Marxist Defence of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan? [Archive]

khad

19th December 2009, 03:45

That's different from what you originally OP'd. You asked for a "justification", a defense, an 'apologia' emanating from Marxist scholars or informed commentators. None exist.

Of the genuinely Marxist writers and thinkers, off the top of my head, Tariq Ali would probably have written something relevant to the Soviet invasion.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/105.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ali
The Marxist justification goes like this. Daoud was purging and arresting communists, and the communists actually dared to fight back in self-defense, launching the Saur Revolution. And to defend against US-Pakistani imperialism, which had been stirring up civil war since the mid-70s against the nationalist government, the new government correctly solicited outside aid from other socialists.

Don't you imperialists have anything better to do than deny Marxists the right to self-defense? We've heard this a million times already, and I hope you're banned.

CamiloTorres

19th December 2009, 03:48

New Tet

19th December 2009, 04:03

The Marxist justification goes like this. Daoud was purging and arresting communists, and the communists actually dared to fight back in self-defense, launching the Saur Revolution. And to defend against US-Pakistani imperialism, which had been stirring up civil war since the mid-70s against the nationalist government, the new government correctly solicited outside aid from other socialists.

Um, yeah, right.

Don't you imperialists have anything better to do than deny Marxists the right to self-defense? We've heard this a million times already, and I hope you're banned.

Banning me for writing what I did would be the Stalinist thing to do.

You make my case for me, sir.

Yehuda Stern

19th December 2009, 10:59

And to defend against US-Pakistani imperialism, which had been stirring up civil war since the mid-70s against the nationalist government, the new government correctly solicited outside aid from other socialists.

... who in turn murdered the left-wing of the party, installed their own stooge Karmal, and tried to make peace with the Islamists, who thanks to the Soviets were finally able to hold their first conference in Afghanistan. Karmal even spoke there. Such beautiful internationalism!

manic expression

19th December 2009, 11:42

manic expression

19th December 2009, 11:47

Here is some good info on the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, with primary sources and a summary of events:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/soviet.html (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/soviet.html)

khad

19th December 2009, 14:20

... who in turn murdered the left-wing of the party, installed their own stooge Karmal, and tried to make peace with the Islamists, who thanks to the Soviets were finally able to hold their first conference in Afghanistan. Karmal even spoke there. Such beautiful internationalism!
You have to be joking. Hafizullah Amin was waging a war within his own party with the assassination of President Taraki and thousands of communists.

The Soviet go-ahead to remove him occurred after one of Amin's drunken officers admitted to the assassination of Taraki. While I give Amin credit for presence during the revolution, he was a force that was going to destroy his own party. If you were a communist in Afghanistan at the time, Amin would have been the #1 threat to your personal safety and security.

From what I remember, that "left-wing of the party" was making strong overtones to the US.
Not really. Amin was just killing all of Taraki's supporters, who were, btw, Khalqists, ie the hard Marxist-Leninist core of the party with a solid presence in the military (Amin had been a Khalqist himself).

Parcham, which Karmal and Najibullah were a members, were more oriented towards Islamic socialism. Soviet aid enforced cooperation between Parcham and Khalq and put an end to the faction infighting that had plagued the party since the early 70s.

So really, I have no fucking idea what Yehuda is going on about with the "purge" of the leftwing if the revolution. If anything, Soviet aid prevented the PDPA from being cannibalized by megalomaniacs like Amin.

RaÃºl Duke

19th December 2009, 14:34

I think it's a matter of quid pro quo

The afghani socialist government asked for Soviet assistance so to defend their government against their enemies which would allowed them to continue to do the reforms they wanted for Afghanistan. The Soviets would gain in exchange an ally of sorts; either way the issue was that to the Soviets it'll be better if they have influence in Afghanistan then letting the U.S. have it (especially since Afghanistan is close to the USSR) through the CIA-backed mujahideen.

Although to be honest I'm not very knowledgeable on this.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 14:39

Not really. Amin was just killing all of Taraki's supporters, who were, btw, Khalqists, ie the hard Marxist-Leninist core of the party with a solid presence in the military (Amin had been a Khalqist himself).

Parcham, which Karmal and Najibullah were a members, were more oriented towards Islamic socialism. Soviet aid enforced cooperation between Parcham and Khalq and put an end to the faction infighting that had plagued the party since the early 70s.

So really, I have no fucking idea what Yehuda is going on about with the "purge" of the leftwing if the revolution. If anything, Soviet aid prevented the PDPA from being cannibalized by megalomaniacs like Amin.

Thanks for the clarification, as always. I looked into it and I found that Amin was the one who was making overtures to the US:

KGB reports from Afghanistan created a picture of urgency and strongly emphasized the possibility of Amin’s links to the CIA and U.S. subversive activities in the region.

From the gwu.edu link above. That's what I was referring to, but I wasn't aware of how much Amin's presence was threatening the PDPA itself.

khad

19th December 2009, 14:43

KGB reports from Afghanistan created a picture of urgency and strongly emphasized the possibility of Amin’s links to the CIA and U.S. subversive activities in the region.

From the gwu.edu link above. That's what I was referring to, but I wasn't aware of how much Amin's presence was threatening the PDPA itself.
I actually doubt how much Amin was making overtures to the US. It may have been possible, though, given time, but the most immediate reason was that he was killing off his own party.

You have to kind of read between the lines here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTGrau.htm

In September 1979, Taraki's Prime Minister, Hafizullah Amin, seized power and secretly executed Taraki. Amin led the Soviets to believe that Taraki was alive long after he had been killed.
...
The most difficult and important objective in Kabul was the Tadzh-Bek palace and the Soviets devoted particular attention to its capture. In a preliminary move to minimize resistance, the Muslim battalion arranged a reception for the commanders of the Afghan security brigade on 25 December. They prepared pilaf, although there were difficulties getting alcoholic drinks. The embassy KGB personnel helped out with a boxfull of “Ambassadorial” vodka and cognac plus various delicacies such as caviar and fish. The reception table was well-appointed.[20] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTGrau.htm#_ftn20) Since this was an Islamic country, the vodka and cognac were served out of teapots to preserve the appearance of propriety.[21] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTGrau.htm#_ftn21)

Fifteen Afghan security brigade personnel, led by its commander, Major Dzhandad, and its political deputy, Ruzi, attended the reception. During the reception, the Soviets engaged the Afghans in conversation while they toasted Soviet-Afghan friendship and military cooperation. Sometimes the Soviet soldiers, who were serving as waiters, poured water, instead of vodka, into the Soviet officers’ glasses. The political deputy of the security brigade became especially talkative and told Captain Lebedev that President Taraki was suffocated under the orders of Amin. This was important information and confirmed Soviet suspicions. Major Dzhandad immediately ordered the political deputy to leave the room.[22] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTGrau.htm#_ftn22) The Soviets now knew that the Afghans had lied to them about the death of Taraki.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 14:47

I actually doubt how much Amin was making overtures to the US. It may have been possible, though, given time, but the most immediate reason was that he was killing off his own party.

Something Stalin was particularly good at.

khad

19th December 2009, 14:50

Something Stalin was particularly good at.
And the Soviets put an end to Amin's internal purges.

What are you bringing up Stalin for? Was his reanimated corpse still giving orders in 1979? :rolleyes:

manic expression

19th December 2009, 14:53

Something Stalin was particularly good at.

Here's something you should read:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-got-nothing-t105738/index.html?t=105738&highlight=stalin

New Tet

19th December 2009, 15:10

And the Soviets put an end to Amin's internal purges.

What are you bringing up Stalin for? Was his reanimated corpse still giving orders in 1979? :rolleyes:

From what you write, it would seem so.

The USSR was ruled by Stalinists, from Kruschev to Breznev.

It's ridiculous to attempt to explain the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan merely as an act of "self-defense" on the part of "socialists" and sounds to me as hollow as Hitler's claim that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was an act in defense of ethnic Germans living there.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 15:12

Here's something you should read:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-got-nothing-t105738/index.html?t=105738&highlight=stalin

Lame argument to relieve Stalinist Russia and its leaders of the moral responsibility of its own criminal actions.

khad

19th December 2009, 15:27

It's ridiculous to attempt to explain the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan merely as an act of "self-defense" on the part of "socialists" and sounds to me as hollow as Hitler's claim that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was an act in defense of ethnic Germans living there.
Whine about it to someone who gives a shit.

All I ask is that when the revolution gets underway, you offer yourself to the firing squad, since you think it's so STALINIST for leftists to defend themselves from official persecution.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 16:01

Whine about it to someone who gives a shit.

The only whining I hear is coming from you.

All I ask is that when the revolution gets underway, you offer yourself to the firing squad, since you think it's so STALINIST for leftists to defend themselves from official persecution.

And what makes you think the Stalinist will play any significant role in any future revolution, aside from manning your imaginary firing squads?

New Tet

19th December 2009, 17:19

In "neg-reping" one of my posts here, Khad kindly wrote:

"I hope you're fucking banned".

Even if that happened over a topic like this one, the search for "Marxist" justification for Soviet aggressions, the truth about it would still be the same.

mykittyhasaboner

19th December 2009, 17:27

Even if that happened over a topic like this one, the search for "Marxist" justification for Soviet aggressions, the truth about it would still be the same.

Yea because you certainly have a firm hold on the "truth" of the subject. In all fairness Khad has offered actual analysis which contributes well to the discussion, while you merely bring up Stalin inappropriately and attempt to slander your opponent.

One cannot be banned for doing thing's like that, and that clearly isn't a course of action as a result of this thread-however it is really unproductive and simply rude to discuss in such a way.

Kassad

19th December 2009, 17:32

It's pretty simple to come up with a defense of the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. A lot of Marxist groups, such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Workers World Party and all the ideological heirs of the International Spartacist Tendency uphold the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as an attempt to extend the gains of the October Revolution to Afghanistan, not just in economic aspects, but socially as well. The Soviet Union combated Islamic forces funded by imperialist powers attempting to gain control of Afghanistan's resources, along with the resources of much of the Middle East.

Because a progressive government had taken power in Afghanistan and threatened imperialist influence in Afghanistan, the United States began funding reactinary forces to combat it. The socialist forces in Afghanistan, obviously, were not very well-funded and were still rallying support, thus it was difficult to combat the efficient and well-equipped Islamic forces that had funding from the West pouring in. That's why the government called on the Soviet Union for assistance. The Soviet liberation brought education and social equality programs that were unheard of in Afghanistan before the late 1970's. Economic development came slowly, but progressed greatly during this time period and it wasn't until the Soviet Union withdrew its forces due to internal capitalist counterrevolution that these progressive gains were lost. That is why revolutionary Marxists worldwide should hail the Soviet Union's advances in Afghanistan as spreading the gains of October to the people of Afghanistan.

Here's a statement from the Party for Socialism and Liberation on the 1978 revolution in Afghanistan: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5104&news_iv_ctrl=1241

khad

19th December 2009, 17:39

Because a progressive government had taken power in Afghanistan and threatened imperialist influence in Afghanistan, the United States began funding reactinary forces to combat it.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the US and Pakistan were already funding islamist rebels to destroy the nationalist government of Afghanistan in the mid-70s, before the PDPA came to power. The USA was already losing influence in that country due to their disastrous economic and developmental meddling.

Kassad

19th December 2009, 17:51

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the US and Pakistan were already funding islamist rebels to destroy the nationalist government of Afghanistan in the mid-70s, before the PDPA came to power. The USA was already losing influence in that country due to their disastrous economic and developmental meddling.

