Regarding Afghan 'Rape Law'

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

U.S. President Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) called the law "abhorrent" and said his administration has made it clear to the Karzai government that it objects to the law. Human rights groups and the international community have condemned the law and say it could undermine efforts to support basic human rights in the war-torn nation.

"We very much hope that the draft piece of legislation is to be withdrawn," German Chancellor Angela Merkel (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Angela_Merkel) said during a NATO summit on Afghanistan over the weekend. "It is unacceptable if such a law were to be passed in Afghanistan and become a part of Afghan legislation."


According to lawmakers who opposed the bill, conservative legislators are pushing back any progress made for women's rights in Afghanistan after the brutal oppression under the Taliban regime.


From 1996 to 2001, under the Sunni fundamentalist government of the Taliban, women were not allowed to leave their homes without being escorted by a male relative, and girls were not allowed to go to school.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/06/afghanistan.law/index.html)

So the question is simple, even if the solution is not:

Is it correct for the West to allow Afghanistan the right to enact legislation it wants

or

Should the West step in and rectify incorrect moves made by the government of (in this instance) Afghanistan?

The predicament I see is that either the government of Afghanistan is run by Afghans who can do what they wish or it's a puppet govt made to enforce the wishes of the West which, in this case, are the "right" ones. It seems to be a contradiction between the progressive values of equality and self-determination.


ps. Please refrain from debating the justness of the war itself unless it is central to your views on this situation, which is really about a lot more than Afghanistan alone. Thank you.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think they should get the fuck out and stop pissing about in the middle east there only going to fuck things up even more. Your also writing under the presumption that Afganistan goverment is something other then a puppet goverment.

[Zurdito]

what's the point in making out an abstract moral dilemma from a real question?

Britain has been in Afghanistan since the 19th century and the country has remained completely backward. Both the Taleban and Karzai were put there by the west. So digging up this old line about "the west stopping the Afghan ruling class attacking women" is ridiculous, it is so discredited now that not even most of the ex strongest defenders of western intervention wheel it out any more.

The point is that many working class Afghan's are taking up arms against the puppet state and the occupation. Do we support their right to do this or not? Do we try to win them by recognising their progressive struggle and linkling it up with others to give it revolutionary potential, or not? Do we tell Afghan women to wait for liberation from the same people whop have committed 8 years of genocide against them and whose puppet ruler now imposes even more misogynistic laws than the Taliban, toliberate them, or do we not tell them cruel and self-serving lies?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Britain has been in Afghanistan since the 19th century and the country has remained completely backward.

Considering the rest of your post is perfectly fine that's a really stupid thing to say.

Any progressive, leftist, secularist, demoratic movement in Aghanistan have been brutally surpressed by the Taliban, Mujahideen and of course by Western and Soviet influence in the counrty. So yes, there have been manifestations of reaction taking presidence in Afghanistan, but whole history of Aghanistan is that it's government has never been representitive of it's people.

As for the rape law, yes it's abhorrent, but the best thing we can do is realise that our main enemy lies at home, our own bourgoise is our greatest enemy and is making things infinitly worse in Afghanistan. Secondary to that we should publicise the plight of our comrades in Afghanistan - the workers, unionists, secularists and progressives and help their volatile workers movement into something truely revolutionary. They are the only force that can truely struggle against their puppet government and we can best help by fighting ours.

[Zurdito]

Considering the rest of your post is perfectly fine that's a really stupid thing to say.

Any progressive, leftist, secularist, demoratic movement in Aghanistan have been brutally surpressed by the Taliban, Mujahideen and of course by Western and Soviet influence in the counrty. So yes, there have been manifestations of reaction taking presidence in Afghanistan, but whole history of Aghanistan is that it's government has never been representitive of it's people.

Surely that si the definition of a backward society, then? I realise the word is not fashionable and often misunderstood, but I stick by it. It is not a slur on the Afghan people in any way - just because the masses have not been able to throw off the leaders who keep them backward, does not mean they have not given inspiring and heroic struggles and does not mean they cannot win the war.

I live in argentina, and am the firs to say, it's a backwards country, in a very backwards region. People still die of hunger, we are currently seeing a dengue epidemic - a disease wiped out a century ago is back! - there are still people living in shacks with no water or electricity, and ever more of them! More women die every year from illegal abortion than cancer or road accidents! So how the hell is that not backward?

One of the most powerful condemnations of capitalism is that the great majority of the world still lives in backwards countries - materially, socially and culturally. This is not to say that the workers in those countries are doomed to backwardness, it is simply to say that until they come to power, we will continue live in backwardness.

btw I use the term "backward" here in reference to the "normal" material cultural and social levels existing under a mode of production at any given time.

[h0m0revolutionary]

btw I use the term "backward" here in reference to the "normal" material cultural and social levels existing under a mode of production at any given time.

I appreciate the explanation =).

[Zurdito]

no worries :)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think they should get the fuck out and stop pissing about in the middle east there only going to fuck things up even more.

So then you have no problems with the West not responding to this law? Do you hold the same view for other countries which legalize certain actions we may find reprehensible? Torture, perhaps?


Your also writing under the presumption that Afganistan goverment is something other then a puppet goverment.

They are a puppet govt if they remove this law because of outside pressure.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

what's the point in making out an abstract moral dilemma from a real question?

What's the question?


Britain has been in Afghanistan since the 19th century and the country has remained completely backward. Both the Taleban and Karzai were put there by the west. So digging up this old line about "the west stopping the Afghan ruling class attacking women" is ridiculous, it is so discredited now that not even most of the ex strongest defenders of western intervention wheel it out any more.Um, yeah.

Except that in this case the Afghan ruling class has legalized rape. And the West opposes it.


The point is that many working class Afghan's are taking up arms against the puppet state and the occupation. Do we support their right to do this or not? Do we try to win them by recognising their progressive struggle and linkling it up with others to give it revolutionary potential, or not? Do we tell Afghan women to wait for liberation from the same people whop have committed 8 years of genocide against them and whose puppet ruler now imposes even more misogynistic laws than the Taliban, toliberate them, or do we not tell them cruel and self-serving lies?1. Do you have a link showing how genocide has occurred? Or can I chalk that up to revolutionary hyperbole?
2. Do we tell Afghan women that we support them even as we are engaging war in their country, or do we tell them that the men running their society have the power of self-determination and, therefore, to legalize rape?

It is a moral dilemna, suggesting that "We should leave let the Taliban liberate them!" is a dodge and, to be honest, quite a disappointing answer.

[JimmyJazz]

I dunno; should China have "stepped in" to save the U.S. when Bush was passing all kinds of reactionary, anti-woman, and generally dumbfuck laws?

It's a really ridiculous question. You can't save the whole world by force, and Marxists--despite what people say about them--have no desire to do so. Left philosophy is about self-emancipation of oppressed groups. Members of the oppressor groups can only offer their solidarity and assistance.

Also, to talk about "the West" as a single entity, as though Western decision-makers/string-pullers and the Western masses have any major characteristics or long term interests in common, is of course false.

I don't think you really thought this one through Cult.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I dunno; should China have "stepped in" to save the U.S. when Bush was passing all kinds of reactionary, anti-woman, and generally dumbfuck laws?

Had he legalized rape, hell yes.


It's a really ridiculous question. You can't save the whole world by force, and Marxists--despite what people say about them--have no desire to do so. Left philosophy is about self-emancipation of oppressed groups. Members of the oppressor groups can only offer their solidarity and assistance.

Then why do many Marxists get all uppity about, say, the US having ties to regimes which happen to torture some people? Or why is it that Lefty's, not all but some, get all angry about how the US isn't saving the people of Darfur or, in other words, when in a debate about the merits of Capitalism bring up the "Look at these starving Africans--SEE How your system Fails!" line. If Marxists can't be expected to stand up for the most oppressed in the world and improve their material conditions, how can they judge a capitalist any differently? To say it must be self-emancipation sounds like when Americans talk about how Cubans need to liberate themselves before we help them.

Or am I not reading you the right way?


Also, to talk about "the West" as a single entity, as though Western decision-makers/string-pullers and the Western masses have any major characteristics or long term interests in common, is of course false.

All right, that's true. But in regards to Afghanistan, I can't say US because the force is multi-national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) so one could very well say that the decision makers are universal.

[Bitter Ashes]

Intervention is required in my personal opinion. Saying that though, there's a right way and there's a wrong way to go about doing that.
The wrong way is basicly go around saying a veiled variation of "We big! You little! You do as we say! Hur hur hur!". If they responded to that they truely would be a puppet goverment. An even bigger concern is promoting the theory of might makes right. It's very convienant right now because currently the ones with the might (the western thinking) also happens to hold the might, but that's not always going to be the case. What happens when somebody who we deciede is "evil" is more powerful than us? We'd condemn them doing the same thing we'd already done.

As leftists though, we do have a strategy at our disposal that is not only moraly right, but also far more powerful; the empowerment of the oppressed. An intervention should definatly be made and the form that takes should be to ensure that the Afghan people are able properly govern themselves and protect themselves from anyone who tries to dictate how thier lives are led. In the simplest terms, that means removing the arms from the oppressing minority and handing them to the oppressed majority, or even better, destroying those arms completly. Policy should be dictated through democratic means, not simply by one man who has the power to call an army or three to enforce them. With an empowered working class in Afghanistan, this law would never have been allowed to have been passed and as always there's always the oportunity for laws to be thrown out by an empowered majority too if they're given the chance.
So, create a climate for the Afghan people to make thier own laws, not just a climate for Khazi, or for that matter, The US President to dictate.

