How to Overthrow the US Government. By Marxist.org. 1980

[Secret Chief]

That's just water over the bridge now.

You can't even get that right

 

[Father Heathen]

You can't even get that right

Don't toss him over the bus like that.

 

[Secret Chief]

Don't toss him over the bus like that.

Hey, two wrongs don't make a rite.

 

[Revoltingest]

I said nothing of overall violence (which would include internal violence, such as political purges and the Gulag). This is specifically about foreign policy and military aggression. On the whole, countries officially presenting as socialist or communist haven't been more militarily aggressive than the likes of the US, the UK, and France.

Consider that even the oldest non-socialist
countries have only existed for about a century.
Others have had a far longer time to accumulate
rich histories of conquest & carnage.
So once again, I find your socialist apologetics
to be lacking in complete & cromulent analysis.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Consider that even the oldest non-socialist
countries have only existed for about a century.
Others have had a far longer time to accumulate
rich histories of conquest & carnage.
So once again, I find your socialist apologetics
to be lacking in complete & cromulent analysis.

Both France and the British Empire are far older than a century, and this seems to me an entirely moot argument either way because socialism has only existed for a fraction of China's and Russia's history, for example. Any wars before its existence have no relevance to socialist regimes whatsoever.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both France and the British Empire are far older than a century....

Well, that's exactly my point.
Capitalism & feudalism are long in the tooth.
But socialism is the child prodigy of inflicting
woe upon humanity.

 

[Kathryn]

Let's talk about US healthcare for a bit. OK so about ten years ago, I had to have surgery on my Achilles tendon. I had been paying at least $500 a month at that time for insurance coverage, and also had a huge deductible. I saw the bill for the surgery, and it was over $30,000 at that time. So anyway, my yard guy began having the same Achilles tendon issues, and I told him he would HAVE to go see a doctor. He said he didn't have medical insurance. I said that it won't get better without surgery if it's the same issue, so go get it checked out. He did. HIS surgery was actually less than my deductible! His surgery cost under $3000. I am pretty sure he didn't even pay that amount by the end of a year. Anyway, good times. Same surgery by the way.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, that's exactly my point.
Capitalism & feudalism are long in the tooth.
But socialism is the child prodigy of inflicting
woe upon humanity.

You're telling an African this when we're discussing the British Empire and France, both of whom thrived for decades on enslaving, exploiting, and invading other countries.

I doubt you'll visit Algeria or Egypt, but if you do, I suggest not implying that capitalism and feudalism enacted by Britain and France weren't sources of widespread atrocities and misery.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're telling an African this when we're discussing the British Empire and France, both of whom thrived for decades on enslaving, exploiting, and invading other countries.

I doubt you'll visit Algeria or Egypt, but if you do, I suggest not implying that capitalism and feudalism enacted by Britain and France weren't sources of widespread atrocities and misery.

You appear to be arguing against something with me.
But everything you say supports my claim that the
west has a long history of hideous conquest.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You appear to be arguing against something with me.
But everything you say supports my claim that the
west has a long history of hideous conquest.

Then I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on, aside from the argument that socialism can be summed up in the worst representations given by the USSR, China, et al.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on, aside from the argument that socialism can be summed up in the worst representations given by the USSR, China, et al.

Socialism is represented fully & accurately by
the histories of all socialist (ie, without capitalism)
countries. You're welcome to consider the best
examples therefrom.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Socialism is represented fully & accurately by
the histories of all socialist (ie, without capitalism)
countries. You're welcome to consider the best
examples therefrom.

I have previously said that I find no meaningful point in our pursuing this subject again after going in circles multiple times before. That still applies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You can't even get that right

I blaze my own trail. That's why I'm steps ahead of the game along with others, whom remain far ahead of people who somehow think in their smugness, they have things together better than others.

https://genius.com/Voyager-water-over-the-bridge-lyrics

"Enjoy.

 

[Augustus]

Capitalist countries attempted to invade Cuba, invaded Vietnam, and tried to overthrow socialist or communist regimes in Cuba, Venezuela, and the USSR—not out of concern for human rights but for geopolitical gain.

Capitalist regimes have always made enemies out of socialist and communist ones before turning around and pretending to be the victim when they are called out on their subversive interventionism and desire for hegemony.

Vietnam wasn't exactly one-sided.

Ho Chi Min was a Comintern operative and was backed extensively by USSR/China and who invaded the South of the country to impose Communist rule.

While it is complex and none of the actors are particularly endearing or benevolent, presenting it as a "capitalist invasion" seems somewhat overgenerous to the Communist nations.

The enmity and the subversive interventionism were extensive parts of both side's playbooks.

Yes, but the malice in military policy has largely been from the capitalist side (and the USSR, to a lesser extent). Vietnam, China, Cuba, and Venezuela have largely kept to themselves militarily.