I don't really understand your point, but it'd be foolish to ignore that the United States was very interested in opposing the Soviet Union on all fronts and as soon as the Soviet Union intervened, Afghanistan became a battleground for the two superpowers and the United States likely focused a significant amount of its time, resources and energy on the battle.

bailey_187

19th December 2009, 17:52

Khad, could you recommend some good books on the subject please?

New Tet

19th December 2009, 17:59

Yea because you certainly have a firm hold on the "truth" of the subject. In all fairness Khad has offered actual analysis which contributes well to the discussion, while you merely bring up Stalin inappropriately and attempt to slander your opponent.

I haven't slandered anyone. In fact, I have focused my interventions here on the obnoxious fallacy that a justification of Soviet aggression in Afghanistan could possibly be made by any genuine Marxist.

Now, for the sake of this argument, I would allow the possibility that the USSR had perfectly valid reasons to invade that country. The defense of socialism was not one of them.

My second post provided two links leading to someone, a genuine Marxist, who had something to say about that disgraceful and futile action.

One cannot be banned for doing thing's like that, and that clearly isn't a course of action as a result of this thread-however it is really unproductive and simply rude to discuss in such a way.

The expressed wish to ban me for arguing that the USSR was not socialist or that its geopolitical actions served an interest inimical to working class emancipation takes a page right off of Stalin's criminal playbook.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 18:06

mykittyhasaboner

19th December 2009, 18:12

I haven't slandered anyone.

Something Stalin was particularly good at.

Banning me for writing what I did would be the Stalinist thing to do.How is that not inane slander? Maybe I'm using the wrong definitions of the word but this certainly isn't anything besides provocation and name calling.

In fact, I have focused my interventions here on the obnoxious fallacy that a justification of Soviet aggression in Afghanistan could possibly be made by any genuine Marxist.Except you haven't proven this is an "obnoxious fallacy" you've merely repeated that statement. Also, if were going to fling around terms like "genuine Marxist" we might as well give up the discussion all together since this seems to suffice for proper political analysis to you. I can call someone a "genuine Marxist" and someone else a "fake Marxist" but it doesn't really mean a damn thing.

Now, for the sake of this argument, I would allow the possibility that the USSR had perfectly valid reasons to invade that country. The defense of socialism was not one of them.Well in that case why not elaborate on what the USSR was even doing in Afghanistan--if it was not to defend the development of socialism or the Afghani government? Were they simply plundering Afghanistan for it's lavish profit potential? I think not.

My second post provided two links leading to someone, a genuine Marxist, who had something to say about that disgraceful and futile action.Good for you. This doesn't mean your justified in saying Stalin this and Stalin that every post.

The expressed wish to ban me for arguing that the USSR was not socialist or that its geopolitical actions served an interest inimical to working class emancipation takes a page right off of Stalin's criminal playbook.Oh for fucks sake will you cut it out with mentioning Stalin--in such a stupid way at that? It makes your political positions look infantile at best. No one is going to ban you for saying you disagree with the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, so stop bothering with this.

edit:

All of what you say seems true only if we persist in the delusion that the "gains of October" lasted beyond the rise of Stalinism.
This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Not only have you gone on and on about Stalin being the worst guy ever, but you persist in arguing a perspective that is against the Soviet Union, without actually presenting any case for your argument. Linking to some guy's analysis isn't going to cut it. If you want to have a rational debate then please try and actually debate; instead of taking the piss.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 18:25

How is that not inane slander? Maybe I'm using the wrong definitions of the word but this certainly isn't anything besides provocation and name calling.

Did you say name-calling? This is what your good comrade, Khad, wrote in response to my second intervention:

Don't you imperialists have anything better to do than deny Marxists the right to self-defense? We've heard this a million times already, and I hope you're banned.And I hadn't even mentioned Stalin yet! Ha, ha!

You guys see only what you want and that with one eye closed and the other covered...

khad

19th December 2009, 18:30

I don't really understand your point, but it'd be foolish to ignore that the United States was very interested in opposing the Soviet Union on all fronts and as soon as the Soviet Union intervened, Afghanistan became a battleground for the two superpowers and the United States likely focused a significant amount of its time, resources and energy on the battle.
I don't get what's so hard to understand. You need to check your history.

American involvement in Afghanistan started at the end of WW2 when the USA replaced Nazi Germany as Afghanistan's patron state. They continued to pour funds into that monarchist state, funding disastrous projects like the Helmand Valley Project which destroyed the economy of Southern Afghanistan.

Daoud was making gestures towards the USSR (which had also been giving financial assistance to Afghanistan), and he had the nascent PDPA in his supporting coalition when the nationalist government was formed in 1973. All the reason for the USA to begin funding its reactionary insurgency.

Massoud and Hekmatyar didn't start fighting the Afghan government in 1978.

Did you say name-calling? This is what your good comrade, Khad, wrote in response to my second intervention:

And I hadn't even mentioned Stalin yet! Ha, ha!
I don't think anyone can dispute that since you deny leftists the right to self-defense when they are being arrested and tortured by the nationalist state.

Thus the label of imperialist is absolutely accurate. However, your reference to Stalin, who died a quarter century before the Saur Revolution, is irrelevant.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 18:34

Lame argument to relieve Stalinist Russia and its leaders of the moral responsibility of its own criminal actions.

See if you can understand this:

STALIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOVIET INTERVENTION IN AFGHANISTAN

Read that a few times, sleep on it, and then try to post, OK?

I don't really understand your point, but it'd be foolish to ignore that the United States was very interested in opposing the Soviet Union on all fronts and as soon as the Soviet Union intervened, Afghanistan became a battleground for the two superpowers and the United States likely focused a significant amount of its time, resources and energy on the battle.

I think what khad is saying is that the CIA was active in Afghanistan long before the Soviet intervention, thus making the USSR's action a defensive one against an imperialist aggressor. This fact supports and justifies Soviet intervention.

mykittyhasaboner

19th December 2009, 18:38

Did you say name-calling? This is what your good comrade, Khad, wrote in response to my second intervention:

And I hadn't even mentioned Stalin yet! Ha, ha!

You guys see only what you want and that with one eye closed and the other covered...

Terrific, you must feel a great sense of personal satisfaction and gratification, since you have so eloquently put me in my place. :laugh:

Certainly I don't support anyone using name calling in place of actual debate, but it seems khad is capable of debating though, and I have yet to see a post of yours that is actually putting forth a coherent argument.

Anyways, I tire of dealing with stuff like this so why not just try and be a good sport.

khad

19th December 2009, 18:43

I think what khad is saying is that the CIA was active in Afghanistan long before the Soviet intervention, thus making the USSR's action a defensive one against an imperialist aggressor. This fact supports and justifies Soviet intervention.
Not just the CIA; Afghanistan was a major destination of foreign aid and the topic of middlebrow fodder like Reader's Digest, which had James Michener wax romantically about taming the Afghan wilderness with the manly men of America. According to Michener, the Soviets were less manly because of their city projects.

With Daoud, America realized that it was beginning to lose control. The USSR had very good relations with the nationalist government and consistently advised the PDPA to work within it. However, Daoud stupidly precipitated a crisis by cracking down and arresting PDPA members.

And for perhaps the only time in history, the communists fought back and toppled the state that was persecuting them.

Kassad

19th December 2009, 18:43

All of what you say seems true only if we persist in the delusion that the "gains of October" lasted beyond the rise of Stalinism.

Seeing that in many aspects of economic life, women made tremendous social gains even after the death of Stalin, I'd say you're full of shit. Also, massive education campaigns in Afghanistan made a nearly illiterate country finally have access to some sort of education. The people of Afghanistan finally had access to some of these things that would be unfeasible under Islamic government. Along with this, unions were legalized and widespread land reform was enacted. I'd say those are significant social gains, regardless of what kind of anti-communist arguments you'd like to promote.

robbo203

19th December 2009, 18:44

The only whining I hear is coming from you.

And what makes you think the Stalinist will play any significant role in any future revolution, aside from manning your imaginary firing squads?

Happily, Stalinism is headed for the dustbin of history where hopefully it will join company with other cults, religious and otherwise. It is a sheer apologia for the vicious system of state capitalism and an utter irrelevance to the modern world or the interests of the working class today.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 18:45

Terrific, you must feel a great sense of personal satisfaction and gratification, since you have so eloquently put me in my place. :laugh:

Certainly I don't support anyone using name calling in place of actual debate, but it seems khad is capable of debating though, and I have yet to see a post of yours that is actually putting forth a coherent argument.

Anyways, I tire of dealing with stuff like this so why not just try and be a good sport.

If by "good sport" you mean allowing fallacy to become the currency of debate, forget it, I'm not game.

Glenn Beck

19th December 2009, 18:48

Pack it up, folks. Another perfectly good thread completely wrecked by liberal eccentrics and off topic derail posts.

khad

19th December 2009, 18:48

If by "good sport" you mean allowing fallacy to become the currency of debate, forget it, I'm not game.
Let's get to the root of it then. The most basic point about what happened in Afghanistan:

You do not defend the Saur Revolution which happened as a reaction to Daoud Khan's purge. Therefore, do you assert that leftists have no right to self-defense when a state is persecuting them?

New Tet

19th December 2009, 18:52

Seeing that in many aspects of economic life, women made tremendous social gains even after the death of Stalin, I'd say you're full of shit. Also, massive education campaigns in Afghanistan made a nearly illiterate country finally have access to some sort of education. The people of Afghanistan finally had access to some of these things that would be unfeasible under Islamic government. Along with this, unions were legalized and widespread land reform was enacted. I'd say those are significant social gains, regardless of what kind of anti-communist arguments you'd like to promote.

I have no "anti-communist" arguments, just anti-Stalinist ones.

I interpret the "gains of October" as being those events and actions that brought the Russian working class closer to their emancipation from capitalism and the vestiges of Asian feudalism.

The reforms you allude to occurred first in capitalist countries and their "socialist" character is purely fictional.

khad

19th December 2009, 18:54

mykittyhasaboner

19th December 2009, 18:55

This is about Afghanistan. Stop steering the thread towards Stalin.

I don't think that's going to happen.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 19:02

Let's get to the root of it then. The most basic point about what happened in Afghanistan:

You do not defend the Saur Revolution which happened as a reaction to Daoud Khan's purge. Therefore, do you assert that leftists have no right to self-defense when a state is persecuting them?

Not when it's other "leftists" doing the persecution, no sir.

Anyway, you cannot define this debate exclusively in those terms. Not while I'm around.

The debate centers around the erroneous assumption that there be any a posteriori Marxist justifications for Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. There are none, as I previously pointed out.

If you want, we can speculate about the strategic reasons that led Moscow to carry out its invasion of that country. I'm fine with that. But, please, refrain from characterizing what happened there as a defense of socialism.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:03

Not when it's other "leftists" doing the persecution, no sir.

Anyway, you cannot define this debate exclusively in those terms. Not while I'm around.

The debate centers around the erroneous assumption that there be any a posteriori Marxist justifications for Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. There are none, as I previously pointed out.

If you want, we can speculate about the strategic reasons that led Moscow to carry out its invasion of that country. I'm fine with that. But, please, refrain from characterizing what happened there as a defense of socialism.
So you support Daoud Khan then? I am only reading your conclusions as they apply in historical and political context.

mykittyhasaboner

19th December 2009, 19:04

There are none, as I previously pointed out.
No you haven't. Claiming something over and over doesn't make it true.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 19:07

So you support Daoud Khan then? I am only reading your conclusions as they apply in historical and political context.

It seems to me that you're reading my "conclusion" in the context of your own misconceptions and political infatuations.

Glenn Beck

19th December 2009, 19:09

I have no "anti-communist" arguments, just anti-Stalinist ones.