[Lynx]

It is questionable whether the coalition cares about the plight of Afghan women. Is their reaction one of genuine concern?
I believe they are reacting to political pressure from back home. They hope to make some noises and manage public opinion. To what lengths they are willing to go to salvage their "mission" in Afghanistan is another question. Respect democracy or enforce paternalism?

[JimmyJazz]

Then why do many Marxists get all uppity about, say, the US having ties to regimes which happen to torture some people?

For American Marxists, I think the answer is obvious.

But in general, Marxists and other leftists are much more inclined to support foreign resistance movements than to march on D.C. and fret about their government's actions over Chai Tea, as liberals, Greens, Democrats, libertarians, etc., are apt to do. So I think you're mixing up leftists with those folks.

As regards the way that leftists focus on U.S. treatment of socialist countries, pointing out that the failures "of socialism" have often in fact been the direct result of imperialist meddling, is hardly the same as "getting uppity". It's just setting the historical record straight. Is the pointing out of these historical facts what you are referring to as uppityness?


Or why is it that Lefty's, not all but some, get all angry about how the US isn't saving the people of Darfur or, in other words, when in a debate about the merits of Capitalism bring up the "Look at these starving Africans--SEE How your system Fails!" line. If Marxists can't be expected to stand up for the most oppressed in the world and improve their material conditions, how can they judge a capitalist any differently?

I don't think many sophisticated leftists would say/advocate any of these things.


Look, I don't want you to get the wrong idea: I'm not a cultural relativist. Putting international pressure on Afghanistan to change this disgusting law is important. But the U.S./NATO doing it? On what grounds? The profound moral authority derived from the fact that they are the ones who bombed the shit out of the country and have been occupying it ever since? That makes no sense.

The U.S. gov't should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately, and then hopefully they will raise their objections, as just one nation among many, to this law.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So then you have no problems with the West not responding to this law? Do you hold the same view for other countries which legalize certain actions we may find reprehensible? Torture, perhaps?



The world is much better of without the west going on moral campains which only make the situation worse. Yes this rule is disgusting and those responsible are the lowest pieces of shit you can find in this planet but quite simply have the US , UK etc charging in does fuck all.

One of the reasons the imperialists claim they are in the middle east is to stop this kind of things. This law proves time and time again that this is not the case that imperlism does not make the country any more progressive in terms of its laws* but mearly just as reactionary only with more business for the local funereal company.

Its up to the working class of those countries to liberate themselves not the western ruling class.

Not saying that the invasions real intension was to stop laws like this I think showing people that laws like this are being brought into exsistance shows that neither the collation nor the puppet goverment give a flying fuck about the welfare of the afghani people.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are so many falsehoods in this thread it's difficult to know where to start. Firstly, there is no such thing as "the west". In the same way that "the orient" is an artificial construct with no relation to empirical reality, it makes no sense to talk of "the west" as if there is a group of countries which all have exactly the same interests and contain people who all view the world in exactly the same way. The problem with suggesting that any country or group of countries should do something is that treating countries as self-contained actors in this way creates the illusion that the governments of these countries are somehow capable of representing all of their citizens, regardless of any conflicts that might exist between different social groups, and pursuing what is in the national interest, whereas, for Marxists, all countries are class societies in which the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are absolutely and irreconcilably oppossed, and the primary role of the state of each country is to pursue the interests of the ruling class and maintain the existing distribution of power and resources, both at home and overseas. Secondly, to pretend that the government of any country is actually concerned about the conditions of women in Afghanistan and would be willing to sacrifice resources for the sole purpose of liberating women from oppression is incredibly naive, because almost every developed country has, either currently, or at some point in the past, entered into alliances with other countries that show no concern for the wellbeing of women whatsoever when these alliances have enabled developed countries to gain economic and political advantages - the most obvious example of this being Saudi Arabia, which is both a major supplier of oil, and also functions as a military base and regional proxy state for the US. The rhetoric of feminism, along with other humanitarian concerns has often been used as a means of obscuring the real motives that lie behind military interventions and creating a facade of moral legitimacy, because openly admitting that foreign relations are driven by the need to capture markets and resources would shatter the way international politics is currently presented (as a moral conflict between good and evil countries) and provoke resistance within imperialist states. For this reason, Marxists do not support so-called humanitarian intervention, and we recognize that liberation can only be obtained through the efforts and struggles of oppressed groups.

This is also true of Darfur. Socialist Worker - Darfur: foreign intervention will mean more pain (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=9727)

[Nakidana]

Had he legalized rape, hell yes.

Are you crazy? What do you think the American people would do if China invaded and occupied their country? Run out in the streets with red flags and flowers? Did that happen in Iraq? In Afghanistan? No, they ran out with AK-47s and IEDs.


Intervention is required in my personal opinion.

I disagree. I think the west should get the fuck out of Afghanistan and mind their own business.

This new "rape law" just goes to show that all the propaganda talk about the liberation of women and whatnot is complete bullshit. The puppet rape alliance regime put in place by the west is WORSE than the Taliban. It's a corrupt regime of competing warlords.

Say what you want about the Taliban, they weren't corrupt, and Afghanistan was stable under their rule. The people of Afghanistan want some fucking peace for once, and if it wasn't for the intervention of the west they would have it by now.

Luckily Afghanistan has a long tradition of resistance against occupation, the people will never bow to any imperialist nation. The English and the Russians learned this the hard way and NATO/US is being educated as we speak. The sooner the west withdraws, the sooner working class Afghans will stop dying and the flow of widows will stop.

Leave them alone in peace.

[Bitter Ashes]

You didnt read my post did you...?

[Nakidana]

You didnt read my post did you...?

I did read your post and I don't agree with your policy of "right" intervention.

You propose that arms should be taken from "the oppressing minority and handing them to the oppressed majority". I suppose "the oppressing minority" is members of the Taliban. First of all, how do you sort out who is member of the Taliban and who is not? Don't you know that members of the Taliban have infiltrated all levels of society in Afghanistan? How are you going to round them up, ask for their membership card?

Second, your proposal is completely ignorant of the local traditions especially outside of Kabul. Don't you know that forcing yourself into someone's home and bedroom is one of the greatest insults in that society? You can't just change tradition with a snap of the fingers. You've already lost the people when you start marching racist, Islamophobic (Yes, they are Islamophobic) soldiers into people's homes in order to "acquire arms". If you start doing that people will be flocking to the Taliban.

No, I think it's about time we do what the people of Afghanistan wants us to do, LEAVE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dV6RHNE76s

[benhur]

Say what you want about the Taliban, they weren't corrupt, and Afghanistan was stable under their rule. .

Of course, with stoning, flogging, combined with poverty, utter backwardness and all the rest, it was very stable indeed.:rolleyes: And the US ruined this paradise on earth, right? No wonder, leftists are treated like jokers by the rest of the world.

[Yazman]

The thing that pisses me off about these threads is that everybody seems to think the Taliban and their allies (mujahideen, al mahdi army, etc) are somehow popular in Afghanistan. The Taliban are not popular in Afghanistan. Let me say this again:

The Taliban are not popular in Afghanistan.

They are fairly popular among the Pashtuns only, who are a minority consisting of 30-40% of the population (30-40% depending on the source, it varies) and many of them actively oppose the Taliban, even protesting in the thousands against the Taliban. So people certainly are not "flocking to the Taliban" and even in the Taliban's stronghold areas there is a lot of resentment against them because they have been bombing and destroying sacred Pashtun monuments and shrines!

This is also not to mention that the Taliban do not have the strength to topple the government. If the US/NATO forces withdrew, it would be more likely that a coalition of enemies would be needed to topple the government and even then there would be a power vacuum of sorts. The Taliban aren't nearly large enough to fill this vacuum. The US estimates there are around 1000 active taliban troops in afghanistan, other sources have put it as low as 200. There are more pashtuns protesting the Taliban than there are supporting them!

Now on the question posed:

I echo JimmyJazz's sentiments here. I think there needs to be international pressure against any nations that adopt laws like this. Not necessarily by the US/NATO though as they are ethically bankrupt at this stage.

This shouldn't be taken as a replacement for support of local resistance though - I think resistance posed by, and let me make myself abundantly clear on this - I think resistance by revolutionary workers movements is clearly necessary in order to work towards changing the social fabric of Afghanistan which is going to produce laws like this regardless of whether the country is being occupied or not. But its revolutionary workers movements that we need to be supporting. Supporting theocratic oligarchs and dictators is something I see being supported simply because "they are resisting the imperialists/invaders." Some of you people will use any excuse to support the enemy, but we should not be doing that.

[Jorge Miguel]

An intervention should definatly be made and the form that takes should be to ensure that the Afghan people are able properly govern themselves and protect themselves from anyone who tries to dictate how thier lives are led. In the simplest terms, that means removing the arms from the oppressing minority and handing them to the oppressed majorityI agree, the armed minority, the Brits, Yanks, etc, should get out. These anti-women attacks would not be taking place had successive British and American governments not created the conditions for them to happen through their sponsoring of these reactionaries both in government and those who overthrew the democratic socialist government.

