Afghanistan Liberation Organisation

[Cultural Revolution]

The ALO, was formed in the early seventies, it was one of half a dozen groups to grow out of the eternal flame movement, It follows an anti revisionist line, and has struggled for socialism and has fought oppressors of all stripes.

In 1979 it formed a united front against soviet social imperialist forces called the Mujahedin Freedom Fighters Front Of Afghanistan and fought, along with islamic groups, to end the Soviet puppet regime and occupying troops, championing the rights of the Afghan populace, especially the Pashtuns, who have been subject to invasion for centuries.

On November 12, 1986, Dr. Faiz Ahmad and a group of other comrades were killed by an islamic militia, but despite the Martyrdom of its founder, the ALO, continues to fight, capitalism, fundamentalism, cultural and capital hegemony and military imperialism.

It is now focusing on ridding Afghanistan of the genocidal American troops, through protracted peoples war, despite not recieving vocal support or praise, as many latin American and European groups do on this forum, i see the ALO as a great and revolutionary organisation, who fight both oppression of women and the athiest community, aswell as staying on course, not becoming revisionist, and carrying on the peoples struggles, that will continue until the class contradictions in our society cease to exist.

Long live the ALO
May the Jihad continue

[Widerstand]

May the Jihad continue

The big or the small Jihad?

[Cultural Revolution]

lol not do enough trolling in chat you racist?

[Rafiq]

I don't see the Racism

[Widerstand]

I don't see the Racism

CR here calls me racist because I agreed with Khad that only a white person could be privileged and uninvolved enough to hold the views they expressed, such as that the war over Afghanistan and the US-funded, anti-communist Mujahideen were good and are worthy of support.

[scarletghoul]

CR here calls me racist because I agreed with Khad that only a white person could be privileged and uninvolved enough to hold the views they expressed, such as that the war over Afghanistan and the US-funded, anti-communist Mujahideen were good and are worthy of support.
I'm pretty sure the majority of the Mujahideen's support came from non-white people.

just saying..

(though I'm still undecided on the whole Afghanistan thing)

[Widerstand]

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Mujahideen's support came from non-white people.

just saying..

I don't see what that has to do with my post, really. I'm talking about CR approving of their actions.

[William Howe]

I see the Afghan freedom fighters as the Soviet soldiers of WWII, facing an impossibly difficult task and hordes of fascistic demons (the Americans, in this case), and fighting their hearts out to win.


If history repeats itself, and it definitely does, then you know how WWII went...:D

[IndependentCitizen]

Well good luck to their struggle. Let's hope they become more popular and show Karzai the wrong end of a bullet.

[gorillafuck]

I don't see what that has to do with my post, really. I'm talking about CR approving of their actions.
It wasn't only white people approving of their actions. Why would you think that?

You are aware that the vast majority of people in Eastern Europe and Russia are white? They were usually opposing Mujaheddin actions. Most of the support of them came from the USA (which is white dominated), and from the middle east and Northern Africa, which are definitely not white areas.

[Scary Monster]

Lol me, Khad, and others have to say the same thing over and over again everytime someone thinks the Mujahideen were good:

The Mujahideen (the Taliban kind of formed out of the Mujahideen) are an Islamic-fundamentalist group who loves to behead people and repress women, were funded and armed completely by Pakistan, the US, UK and China (mostly US and China), and were largely made up of foreign muslims who wanted to wage a holy war against the atheist Afghan communist government that gave its women equal rights, in the late 70s and 80s. The Soviets never "invaded" Afghanistan, because the soviets didnt aid the popular, secular government until they requested aid.

[gorillafuck]

The PDPA was popular in cities, it was not very popular in the countryside.

And yeah, fuck the ALO. I don't see why any leftist would support the Mujaheddin.

[IndependentCitizen]

Lol me, Khad, and others have to say the same thing over and over again everytime someone thinks the Mujahideen were good:

The Mujahideen (the Taliban kind of formed out of the Mujahideen) are an Islamic-fundamentalist group who loves to behead people and repress women, were funded and armed completely by Pakistan, the US, UK and China (mostly US and China), and were largely made up of foreign muslims who wanted to wage a holy war against the atheist Afghan communist government that gave its women equal rights, in the late 70s and 80s. The Soviets never "invaded" Afghanistan, because the soviets didnt aid the popular, secular government until they requested aid.

