Should Socialist fight the Taliban not just Impearialists

[Bloody Armalite]

Hello Comrades, i think every revolutionary knows the Taliban need defeating, the line between politics and religeon, in my view should be absolute, they treat women like animals.
However i think Britains reasons for invading with its pimp America was impearialist, and only done to spread the power of the Bourgeisie.
But if socialist went over to fight to remove the Taliban and free women from oppresion would you not support it.
And i dont mean trying to conquor or trying to bring stallinism like russia did in the 80s.
For me, revolution needs to be fought against Capitalists but also religeous regimes who advocate stoning, rape and all the other monstrosities religeon brings, to me if you are religeous why kill all the infadels, when they die they will be going to hell surely lol.

But let me know what you think, would you fight the Taliban or would you just be happy with revolution in your own country and forget about the rest, in my opinion, all countries must fight for revolution, unless were all socialist, socialism will fail, as the capitalist will do anything to destroy the peace that socialism brings.
Thanks Comrades.
Thanks

[the last donut of the night]

It´s amazing some leftists actually side with the Taliban, thinking it´s a correct movement against Western imperialism. It´s not. Just because a movement fight imperialism, that doesn´t mean it will replace bourgeois rule with workers´ control. The Taliban won´t do such a thing because 1) it´s interests are reactionary in every sense of the word and 2) there is pratically no working class in Afghanistan to this day.

[OneNamedNameLess]

We are internationalists. Yes, we desire a global communist system and I personally abhor the Taliban. Some people here think differently as they are fighting imperialism. However, what is more desirable, American imperialism or Islamic extremist leadership? Not much of a choice eh? I loathe them both equally.

[Wanted Man]

But if socialist went over to fight to remove the Taliban and free women from oppresion would you not support it.

Who would do that, and how? Your question is entirely hypothetical, so it's impossible to answer. What if "socialists" could physically defeat all the evils of the world at the same time? Well, then we probably wouldn't be sitting on internet forums contemplating our general incompetence.


Just because a movement fight imperialism, that doesn´t mean it will replace bourgeois rule with workers´ control.

Who says that they will? You are fighting windmills.

[Durruti's Ghost]

there is pratically no working class in Afghanistan to this day.


What do you mean by this?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Hello Comrades, i think every revolutionary knows the Taliban need defeating, the line between politics and religeon, in my view should be absolute, they treat women like animals.

Correct. Although the line between politics and religion doesn't have much to do with it.


However i think Britains reasons for invading with its pimp America was impearialist, and only done to spread the power of the Bourgeisie.Also correct, in simplistic terms.


But if socialist went over to fight to remove the Taliban and free women from oppresion would you not support it.Absolutely not, that is, if a "socialist" is going to join the imperialist armies currently occupying Afghanistan. That would be wholly reactionary.


And i dont mean trying to conquor or trying to bring stallinism like russia did in the 80s.Woah there, slow down. The Soviet Union may have invaded Afghanistan but it was on completely different terms than the current invasion. For one, the Taliban and reactionary guerrillas/expropriated feudal lords ,etc, etc were actively armed, funded and supported by the CIA/American government; primarily to rollback the reforms put into place by the Saur revolution. The revolutionary government of Afghanistan requested military aid from the Soviet Union, something which they actually denied them before finally giving in. When it became clear that the reactionary forces supported by the US were too strong for the infant revolutionary government, the Soviet Union chose to invade the country, which of course turned out to be a failure.




For me, revolution needs to be fought against Capitalists but also religeous regimes who advocate stoning, rape and all the other monstrosities religeon brings, to me if you are religeous why kill all the infadels, when they die they will be going to hell surely lol.Yes, but religious regimes aren't classified by what religion they follow, but by their dominant mode of production; that is which class rules society. The Islamic feudal land lords were defeated by the under classes of workers, peasants, women, intellectuals, soldiers, etc during the Saur revolution. It was only after the CIA gave them training and advanced military technology (stinger missiles, proper firearms, communications tech. etc) that the old regime had a hold on Afghanistan.


