Enver Hoxha on Middle East affairs, 1958-1983

[Ismail]

http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_reflections_on_the_middle_east.pdf

Basically it's stuff by Hoxha (taken from his diaries, which include speeches, notes, newspaper article outlines, etc.) on the Middle East (from Afghanistan to Morocco) during these years. At this same time one can also see even things like his early doubts about China, e.g. from a July 1967 entry: "The Chinese leaders know nothing about politics. Either they do not know how to apply the principles properly or they violate them deliberately."

And of course his criticisms of revisionism are apparent. On adding to a speech on Mediterranean naval fleets which was subsequently delivered to the UN by Albania's ambassador in June of that year, he adds onto it, "Perhaps, you will say that you [the United States] are defending yourselves against the Soviet Union in the Mediterranean, but you are close friends and allies with the present leaders of that country." In October 1973, on the Yom Kippur War, Hoxha says, "Brezhnev, Tito and all their ilk, along with the whole capitalist world, are against the Arab peoples. Therefore, we and the revolutionaries all over the world must help these peoples in their struggle." Etc.

Also:

THURSDAY
NOVEMBER 3, 1983

BRAVO THE AFGHAN PATRIOTS!

As news agencies report, in recent days the Afghan patriots attacked the general staff of the Soviet army of occupation and the embassy of the Soviet Union in Kabul. The reports also speak of bold actions in the other major cities of the country and attacks on Soviet strategic military positions. Fire, uninterrupted fire, on the foreign occupiers!

[gorillafuck]

THURSDAY
NOVEMBER 3, 1983

BRAVO THE AFGHAN PATRIOTS!

As news agencies report, in recent days the Afghan patriots attacked the general staff of the Soviet army of occupation and the embassy of the Soviet Union in Kabul. The reports also speak of bold actions in the other major cities of the country and attacks on Soviet strategic military positions. Fire, uninterrupted fire, on the foreign occupiers!
No.

[M-26-7]

THURSDAY
NOVEMBER 3, 1983

BRAVO THE AFGHAN PATRIOTS!

As news agencies report, in recent days the Afghan patriots attacked the general staff of the Soviet army of occupation and the embassy of the Soviet Union in Kabul. The reports also speak of bold actions in the other major cities of the country and attacks on Soviet strategic military positions. Fire, uninterrupted fire, on the foreign occupiers!

I think a revisionist must have called Hoxha's mother a bad name once or something.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I really hope that khad finds this thread.

[fa2991]

Hoxha had guts, at least.

[Barry Lyndon]

Such a long and honorable record the Hoxhaists have- cheering on Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, siding with apartheid and its allies as they rampaged across South Africa, Angola and Mozambique, calling for a fifth column to aid the Contra mercenaries against the Sandanistas, and now siding with a failed neo-fascist coup in Ecuador.
Virtually everywhere counterrevolution strikes, the Hoxhaists are there to help out the CIA and its friends, all in the name of 'anti-revisionism'.

[fa2991]

What I want to know is why a Hoxhaist like Ismail would go out of his way to post this and make EH look stupid.

[khad]

Calling the rape-legalizing, kiddie-diddling mercenaries of Western capitalism patriots, that's a good one.

I wonder what Stalin himself would have done to Hoxhaites were he still alive then.

[Ismail]

siding with apartheid and its allies as they rampaged across South Africa, Angola and Mozambique, calling for a fifth column to aid the Contra mercenaries against the SandanistasHoxha sought ties with the Sandinista Government. Hoxha's comments on Angola basically amounted to, "Both sides are opportunist, Angola needs a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party." When "Hoxhaists" in Burkina Faso refused to support Sankara's Government, Hoxha encouraged the party there to split into a pro-Sankara faction (which is why the capital has a Enver Hoxha Fountain today), and when the Iranian Hoxhaists supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, it's made clear in this text that Hoxha firmly supported Iran.

The MLPUSA was the "Hoxhaist" Party that carried out most of the really ultra-left actions (supporting UNITA isn't among them, so I don't see where you're going with this), and maintained contact with the ultra-left "Hoxhaists" in Nicaragua, etc. The only "guilty" (no) thing you can call Hoxha out on is supporting the Afghan people (there were originally Hoxhaists fighting along with Maoists against the Soviets) against the Soviets.

