"to plant their military base etc"

What does this even mean? What non-Vietnamese communist military bases existed in Vietnam?

Why would communists have an incentive to put military bases there?

China was heavily involved fam

source?

lol, why did the ussr overthrow the afghan government?

why did they conquer eastern europe?

'conquer' is a strange word

ask the people in poland how they liked the occupation

More like they promoted socialist insurgencies for the purpose of increasing international scope

or do you call it liberation?

socialists are in every country, like it or not

here's a source I haven't read yet, I assume you're going to read it all http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/Jian%20China%20Involvement%20Vietnam.pdf

sure I will

you get to work on those articles boi

Thinking socialist uprisings were not stimulated by the soviet union is crazy though

I mean you at least know about afghanistan I hope

"More like they promoted socialist insurgencies for the purpose of increasing international scope"

Are you blind?

Did I not just concede that?

don't get angry

argument against what?

"Thinking socialist uprisings were not stimulated by the soviet union is crazy though" - you just threw that out there as a non-sequitur

not something I ever denied

We both agree that they did it then

" The relationship between Communist China and Vietnam was
very close in the late 1950s and early 1960s.9 The close connection with
Hanoi, as well as Beijing's revolutionary ideology, would not allow the
Chinese to go so far as to become an obstacle to the Vietnamese cause
of revolution and reunification."

so far the article seems to be suggesting that unified ideology (i.e. forming an axis against US interests in Indo-China) was a more pertinent reason for Chinese involvement in Vietnam than fiscal gain rooted in a socialist praxis

The U.S would say they did the same in Chile and Korea

What's the difference in stopping the spread of U.S ideology or soviet ideology?

you're diverting off-topic now, but what socialist financial incentives overrode ideological solidarity in Chile & Korea?

the US was capitalist before China was communist

because, like I said, US ideology is rooted in international trade

And the socialist one spreads poverty and misery

a communist state, as history has shown us, can exist in a vacuum, at least to a certain extent

Face it, Korea and Chile are better off

Vietnam wasn't

The US demands that all non-capitalist nations be subordinated to global, financial capital

once more, not an argument

Which is for their betterment

The original contention was whether this level of death would exist under capitalism than under communism

You just don't see it as something good, which the results simply do show

which you've not only failed to adequately prove, you've further confirmed by beliefs by giving me that source

Hold on a second

''The original contention was whether this level of death would exist under capitalism than under communism''

Wasn't what I said

I said that countries always have tried to spread their ideology and squash those who oppose it

Not only communism, any other system too

I'll have to read the rest of it, but so far the thought is communism has more of an incentive to intervene in other countries to form an axis against capitalist encroachment

To claim it's a capitalist thing is nonsense

right and the U.S thought the same about soviet influence

not a capitalism thing at all

"not a good idea when posting something as evidence of the big bad capitalism killing machine"

you've given me some pretty good evidence of that

Not at all

Give an argument

As to why it's exclusive to capitalism

Getting bored of repeating myself, but here we go:
"Industries have financial incentives to maintain capitalist spheres of trade throughout the world
e.g. the rubber trade having an incentive to open up African markets
e.g. the Congo
"to plant their military base etc"
What does this even mean? What non-Vietnamese communist military bases existed in Vietnam?
Why would communists have an incentive to put military bases there?"

No shit they don't have military bases in countries directly around them, the U.S doesn't do that either

your 'proof' that these conditions for intervention could equally exist "under any system" is entirely insufficient

What the Soviet union did was to spread it to nations far from it, something the U.S also did

It's up to you to prove it's a capitalism thing, which it isn't

Gentleman.

communism is predicated on collective ownership & operation of the means of production, this implies no imperialist motive

sup

hahaha

The Jews did 9/11.

So trying to subvert other countries is okay as long as free trade is not a part of it?

What's the logic in that?

"""subvert"""

It's still interventionism

but not wholesale death for the purposes of profiteering, in other words *it wouldn't go in the article*

just saying it's interventionism offers no account for levels of suffering enacted by said interventionism

oh good I'm sure the dead give a shit about your motive

in fact

Someone tell the Afghani's that the soviet union wanted only good for them!

by agreeing that they're both 'interventionism' you're tacitly admitting that capitalism can be roughly compared to communism in the scope of its death

arguable

Tell the Polish!

better than becoming a terrorist infested shithole & most dangerous country in the world I guess

I'm arguing every dominant country does interventionism

only capitalism kills with it then?

regardless of system

No the soviets do too

you've gone around in a circle

Stop trying to pretend you're making sense

And get to the argument

You've still made no account of the differing motives for intervention

"The War in Vietnam to “beat Communism” and maintain an Asian sphere of influence – 3,800,000 Vietnamese between 1955-1984 [46] about 58,000 US soldiers [47] about 200,000 in Laos [48] about 300,000 in Cambodia [49] it’s hard to calculate Agent Orange deaths but up to 4,800,000 people were exposed [50] and 100,000 US soldiers killed themselves"

The motives do not matter

"beat Communism"

Interventionism is interventionism

"beat Communism"

''free the people from capitalism''

GOOD MOTIVE

kill all you want, your motive is good!

you're going to have to give me some examples and sources as to how these deaths compare

You're the one claiming it;'s a capitalism only thing

lolwut

When did I claim that?