Victory to the Resistance!

[Patchd]

Of course, with stoning, flogging, combined with poverty, utter backwardness and all the rest, it was very stable indeed.:rolleyes: And the US ruined this paradise on earth, right? No wonder, leftists are treated like jokers by the rest of the world.

Although I offer no support whatsoever to the Taliban, as Malangyar stated as well, for the aforementioned reasons, however, by stability we mean that the region was stable, ultimately because any resistance was crushed, just as it is under Western occupation.

Not only that! But in some regions of Afghanistan it has got even worse as warlords even more reactionary than the former Taliban have taken control, flogging of women still occur, as we see, the rape of women is legally acceptable etc...

The US didn't "ruin" it entirely, have they made it worse? In some respects, yes. Thing is, as leftists, we don't give support to Capitalist forces, one, it's not in our interests or the interests of any worker to do so, secondly, it is not our responsibility as revolutionaries. Our task is to oppose Capitalism, in all it's forms, and that includes Imperialism.

At the end of the day, we should be supporting resistance from the bottom, not any Bourgeois power or Reactionary organisation fighting one another. Offering them support is declining support to workers.

[Nakidana]

Of course, with stoning, flogging, combined with poverty, utter backwardness and all the rest, it was very stable indeed.:rolleyes:

Yes, it was much more stable than the current warzone.


And the US ruined this paradise on earth, right? No wonder, leftists are treated like jokers by the rest of the world.

Hahaha, you know what why don't you just go back to reading The Kite Runner? I'm sure you'll be taken seriously.

I'll see you in a couple of years and we'll chat about how the US courageously liberated the women of Afghanistan from Osama and his gang of Talibs! :lol:

[Bitter Ashes]

I did read your post and I don't agree with your policy of "right" intervention.

You propose that arms should be taken from "the oppressing minority and handing them to the oppressed majority". I suppose "the oppressing minority" is members of the Taliban. First of all, how do you sort out who is member of the Taliban and who is not? Don't you know that members of the Taliban have infiltrated all levels of society in Afghanistan? How are you going to round them up, ask for their membership card?

Second, your proposal is completely ignorant of the local traditions especially outside of Kabul. Don't you know that forcing yourself into someone's home and bedroom is one of the greatest insults in that society? You can't just change tradition with a snap of the fingers. You've already lost the people when you start marching racist, Islamophobic (Yes, they are Islamophobic) soldiers into people's homes in order to "acquire arms". If you start doing that people will be flocking to the Taliban.

No, I think it's about time we do what the people of Afghanistan wants us to do, LEAVE:


I despair...
Lets start with the most obvious thing huh? The Taliban are no longer in power in Afghanistan. They did not make this law, Khazi did and the nominated enforcerers of this law tend to wear uniforms. They're pretty easy to identify you know? The hats and the AK's are big giveaways to who's holding the power.

Secondly, you may have noticed that a very large number of male British soldiers in Afghanistan have actualy grown beards. Usualy the army would heavily forbid this, due to issues with resperators not bieng able to seal correctly, however it's now bieng encouraged. Why would they want beards? Well, maybe it's because it's a show of respect to the people they're working with? I'm not denying that there's bad eggs in there too, but this kind of behavior weedles its way into any industry.

Thirdly, they wouldnt be marching into people's homes to take arms away from them, but to deliver them. That's how you give them the power to deciede which laws they believe are fair and which ones are not. It gives them the power to make thier own descions, rather than just having to follow the ones of those who are holding the rifles currently.

Lastly, this behavior that Khazi is endorsing has no excuse. Saying, "Oh it's just tradition. We cant do anything about that" is a cop-out. By saying that you're saying that any entrenched system deserves to be preserved, which even leads onto the question of why you feel it's okay for you to oppose entrenched capitalism here, but not for the Afghan people to oppose these anti-woman traditions in Afghanistan.

Seriously, before you move your crayon hand towards the keyboard again, please think about what you're saying.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Taliban are no longer in power in Afghanistan72% of Afghanistan's total land area is under the control of the Taleban, and the power of the government is almost non-existent outside of the major urban centers (source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4e9.aQ7HUfI)), and so in that respect, whatever you were told in the British Army, the Taleban are still in power, and the size of the territory they control is increasing with each passing day as more people begin to turn towards those who are willing to fight back against the occupation (whether that means the Taleban or some other section of the resistance - despite what Yazman says there is a support base for the Taleban in Afghanistan, not only amongst the Pashtun, but also other ethnic groups, purely because the Taleban have shown that they are capable of inflicting damage on the occupation and restoring stability to a region that has historically been made to endure constant chaos and conflict due to the interference of the imperialist powers, both in the form of direct intervention, and giving support to internal power struggles such as that led by the Mujahideen in the 1980s) in spite of what they had to endure in the past, and as the occupation forces continue to suffer military defeats at the hands of the resistance movement. I don't see how you can possibly believe that the occupation forces are committed to respecting the people of either Iraq or Afghanistan - it's because of these forces that over one million people have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the occupation in 2003, and there are numerous reports of women in both countries being raped and abused by soldiers. This is a feature of all occupations, including the occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s by the Red Army, because the occupation of a country always involves placing the occupation forces in a position of power over the civilian population, especially in terms of their ability to use violence in order to achieve their aims, and this power inevitably translates into acts of violence and intimidation directed against the most vulnerable sections of the population, such as women and children. It's not that there are a few "bad eggs" - any situation involving inequalities of power will eventually result in the powerful taking advantage of their privileges - consider the Stanford prison experiments as evidence in support of this, as well as the environment in contemporary prisons.

I also find it shocking that you endorse any kind of intervention. You seem to feel that there is such a thing as a benevolent intervention, whereby weapons are given to oppressed groups, followed by a withdrawal, with no possibility whatsoever of the intervening powers maintaining a presence in order to extract economic or political gains, or using the language of humanitarian concern as a means of justifying interventions that are, in reality, designed to enhance the interests of the ruling class. This is naive, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as benevolent intervention or occupation under capitalism - foreign policy is always a manifestation of the desires of the ruling class, and for that reason it is naive to assume that any imperialist power is capable of ignoring the reality of geopolitics and taking on a genuinely humanitarian role.

Also, the surname of the Afghan President is Karzai.

[rednordman]

I have only just heard about this and to be honest cannot believe it. Its like hearing a sick news article from the onion or something. Considering that the taliban is no longer in charge in Afghanistan, and there most definitly is a usa 'puppet' goverment, this is remarkable. How the USA has let this happen i do not know. I am against nearly all USA intervention in Afganistan, but this crosses the line (imo). Its better they do something positive while their there, instead of just killing innocents.
Instead of simply pretending that this is not happenening, and sweeping it under the carpet, the USA should tackle this head on as it is blatantly their own foreign policy that is partly responsible for what has happened here (if its true). Its like they think that just because it is a usa sponsored government, than nothing can go wrong. If you are going to rule the world with an iron fist, at least learn from your mistakes, and not make them again and again and again.

[Nakidana]

I despair...
Lets start with the most obvious thing huh? The Taliban are no longer in power in Afghanistan. They did not make this law, Khazi did and the nominated enforcerers of this law tend to wear uniforms. They're pretty easy to identify you know? The hats and the AK's are big giveaways to who's holding the power.

Secondly, you may have noticed that a very large number of male British soldiers in Afghanistan have actualy grown beards. Usualy the army would heavily forbid this, due to issues with resperators not bieng able to seal correctly, however it's now bieng encouraged. Why would they want beards? Well, maybe it's because it's a show of respect to the people they're working with? I'm not denying that there's bad eggs in there too, but this kind of behavior weedles its way into any industry.

Thirdly, they wouldnt be marching into people's homes to take arms away from them, but to deliver them. That's how you give them the power to deciede which laws they believe are fair and which ones are not. It gives them the power to make thier own descions, rather than just having to follow the ones of those who are holding the rifles currently.

You want the US/NATO to take the weapons from the government and give them to the people. I disagree. I don't want the US/NATO to do anything in Afghanistan. In fact I don't understand why they're there in the first place. The Afghans never did anything to them.

I want the US/NATO to leave. I want them to pull their troops out, all the fucking way back to their own country. No more troops, no more village searches and no more bombing. I want this because it's clear, if you look back at the history of Afghanistan, that the people of Afghanistan don't like being occupied.

We'll see who lasts when the US have left. My money isn't on Karzai and his "rape alliance".


Saying, "Oh it's just tradition. We cant do anything about that" is a cop-out. By saying that you're saying that any entrenched system deserves to be preserved, which even leads onto the question of why you feel it's okay for you to oppose entrenched capitalism here, but not for the Afghan people to oppose these anti-woman traditions in Afghanistan.

You can't change tradition by military intervention. You need social change and social change won't come under occupation.

[Andropov]

I agree, the armed minority, the Brits, Yanks, etc, should get out. These anti-women attacks would not be taking place had successive British and American governments not created the conditions for them to happen through their sponsoring of these reactionaries both in government and those who overthrew the democratic socialist government.

Victory to the Resistance!

Simple as that.

[Raúl Duke]

To tell the truth, the "west" probably won't do much to stop this law except verbal reprimands.
I mean all they care about is that the Afghani puppet government do what the U.S./"west" wants and that's "to deliver the goods" to them.
When the U.S. had their Latin-American dictatorships set up they didn't say even a single word against their human rights abuses.

