Afghan Locals Give U.S. Occupiers Proper Goodbye

[AvanteRedGarde]

Afghan Locals Give U.S. Occupiers Proper Goodbye


(http://raimd.wordpress.com)


On Saturday, October 3rd hundreds of insurgents stormed two remote military bases near the Pakistan border in Afghanistan. A proper goodbye– the attack killed eight occupiers from Fort Carson and injured many more as they were preparing to relocate from rural outposts to larger bases in more populated areas as part of a revised strategy by NATO war-planners.


This attack comes as the U.S. NATO Commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, urges President Barack Obama to add 40,000 more Amerikan occupation troops on top of the 68,000 already there or en route. In a speech in London on October 1st, McChrystal acknowledged that the NATO occupiers are unpopular and advocated a “counter-insurgency” as opposed to “counter-terrorist” strategy, saying the latter was too narrow and would mean allowing Afghanistan to become “Chaos-istan.”


In reality, the U.S. and NATO are fighting a losing war: one of occupation waged by imperialists. Recent emphasis has been placed on training Afghan military and police forces to carry out the duties of the occupiers. However, the militarily imposed Afghan puppet government is also highly unpopular, as demonstrated by evidence of widespread fraud in the country’s recent elections. Saturday’s attacks were directed both at foreign occupation forces and those of the comprador state. U.S. military officials described the insurgents as members of “tribal militias,” a code word for fighters who receive support from the common Afghan rural masses.


Those occupiers killed in Saturday’s attack did not die heroically or with honor. Rather, they were killed as part of resistance by the Afghan people to foreign occupiers and a puppet regime. Rather than dying for abstract ideas such as “freedom,” the eight troops from Colorado Springs died for just the opposite reason: depriving Afghans of their freedom by enforcing imperialist rule.


Amerikan troops serve the interest of imperialism; therefore, they are rightly hated everywhere people are oppressed and exploited by imperialism. Unlike in Colorado Springs and the U.S., in Afghanistan there will be no mourning for these eight fallen Amerikans. For the Afghan masses, they are simply eight more dead occupiers.


Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13485884
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02general.html

[RoyBatty]

You'd feel differently if they were the Soviets

Also: you seem to have forgotten that local Afghan warlords are generally illiterate thugs whose idea of women's rights is freedom from getting two black eyes at once from one's husband

[Bud Struggle]

Also, America is in some respects being "too nice" to Afganistan. All this nation building is going nowhere and really never will go anywhere. America needs to control these people just enough so the won't be a threat to the world and general and America in particular and then leave them alone to live how they want in their own country with their Islamic Fundamentalism.

But it was idiotic to get involved there in the first place.

[#FF0000]

You'd feel differently if they were the Soviets

Yeah but mostly because instead of installing a government that legalized rape not long ago, the Soviets invading lead to things like Women's Militias being organized and things like that, whereas American incursion in the region just sort of brought things to a war between a reactionary, repressive government of questionable legitimacy and a bunch of reactionary, repressive warlords.

[RoyBatty]

Yeah but mostly because instead of installing a government that legalized rape not long ago

well, they get to vote for their leaders now

who did you expect to win? the Green Party?

both the US and Soviet presences, sorry imperialist intrusions, were hated by locals. Afghan men were shoving boulders onto Soviet attack gunships flying through valleys: that's how much they hated any attempt to bring them into the 20th century

they want to be backwards as shit and there's not much any world power can really do about it right now

[danyboy27]

Afghan Locals Give U.S. Occupiers Proper Goodbye


(http://raimd.wordpress.com)


On Saturday, October 3rd hundreds of insurgents stormed two remote military bases near the Pakistan border in Afghanistan. A proper goodbye– the attack killed eight occupiers from Fort Carson and injured many more as they were preparing to relocate from rural outposts to larger bases in more populated areas as part of a revised strategy by NATO war-planners.


This attack comes as the U.S. NATO Commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, urges President Barack Obama to add 40,000 more Amerikan occupation troops on top of the 68,000 already there or en route. In a speech in London on October 1st, McChrystal acknowledged that the NATO occupiers are unpopular and advocated a “counter-insurgency” as opposed to “counter-terrorist” strategy, saying the latter was too narrow and would mean allowing Afghanistan to become “Chaos-istan.”


In reality, the U.S. and NATO are fighting a losing war: one of occupation waged by imperialists. Recent emphasis has been placed on training Afghan military and police forces to carry out the duties of the occupiers. However, the militarily imposed Afghan puppet government is also highly unpopular, as demonstrated by evidence of widespread fraud in the country’s recent elections. Saturday’s attacks were directed both at foreign occupation forces and those of the comprador state. U.S. military officials described the insurgents as members of “tribal militias,” a code word for fighters who receive support from the common Afghan rural masses.