I interpret the "gains of October" as being those events and actions that brought the Russian working class closer to their emancipation from capitalism and the vestiges of Asian feudalism.

The reforms you allude to occurred first in capitalist countries and their "socialist" character is purely fictional.

The OP asked a question. He asked how political commentators that call themselves Marxists argue in favor of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. That's a pretty goddamn specific request.

Now you stroll in and decide to stroke yourself all over the goddamn thread. Yes, that is what you're doing, you're stroking yourself because your comment that no "real Marxist" would justify the intervention in Afghanistan is completely useless and irrelevant to the request made by the initiator of this forum topic.

Now, that's fine, basically every forum thread on the internet is littered with the intermittent off-topic posting, it's no big deal, one quickly learns to ignore it and move on to the actual discussion at hand, perhaps pausing to give the attention starved off-topic poster a gentle pat on the shoulder. And I'm perfectly willing to give you a couple of pats on the shoulder , your quips from the peanut gallery are cute and sometimes amusing.

But enough is enough, this shit has gone on for nearly 3 pages now. I would kindly suggest that you fuck off now, and if you feel the need to express your creativity further, perhaps write a haiku or strum some chords on a guitar. If you've got a real surplus of time on your hands try oil painting. But please, please, for the love of God, stop derailing internet threads.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:09

I assert:

1. The PDPA had a legitimate right to rebel against the Daoud administration because they were being killed and jailed by the nationalist government.

2. Pro-US militias were already fighting the nationalist government since the mid-70s.

3. In order to gain the upper hand against the pre-existing rebels and western-funded mercenaries, the PDPA logically chose to ask for assistance from the USSR, which was granted after the eleventh request.

Thus,

The USSR's role in Afghanistan was absolutely the defense of socialism.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:14

It seems to me that you're reading my "conclusion" in the context of your own misconceptions and political infatuations.

Either you're just trolling, or you're the most illiterate motherfucker on the board.

I wrote this:

You do not defend the Saur Revolution which happened as a reaction to Daoud Khan's purge. Therefore, do you assert that leftists have no right to self-defense when a state is persecuting them?

You replied with this:

Not when it's other "leftists" doing the persecution, no sir.

So, given your stance against the Saur Revolution and such a statement, anyone with two brain cells to rub together could draw the logical conclusion that you imply that Daoud was a leftist, and that the "Stalinist" uprising in Afghanistan was illegitimate.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 19:16

But enough is enough, this shit has gone on for nearly 3 pages now. I would kindly suggest that you fuck off now, and if you feel the need to express your creativity further, perhaps write a haiku or strum some chords on a guitar. If you've got a real surplus of time on your hands try oil painting. But please, please, for the love of God, stop derailing internet threads.

I would "kindly suggest" that you participate in the discussion by contributing something worth responding to.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 19:22

1. The PDPA had a legitimate right to rebel against the Daoud administration because they were being killed and jailed by the nationalist government.Daoud was installed with Soviet support in 1973. The army was filled with Khalq sympathizers and the Parcham were to participate in the new Republican government as a prerequisite for Soviet support for the new regime. Daoud himself was pro-Soviet in foreign policy in the 1950's, which is why the King sacked him as Prime Minister back then.

Then Daoud realized that Soviet domination of his country would eventually spell the end of himself, so he established ties with the West. Thing is, Daoud wasn't progressive. While he was in power and while the reformist Parcham were serving in his cabinet, the state was repressing genuine Communists (the Afghanistan Liberation Organization and Shola-y-Jaweid spring to mind). When Daoud snubbed Parcham, it and the Khalq faction decided to settle their differences and overthrow Daoud in order to form a totally pro-Soviet state.

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20021119014438/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE45AFGHANISTAN.html

3. In order to gain the upper hand against the pre-existing rebels and western-funded mercenaries, the PDPA logically chose to ask for assistance from the USSR, which was granted after the eleventh request.Even the pro-Soviet writer Blum in Killing Hope notes (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/afghan.htm) that:

Soviet troops began to arrive in Afghanistan around the 8th of the month -- to what extent at Amin's request or with his approval, and, consequently, whether to call the action an "invasion" or not, has been the subject of much discussion and controversy.

On the 23rd the Washington Post commented "There was no charge [by the State Department] that the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan, since the troops apparently were invited" However, at a meeting with Soviet-bloc ambassadors in October, Amin's foreign minister had openly criticized the Soviet Union for interfering in Afghan affairs. Amin himself insisted that Moscow replace its ambassador. Yet, on 26 December, while the main body of Soviet troops was arriving in Afghanistan, Amin gave "a relaxed interview" to an Arab journalist. "The Soviets," he said, "supply my country with economic and military aid, but at the same time they respect our independence and our sovereignty. They do not interfere in our domestic affairs." He also spoke approvingly of the USSR's willingness to accept his veto on military bases.

The very next day, a Soviet military force stormed the presidential palace and shot Amin dead.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:24

Amin was murdering his own party. Good riddance that fucker is dead. He even concealed the fact that he had assassinated a "genuine" Marxist-Leninist, President Taraki.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 19:25

Either you're just trolling, or you're the most illiterate motherfucker on the board.

No need to lose your temper over something like this. What is past is past, and the lessons we may draw from it depends almost entirely on our ability to assess it with equanimity.

So, given your stance against the Saur Revolution and such a statement, anyone with two brain cells to rub together could draw the logical conclusion that you imply that Daoud was a leftist, and that the "Stalinist" uprising in Afghanistan was illegitimate.Your argument has boiled down to a defense of the public rationale given by Moscow (and other "Marxists") for its intervention in that Central Asian country. Fine.

But like I said, any defense of Moscow's actions are not of Marxist origin.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:28

No need to lose your temper over something like this. What is past is past, and the lessons we may draw from it depends almost entirely on our ability to assess it with equanimity.
Actually, what you're advocating is called presentism, a faux pas which will get you crucified at any peer review.

Historical choices are necessarily constrained by historical context.

Your argument has boiled down to a defense of the public rationale given by Moscow (and other "Marxists") for its intervention in that Central Asian country. Fine.

But like I said, any defense of Moscow's actions are not of Marxist origin.
How laughable. You're trying to lecture people on what Marxism is when it is abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about it.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 19:28

Amin was murdering his own party. Good riddance that fucker is dead. He even concealed the fact that he had assassinated a "genuine" Marxist-Leninist, President Taraki.If by "genuine" you mean pro-Soviet then yes.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:32

If by "genuine" you mean pro-Soviet then yes.
I would prefer the fattest, most incompetent apparatchik (which Taraki was not) to a murderous, backstabbing bastard like Amin.

What your position would result in is the systematic collapse of the PDPA into a cult of Amin. The Soviets put an end to the factional infighting of the PDPA.

New Tet

19th December 2009, 19:33

Actually, what you're advocating is called presentism, a faux pas which will get you crucified at any peer review.

Historical choices are necessarily constrained by historical context.

How laughable. You're trying to lecture people on what Marxism is when it is abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about it.

You may be right, but what makes you an authority on this "Marxism" I ignore?

khad

19th December 2009, 19:34

You may be right, but what makes you an authority on this "Marxism" I ignore?
Why is it about me? How about everyone but you in this thread?

robbo203

19th December 2009, 19:38

The OP asked a question. He asked how political commentators that call themselves Marxists argue in favor of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. That's a pretty goddamn specific request..

Marxists wouldnt. Thats a pretty goddamn specific answer.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 19:38

I would prefer the fattest, most incompetent apparatchik (which Taraki was not) to a murderous, backstabbing bastard like Amin.Incompetent is a nice word to describe Taraki, wherein by the end of his life every province in Afghanistan was in revolt.

The fact is the Soviets and the puppet government were never popular. As noted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mondediplo.com/2009/11/03vietnam)[/URL]:

The Russians found, after the invasion of 1979 and a decade of fighting with the loss of 15,000 troops... they could never win the war. Even with their large forces and victory in most battles, they never controlled more than 20% of the country.As Zëri i Popullit [URL="http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/afghanalb.htm"]noted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mondediplo.com/2009/11/03vietnam) in 1980:

The Soviet social imperialists are trying to present the occupation of Afghanistan as ‘legitimate’, allegedly carried out according to a request for aid made by the Afghan government on the basis of the so-called ‘friendship’ treaty which exists between the two countries and to defend Afghanistan from external intervention, etc.

All these so-called arguments are just as stale as they are confused. They have been used by all aggressors at all times.

The fact is that the Soviet social-imperialists had carefully prepared the ground for this occupation beforehand, intervening and aggravating the situation inside the country in their favour and binding Afghanistan with the chains of enslaving treaties which the Soviet social-imperialists use openly as instruments to occupy other peoples and countries or to keep them under their dependence and control. The fall of the monarchy and later on of Daoud was a cynical utilization by the Moscow rulers of the desires of the Afghan people for liberation because the people felt the heavy burden of the oppression and exploitation of the monarchy and feudalism and their Soviet allies and wanted to see their country free and sovereign.

To disguise their imperialist aims and to realise these aims as quickly as possible, the staff in the Kremlin brutally interfered in Afghanistan, bringing their own people to power there and eliminating them one after another in their efforts to find the most suitable and obedient to Moscow. The Soviet Union is not interested in either the freedom or independence of Afghanistan as is claimed or in the liberation of the much-suffering people of that country. What interests Moscow the most is Afghanistan’s strategic position in the Middle East, its proximity to the oil resources, its key position in a major region where the savage rivalry between the two superpowers is developing.

khad

19th December 2009, 19:41

Incompetent is a nice word to describe Taraki, wherein by the end of his life every province in Afghanistan was in revolt.
Which Amin exacerbated by his attempt to destroy his own party.

The USSR promoted Parcham for the reason that Islamic socialism had a better chance to win over the population, but you obviously aren't interested in that because you care about the ultra-left "genuine" Communists.

The fact is the Soviets and the puppet government were never popular. As noted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mondediplo.com/2009/11/03vietnam):Oh really? Dr. Najibullah might actually be the most popular political figure in modern Afghan history.

From a survey conducted in 2005 in Kabul Province, the following results were gathered with regards to approval ratings of former (and current) Afghan national leaders. Dr. Najibullah Ahmadzai, the last president of socialist Afghanistan, emerged clearly as the people's favorite.

Full results:

Dr. Najibullah (PDPA-Parcham): 93.2%
Rabbani (UIFSA): 51.6%
Karzai (current president): 45.5%
Mojaddedi (ANLF): 37.6%
Mullah Omar (Taliban): 18.4%

http://de.rian.ru/society/20080520/107888312.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://de.rian.ru/society/20080520/107888312.html)

Ismail

19th December 2009, 19:44

Oh really? Dr. Najibullah might actually be the most popular political figure in modern Afghan history.And where exactly did this polling take place? The capital is obviously going to be fond of voting for a time wherein it enjoyed the most prestige and progress.

It still doesn't refute the fact that from 1979-1989 the Soviet-backed government was not popular at all anywhere besides the capital.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 19:48

It still doesn't refute the fact that from 1979-1989 the Soviet-backed government was not popular at all anywhere besides the capital.

You could say the same about the Paris Commune.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 19:49

You could say the same about the Paris Commune.Please tell me where the workers of the rest of France united against the Paris Commune.

And in any case it shows that the "revolution" in Afghanistan was done without the participation of the masses, as military coups in general show us.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 19:51

khad

19th December 2009, 19:52

It still doesn't refute the fact that from 1979-1989 the Soviet-backed government was not popular at all anywhere besides the capital.
And that's why there was massive civilian defection to the Mujahideen in 1989 when they launched their combined offensive on Jalalabad against the Afghan army without Soviet support...