But let me know what you think, would you fight the Taliban or would you just be happy with revolution in your own country and forget about the rest, in my opinion, all countries must fight for revolution, unless were all socialist, socialism will fail, as the capitalist will do anything to destroy the peace that socialism brings.
Thanks Comrades.
ThanksThe goal for any real communist is to advance the cause of revolution anywhere and everywhere possible. We can never forget about other countries, especially where American imperialism is currently attacking.


It´s amazing some leftists actually side with the Taliban, thinking it´s a correct movement against Western imperialism.
I don't think you'll find very many leftists actually siding with the Taliban, only supporting their military victory over American imperialism, since there is practically no other opposition to the invading armies other than them. If there was a socialist organization of some kind actively struggling against American imperialism as well as Islamic groups (like the NPA in the Philippines for example), leftists would support them.

It´s not. Just because a movement fight imperialism, that doesn´t mean it will replace bourgeois rule with workers´ control.Nobody who has any serious knowledge of the Taliban or class struggle for that matter will suggest that the Taliban are fighting for worker's control; they played the exact opposite role when worker's control was beginning to take shape in the late 80's. Why some leftists support that Taliban and anti-imperialist forces, regardless of their politics is because they are the only coherent, organized insurgent force actually fighting against imperialism in Afghanistan. I may not take this position, but there is certainly logic behind it. The idea being that if the Taliban succeed in expelling imperialism from Afghanistan, then there won't be A) an invading professional military force that could easily suppress a worker's revolution, and B) the support for the Taliban and other reactionary forces would dwindle, since there aren't thousands of Western troops killing and destroying their country.


The Taliban won´t do such a thing because 1) it´s interests are reactionary in every sense of the word
Well yes.

and 2) there is pratically no working class in Afghanistan to this day.There are plenty of workers in Afghanistan, maybe not on the scale of fully industrialized countries, but they exist.

[Zolken]

Socialists should combat every form of violence and terrorism regardless it's particular wrapper, be it socio-political, economic, cultural or religious. Bigotry comes in various shapes and forms, it's the task of socialism to destroy these root and branch.

[Bloody Armalite]

Thanks for the answer Comrade, and just so you know i did nbot mean would you agree with a socialist joining the British army to fight the Taliban, I meant would you support a Socialist network of Guerrillas, consisting on Afghanis aswell as Communists from other countries.
Thanks

[mykittyhasaboner]

Socialists should combat every form of violence
So if socialists take up arms should they combat themselves?



and terrorism regardless it's particular wrapper, be it socio-political, economic, cultural or religious. Bigotry comes in various shapes and forms, it's the task of socialism to destroy these root and branch.Easier said than done.


Thanks for the answer Comrade, and just so you know i did nbot mean would you agree with a socialist joining the British army to fight the Taliban, I meant would you support a Socialist network of Guerrillas, consisting on Afghanis aswell as Communists from other countries.
Thanks Well such guerrillas don't exist in Afghanistan, all progressive forces were defeated by the CIA and reactionary Afghan fighters. Since the Eastern bloc/Comintern doesn't exist anymore there is nobody to organize an "International Brigades" in Afghanistan.

[LeninBalls]

It. Just because a movement fight imperialism, that doesn´t mean it will replace bourgeois rule with workers´ control.

Wow, really?

The point being, would you rather the Afghanis to be under control from a foreign government, or under control from a radical Islamist group, who have some popularity, more so than the imperialists? As noted in a thread not long ago, the Taliban fighting today are not all 90´s style radicals. "It´s the same as lumping all Iraqi resistance as Baathist resistance etc etc". You can see this too if you watch some videos, or even Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, where you can see alleged Taliban members with a small or no beard (according to the original Taliban law all men must have a beard fist length).

