swath of the bureaucracy was convinced that a sort of semi-market socialism (like hungary) was the only reliable way to manage an economy on a socialist basis. likewise, the enormous security/military complex privileged geopolitical factors over popular class struggle - even the existence of class struggle within the USSR was denied (see khrushchev's theory of the "state of the whole people"). also, later on, trade with the capitalist world (oil sales, for example) was so important to the bureaucracy that high-level cooperation with the west was important.



#7
Post rating: ~
he's not wrong you know
#8
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
i agree jools
#9
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
i'm not trying to insidiously advance an anti-Soviet line; i'm asking an obviously basic question to get basic perspectives from people itt
#10
Post rating: ~
Yeah and if God knew what refrigeration was he'd probably have calmed down on the whole 'don't eat shellfish' thing
#11
Post rating: +
"anti-soviet" makes about as much sense now as "anti-roman empire" tbh
#12
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

jools posted:

"anti-soviet" makes about as much sense now as "anti-roman empire" tbh



okay but i hope you know what i meant? i am not saying that socialists should have chosen annihilation to prove a point

#13
Post rating: ~
well, i'm unconvinced it would have ended up like that. as getfiscal describes, peaceful coexistence was more a result of positive interests than avoiding nuclear annihilation.
#14
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +

jools posted:

well, i'm unconvinced it would have ended up like that. as getfiscal describes, peaceful coexistence was more a result of positive interests than avoiding nuclear annihilation.

mao refuted the idea anyway by arguing that ceding ground in the class struggle doesn't create safety, it creates the exact conditions in which imperialism leads to constant wars. acting tough against american imperialism is probably much more of a defensive posture than conceding them a wide sphere of influence which they will inevitably try to expand.

#15
Post rating: +
just look at north korea. an insanely belligerent stance that has left them pretty much untouched lol
#16
Post rating: ~

daddyholes posted:

someone posted this back on the tank crew thread:

if lenin knew what an ICBM was he'd probably have calmed down on the whole global class struggle thing



the way i usually hear this voiced is about nuclear weapons. thoughts?



Well there's that Che quote about nuking NYC but it varies and idk what the original said.

wtf jacobin: http://jacobinmag.com/2011/09/the-cult-of-che/

#17
Post rating: ~
lol that fucker edits left foot forward. a real cruise missile liberal.
#18
Post rating: +
but then that's jacobin - they love cruise missile liberals. Don't Read Jacobin
#19
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +
i don't think Jacobin is worth reading but i think it's good for getting fellow travelers to wade into socialism
#20
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

jools posted:

just look at north korea. an insanely belligerent stance that has left them pretty much untouched lol



i think that's because no one takes their ability to project power to this side of the pacific seriously

#21
Post rating: ~

daddyholes posted:

jools posted:

just look at north korea. an insanely belligerent stance that has left them pretty much untouched lol

i think that's because no one takes their ability to project power to this side of the pacific seriously



well then why wouldn't they steamroll em?

#22
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

jools posted:

daddyholes posted:

jools posted:

just look at north korea. an insanely belligerent stance that has left them pretty much untouched lol

i think that's because no one takes their ability to project power to this side of the pacific seriously

well then why wouldn't they steamroll em?



because no one takes our ability to project power to that side of the pacific seriously

#23
Post rating: ~
libya would disagree
#24
Post rating: ~
or do you mean they're a genuine proxy for china somehow?
#25
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
forgive me for being geographically imprecise; i mean that DPRK would not shatter into immediate civil war
#26
Post rating: ~
lol i thought i was being the imprecise one
#27
Post rating: ~
i dare say one must tread a bit more carefully around east asia than north africa
#28
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

i dare say one must tread a bit more carefully around east asia than north africa



yeah i think it's fair to acknowledge china as a factor without farce; countries don't refrain from invading central america for resources because of those countries' ability to project force or really because of their foreign policies at all

#29
Post rating: +
zizek wrote a thing

#30
Post rating: ~
So, precisely as a Leftist, my answer to the dilemma "Bomb or not?" is: not yet ENOUGH bombs, and they are TOO LATE. In the last decade, the West followed a Hamlet-like procrastination towards Balkan, and the present bombardment has effectively all the signs of Hamlet's final murderous outburst in which a lot of people unnecessarily die (not only the King, his true target, but also his mother, Laertius, Hamlet himelf...), because Hamlet acted too late, when the proper moment was already missed. So the West, in the present intervention which displays all the signs of a violent outburst of impotent aggressivity without a clear political goal, is now paying the price for the years of entertaining illusions that one can make a deal with Milosevic: with the recent hesitations about the ground intervention in Kosovo, the Serbian regime is, under the pretext of war, launching the final assault on Kosovo and purge it of most of the Albanians, cynically accepting bombardments as the price to be paid. When the Western forces repeat all the time that they are not fighting the Serbian people, but only their corrupted regime, they rely on the typically liberal wrong premise that the Serbian people are just victims of their evil leadership personified in Milosevic, manipulated by him. The painful fact is that Serb aggressive nationalism enjoys the support of the large majority of the population - no, Serbs are not passive victims of nationalist manipulation, they are not Americans in disguise, just waiting to be delivered from the bad nationalist spell.
#31
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
"imperialists are Nietzschean slaves, they need wars,"
#32
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
and what exactly is the purpose of talking about Zen priests and Japanese soldiers before asserting that the examples given bolster an argument about the "radical revolutionary"; this reads almost exactly like a specific john dolan column about how Mao was a hard bro
#33
Post rating: +
its almost as if zizek is full of shit lol
#34
Post rating: ~
Mao was an idiot without equal. Khrushchev saved the world from nuclear war and lost his job for it because he valued the rule of democracy over his own vanity. Mao starved millions thanks to his economic ignorance and pigheadedness, and felt the party had wronged him. The arrogance of the man was astounding.
#35
Post rating: ~
I don't care for zizek, but who are jools' favorite philosophers?
#36
sup b*tch
Post rating: +
master/slave morality, bruh. slave morality's destruction is its creative act; the "slave" is nothing without a master to rail against, without its infinite reserve of ressentiment
#37
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

innsmouthful posted:

master/slave morality, bruh. slave morality's destruction is its creative act; the "slave" is nothing without a master to rail against, without its infinite reserve of ressentiment



Yes I've read Nietzsche but my question remains, what the fuck

#38
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
i have to assume this assertion was backed up by some sort of argument elsewhere and i am asking what that argument was
#39
sup b*tch
Post rating: ~
lol oh i wasn't sure in context myself if you were asking what it was or how zizek was using it, just trying to be helpful :/ sorry
#40
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
np