Does anyone want to make a serious case for the Taliban?

[727Goon]

As I've stated in the other thread about a million times I oppose US Imperialism in Afganistan and support progressive groups like the ALO that fight against it. However from all I've read about the Taliban they're so reactionary and brutal that even imperialism is a better alternative. Here are the facts as I've seen them:
-According to the UN they are responsible for 76 percent of civilian casualties in Afganistan (http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=9955)
-7 in 10 Afgans oppose them (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/world/main6082241.shtml)

I know these are capitalist news sources so if somebody has a better source to refute them that would be straight.

[Dragovich]

Wasn't Afghanistan to capture some guy living in a cave somewhere? :rolleyes:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

An either/or position-either we support the Taliban or we support US imperialism is a false dichotomy. We need to break out of this. The Taliban is horrible and reactionary. So is the pro-US Northern Alliance and the various warlords the US used to (temporarily) get rid of the Taliban. So is the US puppet leader Karzai. Under Karzai women's rights have been drastically restricted.The guy's brother is a notorious drug lord.Karzai himself, a notoriously corrupt gangster, used to work for the Taliban. The US is creating a new generation of warlords, who will again fight it out, devastating the country, when the US leaves.

Afghanistan is in the horrid, tragic situation it is now in because of US imperialism.The communist Saur Revolution had some severe drawbacks, but it represented an emancipatory project. It had elements of brutality but it was far more progressive than anyone else who ruled Afghanistan. The US destroyed this with viscous, misogynistic "freedom fighter" warlords. One of the most well known of these, Hekmatyr, was famous for throwing acid in women's faces.The result of US intervention was vast chaos and destruction. The Taliban were initially supported by many people (until their brutality was apparent) and among many Pushtun still are.

US imperialism has visited vast destruction on Afghanistan. Obama knows he can't win, he's waiting for the right time to to cut a deal w/the Taliban. The US ruling class does not give a flying fuck about women's rights or any other human rights there.

I know you are in the military. Please don't take this the wrong way. I empathise with your situation and I understand your rationale.You are being used by the ruling class. In a year, two years, whenever is convenient, Obama will make peace w/the Taliban.

Sorry.

BTW it's interesting how Greg Mortenson ,the "Three Cups of Tea" guy was recently exposed as a fraud. His whole gig always sounded suspicious.

[lines]

It's not the job of the American government to determine the fate of nations. The American government is based on the racist genocide of Native Americans and the whole structure of the American government is evil. We need someone like Hugo Chavez to come to power in America.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Typically communists are some of the first people to be liquidated in the wake of Islamists taking power. Classic examples being Afghanistan and Iran in the aftermath of the revolution there. Another (smaller) example would be a wave of assassinations committed against communists in Lebanon during the 1980's by Hezbollah. It must be a pretty narrow view of politics that leads communists to support those who would love nothing more than to shove them into a shallow grave.

[Robocommie]

The thing you have to remember in all of these questions about imperialism improving local conditions, is that they don't. They promise they will, and honestly for a certain segment of the population they usually do. But everyone else gets shafted, and things get much much worse for them. Imperialism tends to annihilate old problems by annihilating the old society that faced those problems, and in its wake, create wholly new ones that can lead to incredible suffering.

The massacres in Rwanda are an excellent example of what can happen. Another example, is the partition of Palestine by the British which has caused so much suffering in the Middle East.

True social change and improvement must occur organically, from within. You can't impose a social order by force and expect it to stick. And all of this is assuming that imperialism actually works magnanimously, when it doesn't. It's a wholly parasitic relationship.

[Robocommie]

Typically communists are some of the first people to be liquidated in the wake of Islamists taking power. Classic examples being Afghanistan and Iran in the aftermath of the revolution there. Another (smaller) example would be a wave of assassinations committed against communists in Lebanon during the 1980's by Hezbollah. It must be a pretty narrow view of politics that leads communists to support those who would love nothing more than to shove them into a shallow grave.

The idea is not to support local tyrannies for the sake of supporting them, but rather to oppose colonialism, which tends to cause nations to stagnate and fester rather than develop socially. Imperialist powers tend to support local elites and the social order that sustains them because it keeps their interests in place. This is why post-colonial societies have to try and rush to catch up once they're liberated.

You know that famous, iconic photo of the Afghan girl from the 1980s? Years later when the US went to Afghanistan some reporters managed to track her down, and talk to her. She said that, despite what assholes they are, she'd rather have the Taliban because at least they're stable. She said this as a wife and mother, who'd basically like her country to stop having bombs fall on it for once. Maybe one day then, a local movement will get sick of the Taliban and rise up and change things for the better. But the US sure as hell won't let that happen. They will find warlords who will work with them (such as Hamid Karzai and his people) and then keep them in power for as long as possible, using the backing of American funds and war materiel to make that happen.