Hoxha's support of the Afghan resistance wasn't just limited to his diaries. Not only did he publicly support it, he considered it a weak link that would seriously impair the strength of revisionist forces in the USSR and would provide impetus for an anti-imperialist upsurge across the entire region, hence why the book was written as a compilation of all his diary notes. But one can see in his other book, The Superpowers (written around the same time), that Hoxha advised other Hoxhaists worldwide who were vacillating to strongly support the resistance.


What I want to know is why a Hoxhaist like Ismail would go out of his way to post this and make EH look stupid.I don't see what's so "stupid" about it. It's Hoxha being excited and jotting it down in his diary. One thing that unites Hoxhaists and Maoists (most Maoists, anyway) is that we both oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The only difference is China by 1979 was led by rightists who allied with US imperialism, whereas Albania only got as far as looking into sending weapons to Hoxhaists in Afghanistan, IIRC.


I wonder what Stalin himself would have done to Hoxhaites were he still alive then.Let's see what Hoxha says in 1979, as noted in his work With Stalin:

In October 1952, 1 went to Moscow again at the head of the delegation of the Party of Labour of Albania to take part in the 19th Congress of the CPSU(B). There I saw the. unforgettable Stalin for the last time, there, for the last time I heard his voice, so warm and inspiring...

I shall alwavs retain fresh and vivid in my mind and heart how he looked at that moment when from the tribune of the Congress he enthused our hearts when he called the communist parties of the socialist countries "shock brigades of the world revolutionary movement."

From those days we pledged that the Party of Labour of Albania would hold high the title of "shock brigade" and that it would guard the teachings and instructions of Stalin as the apple of its eye, as an historic behest, and would carry them all out consistently. We repeated this solemn pledge in the days of the great grief, when the immortal Stalin was taken from us, and we are proud that our Party, as the Stalin's shock brigade, has never gone back on its word, has never been and never will be guided by anything other than the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and the disciple and consistent continuer of their work, our beloved friend, the glorious leader, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.Of course you're positing a history of the USSR where Stalin is a social-imperialist who invades Afghanistan.

[RED DAVE]

There I saw the. unforgettable Stalin for the last time, there, for the last time I heard his voice, so warm and inspiring... our beloved friend, the glorious leader, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.:w00t:

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

Calling the rape-legalizing, kiddie-diddling mercenaries of Western capitalism patriots, that's a good one.

What is the contradiction between being 'rape-legalizing, kiddie-diddling mercenaries of Western capitalism', and 'patriots'.

The real question is what so-called communists are doing supporting patriots.

Devrim

[mykittyhasaboner]

....and when the Iranian Hoxhaists supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, it's made clear in this text that Hoxha firmly supported Iran.

Why support Iraq or Iran?



Hoxha's support of the Afghan resistance wasn't just limited to his diaries. Not only did he publicly support it, he considered it a weak link that would seriously impair the strength of revisionist forces in the USSR and would provide impetus for an anti-imperialist upsurge across the entire region, hence why the book was written as a compilation of all his diary notes. But one can see in his other book, The Superpowers (written around the same time), that Hoxha advised other Hoxhaists worldwide who were vacillating to strongly support the resistance.So basically Hoxha said: "Lets support stooges of American imperialism, so that we can provide and impetus for anti-imperialist upsurge." It seems Hoxha was dead wrong.


I don't see what's so "stupid" about it. It's Hoxha being excited and jotting it down in his diary. One thing that unites Hoxhaists and Maoists (most Maoists, anyway) is that we both oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.It's stupid because it unites those who support the mujaheddin and US imperialism--counter-revolutionaries. Such people have no right claiming they are for anti-imperialism or anything like that.




The only difference is China by 1979 was led by rightists who allied with US imperialism, whereas Albania only got as far as looking into sending weapons to Hoxhaists in Afghanistan, IIRC.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

So wait, as long as only "Hoxhaists" got those weapons then it's ok right? It's ok that your "Hoxhaist" role models allied themselves with the most reactionary pieces of shit fighting against the Afghan revolution?

This "Hoxhaism" is really despicable.