On a personal level, I'm against this law and in the general scheme of imperialism the west vetoing/forcing Afghanistan to reject this law is trivial to other things (such as privatization and selling of oil fields to western corporations, etc); thus I don't mind much if they are able to pull that off.


How the USA has let this happen i do not know. I am against nearly all USA intervention in Afganistan, but this crosses the line (imo). Its better they do something positive while their there, instead of just killing innocents.

There was a time in the past on this forum that some people thought that imperialism could bring "progress" or "progressive social change"; but it seems the truth is that imperialism is always reactionary as an old radical once said.

[Das war einmal]

Because they are allready there and wont leave for a few more years, why not try to improve the civil rights of the civilians? Even if it means 'forcing' them, they are forced to swallow more horrible things than this so what the hell...

[Patchd]

Well surely if we oppose the idea of Western Imperialism forcing and crushing down on Afghans, then that would apply in all senses, so we oppose Imperialism, yet at the same time, oppose social backwardness.

[JimmyJazz]

The world is much better of without the west going on moral campains which only make the situation worse. Yes this rule is disgusting and those responsible are the lowest pieces of shit you can find in this planet but quite simply have the US , UK etc charging in does fuck all.

Yep.

The reasons that all historically-aware leftists will be opposed to an idea such as the op's is that "helping people" has always, always, [B]always been the justification of imperialist governments to their own citizens for their actions abroad. Literally, without exception that I can think of. Genocide has been carried out under these pretenses of "helping", and the people bought into it. No one ever said "we should exterminate the Native Americans from the North American continent (with the exception maybe of the isolated statement, always made by some military man who was then portrayed by the government as a hothead rather than a genuine spokesperson, and always well-timed after some Indian massacre that despite its small scale had been played up in the press to inflame public opinion). Nope, the pretense was that white men were going to civilize them, save their souls, and bring them capitalism. And under that banner white men literally carried out genocide.

The same was done with the British empire, times 50. There was literally endless rhetoric about helping/saving/civilizing the rest of the world, even as they raped it. Same for every other modern European empire. To pick on the U.S. some more, look at the (American) journalism from around the time of the Spanish-American war; it was all about made-up atrocities of the Spanish against Cubans and Filipinos, and the need to liberate them from the evil Spanish. You don't need me to tell you what the actual result of the war was (read the wiki article on it, the "aftermath" section).

If we don't realize by now that the idea of "saving" other countries is itself the problem, rather than simply that we should critically examine each claim of helping in its "proper and local context" or whatever (:rolleyes:), then we really are too dumb to have an opinion on anything. Getting the public to forget about history and to examine each act of imperialism as an isolated incident is the ruling class' greatest weapon for garnering public support of atrocities and global power grabs.

Furthermore, as if it even mattered, the stated goal of helping in x way rarely works out. But hell, forget about all the past failures, just turn on your TV and watch two talking heads argue about whether the most recent imperialist action was mostly good or mostly bad, all things considered. If there's one head on each side, that must mean it's a very controversial and difficult question, which normal people with normal-sized brains should not even attempt to form an opinion on, so you should probably just click over to Family Guy and forget about it altogether. After all your cousin is in the military and he doesn't seem like the atrocity-committing type, so the leftists must be full of hot air.

[brigadista]

the same things are still happening...

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/

[Zurdito]

What's the question?

Um, yeah.

Except that in this case the Afghan ruling class has legalized rape. And the West opposes it.



How does the west oppose it? You are pretty gullible if you buy that line.



1. Do you have a link showing how genocide has occurred? Or can I chalk that up to revolutionary hyperbole?


Do I have a link? No, I just lived int he real world the past 8 years during which the Afghan people have been slaughtered directly and indirectly by occupation troops.



2. Do we tell Afghan women that we support them even as we are engaging war in their country, or do we tell them that the men running their society have the power of self-determination and, therefore, to legalize rape?


Like I said, that's not the question. the puppet govt. legalszed rape, not the Afghan working class. I am for self-determination for the Afghan working class, not for the puppet government.



It is a moral dilemna, suggesting that "We should leave let the Taliban liberate them!" is a dodge and, to be honest, quite a disappointing answer.


Who'se "we"? Nor I nor you are in Afghanistan, so how can we leave? What a strange thing to say.

There's no "dodge", because you talk as if Afghan liberation=Taliban, and US working class=US govt. So how can I "dodge" a question based on completely wrong assumptions?

[Zurdito]

Likewise we are hgetting very caught up on the law itself.

Let's say that the US govt. exercises enough pressure to convince the govt. not to pass the law as a PR disaster. They then keep funding the same people inc harge of Afghanistan and maintain Afghanistan in a state of complete degradation and backwardness. Does anyone really think that not passing the law on paper is going to make much difference in that case?

The point is, the US has put misogynists in charge of Afghanistan day to day funds a regime which brutalizes women. Whether or not the law is passed, the "facts on the ground" remain the same.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How does the west oppose it? You are pretty gullible if you buy that line.

NATO can bring pressure on the Afghan government.


Do I have a link? No, I just lived int he real world the past 8 years during which the Afghan people have been slaughtered directly and indirectly by occupation troops.

But that does not constitute genocide, as you claimed. Killing a lot of people isn't genocide by itself. Nobody accuses Stalin of genocide.


Like I said, that's not the question. the puppet govt. legalszed rape, not the Afghan working class. I am for self-determination for the Afghan working class, not for the puppet government.

OK, I got you.


Who'se "we"? Nor I nor you are in Afghanistan, so how can we leave? What a strange thing to say.

My countrymen are there, that's obviously what I meant.

[Zurdito]

NATO can bring pressure on the Afghan government.

yes it can, but why are you sowingg the illusion that the people reponsible for mass murder, who prop up a brutal regime, are going to defend afghan women? why tell Afghans to place their hope in the same people whose only plan for them is misery, exploitation and oppression, and has only ever been that?



But that does not constitute genocide, as you claimed. Killing a lot of people isn't genocide by itself. Nobody accuses Stalin of genocide.


Lots of people accuse Stalin of genocide. People much much less than Stalin have been accused in the courts of genocide. Look up Alfredo Astiz.



My countrymen are there, that's obviously what I meant

Yeah I know what you meant: what you meant is the problem. You htink that "you" in the west have some moral obligation to "them", the poor helpless little Afghans. Wrong. The ruling class of your country is the Afghans worst enemy, just like your worst enemy, You need to fight for the working class in your country to realize this. That is what you should be concentrating on if you want to help. Undoubtedly you are good intentioned, that isn't the question

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I see your points, they make a lot of sense.

[Yazman]

My main problem here is that some of you seem to forget that it isn't our job to support the bourgeois or reactionaries of any kind.

Some of you seem to think that its ok to support any movement AT ALL as long as they are "resisting."

I don't think its ok to support theocrats, oligarchs or dictators simply because they are "against imperialist invaders." I don't support the invaders either but there's no way in hell I will ever support a group like the Taliban. There are parties in Afghanistan that oppose the government, they oppose the islamists, AND they oppose the invaders. The Afghanistan Communist Party (Maoist) is an example of this.

Afghanistan has its own history of revolutionary leftist struggle, and there are parties that continue to this day, yet you all seem to prefer reactionaries.

Did any of you support Saddam Hussein during the US invasion? I don't remember anybody doing this, but according to the argument you are making in here - if the invasion was just now taking place you would logically be supporting Saddam and his supporters because they were "against imperialism."

It seems to me that some of you people will support anybody - even open fascists and nazis - as long as they are resisting imperialism. This is a dangerous approach to take and I think it is quite a reactionary one - we as communists should never support enemies of the working class, and when enemies of the working class fight each other - we shouldn't be taking sides! We should always condemn them both for who they are, and remember that no matter who wins - the taliban or the occupying forces - the people lose!

[mosfeld]

I don't think its ok to support theocrats, oligarchs or dictators simply because they are "against imperialist invaders." I don't support the invaders either but there's no way in hell I will ever support a group like the Taliban. There are parties in Afghanistan that oppose the government, they oppose the islamists, AND they oppose the invaders. The Afghanistan Communist Party (Maoist) is an example of this.

Be honest with your self, do you realistically think that the Maoist party, a party with almost no following, can defeat the US? The taliban are the only realistic force to defeat the US.

And if i remember correctly the maoist party are allies with the Taliban.

[Yazman]

Be honest with your self, do you realistically think that the Maoist party, a party with almost no following, can defeat the US? The taliban are the only realistic force to defeat the US.

And if i remember correctly the maoist party are allies with the Taliban.

They openly condemn the Taliban.

At any rate, it was just an example. I will never support the Taliban, not even if they can force the US out. They are enemies of the working class by their own admission (they are openly theocratic).

[FreeFocus]

Afghanistan surely does not need the hypocritical intervention of imperialist states, which also need to deal with their misogynistic laws and societies. The best way for gains to be made is for the society itself to make the changes. There are very progressive segments of Afghani society, e.g. RAWA. Afghani women can lead a progressive movement with international support and solidarity for their rights.

What Afghanistan needs is an end to imperialist occupation and an end to the suppression of more progressive, democratic segments of their society.