Those occupiers killed in Saturday’s attack did not die heroically or with honor. Rather, they were killed as part of resistance by the Afghan people to foreign occupiers and a puppet regime. Rather than dying for abstract ideas such as “freedom,” the eight troops from Colorado Springs died for just the opposite reason: depriving Afghans of their freedom by enforcing imperialist rule.


Amerikan troops serve the interest of imperialism; therefore, they are rightly hated everywhere people are oppressed and exploited by imperialism. Unlike in Colorado Springs and the U.S., in Afghanistan there will be no mourning for these eight fallen Amerikans. For the Afghan masses, they are simply eight more dead occupiers.


Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13485884
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02general.html
people die! yayyyy! i love this game!
seriously, dont be a pussy, go kill someone instead of jacking off about someone else murder.

[mykittyhasaboner]

people die! yayyyy! i love this game!
seriously, dont be a pussy, go kill someone instead of jacking off about someone else murder.

How about you go take your unnecessary and inappropriate comments elsewhere. This is a political website meant for meaningful discussion, not worthless flaming.


who did you expect to win? the Green Party?
There is no "green party" in Afghanistan.


both the US and Soviet presences, sorry imperialist intrusions, were hated by locals.
US intrusions were/are certainly hated by "locals". However the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan isn't so similar. The government of Afghanistan requested aid from the Soviet Union to counter CIA-backed Islamists; aid that they were actually reluctant to give for some time.


that's how much they hated any attempt to bring them into the 20th century

This is disgusting.

I'm sure women hated the fact that they had a right to go to school for the first time, or that farmers despised land reform policies after the Saur revolution. :rolleyes:


they want to be backwards as shit and there's not much any world power can really do about it right now
Your clearly delusional. No sane human being wants to live in destitute conditions.

[danyboy27]

How about you go take your unnecessary and inappropriate comments elsewhere. This is a political website meant for meaningful discussion, not worthless flaming.
.

how about you explain me in what praising the death of people is actually a meaningfull thing for this forum?

[mykittyhasaboner]

how about you explain me in what praising the death of people is actually a meaningfull thing for this forum?
I don't have to, because I never made such a claim. I don't think praising death is very meaningful for this forum, or at all. However your comments aren't necessary or meaningful either. This forum has rules against flaming.

[danyboy27]

I don't have to, because I never made such a claim. I don't think praising death is very meaningful for this forum, or at all. However your comments aren't necessary or meaningful either. This forum has rules against flaming.

and that exactly what the OP did, flaming.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Flaming is a hostile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile) and insulting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulting) interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction) between Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) users.

The OP didn't even address any other poster. All they did was post an article. You may not agree with the article or the poster but that doesn't make it flaming. Just quit it.

[danyboy27]

Flaming is a hostile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile) and insulting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulting) interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction) between Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) users.

The OP didn't even address any other poster. All they did was post an article. You may not agree with the article or the poster but that doesn't make it flaming. Just quit it.

no prob, i will contribute.

regarding the whole article, i think its nedlessly offensive, making the apology of a killing is never good, no matter who dies in it.

[Leon Kowalski]

Your clearly delusional. No sane human being wants to live in destitute conditions.

like Obama said about voters in my home state of Pennsylvania:

"they want to cling to guns and religion"

Afghanistan is like western Pennsylvania, but more arid and mountainous

[mykittyhasaboner]

like Obama said about voters in my home state of Pennsylvania:

"they want to cling to guns and religion"

Afghanistan is like western Pennsylvania, but more arid and mountainous

This comparison is totally irrelevant.

[Richard Nixon]

Yes, yes and I assume Afghanistan would be far better under the Taliban theocracy, where the moderate gains by women currently will all be gone. Seriously guys think logically and use realpolitik, who is less oppressive: possibly imperialist superpower but still liberal compared to the alternative or a bunch of mediaeval totalitarian shitheads?

[danyboy27]

Yes, yes and I assume Afghanistan would be far better under the Taliban theocracy, where the moderate gains by women currently will all be gone. Seriously guys think logically and use realpolitik, who is less oppressive: possibly imperialist superpower but still liberal compared to the alternative or a bunch of mediaeval totalitarian shitheads?

really man, you should learn to be on humanity side on your own rather than feel the urge to defend one of the side in the process.

a slaughter is a slaugter, the side who commiting it dosnt really matter, 10 taleban fighter dead= 10 family in mourn, same goes for the american soldier.

