Domino Theory Justified by Marx?

[TPIG]

Considering that Karl Marx viewed national boundaries and governments as merely a tool of the capitalists to oppress the proletariat and felt the need for a global worker's revolution, was it not a reasonable conclusion on the part of Western Capitalist nations, like the United States, that when one nation fell to communism, that was just one piece of the overall goal of global communism? I'm rather puzzled by the way it seems that the Domino theory is presented in academia as a discredited idea, when it seems very clear that such a domino effect is what Marx desired. Do Marx's ideas not justifiably confirm the concerns of Western nations in response to the spread of communism?

Thoughts?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Domino theory was partially proven to be true , but the way they reacted to it in Vietnam was the wrong way to go out to counter it . The best way to stop communist expansion is to fund anti-communist rebels in already communist countries so the communists have to be on the defense instead of the offense. Reagan did this in the 1980s and it worked brilliantly

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The USSR abandoned the idea of 'world revolution' in stages, arguably (as my leftcom former comrades would tell you) the process began as early as 1918 with the peace treaty with Imperial Germany at Brest-Litovsk, but certainly to me the key date is 1933, when in response to Hitler's rise to power in Germany and the liquidation of the KPD (at the time the largest communist party in Europe) the USSR joined the League of Nations and inaugurated the Popular Front Era, where communists were directed to enter into alliance/government with any party, even liberals and conservatives, who opposed fascism. This continued through the Second World War (Stalin disbanded the Communist International in 1943 at the request of FDR) and by 1956 "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist countries was official Soviet policy.

Anyway, during the Cold War the strategy of the official Communist parties in Europe certainly wasn't revolution, it was the strategy of 'neutralisation': to get into government with social democratic parties in order to take their country out of NATO.

[Ismail]

The issue, as Marxists saw it, was that revolutionary potentialities were inherent in each country. So long as society is separated into exploiting and exploited classes, class struggle isn't far behind.

The domino theory implies that communists triumphant in one country concoct revolts and invade  their neighbors in order to "spread the revolution," simply because the end goal is the worldwide establishment of socialism.

Marxists, however, argued that the very existence of the USSR during the 1920s-80s exerted a positive example to the workers and oppressed peoples the world over. The triumph of revolutions in Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc. showed that the peoples of Latin America and Asia could resist Yankee domination and colonialism. The discrediting and overthrow of a corrupt regime in one country would naturally inspire similar efforts among the masses of a neighboring country.

The Soviets thus would say that they aren't to blame for such things, that it would be akin to blaming the US or France for their own revolutions inspiring the peoples of Europe to throw off absolute monarchies.

The Soviets also said that they were opposed to the "export of revolution," i.e. the USSR might intervene to help an existing revolutionary government (as occurred in Afghanistan), but it won't invade another country simply to "create" a revolution at the tip of a bayonet. Similarly, they argued against the "export of counter-revolution," claiming the US and its allies had no right to interfere in the affairs of revolutionary governments.

Then there were non-communist critics of the domino theory, who argued that it placed undue weight on the machinations of foreigners as the cause of domestic unrest, so that the FMLN in El Salvador (for example) was perceived as having become a danger to the government not because of legitimate grievances among the Salvadorean peasantry, but because the hidden hands of Cuba and the Sandinistas were fomenting revolution. Similarly, critics of the theory argued that the effectiveness of the Vietcong stemmed above all from the dictatorial and corrupt South Vietnamese government, and was not a case of the North Vietnamese and their Soviet and Chinese artificially propping up an insurgency in the South.

The domino theory was seen by these critics as promoting military responses to social problems, and that things like land reform and democracy were what was needed to stem the tide of communism in regions like Indochina and Central America, whereas armed might played into the hands of the communists.