Oh wait, those ashrars got fucking slaughtered and pushed back into Pakistan.

Please tell me where the workers of the rest of France united against the Paris Commune.

And in any case it shows that the "revolution" in Afghanistan was done without the participation of the masses, as military coups in general show us.
This is where you fucking lie. The unions were on the streets of Kabul demanding the release of PDPA members, which actually tied up much of the state's security apparatus.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 19:54

I wasn't aware of the fact that class-conscious workers were fighting the PDPA. Sure, there were pro-reaction workers fighting the PDPA, but then again the anti-Commune troops had workers in them, too.Once again:

And in any case it shows that the "revolution" in Afghanistan was done without the participation of the masses, as military coups in general show us.That the entire country arose in revolt shows that it was a bit more than "a few workers." Relatively few workers participated in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. Just about the entire country was anti-Soviet in Afghanistan.

And that's why there was massive civilian defection to the Mujahideen in 1989 when they launched their combined offensive on Jalalabad against the Afghan army without Soviet support...What's your point? South Vietnam survived for a few more years after American withdrawal too.

This is where you fucking lie. The unions were on the streets of Kabul demanding the release of PDPA members, which actually tied up much of the state's security apparatus.The unions? What about the vast majority of peasants? There you go with the capital again.

khad

19th December 2009, 20:01

What's your point? South Vietnam survived for a few more years after American withdrawal too.
And you claim that the South Vietnamese government was never popular? With so many refugees fleeing when the puppet regime lost?

The unions? What about the vast majority of peasants? There you go with the capital again.Are you turning into some bizarre workerist now?

I don't think there is any class struggle role with much of the Afghan peasantry, who are quite frankly in many ways more reactionary than the Taliban. There has to be an overall improvement in the level of industrialization and education in the country before the peasantry can shed their local and feudal affiliations.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 20:03

Once again:
That the entire country arose in revolt shows that it was a bit more than "a few workers." Relatively few workers participated in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. Just about the entire country was anti-Soviet in Afghanistan.

And just about the entire country was anti-Communard in France. You want to qualify this, but the situations were essentially the same. Further, how many proletarians (industrial workers) even lived outside of the capital region?

Ismail

19th December 2009, 20:03

And you claim that the South Vietnamese government was never popular? With so many refugees fleeing when the puppet regime lost?Its popularity was limited to the capital, it had little popularity among peasants who preferred the Vietcong.

I don't think there is any class struggle role with much of the Afghan peasantry, who are quite frankly in many ways more reactionary than the Taliban. There has to be an overall improvement in the level of industrialization and education in the country before the peasantry can shed their local and feudal affiliations.Either that or a Communist Party works to serve the interests of the workers and the vast majority of the peasantry, and actually engages in a revolution, not a military coup d'état centered on the capital.

And just about the entire country was anti-Communard in France. You want to qualify this, but the situations were essentially the same.No, you're making a simplistic comparison. The French workers outside of the Communards did not have a seething hatred of the Commune nor united from across the country against it.

Further, how many proletarians (industrial workers) even lived outside of the capital region?Khad was the one talking about how awesomely popular the PDPA were in Kabul.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 20:12

Are you turning into some bizarre workerist now?

Khad, the last thing you should be doing is accusing others of being "workerist" when you can honestly follow it up with Trotskyist drivel such as this:

I don't think there is any class struggle role with much of the Afghan peasantry, who are quite frankly in many ways more reactionary than the Taliban. There has to be an overall improvement in the level of industrialization and education in the country before the peasantry can shed their local and feudal affiliations.

This is basically the Theory of the Productive Forces and repeating the errors of the workerist Trotsky during the revolution, who argued that peasants were too backward and had no progressive role to play in the revolution, because Russia was just too poor.

khad

19th December 2009, 20:13

Its popularity was limited to the capital, it had little popularity among peasants who preferred the Vietcong.
I think the popularity of the VC is overestimated. Insurgent armies rarely enjoy popular support, not the even the easter uprising as it was happening. By the 70s the VC were so depleted that they were largely kept alive by volunteers crossing from the north.

Either that or a Communist Party works to serve the interests of the workers and the vast majority of the peasantry, and actually engages in a revolution, not a military coup d'état centered on the capital.
Well, the USSR recognized that and supported Parcham, the Islamic socialist party that did more outreach to the peasantry and the general population. Their idea was to first an anti-imperialist unity and not antagonize Islam as the first step towards socialism.

You mention "genuine" communists like the Afghanistan Liberation Organization, which with its Maoist stance and its hard line towards Islam would have ended up alienating even more of your oh-so-fetishized "peasantry."

khad

19th December 2009, 20:17

This is basically the Theory of the Productive Forces and repeating the errors of the workerist Trotsky during the revolution, who argued that peasants were too backward and had no progressive role to play in the revolution, because Russia was just too poor.
Of course they did. The PDPA organized the "National Fatherland Front" as a way to bring rural populations into participating in national life and to intervene in the ties of feudal warlordism. Nevertheless, just to give you a reflection of how reactionary the peasantry could be, some groups opposed the Taliban because it was customary for Pashtuns to deny women their Islamic inheritance rights--and the Taliban were insistent on Islamic laws.

I don't think you people sitting comfortably in the first world actually realize the daunting nature of what you are calling for.

The Afghan communists wanted their revolution then, when they were facing purges from Daoud, with the urban workers and the military at their side, not after a hundred years of "base-building" with themselves buried in an unmarked ditch.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 20:18

No, you're making a simplistic comparison. The French workers outside of the Communards did not have a seething hatred of the Commune nor united from across the country against it.

I don't think you can say that about the proletarians outside the Afghani capital region, either, because...

Khad was the one talking about how awesomely popular the PDPA were in Kabul.

So you refuse to address the very small number (and influence) of industrial workers outside of the Kabul region, yes or no?

Ismail

19th December 2009, 20:33

You mention "genuine" communists like the Afghanistan Liberation Organization, which with its Maoist stance and its hard line towards Islam would have ended up alienating even more of your oh-so-fetishized "peasantry."The ALO worked with the Islamists, so I rather doubt that.

The Afghan communists wanted their revolution then, when they were facing purges from Daoud, with the urban workers and the military at their side, not after a hundred years of "reform" with themselves buried in an unmarked ditch.So basically material conditions don't matter, if a CP wants revolution, it wants it whenever it damn well pleases them irregardless of anything? So much for scientific analysis.

So you refuse to address the very small number (and influence) of industrial workers outside of the Kabul region, yes or no?My point isn't about workers, it's about the fact that the government was not based upon the people and the people (as a whole) were opposed to it.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 20:34

The PDPA organized the "National Fatherland Front" as a way to bring rural populations into participating in national life and to intervene in the ties of feudal warlordism. Nevertheless, just to give you a reflection of how reactionary the peasantry could be, some groups opposed the Taliban because it was customary for Pashtuns to deny women their Islamic inheritance rights--and the Taliban were insistent on Islamic laws.

I'm not quite getting your point here. Are you saying that because the rural populations of any given state are usually less revolutionary than the proletariat that they have no role to play in revolution?

Please elaborate.

The Afghan communists wanted their revolution then, when they were facing purges from Daoud, with the urban workers and the military at their side, not after a hundred years of "base-building" with themselves buried in an unmarked ditch.

Again, denying the role of the peasantry.

"But are we not in danger of falling into subjectivism, of wanting to arrive at the socialist revolution by 'skipping' the bourgeois-democratic revolution— which is not yet completed and has not yet exhausted the peasant movement? I might be incurring this danger if I said: 'No Tsar, but a workers' government.'"

(V. I. Lenin, Letters on Tactics, Collected Works, Vol . 24, p. 48.)

khad

19th December 2009, 20:41

The ALO worked with the Islamists, so I rather doubt that.
Now I remember, they took money from America along with their buddy Hekmatyar who tortured their founder to death in a most famous example of partners-gone-bad.

So basically material conditions don't matter, if a CP wants revolution, it wants it whenever it damn well pleases them irregardless of anything? So much for scientific analysis.I'm glad that the PDPA weren't as milquetoasty as you western leftists. When the government is killing and arresting your members and you have the military on your side, I guess you would sit idly and wait for the executioner because rebelling is just WRONG

My point isn't about workers, it's about the fact that the government was not based upon the people and the people (as a whole) were opposed to it.Well, no one should have supported the Bolsheviks pre-1919...since they were opposed in most of the country. What bollocks.

I'm not quite getting your point here. Are you saying that because the rural populations of any given state are usually less revolutionary than the proletariat that they have no role to play in revolution?
The PDPA made attempts to break down feudal ties through its national front organization, to bring the peasantry into national life. You can't hope for more, especially with a revolution launched under such pressing circumstances.

Again, denying the role of the peasantry.

"But are we not in danger of falling into subjectivism, of wanting to arrive at the socialist revolution by 'skipping' the bourgeois-democratic revolution— which is not yet completed and has not yet exhausted the peasant movement? I might be incurring this danger if I said: 'No Tsar, but a workers' government.'"

(V. I. Lenin, Letters on Tactics, Collected Works, Vol . 24, p. 48.)
Wow, you can quote Lenin. Impressive, not not really applicable to revolutionaries who were facing the do-or-die choice of revolting with the forces they had or getting purged by Daoud.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 20:47

I'm glad that the PDPA weren't as milquetoasty as you western leftists. When the government is killing and arresting your members and you have the military on your side, I guess you would sit idly and wait for the executioner because rebelling is just WRONGNo not really. Rebelling (revolution) is fine, a coup is not. Also saying that "X wants revolution now" is ultra-left, so don't try to defend it and paint those who call you out on it as social-democrats, otherwise you might as well be an anarchist condemning "Stalinists" over the Spanish Civil War.

Well, no one should have supported the Bolsheviks pre-1919...since they were opposed in most of the country. What bollocks.Again, the Afghani government + Soviet army could not control more than 20% of the country. The Bolsheviks won over the peasants.

khad

19th December 2009, 20:50

No not really. Rebelling (revolution) is fine, a coup is not. Also saying that "X wants revolution now" is ultra-left, so don't try to defend it and paint those who call you out on it as social-democrats, otherwise you might as well be an anarchist condemning "Stalinists" over the Spanish Civil War.
Not social democrats. Just stupidly suicidal.

Again, the Afghani government + Soviet army could not control more than 20% of the country. The Bolsheviks won over the peasants. The former failed, the latter succeeded.
The Afghan state and its armed forces were strong enough to stand on their own as long as they received economic assistance from the USSR, since Afghanistan has no economy to speak of. They have no agriculture thanks to Amerikkka's disastrous Helmand project and are dependent on food imports.

Jalalabad proved that as long as the army was supplied, the Mujahideen could not move.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 20:51

The Afghan state and its armed forces were strong enough to stand on their own as long as they received economic assistance from the USSR, since Afghanistan has no economy to speak of. They have no agriculture thanks to Amerikkka's disastrous Helmand project and are dependent on food imports.

Jalalabad proved that as long as the army was supplied, the Mujahideen could not move."Fuck the people man, so long as this well-financed/supplied army can kill those guys we'll be able to hold the line."

Not exactly winning over the masses to the cause of socialism.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 20:54

Wow, you can quote Lenin. Impressive, not not really applicable to revolutionaries who were facing the do-or-die choice of revolting with the forces they had or getting purged by Daoud.As opposed to the not do-or-die conditions in Czarist Russia.

At any given moment, a communist as a revolutionary is in a "do-or-die" political situation because he/she is at war with the bourgeoisie in some way, shape or form. You could say we're in a "do-or-die" situation in the US today. Should we go shooting?