Do you have any information regarding the war of 79-89? I would like to read some :)

[Rafiq]

I would support the Afghan Communists over the Reactionary Muahajadeen any day. Those are the kinds of people who approve Polygamous Marriage, in which a man would have several wives with their children in different locations, visiting them as he chooses..
(Source: Afghan People, and Even Religious Reactionary's around where I live).

Though I don't agree with any form of Invasions by countries, the Soviets had every right to fund the Afghan Communists against them.

[Rafiq]

Lol me, Khad, and others have to say the same thing over and over again everytime someone thinks the Mujahideen were good:

The Mujahideen (the Taliban kind of formed out of the Mujahideen) are an Islamic-fundamentalist group who loves to behead people and repress women, were funded and armed completely by Pakistan, the US, UK and China (mostly US and China), and were largely made up of foreign muslims who wanted to wage a holy war against the atheist Afghan communist government that gave its women equal rights, in the late 70s and 80s .

This

I would support Anti-Imperialist forces that may not be of non-Communists, but in no way would I support Religious reactionary's who stone Women for cheating on their husbands, and who allow men to beat women for not being "Obedient".

The Qu'ran is taken too literal by them.

[StalinFanboy]

I am suspicious of organizations that explicitly refer to themselves as citizens of bourgeois nations instead of the proletariat. I mean, I think it's cool, obviously, that they organized against Soviet imperialism, but I don't feel like their reasons for doing so were rooted in class politics.

[Cultural Revolution]

As khad and his band of trollbots seem to be spouting lies in this thread, I would like to reiterate my position.

I detest Fundamentalist Islam, However, I also detest Revisionism and social imperialism.

I said, I would support the Mujahideen against the revisionist, state capitalist USSR, thus playing both these groups off against one another, while supporting the anti revisionist Maoist ALO, who entered a broad alliance with islamic groups in order to fight the bigger invading force, and try and replace it with a anti revisionist regime.

Also, the fact khad seems to think the people of Afghanistan have no right to determine their own destiny is pretty fucked up.

But then again, according to him I am white, so can not have a stance on this subject :(

[gorillafuck]

I said, I would support the Mujahideen against the revisionist, state capitalist USSR, thus playing both these groups off against one another, while supporting the anti revisionist Maoist ALO, who entered a broad alliance with islamic groups in order to fight the bigger invading force, and try and replace it with a anti revisionist regime.
So if the USSR sends troops somewhere it means support whoever the anti-soviets are? Even if it means explicitly supporting American imperialism?


I would support Anti-Imperialist forces that may not be of non-Communists, but in no way would I support Religious reactionary's who stone Women for cheating on their husbands, and who allow men to beat women for not being "Obedient".
Just for the sake of discussion, those two things have demonstrated themselves to not be mutually exclusive.

[The Count]

I said, I would support the Mujahideen against the revisionist, state capitalist USSR,
Yes, it's so awesome that the Mujahideen was victorious and the Taliban was able to take control of the Afghan government. It really turned out to be what was best for the working people. Oh yeah, and letting Osama Bin Laden train thousands of guerrila insurgents that target civilians was really cool too.

How about this...
If they're both bad guys, then don't support either of them.

[KurtFF8]

I said, I would support the Mujahideen against the revisionist, state capitalist USSR,

How is that distinct from overtly supporting US imperialism then? You're literally "picking the side" of American imperialism that helped bring down the alternative to it that allowed it to go virtually unchecked form the late 80s until now.


who entered a broad alliance with islamic groups in order to fight the bigger invading force, and try and replace it with a anti revisionist regime.

Yet while supporting the future invading force.


Also, the fact khad seems to think the people of Afghanistan have no right to determine their own destiny is pretty fucked up.

