Topic: Do you think there is a chance of world peacefull coexistance ? (Read 1061 times)

It seems to me that there will never be peace where people are killed because of their faith.

People are too intolerant of each other. So if we just leave everything and live only our life, there will be no conflicts ...

Tolerating? What is your suggestion? Try to kill a man that has nuclear weapons?

We live in a world were different races are live on it. Different races with different religions, culture and beliefs that contradicts with one another. We live in a world were races try to enforce there supremacy over the other thus coexisting peacefully is impossible.

No matter how much the humans evolve, the wars and genocides would continue to happen. For example, the Koreans are being regarded as one of the most intelligent people on the earth, with an average IQ level of around 110. But still they are tolerating a lunatic dictator such as Kim Jong Un, who is threatening to nuke the neighboring nations every now and then.

I don't know why you people bring religion into this. You do understand that one fifth of the USA, for example, are atheists.
And still we don't see those people killing each other all the time.
If religion is the only thing that keeps you from hurting other humans, then you have a problem.

In my honest opinion, there is zero chance of world peaceful coexistence since the very nature pf the wprld we are living at is evil and corrupted.

If there were no religions which instilled moral norms of relationships, it is possible for a long time people would eat each other literally. The fact that we now live, thrive, communicate online and philosophize, it is primarily because of Religion. I think that all world religions came from one source – the religion of Sumer. Even the religion of the Maya.
For comparison, look at the charters of the enterprises of the former Soviet Union.
They are all similar to each other. Because all blamed each other.
The current religion serving the state. And state support of religion. Because religion is the main lever of influence on the minds of the people.
Ministers of religions are people too and they also have to live and raise children.
There is competition between religions. The number of parishioners directly affected the financial status of religious denominations. So religion is also subject to capitalist relations.

According to the laws of competition, in the end, the world must remain the two main religions.
This is assuming of globalization and unification of peoples.
But there can be a new, modern, built on a scientific basis of religion.
Which may leave existing religions no chance of continued existence.
Therefore, I think the current religions for their own good need to unite among themselves.
And to develop a new, single universal religion.

of course,when equal rights and when it starts very strong stratification of society,the poor,the poor,the rich and super-rich,so of course begins to act Slavery,and was many gosudarstva work,of course we will not world,when every super-rich consider themselves navel of the world,and all that he wants he can,and because of this war

Yes, there is still a chance to have a world of peacefull coexistance if the people in every community and nation will unite as one and if they embrace the power and the provision of the almighty God to rule in their lives.

There is too much division among the nations and religions of the world for us to coexist peacefully at the moment, everyone is crying foul play over something that has been done hundreds of years ago , instead of forgetting the past and moving future we dwell on it and thus all the problems in the world now.

Greed and envy destroy evry chance...

Most the older generation is very difficult to change  their minds, they always think they are always right
 Even my parents also  like that .

strange, but it's true...there is no need to make great efforts to save the peace on the Earth...but no one does it and has its own reasons...and where is our mind?

No way. Human beings are still naked apes which behave with tribal instincts and no-brain, so unless we as a species evolve, ot there will always be wars.

It could be done. But it won't be done.   

Yes                                                                                        Policy Of Peaceful Coexistence



It was Lenin who advanced the idea that the socialist state should pursue a policy of peaceful coexistence towards countries with different social systems. This correct policy was long followed by the Communist Party and the Government of the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin.

The question of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries could not possibly have arisen prior to the October Revolution, since there was no socialist country in existence. Nevertheless, on the basis of his scientific analysis of imperialism, Lenin foresaw in 1915-16 that “socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time”. (“The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution”, Selected Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1950, Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 571.) In other words, within a certain period of time, socialist countries would exist side by side with capitalist or pre-capitalist countries. The very nature of the socialist system determines that socialist countries must pursue a foreign policy of peace. Lenin said, “Only the working class, when it wins power, can pursue a policy of peace not in words . . . but in deeds.” ( “Draft Resolution on the Current Moment in Politics”, Collected Works, fourth Russian ed., Gospolitizdat, Moscow, Vol. 25, pp. 291-92.) These views of Lenin’s can be said to constitute the theoretical basis of the policy of peaceful coexistence.

After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin proclaimed to the world on many occasions that the foreign policy of the Soviet state was one of peace. But the imperialists were bent on strangling the new-born socialist republic in its cradle. They launched armed intervention against the Soviet state. Lenin rightly pointed out that confronted with this situation “unless we defended the socialist republic by force of arms, we could not exist”. (“Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress”, Selected Works, International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. 8, p. 33.)

By 1920 the great Soviet people had defeated the imperialist armed intervention. A relative equilibrium of forces had come into being between the Soviet state and the imperialist countries. After trials of strength over several years, the Soviet state had stood its ground. It began to turn from war to peaceful construction. It was in these circumstances that Lenin advanced the idea of a policy of peaceful coexistence. In fact, from that time onwards the imperialists had no choice but to “coexist” with the Soviet state.