[BobKKKindle$]

Some of you seem to think that its ok to support any movement AT ALL as long as they are "resisting."The Marxist position on Afghanistan should remain the same regardless of whether the resistance struggle is being led by the Taleban or a slightly more progressive and liberal organization such as RAWA - we support the struggle and hope that the resistance will be able to inflict military defeats on the occupation forces and eventually force them to withdraw, without giving even one ounce of political support to any of the organizations that are part of the resistance, because none of them are working-class organizations. You seem to be suggesting that if the Taleban were the dominant part of the resistance (I maintain that this is the case, and also believe that the Taliban have a support base, whereas you seem to disagree with both of these notions) and if the inevitable result of the occupation being expelled were the Taliban gaining control of the whole of Afghanistan, then that would be reason enough not to support the resistance, because the Taliban is reactionary, and there are more progressive organizations, such as the CPA(M) in place. In truth, all of the resistance organizations are reactionary, albeit in different ways - the CPA(M) is a Stalinist organization that seeks to reach a compromise between the Afghan proletariat and bourgeoisie, and rejects the need for international revolution, whereas RAWA is a bourgeois-liberal organization that seeks to restore Zahir Shah, the former monarch. It might be slightly better for oppressed groups if the CPA(M) defeated the Taleban and created its own state apparatus, but we should follow Lenin's advice and avoid giving a communist coloring to any of these organizations, because they are all fundamentally bourgeois in their political orientation, even if the activity they are engaged in - resisting occupation - is also progressive for the working class. The victory of any of these organizations would not allow for the complete liberation of the working class because underdeveloped capitalism and the bourgeois state apparatus would remain in place, in addition to a whole range of backward cultural practices that involve the oppression of women and other vulnerable groups, but the expulsion of the occupation would still be a progressive gain and something we should ardently support, because it would create a space in which progressive forces could develop and challenge the political hegemony of the Taliban, and it would also give a stimulus to the working class in the defeated imperialist countries, as well as encouraging peoples fighting against imperialism in other parts of the Middle East. This was also true in Iraq, and every other country that has ever come under imperialist attack, even in countries where the struggle against imperialism has been led by reactionary forces.

[Glenn Beck]

I can see where you're coming from, Abe, but you've got it pretty much precisely backwards. US/Nato don't give a shit about Afghanistan and it's people. They never have, and they never will. This law was not passed under the "anti-western" Taliban but under the PRO-western Karzai puppet regime. The US-led intervention has been a vale of tears for the people of Afghanistan and now to add further insult they couldn't even provide the (woefully insufficient) silver-lining justification that they would at least bring secular liberal democracy to Afghanistan. Look, in the past few decades of Afghan history there has been exactly one government that I know of that has improved the status of women: the USSR client government that the USA funneled boatloads of arms to the Taliban to defeat.

The US/Nato track record for intervening on behalf of progressive governments not just in Afghanistan but anywhere could hardly be worse. On the other hand their record of support for reactionary butchers of the worst stripe is damn near perfect: Franco, Pinochet, Videla, Suharto, the House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Alberto Fujimori (may he enjoy his 25 year vacation), stay-behind fascist forces in Italy, the junta in Greece, Apartheid South Africa, Mobutu Sese Seko..... I'm tired of typing names and I'm sure you've gotten the message by now.

I hope with this little rant I've made it sufficiently clear why far from being a possible solution to anything (besides the crises of the ruling class) imperialist interventionist policies ARE the problem.

[Yazman]

I hope with this little rant I've made it sufficiently clear why far from being a possible solution to anything (besides the crises of the ruling class) imperialist interventionist policies ARE the problem.

Its not that he is pro-interventionist. He's just objecting to supporting the taliban the way people here do.


What Afghanistan needs is an end to imperialist occupation and suppression of more progressive, democratic segments of their society.

Suppression of progressive, democratic segments of their society? But thats what we want! progress and democracy! We're communists, we want progress!


The Marxist position on Afghanistan should remain the same regardless of whether the resistance struggle is being led by the Taleban or a slightly more progressive and liberal organization such as RAWA - we support the struggle and hope that the resistance will be able to inflict military defeats on the occupation forces and eventually force them to withdraw, without giving even one ounce of political support to any of the organizations that are part of the resistance, because none of them are working-class organizations.

I am dubious of giving them any support - it does legitimise them to a certain extent. Although as long as you're not giving them political support, I can deal with that.

[Nakidana]

We should always condemn them both for who they are, and remember that no matter who wins - the taliban or the occupying forces - the people lose!

The people will be worse off if the occupation wins.

Let's get back to reality here, there is no third camp in Afghanistan. No matter how much we want a resistance led by self-proclaimed socialists, it isn't going to change reality on the ground. The left was dealt a huge blow when the Russian "communists" decided to invade the country, and it's going to take a long time for socialists to rebuild their reputation. Regarding the Maoist party I frankly haven't heard of one single act of resistance carried out by them. Don't get me wrong, I wish they were active. I wish we were hearing of a "Maoist/socialist/communist uprising" in Afghanistan. But we aren't because it doesn't exist.

Today a 20-year-old Dutch occupier was killed and 5 were wounded in a rocket attack on a military base in the southern province Uruzgan. A coalition of around 40 countries with the wealthiest nations at the lead are getting it handed to them by one of the poorest countries in the world. That's reality. But hey, it has nothing to do at all with popular support, right? :rolleyes:

[Patchd]

The people will be worse off if the occupation wins.

So what? As revolutionaries, we don't advocate "nicer oppression" of the Taliban, because it's better than that "not-so-nice oppression" of the US.

[Nakidana]

So what? As revolutionaries, we don't advocate "nicer oppression" of the Taliban, because it's better than that "not-so-nice oppression" of the US.

You will accept nothing short of revolution in Afghanistan?

[Patchd]

You will accept nothing short of revolution in Afghanistan?

Of course not, and to specify, it should be a workers' revolution. If neither the Taliban, nor the Western occupiers are a good thing for the working class, or even for the peasantry in Afghanistan, why then would we advocate the supporting of either side?

Even "military" support means giving political support to an organisation.

[BobKKKindle$]

If neither the Taliban, nor the Western occupiers are a good thing for the working classI don't think anyone here is claiming that the Taliban are going to liberate the working class, or that the Taliban is a genuinely proletarian organization. What we need to be asking ourselves, however, is what the biggest concern is for Afghan workers at the current time - in other words, what institution or group of people represents the biggest threat to the wellbeing of this class, and where are the political energies of the oppressed going to be directed. I don't think the Afghan bourgeoisie is the most immediate or intense source of oppression for workers in Afghanistan, and I think this is broadly applicable to all situations of national oppression. The occupation is by far the most oppressive aspect of the situation in Afghanistan, because it is responsible for the deaths of Afghan civilians who did not consent to the original invasion, and is also complicit in the ongoing exploitation of Afghanistan's markets and resources, by providing an environment in which imperialist corporations can operate and secure access to lucrative contracts. It is because of this that Afghan workers are supporting resistance movements such as the Taliban, and it is also for this reason that Marxists should support the struggle against the occupation and hope that the resistance will be able to inflict defeats on the imperialists and eventually force them to withdraw, and admit defeat, even if the leadership of the resistance is reactionary, as is currently the case. The expulsion of the occupiers will not, of course, end all forms of oppression in Afghanistan, or even lead to the elimination of imperialism, given that imperialism can operate through informal empire as well as direct political control, but it's naive to expect Afghan workers to overthrow the national bourgeoisie and establish a workers state whilst the occupation remains. The ultimate effect of a military success for the resistance will be to create a space in which progressive forces can develop and challenge the political hegemony of the Taliban, creating a basis for proletarian revolution, conducted alongside the workers of surrounding countries, and directed against the national bourgeoisie. In addition, we should also keep in mind that the victory of the resistance would give a major boost to the development of class consciousness and anti-war sentiments within the imperialist powers, because it would shatter the myth of humanitarian intervention (insofar as that myth hasn't already lost all credibility) and rally popular opposition to plans for interventions in other countries.

[Psy]

Considering the rest of your post is perfectly fine that's a really stupid thing to say.

Any progressive, leftist, secularist, demoratic movement in Aghanistan have been brutally surpressed by the Taliban, Mujahideen and of course by Western and Soviet influence in the counrty. So yes, there have been manifestations of reaction taking presidence in Afghanistan, but whole history of Aghanistan is that it's government has never been representitive of it's people.

Soviet????

From my understanding the only resistance were feudalists defending their caste system and religious reactionaries fighting against any reform (which is why they are fighting the Americans now as they are fighting for the restoration of feudalism in Afghanistan not for capitalism or Marxism). Meaning the U.S.S.R was the most progressive force in Afghanistan.

[Lynx]

What is the coalition hoping to achieve in Afghanistan?

[Patchd]

I don't think anyone here is claiming that the Taliban are going to liberate the working class, or that the Taliban is a genuinely proletarian organization. What we need to be asking ourselves, however, is what the biggest concern is for Afghan workers at the current time - in other words, what institution or group of people represents the biggest threat to the wellbeing of this class, and where are the political energies of the oppressed going to be directed.

Of course, both you and I share the sentiment that our and their main oppressor is Imperialism, afterall, only because it is the most destructive stage of Capital, one which not only oppresses the workers of foreign lands, but also workers within their own borders.