[Red Icepick]

The Taliban is obscene. They are dark age cave trolls not a revolutionary force. They are oppressors assembled, brainwashed, and based in Pakistan sent to enslave the Afghan people. Now they are a toppled ruling class trying to get their power back. Any revolutionary socialist should know better than to glamorize these theocratic pigs. Still, Obama should take his forces out rather than further the neocon agenda. It's only killing working class Americans and leaving Afghan villagers in the crossfire. As much as I despise NATO, I wouldn't protest an assault into western Pakistan to annihilate the Taliban's forces before pulling out of the region. In fact, I think that would be the best bet. The Karzai government will surely be overthrown, either way, but it would be better if the the united Afghan people did it, not the Taliban.

[Red Icepick]

"all afghani civilians are brainwashed operssing dark age cave trolls. nice one."

Some punk gave me a negrep saying this. I wish his username could show up on my User CP, so I could know who the moron is. I like how he substituted "The Taliban" with "all afghani civilians." This person is a cowardly rat and deserves to be thoroughly patronized for his idiotic behavior. Of course, this sort of clown is dime a dozen around here. It's becoming hard to tell who the known liars and truth distorters are around here.

[brigadista]

Yes, yes and I assume Afghanistan would be far better under the Taliban theocracy, where the moderate gains by women currently will all be gone. Seriously guys think logically and use realpolitik, who is less oppressive: possibly imperialist superpower but still liberal compared to the alternative or a bunch of mediaeval totalitarian shitheads?


what "moderate gains"???

[mosfeld]

"all afghani civilians are brainwashed operssing dark age cave trolls. nice one."

Some punk gave me a negrep saying this. I wish his username could show up on my User CP, so I could know who the moron is. I like how he substituted "The Taliban" with "all afghani civilians." This person is a cowardly rat and deserves to be thoroughly patronized for his idiotic behavior. Of course, this sort of clown is dime a dozen around here. It's becoming hard to tell who the known liars and truth distorters are around here. Aren't you the moron who generalized all Afghanis as crack cocaine cooks or something and claimed that imperialist troops are working class allies or something...?

[#FF0000]

"all afghani civilians are brainwashed operssing dark age cave trolls. nice one."

Some punk gave me a negrep saying this. I wish his username could show up on my User CP, so I could know who the moron is. I like how he substituted "The Taliban" with "all afghani civilians." This person is a cowardly rat and deserves to be thoroughly patronized for his idiotic behavior. Of course, this sort of clown is dime a dozen around here. It's becoming hard to tell who the known liars and truth distorters are around here.

Someone call the whaaambulance. Red Icepick here's gonna have a cryabetic fit

[Red Icepick]

Aren't you the moron who generalized all Afghanis as crack cocaine cooks or something and claimed that imperialist troops are working class allies or something...?

Sort of. I don't know why I should respond to someone who doesn't read. It was Khad who claimed that Mexican migrants work as crystal meth cooks. And yes, I did claim(and still do claim) that imperialist troops are working-class and should be won over to our side.

[Red Icepick]

Someone call the whaaambulance. Red Icepick here's gonna have a cryabetic fit

I'm simply criticizing baseless attacks. If that's the kind of thing you endorse, maybe you can change your website to RevLie.com.

[#FF0000]

I'm simply criticizing baseless attacks. If that's the kind of thing you endorse, maybe you can change your website to RevLie.com.

Zing!

EDIT: I didn't give you that neg-rep by the way

[Red Icepick]

Zing!

EDIT: I didn't give you that neg-rep by the way

I know that. I've taken note that you can punctuate and spell, and your sentences are generally well formulated.

[mosfeld]

And yes, I did claim(and still do claim) that imperialist troops are working-class and should be won over to our side. ...

Under class dictatorship there exists special bodies of armed men which defend the interests of the dominant class and oppress the class they're conflicting with. Under bourgeois dictatorship their special bodies of armed men are our class enemies because they protect the interests of the bourgeoisie and shoot at our class brethren. Under proletariat dictatorship their special bodies of armed men are our class allies because they protect the interests of the proletariat and shoot at our class enemies. Does that make sense to you? Lenin deals with this exact issue in State and Revolution. I suggest you read it and uproot your general confusion about where pigs and imperialist troops stand in class struggle.


2. Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc.

Engels continues:

“As distinct from the old gentile [tribal or clan] order,[2] the state, first, divides its subjects according to territory...."

This division seems “natural” to us, but it costs a prolonged struggle against the old organization according to generations or tribes.

“The second distinguishing feature is the establishment of a public power which no longer directly coincides with the population organizing itself as an armed force. This special, public power is necessary because a self-acting armed organization of the population has become impossible since the split into classes.... This public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds, of which gentile [clan] society knew nothing...."