During Lenin’s lifetime, this equilibrium was always highly unstable and the socialist Soviet Republic was subject to stringent capitalist encirclement. Time and again Lenin pointed out that owing to the aggressive nature of imperialism there was no guarantee that socialism and capitalism would live in peace for long.

In the prevailing conditions, it was not yet possible for him to define at length the content of the policy of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. But the great Lenin laid down the correct foreign policy for the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and advanced the basic ideas of the policy of peaceful coexistence.

What were Lenin’s basic ideas on this policy?

First, Lenin pointed out that the socialist state existed in defiance of the imperialists’ will. Although it adhered to the foreign policy of peace, the imperialists had no desire to live in peace with it and would do everything possible and seize every opportunity to oppose or even destroy the socialist state.

Lenin said:

International imperialism . . . could not . . . live side by side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective position and because of the economic interests of the capitalist class which are embodied in it. . .( “Report on War and Peace, delivered to the Seventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1952. Vol. 2 Part 1, p. 422)

Further,

. . . the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable. (“Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress”, Selected Works, New York, Vol. 8, p. 33.)

He therefore stressed time and again that the socialist state should maintain constant vigilance against imperialism.

. . . the lesson all workers and peasants must master is that we must be on our guard and remember that we are surrounded by men, classes and governments openly expressing their extreme hatred for us. We must remember that we are always at a hair’s breadth from all kinds of invasions. (“On the Domestic and Foreign Policies of the Republic, Report Delivered at the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets”, Collected Works, fourth Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 33, p. 122.)

Secondly, Lenin pointed out that it was only through struggle that the Soviet state was able to live in peace with the imperialist countries. This was the result of repeated trials of strength between the imperialist countries and the Soviet state, which adopted a correct policy, relied on the support of the proletariat and oppressed nations of the world and utilized the contradictions among the imperialists.

Lenin said in November 1919:

That is the way it always is  —  when the enemy is beaten, he begins talking peace. We have told these gentlemen, the imperialists of Europe, time and again that we agree to make peace, but they continued to dream of enslaving Russia. Now they have realized that their dreams are not fated to come true. (“Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian Conference on Party Work in the Countryside”. Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, FLPH, Moscow 1959, p. 326.)

He pointed out in 1921:

... the imperialist powers, with all their hatred of Soviet Russia and desire to throw themselves upon her, have had lo reject this thought, because the decay of the capitalist world is increasingly advancing, its unity is becoming less and less, and the pressure of the forces of the oppressed colonial peoples, with a population of over 1000 million, is becoming stronger with each year, each month and even each week. (“Speech at the Conclusion of the Tenth National Conference of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, Collected Works, fourth Russian ed., Vol. 32, pp. 412-13.)

Thirdly, in carrying out the policy of peaceful coexistence, Lenin adopted different principles with regard to the different types of countries in the capitalist world. He attached particular importance to establishing friendly relations with countries which the imperialists were bullying and oppressing. He pointed out that “the fundamental interests of all peoples suffering from the yoke of imperialism coincide’, and that the “world policy of imperialism is leading to the establishment of closer relations, alliance and friendship among all the oppressed nations”. He said that the peace policy of the Soviet state “will increasingly compel the establishment of closer ties between the R.S.F.S.R. [Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic] and a growing number of neighbouring states”. (“The Work of the Council of People’s Commissars, Report Delivered at the Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets”, Selected Works, New York, Vol. 8, pp. 251 and 252.)

Lenin also said:

We now set as the main task for ourselves: to defeat the exploiters and win the waverers to our side  —  this task is a world-wide one. The waverers include a whole series of bourgeois states, which as bourgeois states hate us, but on the he other hand, as oppressed states, prefer peace with us. (“Report on the Work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars”, Collected Works, fourth Russian ed., Vol. 30, p. 299.)

As for the basis for peace with the imperialist countries, such as the United States, he said: “Let the U.S. capitalists refrain from touching us.” “‘The obstacle to such a peace?’ From our side, there is none. From the side of the American (and all the other) capitalists, it is imperialism.” (“Reply to Questions by the Correspondent of the American Newspaper, New York Evening Journal”, Collected Works, fourth Russian ed., Vol. 30, p. 340.)

Fourthly, Lenin advanced the policy of peaceful coexistence as a policy to be pursued by the proletariat in power towards countries with different social systems. He never made it the sum total of a socialist country’s foreign policy. Time and again Lenin made it clear that the fundamental principle of this foreign policy was proletarian internationalism.

