imported>ShadowRaiden No edit summary |
imported>Polcompbot m (Removed templates) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Neoconfemboy - This page strongly conflates isolationism and non-interventionism, which are not the same thing. You can support a non-interventionist foreign policy and still be a internationalist otherwise, e.g. Jeremy Corbyn and Olof Palme | Neoconfemboy - This page strongly conflates isolationism and non-interventionism, which are not the same thing. You can support a non-interventionist foreign policy and still be a internationalist otherwise, e.g. Jeremy Corbyn and Olof Palme | ||
Kinda based, our nation and affairs are to come first and we must rely on ourselves. However, I’m not against alliances. - {{ | Kinda based, our nation and affairs are to come first and we must rely on ourselves. However, I’m not against alliances. - | ||
== "Stalinism" == | |||
About the "Stalinism" frenemy, and the "socialism in one country thing," you really don't understand socialism in one country. It was even advocated for by Lenin and is simply the belief that a revolution would first occur in one '''or''' several countries. Also, "Stalinism" is proletarian internationalist and is not at all isolationist. | |||
As Lenin had said, "Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in ALL countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others for some time will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois." | |||
Also as Lenin had said, "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world." | |||
Now, for an interview with Stalin: | |||
Howard: Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution? | |||
Stalin: We never had such plans and intentions. | |||
Howard: You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression. | |||
Stalin: This is the product of a misunderstanding. | |||
Howard: A tragic misunderstanding? | |||
Stalin: No, a comical one. Or, perhaps tragicomic. You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society. But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated. | |||
[[User:Hoxha Cat|Hoxha Cat]] ([[User talk:Hoxha Cat|talk]]) 05:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
== pretty much depends == | |||
{{User|Matteel}} - if it relates to economic protectionism and military policy, then it's rather based. If it relates to international or military alliances overall, than pretty much retarded. | |||
Latest revision as of 20:32, 22 March 2023
Neoconfemboy - This page strongly conflates isolationism and non-interventionism, which are not the same thing. You can support a non-interventionist foreign policy and still be a internationalist otherwise, e.g. Jeremy Corbyn and Olof Palme
Kinda based, our nation and affairs are to come first and we must rely on ourselves. However, I’m not against alliances. -
"Stalinism"
About the "Stalinism" frenemy, and the "socialism in one country thing," you really don't understand socialism in one country. It was even advocated for by Lenin and is simply the belief that a revolution would first occur in one or several countries. Also, "Stalinism" is proletarian internationalist and is not at all isolationist.
As Lenin had said, "Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in ALL countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others for some time will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois."
Also as Lenin had said, "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world."
Now, for an interview with Stalin:
Howard: Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin: We never had such plans and intentions.
Howard: You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.
Stalin: This is the product of a misunderstanding.
Howard: A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin: No, a comical one. Or, perhaps tragicomic. You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society. But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.
Hoxha Cat (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
pretty much depends
- if it relates to economic protectionism and military policy, then it's rather based. If it relates to international or military alliances overall, than pretty much retarded.