[Le Socialiste]

The Taliban is not the answer to American/Western imperialism in Afghanistan. Nor can we claim that it is a force worth siding with when there is no other alternative. The harsh reality is, as is often the case, the people of Afghanistan have little to no allies in this fight - the Americans want political/economic dominion via the oft repeated means of governmental puppets; the Taliban, the ability to exercise their reactionary fundamentalism within "legal" realms. Both are suppressive, non-belevolent entities that claim to carry the will of the people. We need to discard this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief that those who defy imperialist aggression are worthy of global solidarity. The Taliban was initially funded and propped up as a bulwark for Western interests against the Soviets (and revolutionary politics by extension). While both wars are/were geopolitical in nature (not rooted in ideology so much as political influence), the results have been disastrous in fostering revolutionary potential in the region. It is the role of the people to enact the policies and demands necessary for their own collective emancipation. No other political entity/body can do that.

So no, no one should ever consider defending the Taliban's role in Afghanistan, but that isn't to say the U.S. and NATO are an immediate default when deciding "support". The entire argument is based on false reasoning and a shallow understanding of the situation on the ground.

[red cat]

The US imperialist occupation is much worse than even the worst among fundamentalist regimes. Afghan people will live much better lives even if a highly reactionary group like the Taliban manages to kick the US out and seize power. I rejoice every time the Afghan resistances, including the Taliban, manage to deal military blows to the occupying thugs.

[agnixie]

It's not the job of the American government to determine the fate of nations. The American government is based on the racist genocide of Native Americans and the whole structure of the American government is evil. We need someone like Hugo Chavez to come to power in America.

You mean a populist who glorifies the name of a 19th century white bourgeois revolutionary who suppressed native groups? We've had plenty.


The US imperialist occupation is much worse than even the worst among fundamentalist regimes. Afghan people will live much better lives even if a highly reactionary group like the Taliban manages to kick the US out and seize power. I rejoice every time the Afghan resistances, including the Taliban, manage to deal military blows to the occupying thugs.

So much for not making this "either/or" - the Taliban are so reactionary that they had to throw out Ottoman case law to make their completely demented interpretation of Sharia stick. Their ascension was fueled as much by imperialism as that of Kharzai.

[Arlekino]

I had conversations from Afghanistan people they told me Soviet invasion was much better than NATO forces. I just curious is that truth that Soviet at least builded schools, hospitals.

[Red Future]

I had conversations from Afghanistan people they told me Soviet invasion was much better than NATO forces. I just curious is that truth that Soviet at least builded schools, hospitals.

And also the PDPA had some popular legitimacy

[727Goon]

An either/or position-either we support the Taliban or we support US imperialism is a false dichotomy. We need to break out of this. The Taliban is horrible and reactionary. So is the pro-US Northern Alliance and the various warlords the US used to (temporarily) get rid of the Taliban. So is the US puppet leader Karzai. Under Karzai women's rights have been drastically restricted.The guy's brother is a notorious drug lord.Karzai himself, a notoriously corrupt gangster, used to work for the Taliban. The US is creating a new generation of warlords, who will again fight it out, devastating the country, when the US leaves.

Afghanistan is in the horrid, tragic situation it is now in because of US imperialism.The communist Saur Revolution had some severe drawbacks, but it represented an emancipatory project. It had elements of brutality but it was far more progressive than anyone else who ruled Afghanistan. The US destroyed this with viscous, misogynistic "freedom fighter" warlords. One of the most well known of these, Hekmatyr, was famous for throwing acid in women's faces.The result of US intervention was vast chaos and destruction. The Taliban were initially supported by many people (until their brutality was apparent) and among many Pushtun still are.

US imperialism has visited vast destruction on Afghanistan. Obama knows he can't win, he's waiting for the right time to to cut a deal w/the Taliban. The US ruling class does not give a flying fuck about women's rights or any other human rights there.

I know you are in the military. Please don't take this the wrong way. I empathise with your situation and I understand your rationale.You are being used by the ruling class. In a year, two years, whenever is convenient, Obama will make peace w/the Taliban.

Sorry.

BTW it's interesting how Greg Mortenson ,the "Three Cups of Tea" guy was recently exposed as a fraud. His whole gig always sounded suspicious.