He said:

Soviet Russia considers it her greatest pride to help the workers of the whole world in their difficult struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. (“To the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Red Army Deputies”, Collected Works, fourth Russian ed., Vol. 33, p 379.)

In the Decree on Peace issued after the October Revolution, while proposing an immediate peace without annexation or indemnities to all the belligerent countries, Lenin called upon the class-conscious workers in the capitalist countries to help, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigorous action, “to bring to a successful conclusion the cause of peace, and at the same time the cause of the emancipation of the toiling and exploited masses of the population from all forms of slavery and ail forms of exploitation”. (“Report on Peace”, delivered at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 331.)

The Draft Programme of the Party which Lenin drew up for the Seventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party laid down explicitly that “support of the revolutionary movement of the socialist proletariat in the advanced countries” and “support of the democratic and revolutionary movement in all countries in general, and particularly in the colonies and dependent countries” constituted the important aspects of the Party’s international policy. (Selected Works, New York, Vol. 8, p 334.)

Fifthly, Lenin consistently held that it was impossible for the oppressed classes and nations to coexist peacefully with the oppressor classes and nations.

In the Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International, he pointed out:

. . . the bourgeoisie, even the most educated and democratic, now no longer hesitates to resort to any fraud or crime, to massacre millions of workers and peasants in order to save the private ownership of the means of production. (Selected Works, New York, Vol. 10, p. 164.)

Lenin’s conclusions were:

. . . the very thought of peacefully subordinating the capitalists to the will of the majority of the exploited, of the peaceful, reformist transition to Socialism is not only extreme philistine stupidity, but also downright deception of the workers, the embellishment of capitalist wage slavery, concealment of the truth. (Ibid.)

He repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy of what the imperialists called the equality of nations. He said:

The League of Nations and the whole postwar policy of the Entente reveal this truth more clearly and distinctly than ever, they are everywhere intensifying the revolutionary struggle both of the proletariat in the advanced countries and of the masses of the working people in the colonial and dependent countries, and are hastening the collapse of the petty-bourgeois national illusion that nations can live together in peace and equality under capitalism. (“Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions”, Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 464.)

The above constitute Lenin s basic ideas on the policy of peaceful coexistence.

Stalin upheld Lenin’s policy of peaceful coexistence. In the thirty years during which he was the leader of the Soviet Union, he consistently pursued this policy.

It was only when the imperialists and reactionaries made armed provocations or launched aggressive wars against the Soviet Union that she had to wage the Great Patriotic War and to fight back in self-defence.

Stalin pointed out that “our relations with the capitalist countries are based on the assumption that the coexistence of two opposite systems is possible” and that “the maintenance of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obligatory task for us”. (“Political Report of the Central Committee” delivered at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B.), Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. 10, p. 296.)

He also pointed out:

The peaceful coexistence of capitalism and communism is quite possible provided there is a mutual desire to co-operate, readiness to carry out undertaken commitments, and observance of the principle of equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. (Stalin, “Replies to Questions of American Editors”, Pravda, April 2, 1952.)

While upholding Lenin’s policy of peaceful coexistence, Stalin firmly opposed withholding support from other people’s revolutions in order to curry favour with imperialism. He forcefully pointed out two opposite lines in foreign policy, “either one or the other” of which must be followed.

One line was that “we continue to pursue a revolutionary policy, rallying the proletarians and the oppressed of all countries around the working class of the U.S.S R.  —  in which case international capital will do everything it can to hinder our advance”.

The other was that “we renounce our revolutionary policy and agree to make a number of fundamental concessions to international capital  —  in which case international capital no doubt, will not be averse to ‘assisting’ us in converting our socialist country into a ‘good’ bourgeois republic”.

Stalin cited an example. “America demands that we renounce in principle the policy of supporting the emancipation movement of the working class in other countries, and says that if we made this concession everything would go smoothly. ... perhaps we should make this concession?”

And he answered in the negative, “. . . we cannot agree to these or similar concessions without being false to ourselves. . .” (“The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission”, Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 11, pp. 58-60.)

These remarks of Stalin’s are still of great practical significance. There are indeed two diametrically opposed foreign policies, two diametrically opposed policies of peaceful coexistence. It is an important task for all Marxist-Leninists to distinguish between them, uphold Lenin and Stalin’s policy and firmly oppose the policy of betrayal, capitulation and withholding support from revolution as well as the policy which converts a socialist country into a “good” bourgeois republic  —  policies which Stalin denounced.

 

I guess if everyone would be able to laugh about themselves and stop being greedy we could achieve world peace.
BTW, which coin do you guys think will hit x1000 next?

Yes, but since man is an aggressive and destructive being by nature who always wants to be above of someone it will be a long road ahead. So a peaceful coexistence with other people or inhabitants is still far from a reality. Take my words from it that before it happens it will be bloody and many will suffer first.