Let's see what Hoxha says in 1979, as noted in his work With Stalin:
Of course you're positing a history of the USSR where Stalin is a social-imperialist who invades Afghanistan.Hoxha seems a bit to infatuated with Stalin. I wonder if he ever said a critical word about him.

Besides, why does this matter? Khad obviously meant that if people were supporting counterrevolution, as Hoxhaists do, while Stalin was still around, that he would probably personally see that they were taken care of. The best part is "Hoxhaists" would support it because Stalin is doing it, regardless if it was correct or not.

[Ismail]

Why support Iraq or Iran?Because the Iranian Revolution inspired anti-imperialist uprisings, whereas the Iraqi Ba'athist government was just a bulwark against the further influence of anti-imperialist sentiment in the Middle East.



So basically Hoxha said: "Lets support stooges of American imperialism, so that we can provide and impetus for anti-imperialist upsurge." It seems Hoxha was dead wrong.Only if you think that the Mujahidin were one united entity.


It's stupid because it unites those who support the mujaheddin and US imperialism--counter-revolutionaries. Such people have no right claiming they are for anti-imperialism or anything like that.The Afghan people resisted Soviet social-imperialism. That the US decided to take advantage of it is not surprising, but it does not change this fact.


So wait, as long as only "Hoxhaists" got those weapons then it's ok right?Considering the US and China actively coordinated with one another, it's a fair bit different than Albania sending arms to Hoxhaists.


Hoxha seems a bit to infatuated with Stalin. I wonder if he ever said a critical word about him.He did in 1956, when he noted that the cult of personality was harmful to the construction of socialism. He didn't mention Stalin by name, however, unlike all the other Warsaw Pact leaders, because he didn't want to join in the denigration of Stalin by revisionism (which was using the personality cult issue—of which Stalin disliked the cult (http://www.oocities.com/acero.rm/Britain/StalinBB.htm) anyway—to further the revisionists' own policies).


Besides, why does this matter? Khad obviously meant that if people were supporting counterrevolution, as Hoxhaists do, while Stalin was still around, that he would probably personally see that they were taken care of.Except there was no revolution in Afghanistan. It was a military coup. Hafizullah Amin had the gall to actually seek aid from sources other than the USSR, so the USSR promptly went in, shot a head of state, and replaced him with a total, utterly discredited puppet whose faction represented petty-bourgeois "socialism" in the 60's and 70's anyway.


The real question is what so-called communists are doing supporting patriots.I don't see the issue when it's the invasion of a foreign country and the people of said foreign country are resisting imperialism. As I pointed out, Hoxha was supporting the Afghan Hoxhaists who tried to seek influence over the whole resistance period, but failed horribly as the pro-Soviet government actually targeted the Hoxhaists and Maoists first and foremost before all else. Lenin supported Atatürk, even to the detriment of Turkish communists, so I think Hoxha trying to support communists as part of a whole united anti-imperialist struggle is fine.

[khad]

Except there was no revolution in Afghanistan.
Cool story bro. The coup occurred in conjunction with mass street action by the working class of Kabul, who were demanding the release of jailed party members. Consistently the PDPA was the most popular group in Afghanistan on the basis that it had multi-ethnic appeal and did not play on ethnic divisions like the various mujahideen factions did.

Just because Mr. Ham Hocks had all the TRUE Albanian proletarian support from workers, peasants, cows, chickens, trees, and rocks doesn't mean he was qualified to speak about the Saur revolution.

[Ismail]

Cool story bro. The coup occurred in conjunction with mass street action by the working class of Kabul, who were demanding the release of jailed party members. Consistently the PDPA was the most popular group in Afghanistan on the basis that it had multi-ethnic appeal and did not play on ethnic divisions like the various mujahideen factions did.In this context I meant a socialist revolution, which is what mykittyhasaboner was suggesting, not "the government has been overthrown in a military coup d'état that initially had popular support before pissing it all away." On that basis I could say that Siad Barre, el-Qadhafi, etc. led "socialist revolutions" rather than progressive seizures of power. Not to mention that those who carried out the coup (the Khalq faction) were later denounced by Moscow.