[Bloody Armalite]

No there are no Brigades, but there will be.
Marxism is alive, but instead of burning like it used to it is smouldering and waiting for a new symbol of revolution to raise it from the ashes like a great big RED pheonix.
In the past you had Martyrs like Guevara, Connoly and living heroes of the revolutiuon, and when the first marxist reignite the fight, there will be new heroes, who will inspire a whole generation of hope.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No there are no Brigades, but there will be.
Marxism is alive, but instead of burning like it used to it is smouldering and waiting for a new symbol of revolution to raise it from the ashes like a great big RED pheonix.
In the past you had Martyrs like Guevara, Connoly and living heroes of the revolutiuon, and when the first marxist reignite the fight, there will be new heroes, who will inspire a whole generation of hope.

It's good that you have such enthusiasm but this is hopelessly idealist. There's no way any brigades will be formed until we have another "Soviet Union" to fund it. If it was as easy as you explained it, there would have already been a global simultaneous revolution by now.

[Robocommie]

Military adventurism in all it's forms, regardless of it's motive or ideology, is extremely hazardous. Each region of the world has its own local dilemmas and issues which concern local people, and which outsiders with an internationalist approach can't always show sensitivity to. In Afghanistan, tribal dynamics and local economics are very idiosyncratic things, and this is why "nation building" as envisioned by neoconservatives fails.

And it'd fail with Socialism for the same reason. However noble the intentions, there is no room in Marxism for an externally imposed revolution. Social change must come from within, organically, or it will wither on the vine and be seen as a hostile, foreign imposition. The people's revolution of Afghanistan must come on Afghani terms, led by Afghani direction, and evolve solely to meet the needs and demands of the Afghani people. Otherwise, it will be morally bankrupt, completely lacking in local support, and deservedly doomed to failure. Ultimately, that sort of thing is just another form of imperialism and cultural hegemony.

Of course, all of this is underscored by the fact that this is all a form of military fantasy. You can't form a guerilla front to fight in Afghanistan, because even if you can provide the fighters, provide the logistics to gather them, and provide the logistics to get them into Afghanistan, you will still need serious funding to arm, equip, and feed those fighters. SERIOUS funding. And extremely well developed local contacts to get those supplies into the country. That kind of thing just can't happen without the support of an organization like, say, the KGB.

[Bloody Armalite]

or a billionaire like Bin Laden to the Taliban.
:)

[Wanted Man]

Thanks for the answer Comrade, and just so you know i did nbot mean would you agree with a socialist joining the British army to fight the Taliban, I meant would you support a Socialist network of Guerrillas, consisting on Afghanis aswell as Communists from other countries.
Thanks


No there are no Brigades, but there will be.
Marxism is alive, but instead of burning like it used to it is smouldering and waiting for a new symbol of revolution to raise it from the ashes like a great big RED pheonix.
In the past you had Martyrs like Guevara, Connoly and living heroes of the revolutiuon, and when the first marxist reignite the fight, there will be new heroes, who will inspire a whole generation of hope.

Can we stick to things on planet earth, preferably the ones that are (even theoretically) possible within the near future? Thanks.

[Robocommie]

or a billionaire like Bin Laden to the Taliban.
:)

Except we're Marxists, we don't have many billionaire friends. ;)

This brings up another point though as well: manipulating local conflicts for broader political gain is the exact modus operandi of groups like Al Qaeda. We have to ask ourselves if we really want to play that kind of game simply because we feel our motives are more noble.

[Bloody Armalite]

Are the moderaters like the though police.
lol im only joking.
Dont kick me off the site :thumbup:

[the last donut of the night]

What do you mean by this?

I believe I might have been exaggerating too much by that. I apologize. However, although there is a working class, it´s not very large. There´s more of a peasantry. Plus, the Afghan economic system is more feudal than Western capitalism.

[the last donut of the night]

Wow, really?