This is pretty much the position I take. I mean I know the US doesn't give a fuck about the humanitarian bullshit and the Taliban was a US creation in the first place (which is why it's hilarious that some people want to make them out to be some principled anti-imperialist group). It seems to me that both forces fighting in Afganistan are the legacy of US imperialism. But yeah Karzai is fucked and in the other thread when I said that US victory was more progressive that the Taliban winning I wasn't trying to say that they're good but Karzai is a little better than the Taliban. I mean when you think about how brutal and fucked up Karzais regime is, and then you see that the Taliban are killing even more people it's pretty ridiculous. Ultimately they both suck and as you said its a tragic situation because I don't see any solution in the near future that will be positive for the working class. And yeah I might join the army but I'm not in it right now and I'm not trying to defend joining up politically, I know I'd be a tool for the ruling class and shit.

[727Goon]

The US imperialist occupation is much worse than even the worst among fundamentalist regimes. Afghan people will live much better lives even if a highly reactionary group like the Taliban manages to kick the US out and seize power. I rejoice every time the Afghan resistances, including the Taliban, manage to deal military blows to the occupying thugs.

Do you rejoice every time they manage to deal military blows to their own people too?

[Dragovich]

It's not the job of the American government to determine the fate of nations. The American government is based on the racist genocide of Native Americans and the whole structure of the American government is evil. We need someone like Hugo Chavez to come to power in America.

No, I don't want a clown in the White House. Obama's incompetent but he's no clown.

But feel free to argue with me via PM. :lol:

I seem to remember the USSR being far worse to Afghanistan than NATO.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

No, I don't want a clown in the White House. Obama's incompetent but he's no clown.

But feel free to argue with me via PM. :lol:

I seem to remember the USSR being far worse to Afghanistan than NATO.

You sure about that? Wikipedia says between 600,000 - 2,000,000 Afghans died during the Soviet war, meanwhile under the current occupation - Afghan War, Afghan Holocaust & Afghan Genocide 9th Anniversary - 4.9 million dead, 3.2 million refugees: report (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/10/15/afghan-war-afghan-holocaust-and-afghan-genocide-9th-anniversary-4-9-million-dead-3-2-million-refugees-report.html)

[Os Cangaceiros]

The idea is not to support local tyrannies for the sake of supporting them, but rather to oppose colonialism, which tends to cause nations to stagnate and fester rather than develop socially. Imperialist powers tend to support local elites and the social order that sustains them because it keeps their interests in place. This is why post-colonial societies have to try and rush to catch up once they're liberated.

I just don't see any benefit in a Taliban victory, in the larger picture. I think that of course colonialism has dramatically effected development in the parts of the world that it touched (how could it not?), but I don't think that unseating one set of elites in order to seat another set does anything at all to damage the global system of capitalism, i.e. it does nothing to challenge capital as a set of social relations. The only thing it does is damage the top dog in the capitalist system, the United States, by removing another ally in the world's economic periphery. Capital can do just fine without the USA. That's where I think Marcyites are mistaken: they view class & social war through the lens of geo-politics, i.e. how can the head honchos in the capitalist system be damaged, which ignores the fact that the social relations of capital can exist perfectly fine in regimes run by the "national bourgeoisie". I don't see how capitalism is damaged in any way by these developments, and the only arguments I've seen to the contrary are speculations that communist movements can be brought to the fore only when the compradors or colonial roaders or whatever are driven from political power. I'm not convinced by this line of argument.

That's without mentioning my hesitation in advocating the victory of any group that's going to start brutally suppressing any kind of socialist or communist group once they gain power. That's not to say that I don't understand or sympathize with militants who fight against powers much greater than themselves...there are probably working-class members of Hamas, for example, and plenty of Lebanese and Palestinians have found inspiration and a means of resistance against Israeli aggression through Hezbollah, but that doesn't change the fact that I view neither group (and especially the leadership of such groups) as beneficial towards the communist project. In the larger picture they're counter-revolutionary, in fact.

[Princess Luna]

If the Taliban and Americans want to kill eachother, i say go for it! my only problem with is when innocent people are caught in the middle.

oh and for anybody stupid enough to support the Taliban in the name of anti-imperalism
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Taliban_execute_Zarmeena_in_Kabul_in1999_RAWA.jpg

[Robocommie]

I just don't see any benefit in a Taliban victory, in the larger picture. I think that of course colonialism has dramatically effected development in the parts of the world that it touched (how could it not?), but I don't think that unseating one set of elites in order to seat another set does anything at all to damage the global system of capitalism, i.e. it does nothing to challenge capital as a set of social relations.

But again, it's not about supporting the Taliban, it's about opposing foreign invasion.

Remember, the first rule of medicine is, "First, do no harm." You can't cure a patient if you keep making him sicker.


The only thing it does is damage the top dog in the capitalist system, the United States, by removing another ally in the world's economic periphery. Capital can do just fine without the USA. That's where I think Marcyites are mistaken: they view class & social war through the lens of geo-politics, i.e. how can the head honchos in the capitalist system be damaged, which ignores the fact that the social relations of capital can exist perfectly fine in regimes run by the "national bourgeoisie".