You cannot declare a revolution whenever you want. It depends on material conditions. So far you've done nothing but give emotionalist replies that speak of how the communist party was in mortal danger and "Well, what would YOU do if you were there" subjectivism. The fact of the matter is its pretty well-known that the PDPA never had a revolution, but a coup, then because of utter revisionism and pro-Soviet colonialist attitudes were unable to captivate the masses enough to stay in power without Soviet tanks.

khad

19th December 2009, 20:55

"Fuck the people man, so long as this well-financed/supplied army can kill those guys we'll be able to hold the line."
So long as they are US, Chinese, and Pakistani-funded mercenaries, yes, they have every right to be killed.

When these assholes toppled the government they started a civil war in the streets and killed even more indiscriminately.

Not exactly winning over the masses to the cause of socialism.If the Mujahideen were the reaction to the Soviets, then the Taliban were the reaction to the corrupt warlordism of the Mujahideen.

As opposed to the not do-or-die conditions in Czarist Russia.

At any given moment, a communist as a revolutionary is in a "do-or-die" political situation because he/she is at war with the bourgeoisie in some way, shape or form. You could say we're in a "do-or-die" situation in the US today. Should we go shooting?
Was the Kerensky government arresting and shooting Bolsheviks in the streets? Because that was what Daoud was doing to the PDPA.

Get off your moral high horse.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 20:57

So long as they are US, Chinese, and Pakistani-funded mercenaries, yes, they have every right to be killed.

When these assholes toppled the government they started a civil war in the streets and killed even more indiscriminately.So continue killing people so that what is effectively a rump state can continue its unpopular and isolated existence, I guess.

If the Mujahideen were the reaction to the Soviets, then the Taliban were the reaction to the corrupt warlordism of the Mujahideen.Yes, and?

Was the Kerensky government arresting and shooting Bolsheviks in the streets?He was arresting Bolsheviks, yes.

khad

19th December 2009, 20:59

So continue killing people so that what is effectively a rump state can continue its unpopular and isolated existence, I guess.
Well, I suppose you want to say that the Mujahideen did better by having their civil war and paving the way for the Taliban.

He was arresting Bolsheviks, yes.
Who were being released by the Soviets right before the October revolution. Hardly as pressing a crisis.

You cannot declare a revolution whenever you want. It depends on material conditions. So far you've done nothing but give emotionalist replies that speak of how the communist party was in mortal danger and "Well, what would YOU do if you were there" subjectivism. The fact of the matter is its pretty well-known that the PDPA never had a revolution, but a coup, then because of utter revisionism and pro-Soviet colonialist attitudes were unable to captivate the masses enough to stay in power without Soviet tanks.
I hope that you are so rational and un-subjective as to offer your head to the chopping block should a situation like this arise.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 21:13

In the end "they had to do it or else they'd die" does not justify anything. It doesn't make a state socialist, nor make it worthy of defense. The Afghan state under the PDPA was not progressive; it was not anti-imperialist nor had the support of the people.

khad

19th December 2009, 21:21

In the end "they had to do it or else they'd die" does not justify anything.
Yes it does. I side with Marxists in a situation like this, not with American imperialists and Chinese revisionists. I do not want to see any CP go down like the Iraqi Communists.

It doesn't make a state socialist, nor make it worthy of defense. The Afghan state under the PDPA was not progressive; it was not anti-imperialist nor had the support of the people.Of course it was progressive. That's not up to debate when you see the likes of the opposition.

It is worthy of defense because it was on the frontline against Western imperialism and was gaining some support from the population. Long term, it may have succeeded. The state didn't start falling apart until that backstabber Gorbachev suspended fuel and food shipments. Until then the Mujahideen were weak and fragmented and even less capable of building a national consciousness beyond ethnic lines. They would have been more or less extinguished had the USA, Pakistan, and China not given billions of dollars of aid.

The PDPA was the first government that Afghanistan ever had which did not assert Pashtun chauvinism (in the case of the Nazi-backed monarchy, scientific racism) as one of its core principles. Najibullah, in fact, is perhaps the only major Afghan political figure to attract some support among all ethnic groups, whereas if you bring up someone like Massoud, it'll be Tajik vs. Pashtun tribal wars (like what you are seeing with Abdullah vs Karzai).

I'll bet if the USSR hadn't given aid, people such as yourself would start whining about how the USSR abandons the left and leaves them to die.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 22:02

I hope that you are so rational and un-subjective as to offer your head to the chopping block should a situation like this arise.More emotionalism.

This is like saying to someone who supports the execution of counterrevolutionaries: "Well, I hope you're willing to offer yourself to be executed if you're convicted of being a counterrevolutionary."

Of course it was progressive. That's not up to debate when you see the likes of the opposition.

When we see the likes of the Hoxhaists and Maoists who died fighting the Soviets?

It is worthy of defense because it was on the frontline against Western imperialism

Western imperialism was replaced by Soviet social-imperialism. By that time, and especially after 1965 market reforms, the USSR's economy was not fundamentally different than the US, nor was the USSR's colonies much different than the Dominican Republic, Haiti or Puerto Rico.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:04

More emotionalism.

This is like saying to someone who supports the execution of counterrevolutionaries: "Well, I hope you're willing to offer yourself to be executed if you're convicted of being a counterrevolutionary."
Well, obviously, you think the "coup" was "wrong." Fighting back against a purge against Marxists is "wrong."

I'm sorry, but I have too much loyalty to the left for that fucking shit.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:05

I'll bet if the USSR hadn't given aid, people such as yourself would start whining about how the USSR abandons the left and leaves them to die.No, not really. Revolutions and revolutionaries should not be dependent upon a glorious mighty "socialist" empire sending tanks to save them.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:07

No, not really. Revolutions and revolutionaries should not be dependent upon a glorious mighty "socialist" empire sending tanks to save them.
So then you're willing to cede the advantage to people like Hekmatyar who were already receiving imperialist aid to destroy Daoud?

And you accuse others of being unrealistic and ultra-left.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 22:07

Well, obviously, you think the "coup" was "wrong." Fighting back against a purge against Marxists is "wrong."

No, being revisionist imperialists was not Leninist and will not lead to communism.

Marxists don't think in idealist terms of "right" and "wrong."

New Tet

19th December 2009, 22:09

Why is it about me? How about everyone but you in this thread?

It's not about you and I hope not about me either. You made an assertion, you said that I knew nothing about Marxism, I rejoindered with the question "what makes you an authority on something I presumably ignore?"

khad

19th December 2009, 22:12

No, being revisionist imperialists was not Leninist and will not lead to communism.

Marxists don't think in idealist terms of "right" and "wrong."
What you are advocating is suicide on the path to the correct ideological line, completely without regard to historical and political context.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:13

So then you're willing to cede the advantage to people like Hekmatyar who were already receiving imperialist aid to destroy Daoud?

And you accuse others of being unrealistic and ultra-left.I'm not fond of inter-imperialist conflicts over "advantages." I take the Leninist line.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:15

I'm not fond of inter-imperialist conflicts. I take the Leninist line.
So you let the western imperialists win. Glad to see which side you are on, finally.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 22:17

So you let the western imperialists win. Glad to see which side you are on, finally.

Are the "Western" imperialists, as opposed to the Soviet Eastern ones somehow preferable? How is one imperialism better or worse than another?

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:17

So you let the western imperialists win. Glad to see which side you are on, finally.Yeah, I'd rather stick with Lenin than the Second International, thanks.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:19

I stick by the PDPA. The alternative is what you have seen and what you continue to see.

It's always hilarious to see you hoxhaists throwing countries like Venezuela under the bus because they don't fit in your ideological line.

Are the "Western" imperialists, as opposed to the Soviet Eastern ones somehow preferable? How is one imperialism better or worse than another?
The Soviets defended the progressive government of Afghanistan. The "Western" imperialists pushed Islamism and mercenaries. There is no doubt in my mind.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:20

It's always hilarious to see you hoxhaists throwing countries like Venezuela under the bus because they don't fit in your ideological line.We don't throw Chávez "under the bus." We support him as a progressive.

Unless you want to connect international Hoxhaism with the discredited and defunct Bandera Roja, which by the early 2000's was Maoist, then sure.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 22:29

My point isn't about workers, it's about the fact that the government was not based upon the people and the people (as a whole) were opposed to it.

So you don't care about what workers want, and thus rely on the nebulous "people" (read: highly reactionary peasantry and imperialist-fueled Islamists) to try to justify opposition to a progressive government. You aren't going to bother with the fact that proletarians had virtually no presence outside of Kabul. Lastly, you're not going to deal with the fact that according to your rubric (counting reactionary peasants and pro-capitalist forces as "the people"), the Paris Commune had the same illegitimacy as the PDPA.

Is this true or not?

Yeah, I'd rather stick with Lenin than the Second International, thanks.

Lenin was the one who opposed imperialism and promoted working-class interests. By your above quote (you know, the one where you shrugged off concerns about those insignificant proletarians), I think you need a reminder.

Are the "Western" imperialists, as opposed to the Soviet Eastern ones somehow preferable? How is one imperialism better or worse than another?

You can't see any difference between the PDPA government and what existed after its collapse? Are you that blind as to ignore the monumental wave of reaction that accompanied the fall of the PDPA government?

Honestly, if you can't figure out the difference between the PDPA and what came after it, you need to crack open a history book one of these days.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:34

So you don't care about what workers want, and thus rely on the nebulous "people" (read: highly reactionary peasantry and imperialist-fueled Islamists) to try to justify opposition to a progressive government.If the people are in the main anti-communist peasants then that is the fault of the Communists who acted with little regard for them.

You aren't going to bother with the fact that proletarians had virtually no presence outside of Kabul. Lastly, you're not going to deal with the fact that according to your rubric (counting reactionary peasants and pro-capitalist forces as "the people"), the Paris Commune had the same illegitimacy as the PDPA.My point isn't about the workers having no presence outside of the capital. My point is that there was no mass movement among the peasantry for socialism.

The Commune example remains stupid:
1. The Paris Commune was not put into power by the assistance of a superpower;
2. The Paris Commune was not hated across France by the proletariat and peasantry. (Soldiers who come from working class families being forced to attack it does not count as "hated")

Lenin was the one who opposed imperialism and promoted working-class interests. By your above quote (you know, the one where you shrugged off concerns about those insignificant proletarians), I think you need a reminder.Lenin did oppose imperialism, yes. He also promoted working class interests. I wouldn't say an unpopular state that needed the aid of a superpower to survive is in the working class best interests (especially when said state isn't socialist or really much progressive to begin with).

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 22:35

Funny. In one post you speak of "class interests" here:

Lenin was the one who opposed imperialism and promoted working-class interests. Then turn around and pull a switch:

You can't see any difference between the PDPA government and what existed after its collapse? Are you that blind as to ignore the monumental wave of reaction that accompanied the fall of the PDPA government?

Honestly, if you can't figure out the difference between the PDPA and what came after it, you need to crack open a history book one of these days.So, you don't care if a government is revisionist and social-imperialist or not because it calls itself "socialist?" Would you support modern imperialist China against the US, even if there was a progressive party fighting for a correct Leninist line fighting both?
No matter their form or content, all bourgeois governments are objectively against working class interests except those that fight imperialism. Your plan seems to be we choose "lesser evils," even if they're in the service of imperialism and not fighting it to any extent, and we somehow end up getting to communism.