Engels elucidates the concept of the “power” which is called the state, a power which arose from society but places itself above it and alienates itself more and more from it. What does this power mainly consist of? It consists of special bodies of armed men having prisons, etc., at their command.

We are justified in speaking of special bodies of armed men, because the public power which is an attribute of every state “does not directly coincide” with the armed population, with its “self-acting armed organization".

Like all great revolutionary thinkers, Engels tries to draw the attention of the class-conscious workers to what prevailing philistinism regards as least worthy of attention, as the most habitual thing, hallowed by prejudices that are not only deep-rooted but, one might say, petrified. A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power. But how can it be otherwise?

From the viewpoint of the vast majority of Europeans of the end of the 19th century, whom Engels was addressing, and who had not gone through or closely observed a single great revolution, it could not have been otherwise. They could not understand at all what a “self-acting armed organization of the population” was. When asked why it became necessary to have special bodies of armed men placed above society and alienating themselves from it (police and a standing army), the West-European and Russian philistines are inclined to utter a few phrases borrowed from Spencer of Mikhailovsky, to refer to the growing complexity of social life, the differentiation of functions, and so on.

Such a reference seems “scientific”, and effectively lulls the ordinary person to sleep by obscuring the important and basic fact, namely, the split of society into irreconcilable antagonistic classes.

Were it not for this split, the “self-acting armed organization of the population” would differ from the primitive organization of a stick-wielding herd of monkeys, or of primitive men, or of men united in clans, by its complexity, its high technical level, and so on. But such an organization would still be possible.

It is impossible because civilized society is split into antagonistic, and, moreover, irreconcilably antagonistic classes, whose “self-acting” arming would lead to an armed struggle between them. A state arises, a special power is created, special bodies of armed men, and every revolution, by destroying the state apparatus, shows us the naked class struggle, clearly shows us how the ruling class strives to restore the special bodies of armed men which serve it, and how the oppressed class strives to create a new organization of this kind, capable of serving the exploited instead of the exploiters.

In the above argument, Engels raises theoretically the very same question which every great revolution raises before us in practice, palpably and, what is more, on a scale of mass action, namely, the question of the relationship between “special” bodies of armed men and the “self-acting armed organization of the population". We shall see how this question is specifically illustrated by the experience of the European and Russian revolutions.

But to return to Engel's exposition.

He points out that sometimes — in certain parts of North America, for example — this public power is weak (he has in mind a rare exception in capitalist society, and those parts of North America in its pre-imperialist days where the free colonists predominated), but that, generally speaking, it grows stronger:

“It [the public power] grows stronger, however, in proportion as class antagonisms within the state become more acute, and as adjacent states become larger and more populous. We have only to look at our present-day Europe, where class struggle and rivalry in conquest have tuned up the public power to such a pitch that it threatens to swallow the whole of society and even the state."

This was written not later than the early nineties of the last century, Engel's last preface being dated June 16, 1891. The turn towards imperialism — meaning the complete domination of the trusts, the omnipotence of the big banks, a grand-scale colonial policy, and so forth — was only just beginning in France, and was even weaker in North America and in Germany. Since then “rivalry in conquest” has taken a gigantic stride, all the more because by the beginning of the second decade of the 20th century the world had been completely divided up among these “rivals in conquest", i.e., among the predatory Great Powers. Since then, military and naval armaments have grown fantastically and the predatory war of 1914-17 for the domination of the world by Britain or Germany, for the division of the spoils, has brought the “swallowing” of all the forces of society by the rapacious state power close to complete catastrophe.

Engels' could, as early as 1891, point to “rivalry in conquest" as one of the most important distinguishing features of the foreign policy of the Great Powers, while the social-chauvinist scoundrels have ever since 1914, when this rivalry, many time intensified, gave rise to an imperialist war, been covering up the defence of the predatory interests of “their own" bourgeoisie with phrases about “defence of the fatherland", “defence of the republic and the revolution", etc.!

[Red Icepick]

...

Under class dictatorship there exists special bodies of armed men which defend the interests of the dominant class and oppress the class they're conflicting with. Under bourgeois dictatorship their special bodies of armed men are our class enemies because they protect the interests of the bourgeoisie and shoot at our class brethren. Under proletariat dictatorship their special bodies of armed men are our class allies because they protect the interests of the proletariat and shoot at our class enemies. Does that make sense to you? Lenin deals with this exact issue in State and Revolution. I suggest you read it and uproot your general confusion about where pigs and imperialist troops stand in class struggle.

So what's to stop those 'special bodies or armed men' switching sides? It's going to be basically the same breed of people in either the bourgeois or proletariat dictatorships you mention. My only point is that the enlisted ranks are exploited by the ruling class and can be converted to our side if awakened to the cause. So why not awaken them? Specifically since it could swell our ranks as it depletes our enemy's?