Well, this is where I'm a Marcyite, I guess. The thing is, imperialism doesn't just exist because capitalists are assholes and they like to fuck over other countries. It exists because it suits their purposes. An imperial nation has more resources to spend on state repressive measures, it also has more prestige with which to dazzle its own citizens, through hegemony. After all, if the imperialist slogan is that America is the land of the free and home of the brave, and you buy into that shit, because hey, it's AMERICA, well why on Earth would you want to fuck that up? You will unite with the state against your "common" enemy because imperialism has hegemonized you into thinking your interests are in some way in line with the state and with the bourgeoisie.

And as for the colonized nations, like I said, they're kept down from the normal social development that all societies go through because you have the iron fist of imperialism backing it up. You think a bunch of thugs hired by local landlords are hard to deal with? What about a regiment of British soldiers sent to "maintain order" in the colonies?

The whole world is a web of social relations complete with contradictions, and this extends to a global scale. Just as the bourgeoisie exploit the working class, so do imperialists exploit the colonized.

[Robocommie]

oh and for anybody stupid enough to support the Taliban in the name of anti-imperalism

Dude, imperialism MADE the fucking Taliban. Do you have any fucking pictures of the suffering that Karzai's syndicate is unleashing?

[bcbm]

You will unite with the state against your "common" enemy because imperialism has hegemonized you into thinking your interests are in some way in line with the state and with the bourgeoisie.

anti-imperialism does the same.

[Princess Luna]

Dude, imperialism MADE the fucking Taliban. Do you have any fucking pictures of the suffering that Karzai's syndicate is unleashing?
I agree Karzai is a piece of shit, but i wrote that because i know eventually some idiot is going to start talking about how everything bad we hear about the Taliban is just "western propaganda"

[#FF0000]

I agree Karzai is a piece of shit, but i wrote that because i know eventually some idiot is going to start talking about how everything bad we hear about the Taliban is just "western propaganda"

in the future try arguing against points that people have made instead of things nobody ever said.

[Dragovich]

You sure about that? Wikipedia says between 600,000 - 2,000,000 Afghans died during the Soviet war, meanwhile under the current occupation - Afghan War, Afghan Holocaust & Afghan Genocide 9th Anniversary - 4.9 million dead, 3.2 million refugees: report (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/10/15/afghan-war-afghan-holocaust-and-afghan-genocide-9th-anniversary-4-9-million-dead-3-2-million-refugees-report.html)

Yet the US military are not intentionally murdering the Afghani population. And even if that is true, why support the Taliban? They're everything the 'revolutionary' leftists should oppose.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But again, it's not about supporting the Taliban, it's about opposing foreign invasion.

I don't think that many people on the left "support" (that is, support with words) the Taliban and similar groups, but some definitely do. I don't get those people. I remember the user counterblast speaking positively about 9/11 as some kind of dramatic blow against the capitalist system.


Well, this is where I'm a Marcyite, I guess. The thing is, imperialism doesn't just exist because capitalists are assholes and they like to fuck over other countries. It exists because it suits their purposes. An imperial nation has more resources to spend on state repressive measures, it also has more prestige with which to dazzle its own citizens, through hegemony. After all, if the imperialist slogan is that America is the land of the free and home of the brave, and you buy into that shit, because hey, it's AMERICA, well why on Earth would you want to fuck that up?

I think that imperialism exists as a way to exploit foreign resources, labor power and to provide a safety valve for over-production. I don't think that it exists because some capitalists are assholes. As far as ideological warfare is concerned, I don't think that it's nearly as important for the success of the communist project as people think it is. Even in a very wealthy nation like the USA, we are bearing witness to capital's utter failure to effectively manage it's crisis tendencies (not to say that it won't come out of it eventually, or that it's not just another way for capital to re-organize itself, but it's still not welcome).


You will unite with the state against your "common" enemy because imperialism has hegemonized you into thinking your interests are in some way in line with the state and with the bourgeoisie.

This is exactly what happens when members of the working class ally with the "national bourgeoisie". Enemy of my enemy fallacy at it's finest.

[Robocommie]

anti-imperialism does the same.

Not if you remember why you're opposing imperialism, and remember that you're not actually a friend of the local regime.

[Robocommie]

I agree Karzai is a piece of shit, but i wrote that because i know eventually some idiot is going to start talking about how everything bad we hear about the Taliban is just "western propaganda"

Well I do think you have to appreciate that the Taliban isn't exactly a monolithic organization, and it's one thing in one place and something else in another. You should keep in mind that the regions which most strongly support the Taliban do so because the Taliban in those areas have actually enforced the Islamic law which states that women are entitled to inherit property. When the Taliban was in power, they also had banned bacha bazi, the organized prostitution of young boys. It's something which is coming back to Afghanistan because the warlords that the US happens to like, like bacha bazi.