And no, I don't see any fundamental difference between Soviet imperialism and US imperialism after the market reforms, since the modes of production were the same. The only difference is that one imperialism was weaker and the other stronger.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:37

Lenin did oppose imperialism, yes. He also promoted working class interests. I wouldn't say an unpopular state that needed the aid of a superpower to survive is in the working class best interests (especially when said state isn't socialist or really much progressive to begin with).
Nazi Germany gave the Spanish Fascists aid, just as Americans and Chinese and Pakistanis were giving the Ashrars aid.

I suppose the republicans should not have appealed to international support because that obviously demonstrated their "inability to survive on their own." :rolleyes:

Would you support modern imperialist China against the US, even if there was a progressive party fighting for a correct Leninist line fighting both?
China is Amerikkka's head servant. Has been for the past 30 years. They helped send Afghanistan into feudalist hell, and they backed the libertarian militia UNITA.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:47

I suppose the republicans should not have appealed to international support because that obviously demonstrated their "inability to survive on their own." :rolleyes:Ignoring, of course, that many supported the Republic and that no one really "turned against" it en masse. They were just tired of 3 years of total war and continued Republican military defeats, and accepted as inevitable the Nationalist victory.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:49

Ignoring, of course, that many supported the Republic and that no one really "turned against" it en masse. They were just tired of 3 years of total war and continued Republican military defeats, and accepted as inevitable the Nationalist victory.
You could say the same thing about Afghanistan, where in the end soldiers had to desert because they were literally starving due to a food embargo. So what? Three years? You make it sound like they were just a bunch of quitters.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:50

You could say the same thing about Afghanistan, where in the end soldiers had to desert because they were literally starving due to a food embargo.Except in Afghanistan the people were against the government. That was not so with the Spanish Republic.

Three years? You make it sound like they were just a bunch of quitters.At least they didn't have to rely on Soviet tanks to save them from defeat within a year of the war. The Spanish people were willing to defend the Republic.

khad

19th December 2009, 22:54

Except in Afghanistan the people were against the government. That was not so with the Spanish Republic.
I would say that Najibullah was the most popular figure in Afghanistan, even if you claim he was "unpopular." Compared to the rest of the Afghan political figures, his relative popularity was undisputed.

None of the warlords could command a cross-ethnic base of support, whereas the Afghan government, with its rhetoric of national--not tribal or ethnic--unity could and did receive some support from all sections of the population.

At least they didn't have to rely on Soviet tanks to save them from defeat within a year of the war. The Spanish people were willing to defend the Republic.
They did use soviet tanks. And again you show your ignorance of history.

By 1989, the defense of Jalalabad and the ensuing couteroffensive was carried out by Afghan troops without Soviet help. They slaughtered those Ashrars all the way back to Pakistan.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 22:56

I would say that Najibullah was the most popular figure in Afghanistan, even if you claim he was "unpopular." Compared to the rest of the Afghan political figures, his relative popularity was undisputed.

None of the warlords could command a cross-ethnic base of support, whereas the Afghan government, with its rhetoric of national--not tribal or ethnic--unity could and did receive some support from all sections of the population.Yes, towards the last stages of pro-Soviet Afghanistan the "Afghani Gorbachev," Najibullah, did improve the government's popularity somewhat, but by then it was obviously too late and the Soviet withdrawal basically spelled the end of Afghani "Marxism."

They did use soviet tanks. And again you show your ignorance of history.Of course they did. Note my second sentence. The Spanish people were willing to defend the Republic. The tanks were an aid, not a lifeline.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 22:57

If the people are in the main anti-communist peasants then that is the fault of the Communists who acted with little regard for them.

As khad has pointed out, that simply isn't true on its face. Further, it certainly isn't the PDPA's fault that the majority of Afghanistan wasn't industrialized, which is basically what you're implying.

My point isn't about the workers having no presence outside of the capital. My point is that there was no mass movement among the peasantry for socialism.And this, alone, means the PDPA is unworthy of support?

The Commune example remains stupid:
1. The Paris Commune was not put into power by the assistance of a superpower;Neither was the PDPA government. It was formed in response to suppression from Daoud.

2. The Paris Commune was not hated across France by the proletariat and peasantry. (Soldiers who come from working class families being forced to attack it does not count as "hated")Well, since there was no effective proletariat outside of Kabul, we'll concentrate on non-proletarians outside of Paris: Do you think the Bonapartists, royalists, Catholics and other reactionaries of France were raising their glasses to the Commune? Do you think the peasantry was shouting slogans of the Communards? Don't be silly, the power of the Commune was always in the proletariat of Paris primarily, in the proletarians of other cities secondarily. Take out the non-Parisian proletarians and what do you got? About the same level of support the PDPA had.

Lenin did oppose imperialism, yes. He also promoted working class interests. I wouldn't say an unpopular state that needed the aid of a superpower to survive is in the working class best interests (especially when said state isn't socialist or really much progressive to begin with).Then obviously you don't think Albania was worthy of support, either, since Soviet victories were key in the eventual partisan-led liberation of the country in 1944. I mean, the Albanian communists had a snowball's chance in hell without the gains made by the Red Army, so I guess they can kiss your support goodbye, right?

Oh, and if your only way of telling whether or not a state is furthering working-class interests is if it needs help sometime in its history, you should probably get another rubric, because it makes no sense.

Of course they did. Note my second sentence. The Spanish people were willing to defend the Republic. The tanks were an aid, not a lifeline.

Real sorry to jump in again, but look at the instance in which the Pakistani-backed offensive against Jalalabad was smashed by the Afghans with no Soviet involvement. What, were all the soldiers in that campaign secret Russians pretending to be Afghans?

khad

19th December 2009, 22:59

Of course they did. Note my second sentence. The Spanish people were willing to defend the Republic. The tanks were an aid, not a lifeline.
Again I point out the battle of Jalalabad, in which Afghan government forces decisively defeated the united Mujahideen front without direct Soviet military intervention. The combined forces of the Mujahideen (backed by tanks and artillery provided by China and Pakistan) could not even fucking move against the government's forces.

The end came with the embargo on food and fuel, which Afghanistan would need even if there had been no war.

You have no point.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:02

As khad has pointed out, that simply isn't true on its face. Further, it certainly isn't the PDPA's fault that the majority of Afghanistan wasn't industrialized, which is basically what you're implying.It is the PDPA's fault that it did not organize a mass line.

And this, alone, means the PDPA is unworthy of support?When the vast majority of the country regards you as hostile, yes.

Neither was the PDPA government. It was formed in response to suppression from Daoud.It was a Soviet-backed military coup.

Well, since there was no effective proletariat outside of Kabul, we'll concentrate on non-proletarians outside of Paris: Do you think the Bonapartists, royalists, Catholics and other reactionaries of France were raising their glasses to the Commune? Do you think the peasantry was shouting slogans of the Communards? Don't be silly, the power of the Commune was always in the proletariat of Paris primarily, in the proletarians of other cities secondarily. Take out the non-Parisian proletarians and what do you got? About the same level of support the PDPA had.So what's your point? If the Commune lost in battle with the reactionary segment of the population then it lost. A Soviet puppet state being attacked by the vast majority of its population is not worth defending, the Paris Commune would be.

Then obviously you don't think Albania was worthy of support, either, since Soviet victories were key in the eventual partisan-led liberation of the country in 1944. I mean, the Albanian communists had a snowball's chance in hell without the gains made by the Red Army, so I guess they can kiss your support goodbye, right?The Red Army had nothing to do with Albania. Albania was the only state that liberated itself without any Red Army aid.

@khad:

Again I point out the battle of Jalalabad, in which Afghan government forces decisively defeated the united Mujahideen front without direct Soviet military intervention. The combined forces of the Mujahideen could not even fucking move against the government's forces.

The end came with the embargo on food and fuel, which Afghanistan would need even if there had been no war.

You have no point.I already tackled this before. The Afghan army had superior weaponry, that is how it was able to sustain itself. That does not equal popular support.

khad

19th December 2009, 23:05

I already tackled this before. The Afghan army had superior weaponry, that is how it was able to sustain itself. That does not equal popular support.
The Mujahideen had armor and artillery and advanced weapons provided by the west. That's how they were able to sustain themselves.

Don't you love imperialist double standards?

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 23:09

China is Amerikkka's head servant. Has been for the past 30 years. They helped send Afghanistan into feudalist hell, and they backed the libertarian militia UNITA.You didn't answer the question: would you support one imperialism over another because one is weaker or somewhat "less" reactionary than the other?

Then obviously you don't think Albania was worthy of support, either, since Soviet victories were key in the eventual partisan-led liberation of the country in 1944. I mean, the Albanian communists had a snowball's chance in hell without the gains made by the Red Army, so I guess they can kiss your support goodbye, right?Worse example ever.

1) Albania was the only country that did NOT have any aid from the Red Army.
2) At that time, the USSR was socialist and had a socialist economy. By the time of the Afghanistan War, the USSR has been transformed fundamentally into an imperialist power.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:09

The Mujahideen had armor and artillery and advanced weapons provided by the west. That's how they were able to sustain themselves.

Don't you love imperialist double standards?The Vietminh and Vietcong had a bunch of shitty old rifles and vests, yet in vast numbers and through guerrilla warfare were able to defeat the Americans and superior-equipped South Vietnamese Army.

The Mujahidin could have been walking around with umbrellas, so like as they could all throw them at unison and decapitate an enemy soldier or something. Sheer humanity rising beats anything, pretty much.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 23:11

It is the PDPA's fault that it did not organize a mass line.

Sections of the peasantry found the Taliban to be too progressive. How the hell do you expect communists to win their support? More to the point, what do you think is more important: pushing forth the interests of the workers, or your personal interpretation of "a mass line"?

When the vast majority of the country regards you as hostile, yes.

Just like the Paris Commune. Good to know where you stand once again.

It was a Soviet-backed military coup.

Coups are planned. But in any case, whatever you want to call it, the Saur Revolution was an act of self-defense by communists facing a murderous crackdown.

Plus, the October Revolution was, in a very literal sense, a "Soviet-backed" coup, so the PDPA is in good company at any rate.

So what's your point? If the Commune lost in battle with the reactionary segment of the population then it lost. A Soviet puppet state being attacked by the vast majority of its population is not worth defending, the Paris Commune would be.

My point is that precisely like the Commune, the PDPA lost in a battle with the reactionary segment of the population. Every one of your reasons for opposing the PDPA can be applied to the Paris Commune.

The Red Army had nothing to do with Albania. Albania was the only state that liberated itself without any Red Army aid.

I know (hence "partisan-led liberation"), but are you saying that the Wehrmacht's large defeats at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad and elsewhere had nothing to do with the partisan's success? The Red Army's continual victories which caused MILLIONS of fascist casualties didn't make things easier for the Albanian partisans? Please.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:15

Sections of the peasantry found the Taliban to be too progressive. How the hell do you expect communists to win their support? More to the point, what do you think is more important: pushing forth the interests of the workers, or your personal interpretation of "a mass line"?Using this logic the Communists should have just petitioned the Soviets to become a Kabuli SSR or have Kabul absorbed into the Tajik SSR or something.

Plus, the October Revolution was, in a very literal sense, a "Soviet-backed" coup, so the PDPA is in good company at any rate.Yes, war-weary soldiers from peasant families and the workers rising against the Kerensky government is comparable to a coup by technocratic sections of an army that is doing such because it doesn't like the current guy in power.

My point is that precisely like the Commune, the PDPA lost in a battle with the reactionary segment of the population. Every one of your reasons for opposing the PDPA can be applied to the Paris Commune.Except the Commune was socialist and was not reliant upon being a puppet to imperialism.