I'd rather this not become another thread about Afghanistan, it's becoming cliché. Can we at least talk about something else? How about the Iran-Iraq War and Hoxha's views on it (which are noted in the book)?

[Devrim]

I don't see the issue when it's the invasion of a foreign country and the people of said foreign country are resisting imperialism. As I pointed out, Hoxha was supporting the Afghan Hoxhaists who tried to seek influence over the whole resistance period, but failed horribly as the pro-Soviet government actually targeted the Hoxhaists and Maoists first and foremost before all else. Lenin supported Atatürk, even to the detriment of Turkish communists, so I think Hoxha trying to support communists as part of a whole united anti-imperialist struggle is fine.

As you probably know then, the Turkish nationalists who had been provided with Soviet gold, and arms, preceded to use them to massacre the communists and militant workers.

Comintern policy on national liberation was a disaster in all of the countries neighbouring the Soviet Union.

So called 'Anti-imperialist struggle' today has a tendency to become nothing more than proxies fighting on behalf of different imperialist powers. In this case while opposing Soviet imperialism, they became puppets of US imperialism.

Devrim

[Kléber]

Soviet policies in Afghanistan were pretty reprehensible, but so is Hoxha's line, which supposes that a Soviet military disaster would be a good thing in the fight against "revisionism." Hoxha's wish came true, victory for Afghan "patriots," but it only hastened the restoration of capitalism in USSR, because the Soviet bureaucracy was inclined to capitulation.

Absent a genuine attempt to organize a proletarian opposition in the USSR that supported democratization, opposed market reforms and bureaucratism, besides calling for a "great jubilee" of "the Lenin-Stalin type," Hoxha's empty sectarianism amounted to tacit support for the aims of US imperialism.

I am interested to know to what extent Maoists and Hoxhaists had a choice in fighting the Soviet and DRA armies. Was it true that Maoist and Hoxhaist youth were driven into the countryside to ensure their own survival because of unprovoked jailings and executions by the PDPA, or was the PDPA repression in response to armed actions by Maoists and Hoxhaists against the government?

[Ismail]

Soviet policies in Afghanistan were pretty reprehensible, but so is Hoxha's line, which supposes that a Soviet military disaster would be a good thing in the fight against "revisionism."Defeating social-imperialism weakened state-capitalism just as defeating imperialism weakens capitalism.


I am interested to know to what extent Maoists and Hoxhaists had a choice in fighting the Soviet and DRA armies. Was it true that Maoist and Hoxhaist youth were driven into the countryside to ensure their own survival because of unprovoked jailings and executions by the PDPA, or was the PDPA repression in response to armed actions by Maoists and Hoxhaists against the government?The Maoists and Hoxhaists were illegal throughout the 1960's and 70's because unlike the Parcham (which later dominated under Soviet tutelage) they openly condemned the monarchy. I have not seen anything of a "reactive" policy coming from the Soviet-backed government, and in fact if there was one thing that could unite the Parcham and Khalq factions post-1978 it was their opposition to the so-called "ultra-leftism" of the pro-Chinese and pro-Albanian groups (well, that and Moscow forcing them to unite). There is, however, evidence of Khalq-Maoist cooperation pre-1978. (Afghanistan's Two-Party Communism, p. 41)

[Adi Shankara]

I'm sure this isn't contributing much, but Enver Hoxha was a nationalist first and foremost, and put Albania at the center of the world. therefore, I wonder what importance it is to even discuss his views on the middle East, seeing as he promoted "Albanianism" everywhere he went.

[Reznov]

I'm sure this isn't contributing much, but Enver Hoxha was a nationalist first and foremost, and put Albania at the center of the world. therefore, I wonder what importance it is to even discuss his views on the middle East, seeing as he promoted "Albanianism" everywhere he went.

Sources?

[Ismail]

I wonder what importance it is to even discuss his views on the middle East, seeing as he promoted "Albanianism" everywhere he went.What do you base this on? I'm pretty sure he went around noting the importance of Marxist-Leninists in upholding socialism. Nothing in his works I've read (and, naturally, I've read quite a bit) talks about the promotion of "Albanianism," whatever that means. The word "Hoxhaism" was never heard of in Albania. Hoxha's views weren't praised as "unique" like "Mao Zedong Thought" (aka Maoism) or Juche. Hoxha and the pro-Albanian parties always called themselves Marxist-Leninists. "Hoxhaism" itself was only a distinguishing label, or used as a pejorative ("Hoxhaite") by its opponents.

