Progressive Imperialism/Humanitarian Interventionism

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

So how many socialists/marxists here support these ideas?

Some examples include supporting the USSR's "invasion" of Afghanistan against the reactionary Mujahideen or advocating Soviet expansion into Central Asia, or supporting "humanitarian" intervention by NATO in the Balkans in the 90s.

Give your rationale as well, please.

[jake williams]

I think analytically they're two separate categories.

Both are usually scams used to mask other interests, in fact almost always, and have horrendous consequences. But it can be possible that something classifiable as "humanitarian intervention" is sometimes the least horrible option. Progressive imperialism on the other hand - by my definition, intervention by force to change a culture - just doesn't work. It usually triggers a backlash, and whatever progressive cultural values might happen to be being advocated by the occupying power become associated with that occupying power. It's regressive. And if your cultural ideas actually do help people, there are far better ways to promote them.

Even in rare cases where the former is justifiable, it nonetheless still comes with unspeakable costs. War is really bad, not to mention the costs of giving authority (perceived moral, or physical) to an imperialist power.


ed: To look at the Soviet-Afghanistan example. Let's assume the Soviet Union was actually advocating worker's democracy and women's rights and so on. The invasion and occupation were a horribly ineffective way to try to encourage their development in Afghanistan. It didn't work - it triggered a backlash, and you can look at how Afghanistan spent the following decade. And the Soviet Union was left on the hook for the casualties of the war, which were immense. War is really bad.