I don't think the Afghan bourgeoisie is the most immediate or intense source of oppression for workers in Afghanistan.Again, I agree, however on this point, as revolutionaries, we should not be asking Afghans to stop or forget the exploitation and oppression that the Afghan bourgeoisie, and local warlords have been responsible for in the past either. They too are their enemies, as well as foreign Imperialism.


It is because of this that Afghan workers are supporting resistance movements such as the Taliban, and it is also for this reason that Marxists should support the struggle against the occupation and hope that the resistance will be able to inflict defeats on the imperialists and eventually force them to withdraw, and admit defeat, even if the leadership of the resistance is reactionary, as is currently the case.I think most Marxists and Anarchists will agree with you that we should support the resistance against Imperialism, in the sense that guns pointed towards Imperialist troops are a good thing. However, at the same time, and I'm not saying this is your position, but I know it is the position of some on here, we should not be giving any form of support, or spurring on Afghans to support organisations and groups which have no interest in the working class, or oppressed peasantry.

These are the same groups that would happily, and have done so in the past, put down working class resistance where they see fit to do so. Iran is another example of where some working class groups made the mistake of supportingthe Islamists, when they [the workers' groups] themselves already had workers' councils in place, in some cases they had been running certain industries democratically for a year before the Islamists crushed them. Support to the resistance against Imperialism, No Support to the Taliban would be my line on Afghanistan I guess.


What is the coalition hoping to achieve in Afghanistan?

Their official reason is based on Operation Enduring Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom) (OEF-Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present))). I'm guessing it targets mainly the notion of "terrorism" and "terrorists", "female liberation", ending the drugs trade in Afganistan. There's potentially more aims, however, the three I listed have all been failed to be achieved.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Soviet????

From my understanding the only resistance were feudalists defending their caste system and religious reactionaries fighting against any reform (which is why they are fighting the Americans now as they are fighting for the restoration of feudalism in Afghanistan not for capitalism or Marxism). Meaning the U.S.S.R was the most progressive force in Afghanistan.

They were resisting Stalinist expansionism and aggression. Imperialism even.

Tell me what was progressive about their invasion?
- their installation of Kamal as a ruthless, puppet dictator?
- the thousands of people massacred?
- the consequential rise of political islam throughout the Middle East that still rears it's ugly head today?
- Soviet bombing of enitre villiages, irrigation and crops?
- the use of landmines by the USSR?
- 15,000 Soviet soldiers dead?

I'll give you something to take from that devastating war, the fact that it cost the USSR so much that it hasted the downfall of the whole ghastly Soviet Union and now, finally, working class people are beginning to realise what an imperialistic farce the whole third-period Soviet Union was.

[Yazman]

I think most Marxists and Anarchists will agree with you that we should support the resistance against Imperialism, in the sense that guns pointed towards Imperialist troops are a good thing. However, at the same time, and I'm not saying this is your position, but I know it is the position of some on here, we should not be giving any form of support, or spurring on Afghans to support organisations and groups which have no interest in the working class, or oppressed peasantry.

These are the same groups that would happily, and have done so in the past, put down working class resistance where they see fit to do so. Iran is another example of where some working class groups made the mistake of supportingthe Islamists, when they [the workers' groups] themselves already had workers' councils in place, in some cases they had been running certain industries democratically for a year before the Islamists crushed them. Support to the resistance against Imperialism, No Support to the Taliban would be my line on Afghanistan I guess.

Damn straight.

[Psy]

They were resisting Stalinist expansionism and aggression. Imperialism even.

You think Afghan peasants understood that? From their point of view the U.S.S.R coming into brutally crush their ruling class and at that level that was the case.



Tell me what was progressive about their invasion?

Ending feudalism in Afghanistan, even Marx stated capitalism was better then feudalism.



- their installation of Kamal as a ruthless, puppet dictator?

You are getting your time line messed up, the PDPA took power before the U.S.S.R militarily intervened.


- the thousands of people massacred?

People die in a war



- the consequential rise of political islam throughout the Middle East that still rears it's ugly head today?

That was the C.I.A's doing, the C.I.A funded, trained and armed all those forces.



- Soviet bombing of enitre villiages, irrigation and crops?
- the use of landmines by the USSR?
- 15,000 Soviet soldiers dead?

Poor strategy and bad luck, if the Afghan peasents were as class conscious as Vietnamese peasents it wouldn't have mattered as much as most peasents would have be in guerrilla armies fighting against the Afghan ruling class and the USSR would have been able to work with Afghan peasents not against them as they would have a common enemy.



I'll give you something to take from that devastating war, the fact that it cost the USSR so much that it hasted the downfall of the whole ghastly Soviet Union and now, finally, working class people are beginning to realise what an imperialistic farce the whole third-period Soviet Union was.
The U.S.S.R didn't fall because of Afghanistan, the U.S.S.R fell because the ruling class of the U.S.S.R grew tired of stagnating surplus value in the U.S.S.R.

[FreeFocus]

Suppression of progressive, democratic segments of their society? But thats what we want! progress and democracy! We're communists, we want progress!

Surely you understood that I meant an end to the suppression of progressive, democratic segments of Afghan society? If it really was unclear, I apologize, and I will edit my post to clarify.

Obviously no one should be supporting the suppression of democratic segments of Afghan society, except imperialists and other capitalists.

[TC]

1. the state is inherently violent. The latent violent potential of the state prevents citizens from taking 'self-help' means to resolve their own disputes.

2. The afghan 'government' only exists as a state as such because it has western economic and military support. Their ability to threaten violence credibly relies on the U.S.'s ability to threaten violence credibly.

3. By legalizing rape, the afghan government is not only complicit in failing to punish rapists, it is in fact, accessory/accomplice to rape: were a shia "wife" to defend herself physically from her rapist "husband", the rapist "husband" would have broken no 'crime', but the rape victim "wife" would face state punishment for assault/battery/murder. The afghan state may as well be pointing a gun at the rape victim to protect the rapist from her.

4. Given points 1 2 3 it follows that the NATO occupation forces are participating in the literal rape of afghani people. The act/omission distinction is meaningless in the context of the latent state violence, the context of inter-personal relationsmediated by the realization that the state will use violence against some people and not others.

5. In conclusion, the choice "the west" faces is not between 'forcing' the Afghans to accept their views, or failing to do so, the West's actual choice is between enforcing mass rape, and not enforcing mass rape.

[Yazman]

TC, do you even realise that far worse laws were enacted under the Taliban (whom you support)?


Surely you understood that I meant an end to the suppression of progressive, democratic segments of Afghan society? If it really was unclear, I apologize, and I will edit my post to clarify.

Obviously no one should be supporting the suppression of democratic segments of Afghan society, except imperialists and other capitalists.

Sorry FreeFocus, I may have misread your post. At any rate, some people in here are supporting suppression of democratic segments of Afghan society when they support the Taliban, who have an equally strong history of this if not even worse.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

IF the u.s. was a good government they'd form feminist groups and all women militia's with good arms and u.s. army support and show the militants of islam what there messing with.

[Nakidana]

In case anyone is interested in what "the other side" thinks of the situation...


...

Q4: Does the Islamic Emirate still believe in pursuing its old policy about Afghanistan and the issues dependent on it?

Answer: The policy of the Islamic Emirate, as it appears from its name, is based on Islam solid bases and its pure historical origins, and at the same time putting in considerations the conditions and situations of the present time. It built its policy, during its rule over the country, according to the issues related to the country on the principles of the pure historical Islamic origins and its intense bases, taking into account the political and national interests of the country, but there were some defects and points of weakness in several resources; this was according to the emergency unstable conditions; and we are now sparing no effort to redeem them and work on preventing them from happening again; and we are ready to attain mutual understanding with all bodies.

Thus, we are keen to adopt a mutual extensive Afghani strategy and negotiations with all the Afghani groups to reach fruitful positive results and undertake the necessary changes on condition that it does not contradict the Jihadi strategy and keeping the benefits of the Afghani people safe.

...

Q 17: Most of the people think that the Islamic Emirate, during its rule over the country, was against modern education and especially educating women; to what extent is this true from your point of view?

Answer: I do not agree on this at all and I say that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was not against modern education, but on the contrary and in spite of its hard circumstances at that time was caring for it; it opened all the schools and universities in the country and prepared all the curriculums for them, putting in the mind the fact that all the learning institutions had been closed before the Islamic Emirate because of internal conflicts and sectarian wars. More than that, most of them were destructed because of those wars; according to this, the sons and daughters of this afflicted country were deprived from education. As for educating women, the Islamic Emirate cared for it in accordance with the hard conditions of that time, and was able to secure the means for their medium and higher education in the biggest countries of Afghanistan like the capital Kapul, Quendahar, Mazar, Hirat, Jalal Abad and others. Women were learning different sciences, especially medicine; and as for primary and preparatory schools, the Islamic Emirate secured some public and private ones in an organized way in spite of all the hardships it was experiencing.

As for the obligation of educating women, it is as obligatory as that of men. Consequently, the Islamic Emirate believe that educating men and women is among the necessary obligations of life and should be cared for according to the honorable Islamic Share’ae (legislations). As to what you have mentioned about the world’s criticism of the Islamic Emirate, I say, “If one tenth of the current aids which the corrupted government pay for the corrupted administration in Kapul had been paid to the Islamic Emirate during its rule over the country, it would have been able to open all schools and universities for men and women in an organized way. It would have been able to accommodate them to the worldwide standards. However, unfortunately, the world’s aids, which they pay to the agent government, have fallen as a prey to embezzlement and corruption without the people benefiting from them.