Opposing the Mujahideenhas nothing to do with "not thinking they should have a right..." in any way. We should be able to examine conditions of a country, and it's conditions of liberation and come to conclusions about the value certain groups have to build a better society for a nation. The Mujahideen were more of a determent to Afghanistan than a liberating force.

[Cultural Revolution]

the USSR was heading towards private capitalism, so how would the Afghans been better off under capitalism than the Mujahideen?

Is being a super exploited third worlder better under the rule of the bourgeoisie or the theocracy?.. not much difference.

I didnt support the Mujahideen except as a reactionary force fighting another reactionary force, the USSR occupation force and its government, who were killing real communists in the ALO.

So I did not support the Mujahideen or the USSR, i supported them bleeding each other and my support is with the ALO.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I got mixed feelings on the whole Soviet-Afghan War. The PDPA were definitely revisionist and the Soviets were clearly only there for their own self interests (they did shoot the guy who apparently "requested" their aid after he got a bit too independent for their liking, remember).

On the other hand if it's between revisionists and US-backed reactionary feudalists with guys like Osama Bin Laden in their ranks, I may reluctantly back revisionists. I'm aware that were Maoists and Hoxhaists fighting during the war, but from what I can tell they seemed to have been nipped in the bud before they could get much influence and often just resorted to fighting with the Mujahideen. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, anyone.

[Scary Monster]

Also, the fact khad seems to think the people of Afghanistan have no right to determine their own destiny is pretty fucked up.

Who ever said the Afghan people have no right to determine their own destiny? Thats exactly what they were doing, up until the US started taking that away from them in the '80s. Remember, so many mujahideen were from places other than Afghanistan (Pakistan especially).

[KurtFF8]

the USSR was heading towards private capitalism, so how would the Afghans been better off under capitalism than the Mujahideen?Yet capitalism wasn't restored until the late 80s/early 90s. Long after the war had been going on


Is being a super exploited third worlder better under the rule of the bourgeoisie or the theocracy?.. not much difference.Well were countries that were in the USSR's camp better off than those in the imperialist camp? I would say that they tended to be better off in the former: African liberation struggles were aided by the USSR and Cuba, for example.


I didnt support the Mujahideen except as a reactionary force fighting another reactionary force, the USSR occupation force and its government, who were killing real communists in the ALO.It's a pretty shallow analysis to equate the Mujahideen and the USSR.


I suggest the Hayood article China and its supporters are wrong about the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/archive/haywood/1984/04/11.htm)


So I did not support the Mujahideen or the USSR, i supported them bleeding each other and my support is with the ALO.How significant of a force was the ALO though? This sort of "third way" sectarianism tends to lead certain groups to actually support reactionary anti-worker actions, just see the "coup attempt" in Ecuador recently for example where certain groups actually came out condemning the president while the attempt was happening. How is that not the same thing as supporting a reactionary cause? Same goes with Afghanistan in my opinion.


the Soviets were clearly only there for their own self interestsI have yet to see an analysis of "Soviet imperialism" that actually demonstrates how the USSR was imperialist in the capitalist/bourgeois sense though.

[Widerstand]

It wasn't only white people approving of their actions. Why would you think that?

You are aware that the vast majority of people in Eastern Europe and Russia are white? They were usually opposing Mujaheddin actions. Most of the support of them came from the USA (which is white dominated), and from the middle east and Northern Africa, which are definitely not white areas.

You know, I get your point and all, but CR said (on IRC) that the war was good (because "imperialists were fighting"), and that consequently the deaths and the following regime's injustices were irrelevant. You seriously have to be in an ivory tower (eg be white, though I didn't even bring that one up, I just agreed to the notion) to spit that kind of crap.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

=I have yet to see an analysis of "Soviet imperialism" that actually demonstrates how the USSR was imperialist in the capitalist/bourgeois sense though.

In a geopolitical sense rather than a traditional capitalist/bourgeois sense, so I wouldn't call it all-out imperialism but they definitely had somewhat imperialist-ish tendencies.

[KurtFF8]

In a geopolitical sense rather than a traditional capitalist/bourgeois sense, so I wouldn't call it all-out imperialism but they definitely had somewhat imperialist-ish tendencies.

