Has revleft changed over the years?

[727Goon]

So I was looking back at old posts and shit and I came across a thread from two years ago about the Taliban ( http://www.revleft.com/vb/iso-supports-talibani-t115882/index.html?t=115882 ). In it, roughly half or more of the people came out against the Taliban and argued that a Taliban victory would not be good for the working class. However, nobody was restricted or demonized as an imperialist. Now I've clearly been restricted for not supporting the Taliban, as I've said over and over and fucking over again that I support the defeat of the US by progressive forces, so I'm honestly wondering if the rules have changed or just the general atmosphere since then.

[hatzel]

Now I've clearly been restricted for not supporting the Taliban

Technically I do believe you said something more along the lines of "I support the US, because the Taliban is that bad" (correct the wording if you remember), which is slightly different...still, haven't we had enough threads about your restriction? Just get over it. Wait a few months, and then post in the dedicated thread. Don't just debate your restriction all over the shop...

[727Goon]

That's hypothetical bullshit though why does my 2nd round pick matter. Anyways it's not really about my restriction it's about revleft in general. This thread isn't about me getting unrestricted and I'm not here to debate my restriction, I want to know how revleft has changed since then and especially since all the (Organization that you can't say here) people got banned. I think there are a lot more authoritarian socialists and "anything but imperialism" types.

[a rebel]

how is the religious fundamentalist Taliban progressive? People have to choose one imperialism over the other in Afghanistan.

[727Goon]

how is the religious fundamentalist Taliban progressive? People have to choose one imperialism over the other in Afghanistan.

Watch out bro nuanced positions that arent black and white are a no-no around here. Anyways seriously though that shit was just an example this thread isnt really supposed to be just about the Taliban or me but revleft in general this shits interesting. Were there more anti-authoritarian posters back in the day?

[a rebel]

anti-authoritarian posters? just google image it

[#FF0000]

Watch out bro nuanced positions that arent black and white are a no-no around here. Anyways seriously though that shit was just an example this thread isnt really supposed to be just about the Taliban or me but revleft in general this shits interesting. Were there more anti-authoritarian posters back in the day?

Stalinists used to be restricted.

[RedSunRising]

Stalinists used to be restricted.

Wow, really?

Hoxhaists, Maoists, Tankies and Marcyites???

[#FF0000]

Wow, really?

Hoxhaists, Maoists, Tankies and Marcyites???

Don't know about Maoists, but yeah I think so.

[Drosophila]

Stalinists used to be restricted.

And rightfully so.

Anyone who supports ridiculous ideas of old world dictators should not be called a leftist.

[#FF0000]

And rightfully so.

Anyone who supports ridiculous ideas of old world dictators should not be called a leftist.

To be quite frank folks like you are and those you support are just as bloody and traitorous as any Stalinist from my perspective.

[The Douche]

Some RAAN members getting banned (not all, I used to be a RAANista, remember, and theredson was/is a RAANista and he's a mod) has nothing to do with how the board works/worked. You think there are "a lot more" "authoritarian" socialists now, because you're not allowed to talk about RAAN anymore?

[mikelepore]

A common mistake that dominates at revleft is to assume that, since the U.S. is imperialistic, therefore _everything_ that the U.S. does is an example of imperialism. If the country gets attacked, and then it responds by attacking the attacker, and then you say that such a response is to be expected, people here will read your post and then paraphrase what you wrote such that you have supported imperialism.

[Blackscare]

A common mistake that dominates at revleft is to assume that, since the U.S. is imperialistic, therefore _everything_ that the U.S. does is an example of imperialism. If the country gets attacked, and then it responds by attacking the attacker, and then you say that such a response is to be expected, people here will read your post and then paraphrase what you wrote such that you have supported imperialism.

I guess that's true, in a hypothetical sense, but I fail to see where the US has, at least recently, honestly responded to a direct attack by another nation with appropriate force.

[Viet Minh]

Initially I was in support of the war in Afghanistan, this is before it actually started, because of the way the Taliban were treating women for one thing. There was a football stadium used for public executions, which allegedly could take place just because a man accused his wife of looking at another man. Girls had to go to school in secret, and women were forced into prostitutution because it was illegal for them to work. So at the time I thought although the US isn't exactly progressive they could bring some peace and safety to the country. How wrong I was!!

Similarly I supported the war in Iraq, because of Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds, invasion of Iran and Kuwait, supression of Shia's and Arabs. But life in Iraq and Afghanistan are arguably far worse for the poor people there. I can't speak for revleft as I've not been here very long, but thats my personal viewpoint anyway. Its not that I've changed so much as the situation has, or at least the initial reasoning for the war has been revealed (oil).