It's not always simple as bad guys and good guys man. There's shades of grey in this world, everywhere.

[bcbm]

Not if you remember why you're opposing imperialism, and remember that you're not actually a friend of the local regime.

that has happened i would say just about nowhere on the face of the earth. anti-imperialist regimes always become capitalist regimes because nothing is outside of capitalism, not even anti-imperialists who "remember." the conflict in our world is not between imperialist nations and anti-imperialist nations, these are just capitalist regimes with slight (or sometimes less) differences.

[727Goon]

that has happened i would say just about nowhere on the face of the earth. anti-imperialist regimes always become capitalist regimes because nothing is outside of capitalism, not even anti-imperialists who "remember." the conflict in our world is not between imperialist nations and anti-imperialist nations, these are just capitalist regimes with slight (or sometimes less) differences.

This might be true but a capitalist regime is often better than an imperialist regime for the working class. For example the situation in Palestine would be better for the working class if Israeli soldiers werent killing them in the streets, that's a pretty significant difference. However in Afganistan the Taliban is even more brutal than the imperialists.

[bcbm]

This might be true but a capitalist regime is often better than an imperialist regime for the working class. For example the situation in Palestine would be better for the working class if Israeli soldiers werent killing them in the streets, that's a pretty significant difference. However in Afganistan the Taliban is even more brutal than the imperialists.

some capitalist regimes are better than other capitalist regimes but it isn't the job of communists to take sides when they start killing each other (or rather forcing their working class to kill each other)

[RedSunRising]

Wanting the US out of Afghanistan does not equal supporting the Taliban.

US Imperialism has shown that it is actually worse than the Taliban.

I dont support the Taliban, but a US withdrawal would be a very good thing.

[RedSunRising]

anti-imperialism does the same.

Way to ignore nuances. All the ifs and ands and buts swept gloriously away.

[Robocommie]

some capitalist regimes are better than other capitalist regimes but it isn't the job of communists to take sides when they start killing each other (or rather forcing their working class to kill each other)

I'd say that depends on whether or not you think colonialism is an evil that has to be fought or not. I think it absolutely is, for all of the reasons I've detailed here thus far.

[bcbm]

I'd say that depends on whether or not you think colonialism is an evil that has to be fought or not. I think it absolutely is, for all of the reasons I've detailed here thus far.

i don't think "colonialism" exists anymore, it was destroyed in the 50s/60s by various anti-colonial struggles that went on to become capitalist regimes of one sort or another. today capitalism exists and no country is outside of it. if the "anti-colonial" forces win, they will strike deals with their former "colonial" masters and the bourgeoisie of that country will become filthy rich while everyone else starves.


Way to ignore nuances. All the ifs and ands and buts swept gloriously away.

there are many nuances is the world but the fundamental truth of our world is that capitalism dominates all life and only the proletariat can destroy it, not anti-imperialism.

[RedSunRising]

there are many nuances is the world but the fundamental truth of our world is that capitalism dominates all life and only the proletariat can destroy it, not anti-imperialism.

Im not sure how much of proletariat exists in Afghanistan now. Imperialism is a reality that effects the working class, it divides the working class in a real way in which cheap slogans cant overcome. National as well as gender oppression are also very much realities in this, and blows landed against are welcomed by communists.

[RedSunRising]

i don't think "colonialism" exists anymore, it was destroyed in the 50s/60s by various anti-colonial struggles that went on to become capitalist regimes of one sort or another.


The carry on of Shell in Nigeria and elsewhere would very much confirm the reality of "neo-colonialism". In Afghanistan and Iraq we are though talking about the re-emergence of pretty much naked colonialism.

[bcbm]

Im not sure how much of proletariat exists in Afghanistan now. Imperialism is a reality that effects the working class, it divides the working class in a real way in which cheap slogans cant overcome. National as well as gender oppression are also very much realities in this, and blows landed against are welcomed by communists.

i don't think there is anything wrong from an ethical standpoint of struggling against specific forms of oppression but i don't think blows against them do anything to damage capitalism, which has proven happy to be "egalitarian" in how it deals with race, gender, etc. it may be beneficial to occupy afghanistan now for some capitalists, when it becomes too costly they will happily go back to how things were pre-2001. the removal of the coalition forces does not effect the reality of capitalism in afghanistan.


The carry on of Shell in Nigeria and elsewhere would very much confirm the reality of "neo-colonialism".

sure, but i think it differs in important ways especially as relates to the whole.


In Afghanistan and Iraq we are though talking about the re-emergence of pretty much naked colonialism.

are americans moving there and setting up condos? these wars are symptoms of capitalism.