[danyboy27]

So what's to stop those 'special bodies or armed men' switching sides? It's going to be basically the same breed of people in either the bourgeois or proletariat dictatorships you mention. My only point is that the enlisted ranks are exploited by the ruling class and can be converted to our side if awakened to the cause. So why not awaken them? Specifically since it could swell our ranks as it depletes our enemy's?

indeed a lot of SS troopers started working both for america and east germany after ww2

[mosfeld]

So what's to stop those 'special bodies or armed men' switching sides? The fact that almost all of them are flag waving chauvinists who claim they're in Afghanistan to ''spread democracy'' and ''bring freedom''?


It's going to be basically the same breed of people in either the bourgeois or proletariat dictatorships you mention. No? The majority of those who volunteer to join a bourgeois ''special body of armed men'' are those who generally agree with their reactionary and bourgeois political views. Those who volunteer to join a proletariat ''special body of armed men'' are those who generally agree with their progressive views.


My only point is that the enlisted ranks are exploited by the ruling class How?

[danyboy27]

The fact that almost all of them are flag waving chauvinists who claim they're in Afghanistan to ''spread democracy'' and ''bring freedom''?
?

dont put everyone in the same basket unless, of course you have a valid proof.

[AvanteRedGarde]

no prob, i will contribute.

regarding the whole article, i think its nedlessly offensive, making the apology of a killing is never good, no matter who dies in it.

I'm for killing exploiters, insofar as it is necessary in the course of class struggle and revolution. That said, I don't worship violence or anything. Thought reform and reeducation, if possible, are always better methods.

[khad]

indeed a lot of SS troopers started working both for america and east germany after ww2
East Germany was far more de-Nazified than the west. It is only through historical ignorance that one suggest any equivalency.

[danyboy27]

East Germany was far more de-Nazified than the west. It is only through historical ignorance that one suggest any equivalency.

i said by both, i didnt said nothing about equivalency.
anyway nice try khad :D

[khad]

i said by both, i didnt said nothing about equivalency.
anyway nice try khad :D
Quit trolling my visitor board.

[danyboy27]

Quit trolling my visitor board.

anyway, my point was that,even the most hardcore elements of a military branch can change side fairly easily

[Red Icepick]

The fact that almost all of them are flag waving chauvinists who claim they're in Afghanistan to ''spread democracy'' and ''bring freedom''?

Most of them are apolitical if not nihilistic. The people doing the most flag waving and taking about freedom and democracy are chickenhawks who've never put on a uniform in their lives.


No? The majority of those who volunteer to join a bourgeois ''special body of armed men'' are those who generally agree with their reactionary and bourgeois political views. Those who volunteer to join a proletariat ''special body of armed men'' are those who generally agree with their progressive views.

Nobody takes the job of a soldier to "protect the bourgeois." People join the military because they are under a naive impression that they're defending their people and homeland. The same type of people would become soldiers whether they're born in a socialist or crapitalist country.

[#FF0000]

Nobody takes the job of a soldier to "protect the bourgeois." People join the military because they are under a naive impression that they're defending their people and homeland.

And most business owners don't set up shop with the explicit goal of bleeding workers dry and becoming part of the exploiting class, either. They just want some money. But that doesn't change the fact of the matter, which is that is what they are doing as business owners.


The same type of people would become soldiers whether they're born in a socialist or crapitalist country

And that is completely irrelevant because a soldier serves a different function in a socialist society. You see, this is what you're missing.

The military is a part of the state, which is there specifically to defend the interests of the state. And, the state is there to defend the interests of the ruling class. In a capitalist society, the state, and therefore the military, is there to serve the bourgeois class. Meanwhile, in a socialist society, with a socialist state, the working class is in power, and thus the military is there to defend working class interests.

That's a quick and dirty overview of what you, as a marxist, should already know. An individual can hold progressive views while in the military, however that doesn't change what the military or the state are for.

I think we can at least take something from your view, though. Soldiers overwhelmingly come from working-class backgrounds. Some might be very conservative, but many tend to be apolitical in my experience, voting for Republicans because they vote for the pay raises, or something. These are people who can be convinced to join our side is what I'm saying.

[Red Icepick]

And most business owners don't set up shop with the explicit goal of bleeding workers dry and becoming part of the exploiting class, either. They just want some money. But that doesn't change the fact of the matter, which is that is what they are doing as business owners.



And that is completely irrelevant because a soldier serves a different function in a socialist society. You see, this is what you're missing.