The point being, would you rather the Afghanis to be under control from a foreign government, or under control from a radical Islamist group, who have some popularity, more so than the imperialists? As noted in a thread not long ago, the Taliban fighting today are not all 90´s style radicals. "It´s the same as lumping all Iraqi resistance as Baathist resistance etc etc". You can see this too if you watch some videos, or even Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, where you can see alleged Taliban members with a small or no beard (according to the original Taliban law all men must have a beard fist length).


What I was saying is that not all anti-imperialist movements are in fact leftist. And I just gave an example of that when I said that just because the Taliban is anti-imperialistic, that doesn´t mean it´ll bring any kind of workers´ control. Also, I´m not sure which is best: Islamic, opressive, rule or also oppressive American imperialism. I´m not against the Taliban entirely: I´m just against its mysogynistic and reactionary policies and attitudes. You mention that the Taliban has changed since the 90´s. In a way, it has: it´s now more clearly a Pashtun nationalist movement. But it still employs Shariah law wherever it conquers and recently pressured the Afghan government into a passing a law that would allow marital rape. There´s much more radical movements in Afghanistan (in all fairness, however, not even close to holding the power the Taliban do).

[Zolken]

So if socialists take up arms should they combat themselves? Simply investigate all prior revolutions, in that a purge tends to follow in the wake of victory. "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?" - Lenin.



Easier said than done. Initially terror must be met with greater terror, such is always the case. However, we should not forget the lessons of history and thus allow the resultant state to be built upon what the party must of necessity use at this crucial stage of the struggle. "We cannot win without the harshest kind of revolutionary terror." - Lenin

[Wanted Man]

Are the moderaters like the though police.
lol im only joking.
Dont kick me off the site :thumbup:

Yes. In fact, anyone who disagrees with you is trying to silence you...

It's just a pointless question because it's not realistic. It's like asking: "Would you support a socialist squad of super mercenaries infiltrating the White House to take out Obama?" "Would you support sending international brigades to Honduras to fight off the coup?" "Would you support British socialist college boys going to Iran to create a true workers' opposition?" Etc.

[NecroCommie]

I think that the question is no longer that of who exploits the afghans more, since both sides of the conflict are reactionary to the extreme. The last feign morality of this conflict therefore has to come from democracy, and what do the afghan people want. You don't have to volunteer for the Taliban since it's not that black & white situation where it's one or the other. Its just that if I really had to choose, I'd lean for the popular choice, currently being Taliban if I understand correctly.

[RadioRaheem84]

No self respecting socialist would ever side with the Taliban or consider them a just movment against western imperialism. Heck, the Nazis and the Fascists were against international finance capitalism and loathed lassiez-faire economics like I do, but would I have joined their movement? No, and they were much "closer" to Socialism (still missed it by a long shot) than the Taliban will ever be. Just because a movement is anti-imperialism, it doesn't mean one should side with them. There is such a thing as irrational pathalogical movements bent on violence. They don't always have to be explained or rationalized in socio-economic terms. The KKK is an anti-imperialist movement as it believes Western Imperialism is a Jew-run machine (ZOG). Does that make their struggle worth defending? NO.

Yet, we have to admit that there are Marxists and reactionaries on the left that HAVE sided with the Taliban by over excusing their behavior or describing them as the last front against western imperialism left. That type of thinking is wrong and should be denounced. Heck, I would side with the Western powers combatting the Taliban and Al Queda before I would help Islamic extremists.

[Comrade B]

The Taliban, though weaker than the US, is more opposed to leftist ideology than any western enemy. This does not mean that we should support the means the US uses to fight them (bombing villages and such)

[RadioRaheem84]

The Taliban, though weaker than the US, is more opposed to leftist ideology than any western enemy. This does not mean that we should support the means the US uses to fight them (bombing villages and such)


Ofcourse not. I was just saying that I would side with US before I would ever side with the Taliban. I was just pointing out my disgust for the movement.