I know (hence "partisan-led liberation"), but are you saying that the Wehrmacht's large defeats at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad and elsewhere had nothing to do with the partisan's success? The Red Army's continual victories which caused MILLIONS of fascist casualties didn't make things easier for the Albanian partisans? Please.What's your point? German imperialism made things easier for Lenin and Co. Hell, the Germans thought Lenin would sabotage the war effort and lead to a German victory against Russia.

Lenin did not, however, become a German puppet.

khad

19th December 2009, 23:16

The Vietminh and Vietcong had a bunch of shitty old rifles and vests, yet in vast numbers and through guerrilla warfare were able to defeat the Americans and superior-equipped South Vietnamese Army.

The Mujahidin could have been walking around with umbrellas, so like as they could all throw them at unison and decapitate an enemy soldier or something. Sheer humanity rising beats anything, pretty much.
You know what, you know nothing of history.

The VC were largely finished after Tet. They had to take on many recruits infiltrating from the north to even stay viable, and even then it was greatly reduced in capability. The fighting burden shifted onto the NVA from that point on.

It was the NVA's superior arms and firepower and operational mobility that crushed South Vietnam like a grape. You should read up on the final offensive--a near-perfect execution of operational planning and flexibility that wiped out the ARVN in one stroke.

Sheer humanity? Give me a break. Even the Taliban pounded the shit out of the Mujahideen with air power and tanks.

http://www.fletcherledger.com/archive/2001-03-28/032601TalebanTank.jpg

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:19

You know what, you know nothing of history.lol

The VC were largely finished after Tet. They had to take on many recruits infiltrating from the north to even stay viable, and even then it was greatly reduced in capability. The fighting burden shifted onto the NVA from that point on.How's it feel confusing military capabilities with the support of the people still? Did people see the Vietcong as some sort of menace? Did they vow to defeat the Vietcong?

Sheer humanity? Give me a break. Even the Taliban pounded the shit out of the Mujahideen with air power and tanks.Yes, the Taliban had a mass movement and during the Soviet invasion had participated with the Mujahideen against the puppet government. And?

manic expression

19th December 2009, 23:19

You didn't answer the question: would you support one imperialism over another because one is weaker or somewhat "less" reactionary than the other?

It's hardly imperialism if it doesn't involve exploitation. Moreover, you're the one who refuses to look at the lives of workers under the false dichotomy you've put forward, so you're the one dodging the issue and tossing aside the concerns of workers.

Worse example ever.

1) Albania was the only country that did NOT have any aid from the Red Army.

Like I said to Ismail, I know (hence "partisan-led liberation"). But again, you're delusional if you think the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad and others had nothing to do with the partisans' success. The fascists lost millions of soldiers and mountains of material in their defeats to the Red Army, and yet you're sitting here trying to convince yourself that the Albanian partisans did everything. I suppose Hoxha engineered the encirclement of an entire German army at Stalingrad, the defense of Leningrad and the counteroffensive at the gates of Moscow. He was one busy guy!

2) At that time, the USSR was socialist and had a socialist economy. By the time of the Afghanistan War, the USSR has been transformed fundamentally into an imperialist power.

You do realize that social relations in the USSR didn't change between 1953 and 1956 (or 1979, for that matter), right? You do know that the fundamentals of the Soviet Union were essentially the same, right? Remember: Marxists analyze material conditions, not whether Khrushchev should have condemned his predecessor or not.

khad

19th December 2009, 23:23

How's it feel confusing military capabilities with the support of the people still? Did people see the Vietcong as some sort of menace? Did they vow to defeat the Vietcong?
A lot of people certainly fled the fucking country.

Yes, the Taliban had a mass movement and during the Soviet invasion had participated with the Mujahideen against the puppet government. And?
Again, you are ignorant. The Taliban came as a reaction against the warlordism of the Mujahideen. They did not participate against any Soviet invasion (not that an "invasion" occurred) but in fact directed their energies from the outset towards toppling the Mujahideen government.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:26

A lot of people certainly fled the fucking country.A lot of people fled Cuba. Does that mean Fidel Castro is hated by Cubans or that the 26th of July Movement had no popular support?

Again, you are ignorant. The Taliban came as a reaction against the warlordism of the Mujahideen. They did not participate against any Soviet invasion (not that an "invasion" occurred) but in fact directed their energies from the outset towards toppling the Mujahideen government.Are you seriously claiming that the people who would later form the Taliban had nothing to do with Afghanistan in the years 1979-1994?

khad

19th December 2009, 23:28

A lot of people fled Cuba. Does that mean Fidel Castro is hated by Cubans or that the 26th of July Movement had no popular support?
A lot of people fled when the Taliban took over. Does that contradict your point about the Taliban having a mass movement?

I just love your double standards.

Are you seriously claiming that the people who would later form the Taliban had nothing to do with Afghanistan in the years 1979-1994?The Taliban did not start as a military force until the early 90s. The taliban as a movement was directed from the outset against the warlords.

manic expression

19th December 2009, 23:31

Using this logic the Communists should have just petitioned the Soviets to become a Kabuli SSR or have Kabul absorbed into the Tajik SSR or something.

Not sure how you drew that from the logic of my post, but in any event, that would have been an inappropriate step given the situation for many reasons.

Yes, war-weary soldiers from peasant families and the workers rising against the Kerensky government is comparable to a coup by technocratic sections of an army that is doing such because it doesn't like the current guy in power.

Well, it's not the same, and the latter never happened. What actually happened was the Daoud government tried to imprison and/or murder the communists of Afghanistan, and the communists fought back, causing the government's fall. I guess you don't like communists defending themselves from suppression.

The October Revolution was, in a very real way, Soviet-backed; if one wants to call that revolution a "coup", it just betrays their opposition to revolution. Not too different from your position, actually.

Plus, "not liking the current guy in power" is the entire basis of your ideology, so I'd hesitate before throwing stones in that glass house of yours.

Except the Commune was socialist and was not reliant upon being a puppet to imperialism.

Imperialism involves exploitation, so that's out. Aside from that piece of baseless conjecture, how does the Commune's socialist character change anything? Even IF you conclude the PDPA hadn't established socialism at that point, you yourself expressed support for Chavez, who has certainly not established socialism in Venezuela.

So now that that justification is out the door, what new excuses will you concoct this time?

What's your point? German imperialism made things easier for Lenin and Co. Hell, the Germans thought Lenin would sabotage the war effort and lead to a German victory against Russia.

My point is that the partisans' victory depended largely on the victories of the Red Army. Are you denying this or not? If you do not deny this, then the communist-led Albanian government is automatically against working-class interests and undeserving of support, at least according to your own stated logic.

Lenin did not, however, become a German puppet.

So we agree on something.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 23:38

It's hardly imperialism if it doesn't involve exploitation.The production relations were changed during the 1965 reforms to be run on "market socialism."

Moreover, you're the one who refuses to look at the lives of workers under the false dichotomy you've put forward, so you're the one dodging the issue and tossing aside the concerns of workers.Living standards do not equal socialism, just like they do not equal capitalism.

Like I said to Ismail, I know (hence "partisan-led liberation"). But again, you're delusional if you think the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad and others had nothing to do with the partisans' success. The fascists lost millions of soldiers and mountains of material in their defeats to the Red Army, and yet you're sitting here trying to convince yourself that the Albanian partisans did everything. I suppose Hoxha engineered the encirclement of an entire German army at Stalingrad, the defense of Leningrad and the counteroffensive at the gates of Moscow. He was one busy guy!Within Albania's borders, there was no help from the Red Army and they drove the fascists out.

You do realize that social relations in the USSR didn't change between 1953 and 1956 (or 1979, for that matter), right? You do know that the fundamentals of the Soviet Union were essentially the same, right?Incorrect.

Centralized planning as it exists under socialism was eliminated during the reforms.

Read more here: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/SovietBB.htm

And here for an entire book on the subject: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:42

A lot of people fled when the Taliban took over. Does that contradict your point about the Taliban having a mass movement?No.

The Taliban did not start as a military force until the early 90s. The taliban as a movement was directed from the outset against the warlords.Except I was saying that many of those who became the Taliban were fighters against the Soviets and evidently won over many peasants against the corrupt Mujahidin warriors.

@Manic:

Even IF you conclude the PDPA hadn't established socialism at that point, you yourself expressed support for Chavez, who has certainly not established socialism in Venezuela.Please tell me where Chávez is being backed by a superpower and is quelling popular rebellions. Thanks. As far as I know he is objectively weakening imperialism and is a progressive figure.

My point is that the partisans' victory depended largely on the victories of the Red Army. Are you denying this or not? If you do not deny this, then the communist-led Albanian government is automatically against working-class interests and undeserving of support, at least according to your own stated logic.How? The Albanians liberated themselves. The Soviets (under Brezhnev) created a puppet state in Afghanistan. Now granted the Soviets (under Khrushchev) tried to create a puppet state out of Albania, but Albania declined.

You are once again trying to make dumb comparisons.

Plus, "not liking the current guy in power" is the entire basis of your ideology, so I'd hesitate before throwing stones in that glass house of yours.Actually my ideology is Communism, and it's based around fundamentally changing the relations to the means of production through the dictatorship of the proletariat, which upon the victory of socialism worldwide transforms into Communism; a stateless and classless society.

If my ideology was based around "not liking the current guy in power" then I'd not be a Communist, I'd be a Social-Democrat.

khad

19th December 2009, 23:44

No.

Except I was saying that many of those who became the Taliban were fighters against the Soviets and evidently won over many peasants against the corrupt Mujahidin warriors.
Most of the Taliban were too young to have fought in that conflict. They were the children who grew up as refugees.

How? The Albanians liberated themselves. The Soviets (under Brezhnev) created a puppet state in Afghanistan. Now granted the Soviets (under Khrushchev) tried to create a puppet state out of Albania, but Albania declined.
So had the USSR lost the war Albania would have become a glorious socialist paradise as well?

manic expression

19th December 2009, 23:54

Please tell me where Chávez is being backed by a superpower and is quelling popular rebellions. Thanks. As far as I know he is objectively weakening imperialism and is a progressive figure.

You mean quelling reactionary revolts? 2002. Easy.

Backed by a superpower? Weapons from Russia. Easy.

Do you support any "popular rebellion", regardless of how reactionary it may be?

How? The Albanians liberated themselves.

After the Nazis lost more than a million soldiers at the hands of the Red Army. If you think that had nothing to do with the Albanian partisans' success, you're certifiably insane.

If my ideology was based around "not liking the current guy in power" then I'd not be a Communist, I'd be a Social-Democrat.

Your ideology can be summed up in two sentences: "I don't like Khrushchev, Mao and Hoxha are better", and "I don't like Mao anymore, Hoxha's the only good leader in power". If you fail to show anything material to support your arguments, this is basically what it boils down to.

Ismail

19th December 2009, 23:56

Most of the Taliban were too young to have fought in that conflict. They were the children who grew up as refugees.Still doesn't invalidate my point.

So had the USSR lost the war Albania would have become a glorious socialist paradise as well?Had Lenin did a whole bunch of things incorrectly Soviet Russia could have went crashing down. What's your point? What does this have to do with an invasion (or "protection/defending") of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

The Albanians built up a mass base among the workers and peasants. That's how they won not only against the Fascists, but also against the homegrown Balli Kombëtar.

@Manic:

You mean quelling reactionary revolts? 2002. Easy.Yes, truly a massive revolt by the entire country. One that lasted two days.

Backed by a superpower? Weapons from Russia. Easy.Albania gave weapons to the ANC and the Batswana government. I guess the ANC and Botswana were Albanian puppets.