...

Q 19: As you know, the Afghani nation belong to many Islamic doctrines and schools, i.e. the Salafy, the Hanafy and the Muslim Brothers in addition to the Sectarians (She’ae). What is the attitude of the Islamic Emirate toward those schools and doctrines?

Answer: Afghanistan is the homeland for all the Afghans. They should choose the brother-like life and cooperation among them. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan acknowledge the rights and respect of all those who belong to all the different Islamic schools and doctrines without any discrimination. It sees that they are all equal on all rights, and it wishes for all the people in the country under the rule of a unified Islamic regime a respectable life with complete security and permanent stability.

...


Dialogue with an official of the Political Committee of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (http://theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Statements/march09/Political%20Committee%20of%20the%20Islamic%20Emira te%20of%20Afghanistan.htm)

[Dimentio]

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/06/afghanistan.law/index.html)

So the question is simple, even if the solution is not:

Is it correct for the West to allow Afghanistan the right to enact legislation it wants

or

Should the West step in and rectify incorrect moves made by the government of (in this instance) Afghanistan?

The predicament I see is that either the government of Afghanistan is run by Afghans who can do what they wish or it's a puppet govt made to enforce the wishes of the West which, in this case, are the "right" ones. It seems to be a contradiction between the progressive values of equality and self-determination.


ps. Please refrain from debating the justness of the war itself unless it is central to your views on this situation, which is really about a lot more than Afghanistan alone. Thank you.

Basically, Obama and Merkel has to crave in if they want the Afghani clan elders to accept Karzai's puppet government.

The Soviet Union tried to install progressive laws for females when they were there. Look where that got them,

[TC]

TC, do you even realise that far worse laws were enacted under the Taliban (whom you support)?

Whom I support?? Since when?

I would have supported the Red Army in Afghanistan not the CIA/Saudi/Pakistani backed mujahadeen.

Under soviet-backed socialist governance the laws were vastly more progressive.

[TC]

Basically, Obama and Merkel has to crave in if they want the Afghani clan elders to accept Karzai's puppet government.

The Soviet Union tried to install progressive laws for females when they were there. Look where that got them,

Yes. They should have shot the clan elders when they had the chance.

[skki]

As far as I'm concerned, direct, forceful intevention in a foreign country is only applicable when the following conditions are met:
i) The local population supports such an intervention.
ii) All diplomatic measures have been exhausted.
Neither are met by a long shot. So no, intervention is not just.

But of course the west has no interest in this sort of intervention (profitless, humanitarian) so this discussion is totally trivial and meaningless.

[Dimentio]

Yes. They should have shot the clan elders when they had the chance.

Despite that the clan elders are heavily patriarchal and reactionary, I think they are viewed as "legitimate" by the majority of the Afghani rural population.

[Dimentio]

As far as I'm concerned, direct, forceful intevention in a foreign country is only applicable when the following conditions are met:
i) The local population supports such an intervention.
ii) All diplomatic measures have been exhausted.
Neither are met by a long shot. So no, intervention is not just.

But of course the west has no interest in this sort of intervention (profitless, humanitarian) so this discussion is totally trivial and meaningless.

iii) The nation attacks another nation.

[Nakidana]

Yes. They should have shot the clan elders when they had the chance.

That would've resulted in the local populace viewing them as martyrs in the struggle against the "godless Russians". If that insane action had been carried out by the Russians the people would've joined the mujahideen in hordes.

The Russians should never have gone in.


As far as I'm concerned, direct, forceful intevention in a foreign country is only applicable when the following conditions are met:
i) The local population supports such an intervention.
ii) All diplomatic measures have been exhausted.
Neither are met by a long shot. So no, intervention is not just.

But of course the west has no interest in this sort of intervention (profitless, humanitarian) so this discussion is totally trivial and meaningless.

How do you measure i) and what do you mean by ii)? Can you give an example?


iii) The nation attacks another nation.

Yeah, this I agree with.

[TC]

when western perception of "what the afghan people want" is determined by what "community leader" afghan men say they want, its hardly indicative of the majority of afghans.

[Dimentio]

when western perception of "what the afghan people want" is determined by what "community leader" afghan men say they want, its hardly indicative of the majority of afghans.'

Well

The thing the Soviets did wrong was that they alienated the community leaders. Thus helping bolster the Mujahedeen.

Putin has learned the lesson, and now allows Chechnya to install Sharia laws and the Chechen president to support honour killings.

The thing is that people are generally very sensitive regarding their prejudices and their cultural values. Both in Waziristan and Afghanistan, entire villages has risen in defiance when authorities try to stop girls for being punished by gang-rapes for example.

You must remember that Afghanistan and western Pakistan are areas where people are identifying very strongly with their extended clans. The clan is what social security they have.

[TC]

'

Well

The thing the Soviets did wrong was that they alienated the community leaders.

Thats true...it was a mistake to alienate the community leaders. They should have been rounded up and jailed instead.


Putin has learned the lesson, and now allows Chechnya to install Sharia laws and the Chechen president to support honour killings.

Yes, the Putin dictatorship just is concerned with power not with freeing Chechnya from islamist oppression. In this regard its similar to the position of the American occupation regime in Afghanistan.

Its easier to rule a patriarchal repressive society with the aid of the repressive patriarchs. The aim of the left isn't to have power for the sake of having power but to apply power in a way that liberates all of society and not only the already powerful.



The thing is that people are generally very sensitive regarding their prejudices and their cultural values.

Thats true, if by "people" one means "powerful men", which sadly, is ususally the case!



Both in Waziristan and Afghanistan, entire villages has risen in defiance when authorities try to stop girls for being punished by gang-rapes for example.

Again, this is true, when by "entire villages" one means "adult male rapist villagers." Somehow I doubt there were angry rape-victim teenage girls participating in those 'uprisings.'


You must remember that Afghanistan and western Pakistan are areas where people are identifying very strongly with their extended clans. The clan is what social security they have.

Also true if when you say "security" you mean the security of men to rape women, not so much if you mean the "security" of women to not be raped.


Now could you please try to go back and read what you wrote without focusing on privileged patriarchal men as the default and only persons whose perspective is politically relevant?

[Dimentio]

Thats true...it was a mistake to alienate the community leaders. They should have been rounded up and jailed instead.



Yes, the Putin dictatorship just is concerned with power not with freeing Chechnya from islamist oppression. In this regard its similar to the position of the American occupation regime in Afghanistan.

Its easier to rule a patriarchal repressive society with the aid of the repressive patriarchs. The aim of the left isn't to have power for the sake of having power but to apply power in a way that liberates all of society and not only the already powerful.




Thats true, if by "people" one means "powerful men", which sadly, is ususally the case!




Again, this is true, when by "entire villages" one means "adult male rapist villagers." Somehow I doubt there were angry rape-victim teenage girls participating in those 'uprisings.'



Also true if when you say "security" you mean the security of men to rape women, not so much if you mean the "security" of women to not be raped.


Now could you please try to go back and read what you wrote without focusing on privileged patriarchal men as the default and only persons whose perspective is politically relevant?

In those areas, these men are the providers by default.

I think you are almost borderline racist here. I do agree with you, but in the same time, I feel really uncomfortable imposing any rules on conquered nations. I think that each people first and foremost has the duty to emancipate itself.

Afghanistan and Pakistan has not even entered the stage of the national state yet. The peoples there are very proud of their tradition, their hospitality and their patriarchy.

I really detest the über-patriarchal tendencies of these tribes, but that is a part of what they perceive as their cultural identity. I would almost doubt most women and children there are questioning that, since they simply do not possess the frames of reference.

The Soviets tried to execute stubborn community leaders, and that made the population raging.

[Nakidana]

I think that each people first and foremost has the duty to emancipate itself.

This is the central issue here. Why are some people so keen on getting in there and helping the Afghans. Why can't people just leave them alone?

It's like some people have the perception that the Afghans are not capable of dealing with their own problems. It's really just another example of "white man's burden" racism.

[TC]

In those areas, these men are the providers by default.
Yes. In America, the capitalists are the "providers" by default, they pay the wages. This is wrong. Its called oppression and you can only buy into the narrative of "providing" for the oppressed by excluding them from the means to provide for themselves if you identify with the oppressors.


I think you are almost borderline racist here.

I think your position is outright racist. Its racist to suggest that there should be one standard for westerners and one standard for afghans. Its racist to suggest that its tolerable for a woman to be subject to rape and exclusion from public life and relegated to the defacto sexual property on account of her race and nationality. Thats the conclusion you're drawing and that to me is racist as well as sexist.


I feel really uncomfortable imposing any rules on conquered nations.
Rules exist everywhere and when a nation's police force is under the effective control of another nation state, the decision to impose one set of rules (rape victims have no recourse at law) versus another set of rules (rape victims may seek state assistance) is only a decision to side with the oppressors against the oppressed.


The peoples there are very proud of their tradition, their hospitality and their patriarchy.
Naturally if by "people" you mean "patriarchs"


I really detest the über-patriarchal tendencies of these tribes, but that is a part of what they perceive as their cultural identity.
Again where "they" means patriarchal tribal leaders. Have you taken a survey of afghan teenage rape victims?