[RedSunRising]

are americans moving there and setting up condos? these wars are symptoms of capitalism.

Colonialism as it was known in the "scramble for Africa" was a symptom of capitalism. The US Army invaded the country, militarily dominates so that US companies can suck up wealth from it. Thats colonialism.

[RedSunRising]

i don't think there is anything wrong from an ethical standpoint of struggling against specific forms of oppression but i don't think blows against them do anything to damage capitalism, which has proven happy to be "egalitarian" in how it deals with race, gender, etc.

In the first world and even than if you think we are free from patriarchy and racism a lot of working people of color and women would disagree with you there from their own experiances. Also however limited these struggles improve real people's lives, which can only be a good thing. Of course the world will be fucked up under capitalism. Did I argue otherwise?

[Robocommie]

Colonialism as it was known in the "scramble for Africa" was a symptom of capitalism. The US Army invaded the country, militarily dominates so that US companies can suck up wealth from it. Thats colonialism.

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Capitalist egalitarianism on race and gender is paper thin at best, and its something that imperialism actually diminishes in colonized nations. Countries which are the victim of imperialism lack autonomy, so even reformist methods of progressive change are held back. I've mentioned it here before, but I think the best example of this is the fact in the 1950s, Clement Attlee nationalizes health-care and a bunch of other stuff and it's fine. In the same time frame, meanwhile, Mohammad Mossadegh tries to nationalize Iranian oil and the British organize a coup against him. This is why we oppose imperialism, because that same kind of interventionism can and will be used against attempts to create a real labor/socialist movement.

[727Goon]

Wanting the US out of Afghanistan does not equal supporting the Taliban.

US Imperialism has shown that it is actually worse than the Taliban.

I dont support the Taliban, but a US withdrawal would be a very good thing.

I think I US withdrawal would be a good thing too, however from the discussion with cmoney and others in the last thread I was under the impression that the only two options were a US victory or a taliban victory and the US werent about to withdraw anytime soon.

And I'm not sure how US Imperialism is worse than the Taliban when the Taliban kill more of their own people than the US do. Is getting killed by native reactionaries somehow better than getting killed by foreign ones? Why has no one addressed the ridiculous amount of civilian casualties the Taliban cause?

[bcbm]

Colonialism as it was known in the "scramble for Africa" was a symptom of capitalism. The US Army invaded the country, militarily dominates so that US companies can suck up wealth from it. Thats colonialism.

neocolonialism would be more accurate i think, it is a different relationship even when the military is involved and if the us army left, the wealth and resources would be secured in another way or exploited by a local bourgeoisie, which is not an improvement in my view.


In the first world and even than if you think we are free from patriarchy and racism a lot of working people of color and women would disagree with you there from their own experiances.

obviously we are not free from them, but i don't think anyone would argue nothing has changed in terms of racism and patriarchy since 1900 either.


Also however limited these struggles improve real people's lives, which can only be a good thing. Of course the world will be fucked up under capitalism. Did I argue otherwise?

yes i just said i don't see a problem in struggling against them, simply that i don't think it impacts capitalism.

[RedSunRising]

I think I US withdrawal would be a good thing too, however from the discussion with cmoney and others in the last thread I was under the impression that the only two options were a US victory or a taliban victory and the US werent about to withdraw anytime soon.

The situation in Afghanistan is actually very complicated.

But Afghanis sorting the situation among themselves however messy is preferable to the child molesting, murderous, pro-poppy growing US army "sorting" it out.

I presume thats what cmoney was trying to say.

[RedSunRising]

neocolonialism would be more accurate i think, it is a different relationship even when the military is involved and if the us army left, the wealth and resources would be secured in another way or exploited by a local bourgeoisie, which is not an improvement in my view.

yes i just said i don't see a problem in struggling against them, simply that i don't think it impacts capitalism.

A section of the local bourgeoisie, not all of them, which class does Chavez represent? Its not the comprador bourgeoisie. And yes these struggles do impact capitalism which feeds off racism, sexism and colonial aggression. Think was May 68 not related to the defeat of the French state in Algeria?

[Robocommie]

And I'm not sure how US Imperialism is worse than the Taliban when the Taliban kill more of their own people than the US do. Is getting killed by native reactionaries somehow better than getting killed by foreign ones? Why has no one addressed the ridiculous amount of civilian casualties the Taliban cause?

Do you have sources to back up those claims, though?