The military is a part of the state, which is there specifically to defend the interests of the state. And, the state is there to defend the interests of the ruling class. In a capitalist society, the state, and therefore the military, is there to serve the bourgeois class. Meanwhile, in a socialist society, with a socialist state, the working class is in power, and thus the military is there to defend working class interests.

That's a quick and dirty overview of what you, as a marxist, should already know. An individual can hold progressive views while in the military, however that doesn't change what the military or the state are for.

I think we can at least take something from your view, though. Soldiers overwhelmingly come from working-class backgrounds. Some might be very conservative, but many tend to be apolitical in my experience, voting for Republicans because they vote for the pay raises, or something. These are people who can be convinced to join our side is what I'm saying.

Dude, that's my entire point.

[#FF0000]

Dude, that's my entire point.

what

[Red Icepick]

what

What do you mean "what"? Open your neon sunglass slats, guy. The part I highlighted in bold at the end, obviously.

[#FF0000]

What do you mean "what"? Open your neon sunglass slats, guy. The part I highlighted in bold at the end, obviously.

Oh you.

I see where the disconnect came from, then. I just want to stress that I don't think we should downplay the fact that soldiers serve a reactionary cause, though.

[Conquer or Die]

Why the fuck aren't the US soldiers on the side of the "working class" Americans, pig?

"They can be enlightened to our cause."

Yeah, go ahead and explain how nihilistic stormtroops are going to be won over to communism and class enlightenment.

There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia. There is no oppressed class in America outside of the usually mentally ill homeless.

Give the boot to this fascist **** wad who thinks Americans are somehow exploited and there needs to be a fitness for a utopia. That is the definition of National Socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

Why the fuck aren't the US soldiers on the side of the "working class" Americans, pig?

"They can be enlightened to our cause."

Yeah, go ahead and explain how nihilistic stormtroops are going to be won over to communism and class enlightenment. Well there's a problem there. Assuming that people are just not "enlightened" enough or intelligent enough for Communism sounds elitist. The vast majority of Americans of soldiering age would reject Communism out of hand if presented as a way of living. To blame the actual people for thinking that is a mistake--the fault clearly lies with the presention of Communism itself. Not to say that there is anythiong wrong with Communism per se--the problem is in people's perception of it. And that's something that Communists have to change.


There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia. There is no oppressed class in America outside of the usually mentally ill homeless. There are millions and millions of people in the working class the problem is that at one time large Capitalist businesses had large amounts of these workers that could be organized--now the business world is highly fragmented and it's much more difficult to to assemble these workers in a movement.

[#FF0000]

There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia. There is no oppressed class in America outside of the usually mentally ill homeless.

I don't think you know what Working Class is.

[AvanteRedGarde]

He has a point. There isn't a proletarian, that is an exploited revolutionary subject, for the most part inside the U.S.

[Red Icepick]

Why the fuck aren't the US soldiers on the side of the "working class" Americans, pig?

"They can be enlightened to our cause."

Yeah, go ahead and explain how nihilistic stormtroops are going to be won over to communism and class enlightenment.

There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia. There is no oppressed class in America outside of the usually mentally ill homeless.

Give the boot to this fascist **** wad who thinks Americans are somehow exploited and there needs to be a fitness for a utopia. That is the definition of National Socialism.

What are you babbling on about, turd? None of that made any sense.

[Orange Juche]

This thread concerns me.

It's an example of something I see rather frequently on the left - a glorified bloodlust. Something that almost appears as a fetish for the death and suffering of those who are contrary to our beliefs. In my humble opinion, it's childish. And more importantly, detracts from our end goal.

I'm concerned with educating people on socialist ideas, and with advancing social justice, not with focusing on the death of people I disagree with (or, especially, getting off on it). The means do not justify the end because the end is a direct product of the means. We can't build a society that's against oppression and is for social and economic equality while glorifying death and destruction. They are contrary.

And a lot of these American soldiers were economically conscripted. They're poor, can't afford college, aren't well educated, and see joining the military as the only way out. Are they advancing Western imperialism? Yes... but they aren't even smart enough to realize it. They are exploited members of the working class as well. I see a lot of "it's because of capitalist propaganda that the masses get sucked into this," but as soon as it comes to soldiers, this suddenly doesn't apply.

And on that note, if you buy a product involved in oppression and exploitation in the third world or at home, are you not also as guilty? We could all buy union made clothing, but many of us have bought clothing made in sweatshops. Are we, then, not participants in exploitation, in great suffering and pain? Sure, it's less direct. But it still helps advance exploitation, and can be avoided.

Rather than glorifying death of exploited (and ignorant) members of the working class, how about leafleting outside a recruitment station, and working to get people not to join? Or offer support to soldiers who conscientiously object? Why not work to get them with us, rather than laugh at their deaths?