Can you find any examples of "Albanianism" in the work which is the subject of this thread? In fact he spends pages 451-507 talking about the history of the Middle East, the contributions of Arabs, and a history of Islam.

[Adi Shankara]

What do you base this on? I'm pretty sure he went around noting the importance of Marxist-Leninists in upholding socialism. Nothing in his works I've read (and, naturally, I've read quite a bit) talks about the promotion of "Albanianism," whatever that means. The word "Hoxhaism" was never heard of in Albania. Hoxha's views weren't praised as "unique" like "Mao Zedong Thought" (aka Maoism) or Juche. Hoxha and the pro-Albanian parties always called themselves Marxist-Leninists. "Hoxhaism" itself was only a distinguishing label, or used as a pejorative ("Hoxhaite") by its opponents.

Can you find any examples of "Albanianism" in the work which is the subject of this thread? In fact he spends pages 451-507 talking about the history of the Middle East, the contributions of Arabs, and a history of Islam.

In short:


"the only religion of Albania is Albanianism."

--Enver Hoxha

[Ismail]

In short:


"the only religion of Albania is Albanianism."

--Enver HoxhaYes, that was used during the anti-religious campaign of the late 1960's and early 70's. What does that have to do with anything? Hoxha constantly stressed the need for internationalism in foreign policy.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Only if you think that the Mujahidin were one united entity.

Obviously, they weren't. How anyone could think that is beyond me. The point was Hoxha's support for counterrevolution has nothing to do with anti-imperialism, regardless of which ever sect of counterrevolutionaries he associated himself with.


The Afghan people resisted Soviet social-imperialism. That the US decided to take advantage of it is not surprising, but it does not change this fact.First of all, there is no "fact" regarding Soviet "social-imperialism".

Second, of course there was resistance to the revolutionary process and the intervention of the SU, but that doesn't mean the US merely took advantage of it. US support for reactionaries didn't materialize overnight when the Soviets entered the country--they had been there long before.


Considering the US and China actively coordinated with one another, it's a fair bit different than Albania sending arms to Hoxhaists.In the end, all of them supported the victory of Islamist reactionaries and the roll back of all gains that were made. If your on the same side as the US, China, and the Mujaheddin fighting against revolution, then something is wrong...


Except there was no revolution in Afghanistan. It was a military coup. Was there a socialist revolution in Afghanistan? No. I never suggested that.

Was there an ongoing revolutionary process in Afghanistan at the time of the coup, and was the coup supported by massive showings of support? Absolutely.

Did the coup, led by the small PDPA and military officers, usher in a revolutionary land reform program, and progressive policies concerning women, non-Pushtun nationalities and education? Yeah, it did.

Now the problem is why you oppose the new regime from the perspective of Chinese, US, Pakistani, and Albanian politicos. There is nothing good to claim from supporting the counterrevolution; the process responsible for the current misery and death universally experienced by those in Afghanistan since your reactionary patriots won.


I'd rather this not become another thread about Afghanistan, it's becoming cliché. Can we at least talk about something else? How about the Iran-Iraq War and Hoxha's views on it (which are noted in the book)? I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but I guess it wouldn't hurt.

Are you talking about the actual Iranian revolution, or the victory Khomeini and the counterrevolution? What kind of anti-imperialism did the revolution 'inspire'?

[Dimentio]

For every minute this goes on, the relevancy could only increase, since Hoxha's international standing is continuously improving in contrarian relation to the amount of time which has passed by since his death and the fall of his government.

[Ismail]

Obviously, they weren't. How anyone could think that is beyond me. The point was Hoxha's support for counterrevolution has nothing to do with anti-imperialism, regardless of which ever sect of counterrevolutionaries he associated himself with.The Hoxhaists were fighting against a state-capitalist regime.


First of all, there is no "fact" regarding Soviet "social-imperialism".http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albneocol.htm
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albeconint.htm

Those are just two examples.