[ZeroNowhere]

I guess that's true, in a hypothetical sense, but I fail to see where the US has, at least recently, honestly responded to a direct attack by another nation with appropriate force.I think that the poster to whom you were responding would think that there are some concrete recent examples, as for example here (http://www.deleonism.org/archive/z1054.htm):


There's a lot about the left that bugs me.

I dislike the automatically-blame-America tendency. Some of them think everything the U.S. does is to be denounced. Not me. For example, I believe the president did exactly the right thing bombing the hell out of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and using the military to topple the Taliban government.

[Tablo]

Read some more old threads. This site used to be much much worse. The things people used to get away with and the worthless spam posts people made would be incomprehensible to most posters now days. I really do think this site has improved a lot, atleast since it started. Some argue the quality of discussion has declined the past couple years, but I think it is more like the intelligent and well informed users are tired of having the same conversations over and over. So little seems to be going on on the left we have little more to debate over other than the rule of some 20th century dictators...

[Tommy4ever]

People here support the Taliban? :blink:

ffs revleft :crying:

[9]

I think that the poster to whom you were responding would think that there are some concrete recent examples, as for example here (http://www.deleonism.org/archive/z1054.htm):

jesus...

[hatzel]

People here support the Taliban? :blink:

I vaguely remember there was a thread a few months ago called 'does anybody really support the Taliban?' or similar, and I think the general consensus was a no, no we don't. Perhaps a few of the 'usual suspects' (you know who I mean :rolleyes:) might have spent a few minutes praising them as a noble anti-imperialist force, but that's just what those types do, you know...you could search for the thread in question if you want a more in-depth understanding of the RevLeft position, but I don't know if it's worth it :lol:

[Andropov]

Watch out bro nuanced positions that arent black and white are a no-no around here.
If there was indeed a cohesive Left Wing progressive Liberation movement operating in Afghanistan it would have my full support.
But there isnt, the only viable opposition to yankee imperialism is unfortunately the fuedalistic and backward taliban.
Now that is the context in Afghanistan, Yankee imperialists and their Allies with the only viable resistance being offered by the Taliban.
In this context one must constructively analyse both respective positions and conclude which is more progressive for the working class of Afghanistan, Yankee Imperialism or Taliban rule.
IMO Taliban victory is infinitely more progressive than Yankee imperialism.
Just because it is an uncomfortable decision to make does not mean it is an incorrect conclusion, to spew out the drivel that I support neither and support some fantasy leftist movement that is neither viable nor in existance in this context is a cop out, avoiding a realistic conclusion on a complex context is as I said, a cop out.

[Tommy4ever]

IMO Taliban victory is infinitely more progressive than Yankee imperialism.


srsly?

[Andropov]

srsly?
Of course, im a Marxist.

[RGacky3]

You being a Marxist does'nt make a difference, honestly it does'nt matter if the Taliban or the US wins, difference with the US winning its you can have an easier left wing resistace.

[Andropov]

You being a Marxist does'nt make a difference, honestly it does'nt matter if the Taliban or the US wins, difference with the US winning its you can have an easier left wing resistace.
Utter drivel.
Firstly the US will never win.
Secondly so called leftists claiming that a US victory is somehow progressive for the people of Afghanistan is not only incorrect but also goes against all historical precedents in relation to Imperialism.
If the US did win and defeat the Taliban in this hypothetical scenario they will follow the path of least resistance in their occupation of Afghanistan, hence they will cater to every reactionary ideology in Afghanistan as long as it doesnt effect their ability to control Afghanistan, as was seen where Rape was legalised in the country.
Hence you will be left with the scenario whereby the country is not only ruled by reactionary despots, the equivilant of the Taliban but you will also have an occupying army there to crush all progressive movements by the working class.
A Taliban victory would actually give the working class of Afghanistan a better hope of emancipation than a Yankee occupation which will only sustain the status quo.
Marxists should know their history and history has thought us that Imperialism only prolonges reactionary hegemonys.

[Tommy4ever]

Of course, im a Marxist.

lol

[The Douche]

srsly?

So you support an imperialist victory in Afghanistan then? Just like the (troll) OP?

[Andropov]

lol
Embaressing.

[Franz Fanonipants]

That's hypothetical bullshit though why does my 2nd round pick matter.

Because your second round pick is the United States, the very same beast that rose to power on lynchings, indian massacres, and imperial expansion.

Basically, bro, if this were the 19th century you'd be really for the British vs. independent nations in India. Sure, those independent nations aren't socialist, but being pro-British Imperialism is kind of worse.

