Talk:Peaceful coexistence

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2004. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Delirium

The author of the peaceful coexistence concept was Stalin, not Khrushchev.--Nixer 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if that is true or not but if you notice the wording in the article it says that Khrushchev "Promoted" the idea. It never says he authored it.--Peace²³⁷ 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian articles says it was Khrushchev that formulated what we know as peaceful coexistence (being the first Soviet leader visit NATO countries) but that its ideological foundations go back much further. --Hegumen (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree, because i am currently learning that in history. The history book says that Khrushchev was the one that created it. It also says that the Chinese Dictator was not happy with that decision. And i am aware that History books don't lie. all of it is a fact from the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.0.27 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course their AUTHORs, do, but in this case i agree, everything i've read points to Stalin not being able to reconcile the schism, and-so maintaining the aggro-stance. He personally might have wished that somehow you can, but there are predictions in the communist manifesto, i think? about risking any degree of free-market / liberalization of state-assets, when private self-interest will then fall back into collusion/cartel-prices behaviors, and that allowing that to happen, would be betraying both one's people and oneself, or something close to that(sorry that's not a quote).

For Stalin or those at that time of fanatical belief in both the purposes AND predictions of Marx and Lenin, to go-against that kind of foresight / vision, would have been a massive gamble, and caused an even greater rift.

So even if he wished it somehow could, i don't think he did. That might also have been the difference used in language, also, non-certainty? could mislead you into thinking that socialism/capitalism might somehow be able to co-exist, without thinking it through enough, that it would be 'nice' to fantasize CAN coexist - but then one is obliged to face the cynical(being-correct/realistic sense not the negative sense) likelihood and the prediction being likely true.

120.21.43.104 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy Opinions

While the idea of peaceful coexistence is a good one, it will never work, because communism just doesn't work. Springerjkreb 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communism can work if it adopts American style brainwashing, McCarthyism, and Newspeak. And install the deadly fear of loosing job in the citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.142.146 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even thought I still Love You!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.234.123 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

The definition is OK, but too vague. It wasn't that communist and capitalist states could peacefully coexist but rather that they could avoid conflict (specifically a nuclear one) if they refrained from interfering in each others' spheres of influence (as the important Cold War boundaries were already outlined by the 60s). --Hegumen (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if they refrained from interfering in each others Sphere of influence - this is an overkill. Interference with someone's sphere of interests would lead to conflict regardless of the ideology. All belligerents in the WWI had the same capitalist ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.142.146 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"coexist"

The usage of coexist is under discussion, see Talk:Coexist (album) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

misleading 1st sentence

"...according to which the Socialist Bloc could peacefully coexist with the capitalist bloc (i.e., U.S.-allied states)"

Wasn't the focus more on capitalISM, and socialISM, as a phenomenon / economic group-social behavior / political-stance/political-position,.. rather than already established 'bloc's?

i.e. a BROADer target-opposition, than just the at-the-time championed BY Japan, BY the USA, BY many European countries, BY Saudi Arabia, BY South Africa,.. whoever.

It could be more accurate not-to go straight to the at times USA-led bloc, but to then ADD that at the time, the global anti-socialist leadership was led BY the USA, rather than EQUATING the two (using an "i.e." )

Similarly, it is misleading to blur being an ally "U.S.-allied states", with being a part of pro-capitalism stance-TAKERS,

i.e. if a country that was a military ally or regional legal-systems ally, or supporter of them in terms of supporting the U.N. , one might still NOT-be a military ally, and that simplification, would not be covering ALL-whome might support capitalism and be ... IN the capitalist bloc, but-not the USA-led bloc, which are two very closely conceptually blurred things, but in terms of whome the Kremlin / hardliners targeted at the TIME,.. might not equate as much as you might presume it would. Their-targeting, unlike the anti-communist 'hawks' presumptions might target a WIDER bloc, than the americans might have EXcluded, if-not accepting leadership from them, if having CONDITIONS of support, or limited support, WHILE-not accepting their leadership - being pro-capitalism, but-not accepting them as leaders of that principle/of that stance.

So in other words, "U.S.-allied states" ... is AMBIGUOUS, or could be refined / delimited to something more specific,.. or,.. you could more correctly define whome the Kremlin was targeting in THEIR definition,.. seeing as though the policy, was THEIRS, after-all. 120.21.43.104 (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]