Second, of course there was resistance to the revolutionary process and the intervention of the SU, but that doesn't mean the US merely took advantage of it.They took advantage of it, yes. They noted the popular unrest against the revisionist government throughout the entire country. The Soviet invasion played right into the hands of US imperialism.


Did the coup, led by the small PDPA and military officers, usher in a revolutionary land reform program, and progressive policies concerning women, non-Pushtun nationalities and education? Yeah, it did.But this does not change the fact that after 1979 Afghanistan became a total puppet state of the Soviets who then proceeded to occupy the country against the wishes of the Afghan people.


Are you talking about the actual Iranian revolution, or the victory Khomeini and the counterrevolution? What kind of anti-imperialism did the revolution 'inspire'?As Hoxha notes, the Iranian Revolution inspired broad anti-imperialist sentiment across the Middle East, because it was the first major uprising against Western influence in the region since Nasserism in the 1950's, and unlike Nasser Khomeini condemned the Soviet Union. The USA and USSR then proceeded to jointly arm Iraq as a bulwark against the Iranian Government in an attempt to have Iran fall in battle and the anti-imperialist forces demoralized. Of course by 1988 Marxist-Leninist sentiment in Iran had dwindled, and the forces which could drive Iranian society to the left were thus absent.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Those are just two examples.Not really. Anything from Albania, without sourced information is pretty much worthless.


They took advantage of it, yes. They noted the popular unrest against the revisionist government throughout the entire country. The Soviet invasion played right into the hands of US imperialism.Again, the US didn't simply "take advantage" of any opposition--they had more to do with actually creating and funding opposition. The US government admits this.
"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." "That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap.... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."
"There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version. The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensable, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower"[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-JIMMY-CARTER-AND-I-STARTED-THE-MUJAHIDEEN-10) http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm


But this does not change the fact that after 1979 Afghanistan became a total puppet state of the Soviets who then proceeded to occupy the country against the wishes of the Afghan people.The "Afghan people" is a generalization, and the Soviet military was requested to aid the new regime; but I don't want to argue semantics or moot points. There was support and opposition to the new regime. The opposition obviously was from the rural areas, where your reactionary patriots reigned supreme with US cash and missiles.

It doesn't change the fact that you would have supported US imperialism and counterrevolution all under some delusion of opposing Soviet "imperialism".


As Hoxha notes, the Iranian Revolution inspired broad anti-imperialist sentiment across the Middle East, because it was the first major uprising against Western influence in the region since Nasserism in the 1950's, and unlike Nasser Khomeini condemned the Soviet Union. So what if he condemned the Soviet Union?! Is that really all you care about?

Khomeini was part of the Iranian counter-revolution in the end and had little to do with "anti-imperialism" unless you call the Iran-Iraq war an anti-imperialist struggle.

Exactly why you praise Hoxha's opportunism here is baffling to me.



The USA and USSR then proceeded to jointly arm Iraq as a bulwark against the Iranian Government in an attempt to have Iran fall in battle and the anti-imperialist forces demoralized. Of course by 1988 Marxist-Leninist sentiment in Iran had dwindled, and the forces which could drive Iranian society to the left were thus absent.Khomeini had all leftist opposition crushed before in the early 80's. So much for "anti-imperialism".

[khad]

The Soviet invasion played right into the hands of US imperialism.

So your solution is to do nothing and to throw Afghan socialists to imperialist wolves?

The ISI, via America's proxy Pakistan was already supporting reactionary elements to destroy Daoud in the mid-70s because they feared losing control after Zahir Shah was thrown out.

Under Zahir Shah, the United States was the PRIMARY great power patron of Afghanistan. They were going to dominate Afghanistan one way or another and were already working to destabilize the country for years before Soviet troops arrived.


But this does not change the fact that after 1979 Afghanistan became a total puppet state of the Soviets who then proceeded to occupy the country against the wishes of the Afghan people.
Oh yes, your mythical "people" once again. It's been shown time and again that the PDPA was always the most popular faction in Afghanistan, because it was the only group which did not play to ethnic divisions.

The PDPA was the way forward for Afghanistan, and the question for Afghan socialists was how to win the revolution, with the supporters it had and the supporters it could gather, and to crush the reactionaries on the payroll of western imperialism.