[Sam_b]

Heck, the Nazis and the Fascists were against international finance capitalism and loathed lassiez-faire economics like I do

No they didn't. Indeed, the Nazis were strong supporters of corporatism - they certainly weren't third positionists.

[Dimentio]

Afghanistan is an artificial state which was originally created by British and Russian imperialism. While I'm no nationalist, I believe that what would create peace and progress would be the creation of a Pashtun state, a Tajihk state and a Hazara state.

The Taleban is a symptome, and the more foreign troops inside Afghanistan, the more national rebels it will spawn. While the war is theoretically unloseable, it is also theoretically unwinnable. The idea to drag a pipeline through Afghanistan is as ludicrous as building a five star hotel at the bottom of Mt Etna.

Also, the war is imperialist and won't bring any social progress to Afghanistan. It is a disaster for the Afghan people, who are repressed both by foreign forces, the Taleban, their president, the loyalist warlords and the police force.

[Wanted Man]

No self respecting socialist would ever side with the Taliban or consider them a just movment against western imperialism. Heck, the Nazis and the Fascists were against international finance capitalism and loathed lassiez-faire economics like I do, but would I have joined their movement? No, and they were much "closer" to Socialism (still missed it by a long shot) than the Taliban will ever be. Just because a movement is anti-imperialism, it doesn't mean one should side with them. There is such a thing as irrational pathalogical movements bent on violence. They don't always have to be explained or rationalized in socio-economic terms. The KKK is an anti-imperialist movement as it believes Western Imperialism is a Jew-run machine (ZOG). Does that make their struggle worth defending? NO.

Yet, we have to admit that there are Marxists and reactionaries on the left that HAVE sided with the Taliban by over excusing their behavior or describing them as the last front against western imperialism left. That type of thinking is wrong and should be denounced. Heck, I would side with the Western powers combatting the Taliban and Al Queda before I would help Islamic extremists.

Another misinformed rant, attacking strawmen. Why is it that people lose any sign of rationality when this subject comes up? Indeed, you even say that it's not necessary to explain the actual facts, that "irrational pathological movements bent on violence" simply exist (do they pop up from the ground, or is there another reason for their existence?), which only require some left-sounding posturing ("I would support X over Y", as if it is relevant in any way) to deal with.

The consequence of this line of argument is plain for all to see, with your puzzling statement that the nazis were in any way "closer" to socialism than the organisation you're trying to discredit. Or that the KKK were anti-imperialist. What definitions of socialism and imperialism are these? "Socialism: the state does more stuff. Imperialism: ethnic group X migrates to country Y"? It completely bypasses the little thing about how Afghanistan has been invaded and occupied by imperialist countries, while Nazi Germany and the USA have not (indeed, they are both imperialist themselves).

The whole problem with your political line ("explanation of facts is not necessary, pathological and violent movements simply exist and we must oppose them") is that you don't want to look at what people do, but at what people say: the KKK claimed to be anti-imperialist (ZOG), ergo, anti-imperialist struggles in Afghanistan should be opposed. It's like saying: Gorbachev claimed to be a communist, therefore we should not support communist struggles.

It's basically a political line of "mind over matter" - and then people get offended when such a line is identified with liberalism... And apparently have the confidence to say that any contrary thinking "is wrong and should be denounced". It may be wrong to rationalise all sorts of things about the taliban, but this kind of moralising is useless and does more damage. Just look at the political statements that it leads to in your own post.

[chegitz guevara]

The question is, what kind of society do the Taliban represent? Feudalism? Capitalism? Some kind of hybrid? And what kind of society is imperialism attempting to impose? Feudalism? Capitalism? Some kind of hybrid? The answers to those questions could lead to some surprising political answers. For example, if the Taliban were trying to recreate feudalism and the U.S. impose capitalism, imperialism might actually be the progressive force. :confused:

[Dimentio]

The Taleban would probably deteriorate into a clan-based feudal system if they win the war, and start to fight amongst themselves.