[Havet]

This thread concerns me.

It's an example of something I see rather frequently on the left - a glorified bloodlust. Something that almost appears as a fetish for the death and suffering of those who are contrary to our beliefs. In my humble opinion, it's childish. And more importantly, detracts from our end goal.

I'm concerned with educating people on socialist ideas, and with advancing social justice, not with focusing on the death of people I disagree with (or, especially, getting off on it). The means do not justify the end because the end is a direct product of the means. We can't build a society that's against oppression and is for social and economic equality while glorifying death and destruction. They are contrary.

And a lot of these American soldiers were economically conscripted. They're poor, can't afford college, aren't well educated, and see joining the military as the only way out. Are they advancing Western imperialism? Yes... but they aren't even smart enough to realize it. They are exploited members of the working class as well. I see a lot of "it's because of capitalist propaganda that the masses get sucked into this," but as soon as it comes to soldiers, this suddenly doesn't apply.

And on that note, if you buy a product involved in oppression and exploitation in the third world or at home, are you not also as guilty? We could all buy union made clothing, but many of us have bought clothing made in sweatshops. Are we, then, not participants in exploitation, in great suffering and pain? Sure, it's less direct. But it still helps advance exploitation, and can be avoided.

Rather than glorifying death of exploited (and ignorant) members of the working class, how about leafleting outside a recruitment station, and working to get people not to join? Or offer support to soldiers who conscientiously object? Why not work to get them with us, rather than laugh at their deaths?

Well said.

[Robert]

Remarkable post.

Quibble: it's hard to know, and maybe just a matter of opinion, whether buying a shirt made in Vietnam does the worker more immediate harm than good.

[Red Icepick]

This thread concerns me.

It's an example of something I see rather frequently on the left - a glorified bloodlust. Something that almost appears as a fetish for the death and suffering of those who are contrary to our beliefs. In my humble opinion, it's childish. And more importantly, detracts from our end goal.

I'm concerned with educating people on socialist ideas, and with advancing social justice, not with focusing on the death of people I disagree with (or, especially, getting off on it). The means do not justify the end because the end is a direct product of the means. We can't build a society that's against oppression and is for social and economic equality while glorifying death and destruction. They are contrary.

And a lot of these American soldiers were economically conscripted. They're poor, can't afford college, aren't well educated, and see joining the military as the only way out. Are they advancing Western imperialism? Yes... but they aren't even smart enough to realize it. They are exploited members of the working class as well. I see a lot of "it's because of capitalist propaganda that the masses get sucked into this," but as soon as it comes to soldiers, this suddenly doesn't apply.

And on that note, if you buy a product involved in oppression and exploitation in the third world or at home, are you not also as guilty? We could all buy union made clothing, but many of us have bought clothing made in sweatshops. Are we, then, not participants in exploitation, in great suffering and pain? Sure, it's less direct. But it still helps advance exploitation, and can be avoided.

Rather than glorifying death of exploited (and ignorant) members of the working class, how about leafleting outside a recruitment station, and working to get people not to join? Or offer support to soldiers who conscientiously object? Why not work to get them with us, rather than laugh at their deaths?

Well said indeed. It's good to see someone with reason.

[Richard Nixon]

what "moderate gains"???

Women can at least in northern Afghanistan vote, not wear the complete burqa, and some are even on the police forces.

[#FF0000]

He has a point. There isn't a proletarian, that is an exploited revolutionary subject, for the most part inside the U.S.

How am I not exploited as a fast food worker, for example? Me and my co-workers stand at a kitchen/assembly line and create wealth that our managers and bosses siphon from us. That is the very definition of exploitation.

[ls]

How am I not exploited as a fast food worker, for example? Me and my co-workers stand at a kitchen/assembly line and create wealth that our managers and bosses siphon from us. That is the very definition of exploitation.

Because you are from the..

UNIT€D $$TAT€$$ OF AM€RIKKKA

[#FF0000]

Because you are from the..

UNIT€D $$TAT€$$ OF AM€RIKKKA

*$$nake$$

[AvanteRedGarde]

You scoop prepackaged bullshit and sell it to exploiters. You are realizing value, not creating. Without the superprofit driven wages of Amerikans, you wouldn't have a job.

Find a cliff notes on Capital and research unproductive labor.

[#FF0000]

You scoop prepackaged bullshit and sell it to exploiters. You are realizing value, not creating. Without the superprofit driven wages of Amerikans, you wouldn't have a job.

Find a cliff notes on Capital and research unproductive labor.

So the guys at the end of the assembly line who put things in boxes aren't exploited.