I mean this is your logic: "Chávez buying Russian guns is comparable to the Soviets invading Afghanistan, making the Afghan economy and military reliant upon the USSR, and suppressing a massive, popular rebellion that surrounded 80% of the country while killing off their heads of state at will."

Your ideology can be summed up in two sentences: "I don't like Khrushchev, Mao and Hoxha are better", and "I don't like Mao anymore, Hoxha's the only good leader in power". If you fail to show anything material to support your arguments, this is basically what it boils down to.I was unaware we were talking about Hoxhaism versus other M-L tendencies.

Lenin II

19th December 2009, 23:59

If you fail to show anything material to support your arguments, this is basically what it boils down to.

As opposed to production relations, which are not material?

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/SovietBB.htm

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

manic expression

20th December 2009, 00:03

Yes, truly a massive revolt by the entire country. One that lasted two days.

The Paris Commune lasted a few months...guess it didn't matter.

Albania gave weapons to the ANC and the Batswana government. I guess the ANC and Botswana were Albanian puppets.You said backed by a superpower, not being a puppet. Why are you trying to backtrack?

I was unaware we were talking about Hoxhaism versus other M-L tendencies.Yeah, I didn't know either, but if you keep throwing stones in glass houses, it's unavoidable, really.

manic expression

20th December 2009, 00:05

As opposed to production relations, which are not material?

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/SovietBB.htm

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

So you're prepared to say that generalized commodity production was re-established in the USSR by 1979? That there was a large-scale market for labor power and material? That the state monopoly on foreign trade was abolished? That private ownership of the means of production was legalized without anyone knowing? I'm all ears.

Ismail

20th December 2009, 00:07

The Paris Commune lasted a few months...guess it didn't matter.I don't want to continue engaging in dumb and un-apt comparisons.

You said backed by a superpower, not being a puppet. Why are you trying to backtrack?Because we're talking about Afghanistan and I thought that the phrase "backed by a superpower" meant something a bit more involved than a weapons deal by two nations oceans apart.

manic expression

20th December 2009, 00:12

I don't want to continue engaging in dumb and un-apt comparisons.

If "total time elapsed" is now the measure of how important an event is, then don't apply that measurement selectively.

Because we're talking about Afghanistan and I thought that the phrase "backed by a superpower" meant something a bit more involved than a weapons deal by two nations oceans apart.

You made the challenge, I met it. Also, why are you now using geographical distance as a measurement of involvement?

Ismail

20th December 2009, 00:14

If "total time elapsed" is now the measure of how important an event is, then don't apply that measurement selectively.It's a dumb comparison. A coup attempt supported by a handful of people that ultimately was foiled after two days is not comparable to a nationwide revolt that lasted for 14 years.

You made the challenge, I met it. Also, why are you now using geographical distance as a measurement of involvement?Because we are, once again, talking about Afghanistan, which neighbored the Soviet Union and was invaded by it. This is in no way comparable to Venezuela concluding an arms deal with Russia.

manic expression

20th December 2009, 00:21

It's a dumb comparison. A coup attempt supported by a handful of people that ultimately was foiled after two days is not comparable to a nationwide revolt that lasted for 14 years.

So, apparently, your support for Chavez is dependent only on a lack of an imperialist-backed reactionary revolt that lasts more than a year. However, if the imperialists fund a reactionary insurrection (Contra-style, surely enough) against Chavez, you would withdraw your support as soon as it hit the 12-month threshold, right?

Because we are, once again, talking about Afghanistan, which neighbored the Soviet Union and was invaded by it.

Right, so geographic distance is important here, at least to you. Thus, American imperialism is more imperialist when threatening Puerto Rico and less imperialist when threatening Iraq.

khad

20th December 2009, 00:23

It's a dumb comparison. A coup attempt supported by a handful of people that ultimately was foiled after two days is not comparable to a nationwide revolt that lasted for 14 years.
You fetishize the nation for some reason. The only group with national appeal during the entire period was the PDPA.

Yeah, you can say that people were revolting against the government. You can also say that they were revolting against each other as evidenced in the mass rape and killing in the streets of cities like Kabul once the Mujahideen decided that they'd entertain themselves with a civil war.

The only government that ever had a chance to forge a national, inter-ethnic consciousness in Afghanistan was the one headed by the PDPA.

Because we are, once again, talking about Afghanistan, which neighbored the Soviet Union and was invaded by it. This is in no way comparable to Venezuela concluding an arms deal with Russia.
By 1989 the Afghan army was fighting and killing the ashrars by itself without military support from the USSR--just aid in food, fuel, and arms. How is that any different?

Random Precision

20th December 2009, 05:45

Either you're just trolling, or you're the most illiterate motherfucker on the board.

Verbal warning for flaming

Ismail

20th December 2009, 08:09

So, apparently, your support for Chavez is dependent only on a lack of an imperialist-backed reactionary revolt that lasts more than a year. However, if the imperialists fund a reactionary insurrection (Contra-style, surely enough) against Chavez, you would withdraw your support as soon as it hit the 12-month threshold, right?No, but thanks for the bizarre strawman, it goes good with your un-apt comparisons.

Right, so geographic distance is important here, at least to you. Thus, American imperialism is more imperialist when threatening Puerto Rico and less imperialist when threatening Iraq.See above.

@khad:

You fetishize the nation for some reason. The only group with national appeal during the entire period was the PDPA.And the PDPA absolutely failed to win over the peasantry.

By 1989 the Afghan army was fighting and killing the ashrars by itself without military support from the USSR--just aid in food, fuel, and arms. How is that any different?Because buying guns is different from being sufficiently sustained enough to resist a popular rebellion. It's the equivalent of saying "In X country with a military dictatorship we see that through the maintaining of strong trade links with the US/UK/France/etc. has allowed the regime to defeat those participating in the revolt as it stands."

Of course to you the PDPA was awesome and progressive and should have continued fighting forever until it magically got around to winning over the peasantry which it had no control over.

The thing is, I'm sure the PDPA could have been a progressive force at one point. Had it engaged in people's war from the ground-up, or attempted to be progressive instead of arbitrarily "socialist" in regards to the peasantry (and with this not become a Soviet puppet), it could have enjoyed broad-based support. Instead it was threatened by Daoud and, in your own words, couped him and set up a government that was pretty much destined to fail under anyone but Najibullah, who arrived too late and who basically ended the Marxist pretensions of the PDPA anyway.

Instead the Parcham opted for reformism under the King while the Khalq and other, more Marxist-Leninist parties opted for illegality in order to build up a broad-based people's movement from below.

manic expression

20th December 2009, 11:02

No, but thanks for the bizarre strawman, it goes good with your un-apt comparisons.

So you're still refusing to face the consequences of your own stated logic. I'll wait until you explain yourself, although I'm not holding my breath.

See above.

Precisely.

ComradeRed22'91

20th December 2009, 12:49

Something Stalin was particularly good at.

Ok. Now that is seriously just unnecessary. i don't take either "OMG STALiN EViL!" or "STALiN GREAT COMMUNiST!" seriously, but i mean...that's just totally off topic and going to extend the number of pages in this thread.

khad

20th December 2009, 12:59

@khad:
And the PDPA absolutely failed to win over the peasantry.
The PDPA probably won over more peasants than Massoud of Hekmatyar ever did to their own little fiefdoms. You fetishize the "national masses" so much, but let me repeat that the Mujahideen NEVER organized the masses of peasantry. Instead they increased sectional, tribal, and ethnic divisions, whereas at least the government drew a little support from every part of the country.

Decree number 6 in 1978 dealt with the issue of peasant debt. The PDPA ended the Gerow system and declared that peasants need not make any further interest payments on all lands mortgaged before 1974.

A literacy campaign was set up to create universal literacy in ten years. Education was made universal, compulsory, and free for all women and men. The syllabus was modernised and student brigades were sent in thousand to villages to educate people. The National Agency for the Campaign Against Illiteracy educated 6,000 army men in the first six months.”

Furthermore, landless peasants and labourers (All those owning less than 5 acres of land) were totally exempted from repayment of any debt. This act benefited an estimated 81% of the peasantry. The PDPA created Woleswali Committee and Provincial Committee to ensure that decree 6 would be implemented and not remain an empty promise.

On the 17th of October 1978 the PDPA declared Decree number 7 pertained to marriage laws. A minimum age of 16 for girld and 18 for boys was declared and consent of both partners in a marriage was made mandatory. Furthermore, a restriction of 300 Afghanis was placed on maehr (bride price). These laws curtailed the practice of treating women as commodities.

In January 1979 the PDPA declared and began to enforce a land ceiling of 15 acres. This dispossessed no more than 400 families but redistributed half the arable land of the country. One can see the enormous monopoly of power of the feudal lords that was shattered by the revolution.

Decree number 8 abolished the system of mirab (water manager who was a feudal lord) and water management was placed under the control of peasant committees. (Taimur Rahman, The Great Game for the Central Asian Oil (http://www.chowk.com/articles/6054), 2003)For some inexplicable reason you seem to think feudal warlordism was "organizing the masses." There should be a word "peasantist" to describe your brand of idiocy.

Because buying guns is different from being sufficiently sustained enough to resist a popular rebellion. It's the equivalent of saying "In X country with a military dictatorship we see that through the maintaining of strong trade links with the US/UK/France/etc. has allowed the regime to defeat those participating in the revolt as it stands."Yep, those ashrars were so popular and obviously charismatic that they got themselves training from the Pakistani and Chinese military and were being supplied by them with tanks and artillery.

If you took out the imperialist assistance, which amounted to billions of dollars (China alone contributed an estimated 400 million), those ashrars would have been crushed in a year. They would have been ground into dust like your beloved WSLF.

I just love your imperialist double standards.

rednordman

20th December 2009, 14:41

To be honest, it really riles me how people on this forum can honestly critizise the Soviet Unions role, when you look at the state of Afganistan today. Why on earth is it a good thing that the communists lost to the USA backed mujahideen? Or did you actually believe Mr Reagen, when he called them 'freedom fighters':rolleyes:.

Yes, the Russians are not angels in this, but to be fair, was it not their responsibility to help them (like they did with the Veitnam war)? I actually think that ideology sort of went out of the window with this one. Especially when it became obvious the the USA was going to back the mujahideen regardless of Russian intervention or not.

Imperialism or not, The marxist defence of this would be simply that they where defending the growth of global socialism. Obviously it was not that straight forward in reality, but it never is. Afterall, the Americans idea for Afganistan was no more democratic than the Russians idea was it?

If the USA had decided to simply support a democratic state, than fair enough. But they didnt did they. They supported despotic autocrats, who ironically, they are at war with now....

Vargha Poralli

20th December 2009, 16:10

If the USA had decided to simply support a democratic state, than fair enough. But they didnt did they. They supported despotic autocrats, who ironically, they are at war with now....

To be accurate the Taliban are not the one's who fought against the Soviets. They came in to the scene only during 1994 by which time USSR was gone and the PDPA government had also fallen followed by a disastrous civil war amongst the Mujahideen.

Khad pretty much sum up the situation with correct viewpoint and data. The Mujahideen never organized the population against the Soviet occupation rather relying on the ethnic divisions. That is the reason once a common enemy was eliminated they turned their weapons against each other.

Regardless Soviets and PDPA too had commited major blunders which led to their downfall. PDPA was notoriousy bureaucratic and had worst fation fighting between the Khalq and Parcham.They had a big chance of mobilising masses against the mujahideens but they never attempted to do it instead of fighting their own power struggle. Soviets too in the war devastated the Afghan Country side which led to mass reffugee of the Afghans from where the Taliban grew up.

The Afghanistan yet another consequence of the degeneration of Soviet Union.