The Hoxhaists were fighting against a state-capitalist regime.
Fighting for American, Pakistani, and Chinese capitalism.

All the empty ultraleft talk from Mr. Hoxha's mouth doesn't mean a damn thing when the objective actions are reactionary.

It's no wonder that Hoxhaites have proven themselves to be traitors to the cause of socialism time and again, the most recent example being Ecuador.


I'd rather this not become another thread about Afghanistan, it's becoming cliché.
Your cliché is your unflagging love for goons like Hekmatyar supposedly representing "the people's movement," in spite of all evidence to the contrary. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up Afghanistan, so YOU can expect people to call you out on it.


But this does not change the fact that after 1979 Afghanistan became a total puppet state of the Soviets

Fuck you very much for making Afghans slaves to America, Pakistan, and Saudis.


Once the Soviets withdrew, US interest in Afghanistan ceased. The US decided not to help with reconstruction of the country and instead they handed over the interests of the country to US allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Pakistan quickly took advantage of this opportunity and forged relations with warlords a nd later the Taliban to secure trade interests and routes. From wiping out the country's trees through logging practices, which has destroyed all but 2% of forest cover country-wide, to substantial uprooting of wild pistachio trees for the exportation of their roots for therapeutic uses, to opium agriculture, the past ten years have caused much ecological and agrarian destruction.[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-94)

[Ismail]

Not really. Anything from Albania, without sourced information is pretty much worthless.The Albanian economists sourced their findings.


Again, the US didn't simply "take advantage" of any opposition--they had more to do with actually creating and funding opposition. The US government admits this.It does not change the fact that the Afghan people rose up first.


The "Afghan people" is a generalization,How so?


and the Soviet military was requested to aid the new regime; but I don't want to argue semantics or moot points.I'm sure Amin would have, considering that I doubt requesting the "Soviet military" meant "Barge into the Presidential Palace and shoot the Head of State," but that's what happened.


Khomeini was part of the Iranian counter-revolution in the end and had little to do with "anti-imperialism" unless you call the Iran-Iraq war an anti-imperialist struggle.This is ridiculous. The people of Iran arose against the Shah, and the revisionist Tudeh quickly squandered whatever influence it had.


Khomeini had all leftist opposition crushed before in the early 80's. So much for "anti-imperialism".The CIA backed the Ba'athists, who murdered practically the entire Iraqi CP.

[Kiev Communard]

It does not change the fact that the Afghan people rose up first.


I'm sorry but you use grossly oversimplified formulations when referring to "Afghan people". Without even mentioning class composition of Afghan society, the different ethnic (and even clan Pashtoo) groups of Afghanistan clearly did not identify with any modern comcept of "political nation" at that time, so the idea of some "populist uprising" against "Soviet occupiers" is simply untrue. First insurgents were clearly backward clansmen obeying the commands of their tribal chiefs and local clergy - in some way, much like Vendeens during the French Revolution. You may say that the USSR was not a socialist nation (I agree with you, but so was Hoxhaist Albania), but in comparison with backward landowner -and-clergy-inspired revolt the DRA was quite a progressive formation. There were simply no conditions for successful independent socialist revolution (i.e. the modern proletariat and intelligentsia were close to absent in Afghanistan) in the country at that time.

[Ismail]

First insurgents were clearly backward clansmen obeying the commands of their tribal chiefs and local clergy - in some way, much like Vendeens during the French Revolution.And the ending of such a revolt would have been justified had the DRA not degenerated into a Soviet puppet suppressing its own people with chemical weapons.


but in comparison with backward landowner -and-clergy-inspired revolt the DRA was quite a progressive formation. There were simply no conditions for successful independent socialist revolution (i.e. the modern proletariat and intelligentsia were close to absent in Afghanistan) in the country at that time.Afghanistan under the Soviets was turned into a neo-colony. Albania in 1944 had less than 500 workers in a country of 1 million, yet it was possible (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/mara.htm) to begin socialist construction. The DRA Government did not pursue a popular, mass-based policy, and after 1979 it symbolized the expansion of Soviet social-imperialism. It was therefore not progressive.