[bcbm]

A section of the local bourgeoisie, not all of them, which class does Chavez represent? Its not the comprador bourgeoisie.

a nice boss is better than a shitty boss but they're still a boss at the end of the day and have different interests then workers


And yes these struggles do impact capitalism which feeds off racism, sexism and colonial aggression.

no it uses them like it uses many other things, to maintain itself. if they become more trouble than they're worth they can be abandoned- capitalism has adapted everything from fascism to feminism, its a resilent system and can only be fundamentally challenged and destroyed at the point of production



Think was May 68 not related to the defeat of the French state in Algeria?

algeria had been independent since 62 and the french army had left by 67

[RedSunRising]

Anyway cmoney from what I can figure out is an anarchist who is open/curious about Maoism. I doubt seriously that he actually supports the Taliban. This is a bit of a troll thread therefore.

[RedSunRising]

algeria had been independent since 62 and the french army had left by 67

I realize that, it was a knock on effect.

[bcbm]

ok

[RedSunRising]

a nice boss is better than a shitty boss but they're still a boss at the end of the day and have different interests then workers


Im not , pro-Chavez, infact Chavez supporters would call me an ultra-leftist, however I recognize that the world is a lot more complex than the simple capitalist versus worker view which denies all sorts of other contradictions.

[bcbm]

okay

edit:
i agree there are contradictions (i would say tensions) outside of capitalism but i think it is only "capitalist versus worker" which can bring about the end of capitalism. thats basically all i want to say on this topic cheers

[RedSunRising]

But do you think the US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a good thing? Thats the central issue here. I think even left-communists would agree with that.

[727Goon]

Do you have sources to back up those claims, though?

Look at the OP. According to the UN the Taliban were responsible for 76 percent of the deaths in Afganistan.

[727Goon]

But do you think the US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a good thing? Thats the central issue here. I think even left-communists would agree with that.

Me or bcbm? I've already said before that it is. In the other thread we were talking about the military victory of the Taliban, to which I said a US victory would be more progressive. No one said shit about withdrawal.

[bcbm]

But do you think the US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a good thing? Thats the central issue here. I think even left-communists would agree with that.

yes, i don't support any ruling class military adventures

[RedSunRising]

Me or bcbm? I've already said before that it is. In the other thread we were talking about the military victory of the Taliban, to which I said a US victory would be more progressive. No one said shit about withdrawal.

Well obviously if you believe that a US victory would be more progressive you arent gonna be in favour of withdrawal are you??? :confused:

[727Goon]

Well obviously if you believe that a US victory would be more progressive you arent gonna be in favour of withdrawal are you??? :confused:

A withdrawal isnt a Taliban victory.

[Magón]

Isn't it just better and sane to say, that neither side should be supported in anyway, shape, or form, and that anyone who supports the US in Afghanistan, or Taliban's actions, have to be bat-shit insane.

Fuck both sides.

[RedSunRising]

A withdrawal isnt a Taliban victory.

Not necessarily, but it could well be in the short term couldnt it? And if the US military and their child pimiping and drug production is more progressive than surely a withdrawal would be a reactionary move? Seriously you need to sit down and think things through and than come back and attack where other people are coming from.

[727Goon]

Not necessarily, but it could well be in the short term couldnt it? And if the US military and their child pimiping and drug production is more progressive than surely a withdrawal would be a reactionary move? Seriously you need to sit down and think things through and than come back and attack where other people are coming from.

It could be, but it's not really. Honestly the best position is to say fuck both sides, but apparently that's empty rhetoric.

[RedSunRising]

It could be, but it's not really. Honestly the best position is to say fuck both sides, but apparently that's empty rhetoric.

That hasnt really been your position though, has it?

A Taliban victory would better because the Taliban would be much easier to over throw than the US Army by the Afghan masses, the Taliban arent/werent involved in child prositution and the drug trade plus it would deliever a big enough blow to the main enemy of the world's people at the moment. Those are the reasons why people say a Taliban victory would be better than a US one.

What realistic reasons can you give for a US victory being better?

But in real terms the important thing for revolutionaires in the west is to struggle for a US withdrawal and to mess up the war effort as best we can.

[Dunk]

But in real terms the important thing for revolutionaires in the west is to struggle for a US withdrawal and to mess up the war effort as best we can.

Bingo.

What depresses me most is the effects of the move to an all-volunteer force. It has muted anti-war activism in the US. Compare today with the Vietnam era. Instead of the constant reporting of the tens of thousands of causalities piling up (at least Americans, we all know there are plenty more causalities for the victims of imperialism), and the looming threat of a possible conscription of yourself or a family member into a war you cannot afford to ignore - the majority of young men and women may oppose the wars, but the wars aren't a threat to themselves or their families. Except from veterans or the family of veterans (whether alive, dead, or maimed), there is only a disconnected, moral opposition to the wars - but no immediacy. No personal involvement which carries the threat to bring the war to you - whether you like it or not. Not to mention that now, with an all-volunteer force, the young men and women with the most to gain from joining come overwhelmingly from the working poor. Anti-war activism today is seemingly a whisper compared with the anti-war activism of the 60s. Coming from a vet, I wish there was more. Much more.