[dernier combat]

A Taliban victory would actually give the working class of Afghanistan a better hope of emancipation than a Yankee occupation which will only sustain the status quo.
How will a Taliban victory give the working class a better hope of emancipation? Whilst what you have said about the US occupation maintaining the status quo is true, the Taliban weren't/wouldn't be any better. The Taliban will try to regain power and their victory will only ensure the status quo ante bellum, which was particularly nasty:

During the five-year history of the Islamic Emirate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate), much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women were banned from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women). Those who resisted were punished instantly. Communists were systematically eradicated and thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet.
Neither side is to be supported or even favorably viewed for that matter. This is a war of the capitalist class; NATO, et al. invaded and tried to expand their empire and the Taliban tried to maintain the conditions of their repressive rule.
Stop with this lesser-evil horseshit. Why are you so fucking delusional?

[Viet Minh]

Its not quite as simple as US imperialism, the US were on the side of the Taleban in the war against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and Soviet Union since 1979. The former were also supported by the PRC, UK, Israel (yes you read that right, Israel were on the same side as Al Quaeda! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan)) Egypt.. The latter also had the support of India and East Germany. I don't actually know that much about the situation btw, I'm just regurgitating wikipedias entry here. But it seems to me that the imperialist victory came years ago, when the Taleban (basically a Pashtun tribe) with the support of foreign powers, took control over the whole of Afghanistan in the civil war. And to the average person on the street I'm sure it doesn't matter much whether its a US soldier bombing, shooting or raping them, or a fellow muslim Afghan.

In short, why do we always need to pick a side? Which side would you support if nazi Germany went to war with Fascist Italy? Or would it depend entirely on who invaded whom? Me personally I would hope they all killed each other, that would be the best outcome for the common people.

[The Douche]

ITT the citizens of imperialist countries decide what is best for the oppressed in the third world and call themselves communists.


The people of Afghanistan have the right to decide the path their country will take, they can only exercise this right in the absence of the imperialists. If the afghans choose the taliban as their vehicle to expel the imperialists, yes I might I disagree with their choice, but as a communist I am obligated to support their struggle, while I critiscize it. Not pretend that NATO is a progressive organization which is trying to help Afghanistan.


You either support self-determination or you support imperialist victory.

[PhoenixAsh]

The first though when I saw the first plane go into the WTC was: this is going to be war....this is going to be an invasion somewhere. Did anybody really expect anything less from the very first second? I did not expect it to be proportionate because the US is imperialist.

The Taliban are horrible; the US is horrible. Both sides have an origin outside of Afghanistan and neither are good for the peopel in Afghanistan. On one side you have a brutal mysogenic theocratic dictatorship trying to establish contrl over the country on the other hand we have capitalist imperialist forces trying to do the same. The victory of one side over the other is always, always a victory for reactionary forces and will have the same result: oppression of the best interest of the people.

[PhoenixAsh]

ITT the citizens of imperialist countries decide what is best for the oppressed in the third world and call themselves communists.


The people of Afghanistan have the right to decide the path their country will take, they can only exercise this right in the absence of the imperialists. If the afghans choose the taliban as their vehicle to expel the imperialists, yes I might I disagree with their choice, but as a communist I am obligated to support their struggle, while I critiscize it. Not pretend that NATO is a progressive organization which is trying to help Afghanistan.


You either support self-determination or you support imperialist victory.

But then again...the Taliban is not a native Afghan organisation or group. Its a group which originates in Pakistan. By its very definition its spread is the result of imperialism and its continued presence is imperialism in itself.

So now we have the native people of Afghanistan having to decide which imperialist faction is the less evil in their opinion...defending either by communists is really...supporting an imperialist facton over the other.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Restricting Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist's would only make for further silly Sectarianism as the majority of Marxist-Leninists themselves are simply pushing for a stronger transitional phase in order to ensure that the fruits that will result from it themselves will be successful.


If there was indeed a cohesive Left Wing progressive Liberation movement operating in Afghanistan it would have my full support.
But there isnt, the only viable opposition to yankee imperialism is unfortunately the fuedalistic and backward taliban.
Now that is the context in Afghanistan, Yankee imperialists and their Allies with the only viable resistance being offered by the Taliban.
In this context one must constructively analyse both respective positions and conclude which is more progressive for the working class of Afghanistan, Yankee Imperialism or Taliban rule.
IMO Taliban victory is infinitely more progressive than Yankee imperialism.
Just because it is an uncomfortable decision to make does not mean it is an incorrect conclusion, to spew out the drivel that I support neither and support some fantasy leftist movement that is neither viable nor in existance in this context is a cop out, avoiding a realistic conclusion on a complex context is as I said, a cop out.
As compared to the victory of the Northern Alliance (Which is a United States and NATO Puppet State), a Taliban victory would indeed be 'progressive' as this Victory would lead towards assurance of further victories of Imperialist actions throughout the Arab World and throughout North Africa. While the Taliban isn't be be praised for their actions, its quite clear that if the US faces defeat to the Taliban that this could potentially have a positive effect in terms of Anti-Imperialist uprisings throughout the World. (The Taliban being victorious while not supportable, could potentially have the same effect that the Front Line States had in the defeat of Apartheid South Africa in Angola.)