EDIT: You might also want to re-read that section again yourself.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why the fuck aren't the US soldiers on the side of the "working class" Americans, pig?

"They can be enlightened to our cause."

Yeah, go ahead and explain how nihilistic stormtroops are going to be won over to communism and class enlightenment.

There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia. There is no oppressed class in America outside of the usually mentally ill homeless.

Give the boot to this fascist **** wad who thinks Americans are somehow exploited and there needs to be a fitness for a utopia. That is the definition of National Socialism.


He has a point. There isn't a proletarian, that is an exploited revolutionary subject, for the most part inside the U.S.


You scoop prepackaged bullshit and sell it to exploiters. You are realizing value, not creating. Without the superprofit driven wages of Amerikans, you wouldn't have a job.

Find a cliff notes on Capital and research unproductive labor.

Not this shit again...

[Rosa Provokateur]

Open your neon sunglass slats, guy.

Speaking of which, where's everbody getting the neon avatars? All the cool kids have 'em and Green Apostle feels left out:crying:

[Glenn Beck]

There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia.

¿:confused:?

[ls]

There is no American working class outside of mine workers in West Virginia. There is no oppressed class in America outside of the usually mentally ill homeless.

What about West Virginian mentally ill homeless mine workers comrade.

ONLY THEY CAN BRING ABOUT REVOLUTION IN AMERIKKKA!

[Conquer or Die]

What about West Virginian mentally ill homeless mine workers comrade.

ONLY THEY CAN BRING ABOUT REVOLUTION IN AMERIKKKA!

Where is the revolution happening in the first world, comrade?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Paddington station 3am on the 20th November. Bring your own lunch.

[Conquer or Die]

What are you babbling on about, turd? None of that made any sense.

I called you a pig because it contains the historical connotations of fascism that correctly identify your philosophy. I called you a **** wad because you're a selfish, self assured, idiot. The two typically aren't mutually exclusive but I chose to reinforce them nonetheless.

[AntifaAustralia]

Cant believe the americans would sponsor religious extremists to fight against the soviets. It really did bite back hard didn't it?


I'm for killing exploiters, insofar as it is necessary in the course of class struggle and revolution. That said, I don't worship violence or anything. Thought reform and reeducation, if possible, are always better methods.

Meeeee ttoooooo! i hate the violence and blood loving cannibals.


Women can at least in northern Afghanistan vote, not wear the complete burqa, and some are even on the police forces.

Great! wonder if they are socialists? hell yeah they are! but the secular socialists aren't polling very well in afghanistan. :(


Where is the revolution happening in the first world, comrade?

I believe in the same pessimism of our 1st world nations' advancement to revolution too. The revolution is happening behind some anarchist teenager's or uni student's backyard! mega fail, perhaps we need a deadly recession to get it going? most of all we need to smash the borders down, how?

[Muzk]

people die! yayyyy! i love this game!
seriously, dont be a pussy, go kill someone instead of jacking off about someone else murder.

was it you the cops asked about a comment on revleft?



--- Anyways, this is great news, this simply shows that the Amerikkkans are NOT welcome, unlike the shitty propaganda Faux news etc spread about them "helping"

[ls]

I believe in the same pessimism of our 1st world nations' advancement to revolution too. The revolution is happening behind some anarchist teenager's or uni student's backyard! mega fail, perhaps we need a deadly recession to get it going? most of all we need to smash the borders down, how?

No comrade, most of all we need to nuke every first world country.

Beginning with Australia.

[AntifaAustralia]

No comrade, most of all we need to nuke every first world country.

Beginning with Australia.

Hey i live in australia, in.... um.... the.... toowoomba place in QLD :) bomb there first! ;)

Hey that is not nice!

careful matey, the cops are watching this site, might charge you with terrorism, and might search your home for nuclear arsenals. And i hope you are not muslim and/or arab as well, race/culture discrimination is no joke.

[danyboy27]

--- Anyways, this is great news, this simply shows that the Amerikkkans are NOT welcome, unlike the shitty propaganda Faux news etc spread about them "helping"


you shouldnt be happy of someone else death, unless you dont have any sense of humanity and no respect for human life.

killing is the greatest sign of disrespect for human life you could even have.
when you killing someone, you take away his verry freedom of living, its not really different from rape and slavery.

this killing change nothing btw, the american will eventually leave afghanistan to attack another country for money, ressources or for silly political reason.
this is more killing, again.

the usa have been doing that for DECADES, and no matter how many soldier or civilian get killed, they are still doing it.

killing is not great news, at all.

and no, i didnt mean earlier that you should kill people, it was what we call in canada sarcasm.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Paddington station 3am on the 20th November. Bring your own lunch.

Be there or be reactionary, i.e. "square".