Well imperialist-ish tendencies isn't really something that should be entered into the broader Marxist discourse on imperialism in my opinion, as it doesn't really add much to the analysis of the 20th century.

[gorillafuck]

You know, I get your point and all, but CR said (on IRC) that the war was good (because "imperialists were fighting"), and that consequently the deaths and the following regime's injustices were irrelevant.
Oh, I wasn't there, I didn't know that. That's absurd.


You seriously have to be in an ivory tower (eg be white, though I didn't even bring that one up, I just agreed to the notion) to spit that kind of crap.You think that being white is being in an ivory tower?

[Cultural Revolution]

I did not say that, Khad said thats what I was saying, because I dared to call out the occupation for what it was, imperialist.

[Widerstand]

You think that being white is being in an ivory tower?

No. Obviously there are whites who are not, as well as non-whites who are. I'm saying that being white (often) grants you enough privilege to talk such absurdities and mean them.

The context of this whole "white" thing, again, were the views expressed by CR, upon which Khad said something like "you have to be white", which CR claimed to be racism.

[Widerstand]

I did not say that, Khad said thats what I was saying, because I dared to call out the occupation for what it was, imperialist.

Bullshit, you said the war was good and the Taliban were irrelevant.

[gorillafuck]

No. Obviously there are whites who are not, as well as non-whites who are. I'm saying that being white (often) grants you enough privilege to talk such absurdities and mean them.

The context of this whole "white" thing, again, were the views expressed by CR, upon which Khad said something like "you have to be white", which CR claimed to be racism.
But you don't have to be white to support the Mujaheddin, supporting them and their actions isn't an expression of "white privilege" at all. Again, most of their support came from the US, Arabic countries and Northern Africa.

I'm not saying they deserved support but to claim support of them has anything to do with "white privilege" is stupid.

[Widerstand]

But you don't have to be white to support the Mujaheddin, supporting them and their actions isn't an expression of "white privilege" at all. Again, most of their support came from the US, Arabic countries and Northern Africa.

I'm not saying they deserved support but to claim support of them has anything to do with "white privilege" is stupid.

sigh...

Calling the doings of the Taliban and the atrocities of the war "irrelevant" requires serious detachment, which can be explained by white priviledge.

[gorillafuck]

Calling the doings of the Taliban and the atrocities of the war "irrelevant" requires serious detachment, which can be explained by white priviledge.
How? That still doesn't make sense.

Al-Qaeda are much more related to the mujaheddin than the Taliban, btw.

[Widerstand]

How? That still doesn't make sense.

I really can't bother explaining it to you, especially given that it was a really minor remark in a big chunk of discussion. If you agree with CR that it was racist, go ahead.

[gorillafuck]

I really can't bother explaining it to you, especially given that it was a really minor remark in a big chunk of discussion. If you agree with CR that it was racist, go ahead.
it wasn't racist because racism is a system of oppression.

[red cat]

As khad and his band of trollbots seem to be spouting lies in this thread, I would like to reiterate my position.

I detest Fundamentalist Islam, However, I also detest Revisionism and social imperialism.

I said, I would support the Mujahideen against the revisionist, state capitalist USSR, thus playing both these groups off against one another, while supporting the anti revisionist Maoist ALO, who entered a broad alliance with islamic groups in order to fight the bigger invading force, and try and replace it with a anti revisionist regime.

Also, the fact khad seems to think the people of Afghanistan have no right to determine their own destiny is pretty fucked up.

But then again, according to him I am white, so can not have a stance on this subject :(

I am not an expert on Afghanistan, but as far as south Asia is concerned, in almost every case revisionists have proved to be worse than fundamentalists. In fact, the cleverer among the fundamentalists realize the true nature of the leftist phrase-mongering reactionaries and actually side with them. So fundamentalism goes on in practice, right under the guise of leftism.

In Indian upper-middle class circles too, the initial battles of the revisionist CPI(Marxist) with the newly emerging Maoist groups was seen as an attempt of reactionaries to ruin the "revolution" that the official left was very eager to bring about. But since the development of the peoples' war, other facts have been discovered that indicate quite the contrary.