I've tried to discourage psgchisolm from joining. I know some guy posting words words words probably won't hit home to him. I've also tried to discourage anyone I've ever talked to in person about joining since 2008. He and many others like him live in communities which are bombarded with pro-military propaganda, screaming at them from TV, movies, radio, the internet, and even echoed by family or friends. I just feel so discouraged all the time about the state of things today. It's as if it doesn't phase the everyday person. Three wars! Fucking three! For what? Where is the anger?

Unfortunately, not enough people give a shit in this country because it's not a threat to them. I doubt the opposition to the wars will grow enough to have any impact on when they end. Not unless this country catches on fire in ways I can't foresee.

[727Goon]

That hasnt really been your position though, has it?

A Taliban victory would better because the Taliban would be much easier to over throw than the US Army by the Afghan masses, the Taliban arent/werent involved in child prositution and the drug trade plus it would deliever a big enough blow to the main enemy of the world's people at the moment. Those are the reasons why people say a Taliban victory would be better than a US one.

What realistic reasons can you give for a US victory being better?

But in real terms the important thing for revolutionaires in the west is to struggle for a US withdrawal and to mess up the war effort as best we can.

I think that the US puppet government would be easier to overthrow because communists and leftists would be the first to be killed if they took over. And the Taliban are involved in the drug trade right now and are responsible for 76 percent of civilian casualties (you've never addressed why this is acceptable and I'm guess you'll keep ignoring it). I agree with you that the US should withdraw but to argue for the reinstatement of the Taliban is ridiculous.

[Robocommie]

I agree with you that the US should withdraw but to argue for the reinstatement of the Taliban is ridiculous.

It's sort of the default assumption if the US withdraws. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no other force strong enough to oppose the Taliban if the US leaves. It's got nothing to do with arguing for the reinstatement of the Taliban or thinking that they deserve the job; it's just pragmatic reality. If the US leaves the country goes to the Taliban, just like how when the Soviets left the country went to the Mujahadeen.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Look at the OP. According to the UN the Taliban were responsible for 76 percent of the deaths in Afganistan.
They would say that though, wouldn't they? :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

It's sort of the default assumption if the US withdraws. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no other force strong enough to oppose the Taliban if the US leaves. It's got nothing to do with arguing for the reinstatement of the Taliban or thinking that they deserve the job; it's just pragmatic reality. If the US leaves the country goes to the Taliban, just like how when the Soviets left the country went to the Mujahadeen.

i imagine it would go back to something similar to where it was pre-invasion with the taliban controlling some areas and other factions or warlords or w/e controlling others, though possibly less in favor of the taliban

[Arlekino]

Hello comrades
Would somebody tell me who fund Taleban I don't know much about them, if i could compare imperial war machinery is much advance than Taleban. Taleban using basic war ammunitions so is there somewhere conspiracy I see well somebody told me they still using Soviet tanks but that would be out of use if I am right.
Thank you

[psgchisolm]

Hello comrades
Would somebody tell me who fund Taleban I don't know much about them, if i could compare imperial war machinery is much advance than Taleban. Taleban using basic war ammunitions so is there somewhere conspiracy I see well somebody told me they still using Soviet tanks but that would be out of use if I am right.
Thank youGlenn Beck?:laugh:

Last I checked. The United States claims that Iran is funding the rebels. But hey, someone has to fall for the propaganda

http://moto.mpora.com/images/uploads/news/Stivers-11-16-04-Conspiracy.gif

[RedSunRising]

Talking about supporting someone is pretty mad unless you accept political leadership from them, fund raise for them or go and fight for them. No leftist does any of the above for the Taliban.

[727Goon]

It's sort of the default assumption if the US withdraws. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no other force strong enough to oppose the Taliban if the US leaves. It's got nothing to do with arguing for the reinstatement of the Taliban or thinking that they deserve the job; it's just pragmatic reality. If the US leaves the country goes to the Taliban, just like how when the Soviets left the country went to the Mujahadeen.

Saying you support withdrawal is different from saying you support a Taliban military victory though, even if it does go to the Taliban. I was just saying that if one side were to win a full military victory, which is unlikely I guess, the US is slightly better. It's not like I like either one though, the US is more progressive than the Taliban in the same way Mussolini was more progressive than Hitler.

[727Goon]

They would say that though, wouldn't they? :rolleyes:

this is the problem with the hard line authoritarian "anti-imperialists". everything has to be a conspiracy.

[bcbm]

in an afghan village, living in fear of both sides (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/world/asia/24paktika.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)