[Wanted Man]

The question is, what kind of society do the Taliban represent? Feudalism? Capitalism? Some kind of hybrid? And what kind of society is imperialism attempting to impose? Feudalism? Capitalism? Some kind of hybrid? The answers to those questions could lead to some surprising political answers. For example, if the Taliban were trying to recreate feudalism and the U.S. impose capitalism, imperialism might actually be the progressive force. :confused:

Those are some pretty big questions, as is the answer that you're implying. I think it comes from some kind of mechanical understanding of "marxism": capitalism is more progressive than feudalism, Afghanistan is feudal, the imperialists want to impose capitalism, therefore the imperialists are playing a progressive role. I suppose this might make sense if:

-you dismiss every marxist author who has ever expanded on imperialism
-you assume that Afghanistan is/was a feudal country, and that the taliban are simply the dispossessed feudal class
-you agree that imperialism somehow plays a "civilising" role for the non-imperialist nations today

Since all of these are pretty questionable to anyone calling themselves marxist, the "surprising political answers" don't have much of a leg to stand on.

[chegitz guevara]

Not every Marxist author. Marx himself thought that imperialism could play a civilizing role (he supported Austria seizing territory from the Ottomans).

I agree we should question whether or not Afghanistan was feudal, particularly before the Saur revolution, and whether or not the Taliban represent a force attempting to restore feudalism.

We need to approach the problem scientifically, not dogmatically. We should question everything. Simply because Marx, Lenin, Bukharin, etc., said X doesn't make it true. We need to actually go and study the situation. It's possible they were wrong.

What you failed to point out, and it's a weakness on my part, is, even assuming that the role of imperialism in Afghanistan is progressive, a victory of imperialism there could make it stronger elsewhere, and thus, overall, a victory of imperialism would play a conservative or even reactionary role. On the other hand, a victory of the Taleban could also hurt the workers/socialist movement beyond the borders of Afghanistan.

It's not as mechanical as I made it seem, or as you did either.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Simply investigate all prior revolutions, in that a purge tends to follow in the wake of victory. "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?" - Lenin.
OK, how does this answer my question? You said: "socialists should combat every form of violence". Now I took this as you saying that all violence is "wrong", so naturally I asked you if socialists should oppose their own violent measures. You can't make a revolution without firing squads, that's the point; so why must "socialists combat all every from of violence"?

[RadioRaheem84]

No they didn't. Indeed, the Nazis were strong supporters of corporatism - they certainly weren't third positionists.


If you're referring to the misinterpretation of Mussolini's definition of fascism, then you've already missed what I said. When Mussolini said that fascism could be best described as corporatism; corporate and state power merging, he was referring to the corporate-guild system of the Catholic church. Not Coke a Cola and the state making a merger.

The Nazis and the fascists were very much against free market capitalism in the international sense. They blamed the depression on it and rose to power on the premise that their nations needed fascism in order to combat both communism and international finance capitalism.

[Pogue]

Quite simply we should fight anyone who threatens the sovereignty of the working class.

[khad]

The Taleban would probably deteriorate into a clan-based feudal system if they win the war, and start to fight amongst themselves.
Actually, you're mistaken. That's what happened to the mujahideen, not the Taliban. Almost all the war damage you see in Kabul was the result of internecine fighting among rebel factions following the fall of the Afghan government.

That's how the Taliban slaughtered their asses and turned the mujahideen into the Northern Alliance remnant.

Furthermore, in Pakistan, the Taliban is currently gaining in popularity in rural areas because they are organizing peasants, many of whom are tenant farmers held in virtual serfdom, in an anti-landlord campaign. As the result of Pakistan's status as a military colony of the US empire, that country has had virtually no land reform in its entire history. Nor does it have any viable leftwing politics, also the result of a half century of US-backed military dictatorship. So now, ironically, it falls on the shoulders of the Taliban to help along the process of class struggle.