Cuba certainly engaged in and supported subversive activities in the Caribbean, South America and Africa (and beyond), that they lacked the economic and military capability to do even more is not a position of moral superiority.

Cuban military internationalism - Wikipedia

Cuban intervention in Angola - Wikipedia

 

[Debater Slayer]

Vietnam wasn't exactly one-sided.

Ho Chi Min was a Comintern operative and was backed extensively by USSR/China and who invaded the South of the country to impose Communist rule.

While it is complex and none of the actors are particularly endearing or benevolent, presenting it as a "capitalist invasion" seems somewhat overgenerous to the Communist nations.

The enmity and the subversive interventionism were extensive parts of both side's playbooks.



Cuba certainly engaged in and supported subversive activities in the Caribbean, South America and Africa (and beyond), that they lacked the economic and military capability to do even more is not a position of moral superiority.

Cuban military internationalism - Wikipedia

Cuban intervention in Angola - Wikipedia

I suppose there's almost always a "chicken or egg?" question in these types of conflicts, where one side starts a conflict and the other reciprocates, leading to a long-term conflict where the instigating party may not always be clearly identified.

Mostly, I think of Fidel Castro's policies and the USSR as prime examples of the atrocities that can result from trying to put idealistic politics into action without acknowledging or recognizing that human nature is not and will never be perfect. "Military internationalism" to help groups perceived as oppressed may sound useful in a utopian world, but human societies will never be so united or consistent in using power for benevolent ends. Usually, they just end up pursuing their own goals and throwing others under the bus.

 

[metis]

Vietnam wasn't exactly one-sided.

Ho Chi Min was a Comintern operative and was backed extensively by USSR/China and who invaded the South of the country to impose Communist rule.

Ho Chi Min was not only popular in the north but also the south, which is why President Eisenhower decided not to have a free election that had been agreed upon to have under the Geneva Accords to decide which leader they wanted to run a unified Vietnam.

 

[Augustus]

Ho Chi Min was not only popular in the north but also the south, which is why President Eisenhower decided not to have a free election that had been agreed upon to have under the Geneva Accords to decide which leader they wanted to run a unified Vietnam.

He was also a Comintern agent who had been murdering tens (if not hundreds)of thousands of “class enemies” in the North and who hundreds of thousands of people had fled from.

How ethical would it have been to hand a country over to someone who would end future free elections, install a very repressive regime and would murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens?

It was a lose-lose scenario. There were no “good guys”.

 

[Debater Slayer]

He was also a Comintern agent who had been murdering tens (if not hundreds)of thousands of “class enemies” in the North and who hundreds of thousands of people had fled from.

How ethical would it have been to hand a country over to someone who would end future free elections, install a very repressive regime and would murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens?

It was a lose-lose scenario. There were no “good guys”.

I would have probably had a more favorable opinion of American involvement in Vietnam if American forces hadn't bombed villages, committed war crimes, and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese in their own right. They merely added to the death toll instead of reducing or halting it, and I think the involvement was more motivated by geopolitics than humanitarian or ethical concerns.

The US has no problem doing business with oppressive regimes when its interests dictate that, so going to war under the banner of resisting an oppressive regime was murky from the get-go. I agree there were no good guys, but I also think American intervention was a grave crime that should have imparted enough historical wisdom to the US to avoid making similar mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In my opinion, that there were no good guys doesn't mean that foreign involvement didn't make things even worse.

Edit: This is one of the reasons I think the US made things much worse and intervened primarily to further its own interests:

The Diem coup | Miller Center

Essentially, the entire war could have been greatly mitigated or possibly even avoided if the US hadn't intentionally backed a coup and sown disruption in order to minimize the influence of parties it deemed undesirable to its interests.

 

[Augustus]

In my opinion, that there were no good guys doesn't mean that foreign involvement didn't make things even worse.

Foreign involvement includes the USSR and China.

I agree such wars are generally folly though and unlikely to have a happy ending.

What would you have done if faced with the situation that a “free” election would be rigged in the North, and the winner would likely kill hundreds of thousands of people?

(They killed tens of thousands in the North and this was where they had least opposition)

 

[Stevicus]

Foreign involvement includes the USSR and China.

I agree such wars are generally folly though and unlikely to have a happy ending.

What would you have done if faced with the situation that a “free” election would be rigged in the North, and the winner would likely kill hundreds of thousands of people?

(They killed tens of thousands in the North and this was where they had least opposition)

I would also include France in that foreign involvement. After all, it was their colony and their responsibility. In any case, we agreed to divide up Vietnam because we saw how dividing up Korea was such a brilliant idea.

I think it's beyond disingenuous to point the finger at someone else and claim that "they're the bad guy" while our own leaders sat down in conference with these "bad guys" and made the deal. If they didn't want to do it, then they shouldn't have done it.