The Maoist factions of Afghanistan are re-uniting again. Hopefully the future peoples' war will answer our questions.

As for your clash with Khad, I think that his complaints have some kind of justification when we see the overall picture. In general western sympathizers of leftism tend to be terribly wrong about the nature of Asian movements. You might be an exception, but this is true in most cases. Whether you are right in supporting the Maoist movement in Afghanistan is immaterial, because this is not a Maoist forum. Also, try to forget the personal grudge. Though his tendency seems to match very closely with mine ;), Khad is far more sensible than most people here, and if it comes to the details of Afghan movements, he probably knows much more than you.

Last but not the least, keeping your eyes on south Asia, you should understand that no matter whether you lose or win debates here, no matter how much we are called opportunists, murderous anti-worker gangs etc. when it comes to making a revolution itself, there is mostly only one particular tendency on the field. ;)

[khad]

You want to talk about the ALO?


On November 12, 1986, Dr. Faiz Ahmad and a group of other comrades were killed by an islamic militia, but despite the Martyrdom of its founder, the ALO, continues to fight, capitalism, fundamentalism, cultural and capital hegemony and military imperialism.That Islamic militia was the Hekmatyar group, whom the ALO supported until relations between them soured. Then Hekmatyar and his much more powerful militia, enjoying the support of the US, Pakistan, and China, virtually stomped the Maoists out of existence.

The bottom line is that no real leftist needs to follow or give two shits about the ALO, which offered leftists little more than a quick path towards suicide.

Furthermore, what you called "irrelevant" was the systematic rape of Afghanistan by Pakistani and Arab capitalists following the fall of the socialist government--the destruction of any economy other than opium, the destruction of 98% of Afghanistan's forests, and the wholesale looting of government resources. Only a foolish kid born and raised in a western country like Britain would be so detached as to say that the pillaging of an entire nation is "irrelevant" because it stopped some theoretical construct of "revisionism." Where you live in theory--others live in the material world.


the USSR was heading towards private capitalism, so how would the Afghans been better off under capitalism than the Mujahideen?
Really, fuck off.

[The Author]

the USSR was heading towards private capitalism, so how would the Afghans been better off under capitalism than the Mujahideen?

Is being a super exploited third worlder better under the rule of the bourgeoisie or the theocracy?.. not much difference.

I didnt support the Mujahideen except as a reactionary force fighting another reactionary force, the USSR occupation force and its government, who were killing real communists in the ALO.

So I did not support the Mujahideen or the USSR, i supported them bleeding each other and my support is with the ALO.

I'd rather support a group of revisionists than the Islamist garbage that was being pushed by the Yankee imperialists. The greatest mistake ever made in the international communist movement was to have China side with the US from 1972 onwards. Should have been Brezhnev going to China, not Nixon. My thoughts are that the Soviet Union should have won the Cold War, and the United States should have been the losing superpower. Then, the struggle would take on new forms, and instead of global capitalism choking the world to death as is going on currently, at least different countries throughout the world would be advancing or stalling to socialism at different paths and intensities. Then, fighting revisionism would have been more important. But the way geopolitics actually worked out in the 20th century were fucked up to say the least. Leading to the catastrophic world order we're in currently.

[Rafiq]

I am not an expert on Afghanistan, but as far as south Asia is concerned, in almost every case revisionists have proved to be worse than fundamentalists.

As someone who has experience with Fundamentalist Reactionary's, I must respectfully disagree.



Pretty much almost everything the US supports is completely the worst thing ever.

[red cat]

As someone who has experience with Fundamentalist Reactionary's, I must respectfully disagree.



Pretty much almost everything the US supports is completely the worst thing ever.

My statement concerns fundamentalists in south Asia. Do you know how from time to time the Indian parliamentary left uses fundamentalism to silence its opponents ?

I should also add that during the suppression of the Naxalbari movement, the Indian state as well as revisionists were primarily under Soviet and not US influence.