The issues are never so clear-cut.

[RadioRaheem84]

Indeed, you even say that it's not necessary to explain the actual facts, that "irrational pathological movements bent on violence" simply exist (do they pop up from the ground, or is there another reason for their existence?), which only require some left-sounding posturing ("I would support X over Y", as if it is relevant in any way) to deal with.


There are indeed Islamic movements (the Taliban and Al Queda being two of them) that use the excuse that western imperialism is morally backward and humans need to return to the glory days of the Caliph. These movements are so extreme that even secular or other Islamic groups that base their struggles on socio-political turmoil of the Middle East find repulsive. But then again if you want to rationalize the crashing of two planes into the WTC as an act of victimization then by all means, have at it.




The consequence of this line of argument is plain for all to see, with your puzzling statement that the nazis were in any way "closer" to socialism than the organisation you're trying to discredit. Or that the KKK were anti-imperialist. What definitions of socialism and imperialism are these? "Socialism: the state does more stuff. Imperialism: ethnic group X migrates to country Y"? It completely bypasses the little thing about how Afghanistan has been invaded and occupied by imperialist countries, while Nazi Germany and the USA have not (indeed, they are both imperialist themselves).


The point that I was trying to make is that I am not so easily duped into believing that every group out there that claims to be socialist or anti-imperialist is somehow justified in their "struggle" against western imperialism. I said I wouldn't have joined a blatantly violent early twentieth century German movement that claimed to be against international capitalism and called itself "socialist" because I thought it was a good front against Western imperialism and finance captialism.




It completely bypasses the little thing about how Afghanistan has been invaded and occupied by imperialist countries, while Nazi Germany and the USA have not (indeed, they are both imperialist themselves).


When there is a strong left democratic movement that wants to relinquish itself of foreign occupation, I will join them. But NOT the Taliban. If anything a lot of left organizations in Afghanistan and Iraq (the trade unions) that both opposed the occupation of their land AND the terrorists. In fact they've been victims of terrorism.


Or that the KKK were anti-imperialist. What definitions of socialism and imperialism are these?The whole problem with your political line ("explanation of facts is not necessary, pathological and violent movements simply exist and we must oppose them") is that you don't want to look at what people do, but at what people say: the KKK claimed to be anti-imperialist (ZOG), ergo, anti-imperialist struggles in Afghanistan should be opposed. It's like saying: Gorbachev claimed to be a communist, therefore we should not support communist struggles.

The KKK believe themselves to be occupied by ZOG or whatever loony internationalist organization and see themselves a sort of anti-imperialist. The same loopy rationalizations of the world events are mimicked by these terrorist organizations operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're not really anti-imperialists, they just hide behind that notion in order to win favor with those against western imperialism. I won't let the dupe me into believing that their struggle is somehow one and the same with mine. They are doing these things because they want to create a feudal system based on the Koran, that is ALL. It's irrational and their pathalogical violent behavior to attain that is sickening. Their rants about the crimes of capitalism and the west is just a fascade, a ruse for them to have an excuse to inflict harm and further their cause.



Just look at the political statements that it leads to in your own post.


What statement? That I think Nazis, the Taliban and the KKK are all wrong and should be opposed? And that we shouldn't try to explain away their irrational acts as being victims of the West?

[Sam_b]

If you're referring to the misinterpretation of Mussolini's definition of fascism, then you've already missed what I said. When Mussolini said that fascism could be best described as corporatism; corporate and state power merging, he was referring to the corporate-guild system of the Catholic church. Not Coke a Cola and the state making a merger.

The Nazis and the fascists were very much against free market capitalism in the international sense. They blamed the depression on it and rose to power on the premise that their nations needed fascism in order to combat both communism and international finance capitalism.