I would almost doubt most women and children there are questioning that

I'm sure you would doubt that since in your frame of reference assumes that women and children are objects, chattel, who are represented by the men who effectively own them. In other words you take precisely the line of the afghan patriarchs: they speak for their human property. You assume that this is true.


The Soviets tried to execute stubborn community leaders, and that made the population raging.
The Soviets executed their own "community leaders" sending "the population" (i.e. the wealthy) raging. It was called the Russian revolution!

By calling these feudal patriarchs "community leaders" you legitimate them and their enslavement of the rest of the native population, siding with the oppressors against the oppressed just as the CIA did.

[Dimentio]

Yes. In America, the capitalists are the "providers" by default, they pay the wages. This is wrong. Its called oppression and you can only buy into the narrative of "providing" for the oppressed by excluding them from the means to provide for themselves if you identify with the oppressors.



I think your position is outright racist. Its racist to suggest that there should be one standard for westerners and one standard for afghans. Its racist to suggest that its tolerable for a woman to be subject to rape and exclusion from public life and relegated to the defacto sexual property on account of her race and nationality. Thats the conclusion you're drawing and that to me is racist as well as sexist.


Rules exist everywhere and when a nation's police force is under the effective control of another nation state, the decision to impose one set of rules (rape victims have no recourse at law) versus another set of rules (rape victims may seek state assistance) is only a decision to side with the oppressors against the oppressed.


Naturally if by "people" you mean "patriarchs"


Again where "they" means patriarchal tribal leaders. Have you taken a survey of afghan teenage rape victims?



I'm sure you would doubt that since in your frame of reference assumes that women and children are objects, chattel, who are represented by the men who effectively own them. In other words you take precisely the line of the afghan patriarchs: they speak for their human property. You assume that this is true.


The Soviets executed their own "community leaders" sending "the population" (i.e. the wealthy) raging. It was called the Russian revolution!

By calling these feudal patriarchs "community leaders" you legitimate them and their enslavement of the rest of the native population, siding with the oppressors against the oppressed just as the CIA did.

If CIA killed these feudal patriarchs, we would see the SWP whine over "imperialism", and we would also see the country slip into total anarchy. The entire Afghani social infrastructure is based upon the clans. With the clans in disarray, the country will become ungovernable.

I agree that we could not have two sets of standards for westerners and everyone else. But in the same time, we could not play gods and start to force-change people's beliefs. That would just strengthen what we are fighting.

The difference with the Russian revolution was that the Russian military-administrative establishment and the Russian comprador bourgeoisie had lost all their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. And it was not the Germans who installed marxism-leninism in Russia, but the Russians themselves.

The same goes for China, Cuba, France, Iran and every other country which has undergone revolutionary changes. The changes has been installed internally, not from external pressure.

If you want to support a reactionary current, make its leaders into martyrs.

[TC]

This is the central issue here. Why are some people so keen on getting in there and helping the Afghans. [quote] in case you didn't notice, the west is already in there. The Soviet Union had to go in there because the imperialists were trying to overthrow the democratic Afghan government.

[quote]It's like some people have the perception that the Afghans are not capable of dealing with their own problems.

They're not being left to deal with their own problems the Karazi patriachal state is 100% the product of western colonial imperialism. Of course they're not capable of dealing with their own problems (i.e. feudal patriarchy) when the feudal patriarchal rapists are being armed by overwhelmingly powerful imperialist occupation forces. This is simply a reality of power. Disarm the rapists and arm the rape victims and then they can deal with their problems. Thats what the Soviet Union tried to do, the Americans are doing the opposite.


It's really just another example of "white man's burden" racism.You're really a moron if you think saying that white men shouldn't be arming other white men to rape women and children is "racist."

[Dimentio]

[QUOTE=Malangyar;1411901]This is the central issue here. Why are some people so keen on getting in there and helping the Afghans. [quote] in case you didn't notice, the west is already in there. The Soviet Union had to go in there because the imperialists were trying to overthrow the democratic Afghan government.



They're not being left to deal with their own problems the Karazi patriachal state is 100% the product of western colonial imperialism. Of course they're not capable of dealing with their own problems (i.e. feudal patriarchy) when the feudal patriarchal rapists are being armed by overwhelmingly powerful imperialist occupation forces. This is simply a reality of power. Disarm the rapists and arm the rape victims and then they can deal with their problems. Thats what the Soviet Union tried to do, the Americans are doing the opposite.

You're really a moron if you think saying that white men shouldn't be arming other white men to rape women and children is "racist."

I think you ignore one crucial thing here. The 90's.

Just look what happened when Afghanistan was left to itself.

Did Afghanistan produce a socialist state? Answer: No.

Did Afghanistan produce a third world-style capitalist state? Answer: No

Was Afghanistan about to produce a medieval islamic fundamentalist theocracy? Answer: Yes

[TC]

I think you ignore one crucial thing here. The 90's.

Just look what happened when Afghanistan was left to itself.

You seem to pretend that afghanistan entered the 90s with no history, without having been conditioned by imperialist intervention. Afghanistan was not left to itself, it was left to an imperialist armed, imperialist financed, imperialist supported regime. The imperialists do not prevent socialist revolutions so that local people can be "left to [themselves]" they do it so they can rule them by local proxies. Thats how imperialism works!

[Dimentio]

You seem to pretend that afghanistan entered the 90s with no history, without having been conditioned by imperialist intervention. Afghanistan was not left to itself, it was left to an imperialist armed, imperialist financed, imperialist supported regime. The imperialists do not prevent socialist revolutions so that local people can be "left to [themselves]" they do it so they can rule them by local proxies. Thats how imperialism works!

The Mujahedeen (originally U.S-supported) were replaced by the Taleban, which was a product of the refugee camps on the Pakistani side of the border. In 2001-2002, the USA helped the Mujahedeen/Northern Alliance to retake power, and started the occupation of Afghanistan.

[Revy]

The theocratic regime in power currently has been propped up by the U.S.
Like the theocratic regime in Iraq. The US has no intention of ever questioning the theocratic nature of these regimes. The US only cares that its imperialist interests have been satisfied. The US enthusiastically rallied around the new Iraqi Constitution, which states "Islam shall be the basis for the law"!

[Dimentio]

The theocratic regime in power currently has been propped up by the U.S.
Like the theocratic regime in Iraq. The US has no intention of ever questioning the theocratic nature of these regimes. The US only cares that its imperialist interests have been satisfied. The US enthusiastically rallied around the new Iraqi Constitution, which states "Islam shall be the basis for the law"!

Maybe the communities in these nations sadly enough are "satisfied" with theocratic regimes.

[Yazman]

I have to ask the question to those of you supporting the Taliban and crying "self-determination!" Now this is a relevant question because I know some of you are staunch leninists.

What is your view of the hungarian revolution in the 50s that removed the pro-soviet government from power, yet was crushed after the soviet union invaded (and subsequently imposed a system on the hungarian people that they evidently did not want). This was a worker's revolution (whether you like it or not), yet many of you seem to be particularly selective when it comes to your assessment of when to defend self determination. Perhaps this is because Lenin thought that imperialism was something restricted to capitalists.

[Dimentio]

The main question here is how ready the women and people of Afghanistan are to fight this new law. It appears as while a lot of women dislike it, men generally accept it and even like it. Maybe those who are protesting it are afraid of reprisals?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515980,00.html

[skki]

It is really irritating how low-key this story is. Front page of practically every news source is about pirates and Obamas new dog. Meanwhile; 15 million women are on the verge of being subject to legal rape. This was a major news story for no more than a day or two.

I imagine it will be beaten eventually. You would assume all women are against it, and there must be more than enough men opposing it to make the opposition a majority.

[Dimentio]

It is really irritating how low-key this story is. Front page of practically every news source is about pirates and Obamas new dog. Meanwhile; 15 million women are on the verge of being subject to legal rape. This was a major news story for no more than a day or two.

I imagine it will be beaten eventually. You would assume all women are against it, and there must be more than enough men opposing it to make the opposition a majority.

Karzai has after consultations with the Emperor agreed that the law will be reviewed and "probably changed".

[Dimentio]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/16/afghanistan.law.karzai/index.html

Yes.

And the Emperor did not approve it.

[Wanted Man]

All hail!


When the demonstrators reached a mosque housing a school run by a conservative Shia cleric who helped implement the law, students came out yelling and cursing and pelted the women with gravel, said Fawzia Koofi, a female member of the Afghan parliament. Koofi said police did little to protect the women, but a spokesman for the country's interior minister disputed that.
"Police played a completely neutral role," said spokesman Zamarai Bashiri. "The police were able to control the demonstrations very well."
About 300 to 500 women protested the law while 600 to 700 demonstrators marched in support of it, he said. The marchers who opposed the law included several female members of Afghanistan's parliament.
"Both sides were able to express their thoughts and expressions," Bashiri said.
Thank God for that. Good on the brave cops of free Afghanistan to protect the rights of men to throw gravel at women who do not want to be raped.

[Dimentio]

All hail!


Thank God for that. Good on the brave cops of free Afghanistan to protect the rights of men to throw gravel at women who do not want to be raped.

Well, those who were making that law are those who supports the pro-western side.

The Taleban don't throw gravel at women. They punch down brick walls over women.