[Rafiq]

My statement concerns fundamentalists in south Asia. Do you know how from time to time the Indian parliamentary left uses fundamentalism to silence its opponents ?

I should also add that during the suppression of the Naxalbari movement, the Indian state as well as revisionists were primarily under Soviet and not US influence.

Ahh yes, but weren't the Naxbari movement Maoist?

And didn't the Soviets and the Chinese, sort of compete for the party's?

[red cat]

Ahh yes, but weren't the Naxbari movement Maoist?

And didn't the Soviets and the Chinese, sort of compete for the party's?

I am distinguishing between reactionary and revolutionary sides. A revolutionary war broke out in India, was supported by the PRC, while its opponents, rightists and pseudo-leftists were supported by the USSR. What does this indicate ?

[empiredestoryer]

go afgan freedom fighters your day will come ...go afgan freedom fighters spill their blood for your sons...

[Rafiq]

I am distinguishing between reactionary and revolutionary sides. A revolutionary war broke out in India, was supported by the PRC, while its opponents, rightists and pseudo-leftists were supported by the USSR. What does this indicate ?

It indicates the USSR didn't like China...?

[red cat]

It indicates the USSR didn't like China...?

Yes, and that the USSR had become counter-revolutionary by then.

Edit: Plus, it was the biggest foreign enemy for Indian revolutionaries at that point of time.

[Crux]

Yes, and that the USSR had become counter-revolutionary by then.

Edit: Plus, it was the biggest foreign enemy for Indian revolutionaries at that point of time.
Chinese realpolitik is no prettier than soviet realpolitik, I assure you. The alliance with the mujaheedin would be a good example of this.

[khad]

I am distinguishing between reactionary and revolutionary sides. A revolutionary war broke out in India, was supported by the PRC, while its opponents, rightists and pseudo-leftists were supported by the USSR. What does this indicate ?
While the PRC supported the arch-reactionary Pakistani regime that gave the world the likes of the muhjahideen and Taliban.

It's on you to prove that the mujahideen and the Taliban are better than the Indian government.

[red cat]

Chinese realpolitik is no prettier than soviet realpolitik, I assure you. The alliance with the mujaheedin would be a good example of this.

I do not know much about the events in Afghanistan to point out the smallest details of the type of tactical alliance, but the relation between the Chinese bloc and Indian revolutionaries tells me that if there was a true socialist state at that time, then it was China.

[red cat]

While the PRC supported the arch-reactionary Pakistani regime that gave the world the likes of the muhjahideen and Taliban.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Pakistan the only country to have armed struggles conducted by pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese groups, and didn't these groups cooperate ? Did the Chinese regime support the Pakistani government against these, or was the support limited to international affairs to balance power ?


It's on you to prove that the mujahideen and the Taliban are better than the Indian government.

I think that there is no power worse than the Indian government, taking into consideration the absolute number of atrocities it has committed, and the portion of the total human population it keeps under imperialist control.

[Palingenisis]

I do not know much about the events in Afghanistan to point out the smallest details of the type of tactical alliance, but the relation between the Chinese bloc and Indian revolutionaries tells me that if there was a true socialist state at that time, then it was China.

Dont forget that the Communist Parties which sided with the USSR generally started pushing the idea of a "peaceful road to socialism" and became basically social-democratic parties in France, Italy and Britain while revolutionary communists all over the world flocked to the banner of Maoist China.

[red cat]

Dont forget that the Communist Parties which sided with the USSR generally started pushing the idea of a "peaceful road to socialism" and became basically social-democratic parties in France, Italy and Britain while revolutionary communists all over the world flocked to the banner of Maoist China.

It should also be noted that most of China's realpolitik in Afghanistan that are being discussed came after the consolidation of the Dengist takeover. Soon after that, the Dengist revisionists began severing China's ties with revolutionary movements abroad.

[Rafiq]

Yes, and that the USSR had become counter-revolutionary by then.

Edit: Plus, it was the biggest foreign enemy for Indian revolutionaries at that point of time.

Yes, the USSR was counter-revolutionary.

But you aren't comparing Indian Maoists to Afghani Reactionary's, are you?