I didn't mentio Mussolini. I'm not going on writings - I'm going on what actually happened, and what is fact.
The Nazi's were not anticapitalist nor anticonsumerist. Why else do you think the third-positionist Strasserist opposition arose?

[Bloody Armalite]

their economic plans were on the left like the BNP i thought, but their ideological beliefs were way way on the farrrrr right:(
I am no expert on the Nazis though, not like you anyway:)

[el_chavista]

Hello Comrades, i think every revolutionary knows the Taliban need defeating, the line between politics and religeon, in my view should be absolute, they treat women like animals.

Speaking about morality:


Three Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire
And Ten Steps to Take to Do So

by Chalmers Johnson

3. We Need to End the Secret Shame of Our Empire of Bases

In March, New York Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert noted, "Rape and other forms of sexual assault against women is the great shame of the U.S. armed forces, and there is no evidence that this ghastly problem, kept out of sight as much as possible, is diminishing." He continued:

"New data released by the Pentagon showed an almost 9 percent increase in the number of sexual assaults -- 2,923 -- and a 25 percent increase in such assaults reported by women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan [over the past year]. Try to imagine how bizarre it is that women in American uniforms who are enduring all the stresses related to serving in a combat zone have to also worry about defending themselves against rapists wearing the same uniform and lining up in formation right beside them."

[RadioRaheem84]

The Nazi's were not anticapitalist nor anticonsumerist. Why else do you think the third-positionist Strasserist opposition arose?


I just meant that they were anti-laissez faire capitalism.

[Dimentio]

Actually, you're mistaken. That's what happened to the mujahideen, not the Taliban. Almost all the war damage you see in Kabul was the result of internecine fighting among rebel factions following the fall of the Afghan government.

That's how the Taliban slaughtered their asses and turned the mujahideen into the Northern Alliance remnant.

Furthermore, in Pakistan, the Taliban is currently gaining in popularity in rural areas because they are organizing peasants, many of whom are tenant farmers held in virtual serfdom, in an anti-landlord campaign. As the result of Pakistan's status as a military colony of the US empire, that country has had virtually no land reform in its entire history. Nor does it have any viable leftwing politics, also the result of a half century of US-backed military dictatorship. So now, ironically, it falls on the shoulders of the Taliban to help along the process of class struggle.

The issues are never so clear-cut.

I don't think I am wrong there. You must remember that the Taleban has always been militarily challenged by the Mujahedeen and later by NATO. When the Mujahedeen was unified against the Soviet-backed government, they did not fight within themselves. When they won power in 1992, they quickly deteroriated into a group of squabbling warlords controlling provinces.

I think the same would probably happen with the Taleban would they win. Afghanistan is too geographically disparate and has too many internal tensions caused by its structure and by the last thirty years of history to become a successful nation-state (a nation-state is not necessarily a state based on a nation, but a state where the majority connects their identity with the citizens of the same state).

[KarlMarx1989]

I think that everyone needs to fight all forms of terrorism. Obviously, Imperialist nations; like christian-America, support terrorist groups so that they can do whatever it is they want to do. They also support the KKK/NRA. I think that we need to take the opposite mentality of this; and fight all forms of terrorism, instead of supporting them.

[khad]

I don't think I am wrong there. You must remember that the Taleban has always been militarily challenged by the Mujahedeen and later by NATO. When the Mujahedeen was unified against the Soviet-backed government, they did not fight within themselves. When they won power in 1992, they quickly deteroriated into a group of squabbling warlords controlling provinces.
And when the Taliban killed their stupid asses, the Afghan civil war ended.

The Mujahideen wasn't unified worth shit even when they were fighting the Afghan government. After every defeat, half of them would defect to the government or cut deals with local warlords. What enabled them to win was infighting in the government and in particular the defection of General Dostum, who commanded some 50,000 men with air and armor support. What was the "unified" mujahideen was crushed like shit at Jalalabad.