[red cat]

Yes, the USSR was counter-revolutionary.

But you aren't comparing Indian Maoists to Afghani Reactionary's, are you?

I am supporting the Afghan Maoists.

[Rusty Shackleford]

As khad and his band of trollbots seem to be spouting lies in this thread, I would like to reiterate my position.

I detest Fundamentalist Islam, However, I also detest Revisionism and social imperialism.

I said, I would support the Mujahideen against the revisionist, state capitalist USSR, thus playing both these groups off against one another, while supporting the anti revisionist Maoist ALO, who entered a broad alliance with islamic groups in order to fight the bigger invading force, and try and replace it with a anti revisionist regime.

Also, the fact khad seems to think the people of Afghanistan have no right to determine their own destiny is pretty fucked up.

But then again, according to him I am white, so can not have a stance on this subject :(


heres your problem. a broad alliance with us and chinese backed islamist militias most likely wont get ya an anti-revisionist state. If your organization is having to enter into such broad and anti-communist alliances against a progressive government, you can kiss your sweet anti-revisionist revolution goodbye.

the reality is, though, the soviet union was assisting a revolutionary government that was in need. the mujahaideen, or at least the more reactionary elements, were telling farmers and so on they wouldnt get into heaven if they collectivized land. how fucking STUPID does that sound? While at the same time, women were armed, being educated, and the bourgeois and parochial mindset were being dismantled in the cities.

[Kléber]

the reality is, though, the soviet union was assisting a revolutionary government that was in need. the mujahaideen, or at least the more reactionary elements, were telling farmers and so on they wouldnt get into heaven if they collectivized land. how fucking STUPID does that sound?
I don't agree with the ultraleft Maoist position, but just to clarify here, the Soviet Union was already assisting the DRA before the invasion of December 1979. What most people object to is not the fact the Soviet Union aided the DRA, it is that the Soviet bureaucracy used its military presence to overthrow the government of its "host" country, kill its President, remove the majority (Khalq) faction of the PDPA from power and replace them with a moderate minority (Parcham), all of which aroused popular resentment, while the purges of Khalqis in the army caused the DRA's armed forces to slowly disintegrate through mutinies and defections, as what little remained became all the more reliant on a Soviet ally itself on the verge of capitulation to US imperialism. Under Karmal, "radical" policies like the land reform were scuttled, and the proceeding Najibullah government bent over even further to win the support of local elites and Islamic clerics.

[khad]

I don't agree with the ultraleft Maoist position, but just to clarify here, the Soviet Union was already assisting the DRA before the invasion of December 1979. What most people object to is not the fact the Soviet Union aided the DRA, it is that the Soviet bureaucracy used its military presence to overthrow the government of its "host" country, kill its President,
Who was murdering tens of thousands of Khalq and Parcham. The PDPA would have effectively ceased to exist and would have been replaced by a personal cult of Amin had the USSR allowed the killings to continue.


remove the majority (Khalq) faction of the PDPA from power and replace them with a moderate minority (Parcham), all of which aroused popular resentment, while the purges of Khalqis in the army caused the DRA's armed forces to slowly disintegrate through mutinies and defections, as what little remained became all the more reliant on a Soviet ally itself on the verge of capitulation to US imperialism. Under Karmal, "radical" policies like the land reform were scuttled, and the proceeding Najibullah government bent over even further to win the support of local elites and Islamic clerics.Resentment, my ass. Khalq was NEVER popular and was rightly read for its ultraleft tendencies. While Khalq retained many key positions in the military, they were never ideologically or organizationally equipped to head a civilian government of a very underdeveloped and (in many places) semi-feudal country. The only one who seemed to have a sense for the proper pace of social development given the starting conditions was President Taraki, who was murdered by the usurper Amin. Latter period Khalqis grumbling about the new government were often dangerously ultraleft, and many of them eventually ended up in the Taliban.

Just say no to ultraleftism, kids.

[Rafiq]

I am supporting the Afghan Maoists.



My mistake then.

I thought you were supporting the Afghani Taliban Fundamentalists.


Yes, I support the Afghan Maoists too.