It needs to be remembered as well that the Northern Alliance and the Warlords being funded and supported by the United States and NATO themselves are just as Anti-Progressive as the Taliban are and any illusion of progressiveness is simply an illusion being pushed upon them by the United States and NATO temporarily in order to make them seem like a Humanitarian force. Especially when the Northern Alliance is complicit in Male Child Prostitution and Anti-Working Class actions on the level of the Taliban. Not to mention that they have engaged in massive human rights abuses, torture of detainees and extra-judicial executions in the interests of United States led Imperialism. It should also be mentioned that following the first portion of the Afghanistan Civil War in which the Taliban gained the control over the majority of Afghanistan-- They had massively executed oppositional forces that were opposed to the Northern Alliance.

[The Douche]

But then again...the Taliban is not a native Afghan organisation or group. Its a group which originates in Pakistan. By its very definition its spread is the result of imperialism and its continued presence is imperialism in itself.

So now we have the native people of Afghanistan having to decide which imperialist faction is the less evil in their opinion...defending either by communists is really...supporting an imperialist facton over the other.

No, the taliban is not "imperialist", it was an organization which grew up out of radical islamic thinkers in the Pastun tribes which reside along the border of/inside both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This organization has been supported by many different states and state agencies throughout history as it served different geo-political interests.

How is it imperialist? The taliban does not seek to create Pakistani rule over Afghanistan, the taliban does not even control Pakistan, it just has a little influence in the government. (though obviously not much since the Pakistani government allows US raids into Pakistan) It would more accurately be described as a multi-nation based organization than "imperialist", thats like saying communism is imperialist because communism didn't originate in the country where a communist revolution is happening.

[Andropov]

How will a Taliban victory give the working class a better hope of emancipation? Whilst what you have said about the US occupation maintaining the status quo is true, the Taliban weren't/wouldn't be any better. The Taliban will try to regain power and their victory will only ensure the status quo ante bellum, which was particularly nasty:
For the simple reason that one is a reactionary force that can be toppled from within.
The other is a foreign occupying power combined with native reactionaryism whose occupying soldiers are a powerfull weapon to be deployed against any progressive movement.
A progressive movement has far more potential to mobilise free from the power of an imperial army.

Neither side is to be supported or even favorably viewed for that matter. This is a war of the capitalist class; NATO, et al. invaded and tried to expand their empire and the Taliban tried to maintain the conditions of their repressive rule.
Stop with this lesser-evil horseshit. Why are you so fucking delusional?
Not delusional in the least, ive clearly stated the negatives of both positions, I have zero delusion on this subject.
I would not define it as an infantile 'lesser evil horseshit', I would define it as which context is more progressive for the Afghani working class, that in my eyes as a Marxist is not horseshit, that is a critical analysis of a complex context.
Dismissive sweeping statements as such are not really grounded in reality, there are never any 'pure' Revolutions, the majority of them are grey areas like this whereby neither side could be deemed as progressive but whereby one context is infinitely more progressive than the other context.
Welcome to reality.

[dernier combat]

ITT the citizens of imperialist countries decide what is best for the oppressed in the third world and call themselves communists.
I would apply the same analysis of events to any struggle against capital, anywhere.


The people of Afghanistan have the right to decide the path their country will take, they can only exercise this right in the absence of the imperialists. If the afghans choose the taliban as their vehicle to expel the imperialists, yes I might I disagree with their choice, but as a communist I am obligated to support their struggle, while I critiscize it.
Who are the "Afghans"? The nation of "Afghanistan" comprises everyone from the poorest worker to Hahmid Karzai himself. Nations are not homogenous entities. They are imaginary groups within society that were conceived in order to foster class collaborationism (supporting bourgeois interests disguised as "national" interests). The "people" of Afghanistan have no "right" to do anything as a social force. To be a communist is to support working-class self-determination and independent, affirmative action no matter how distant the possibility may be.


Not pretend that NATO is a progressive organization which is trying to help Afghanistan.
No-one on this forum does this. Nobody who I would consider a respectable human being, anyway.


You either support self-determination or you support imperialist victory.
National self-determination is bullshit. I expected this false dichotomy from the likes of TVC, not you.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, the taliban is not "imperialist", it was an organization which grew up out of radical islamic thinkers in the Pastun tribes which reside along the border of/inside both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This organization has been supported by many different states and state agencies throughout history as it served different geo-political interests.

How is it imperialist? The taliban does not seek to create Pakistani rule over Afghanistan, the taliban does not even control Pakistan, it just has a little influence in the government. (though obviously not much since the Pakistani government allows US raids into Pakistan) It would more accurately be described as a multi-nation based organization than "imperialist", thats like saying communism is imperialist because communism didn't originate in the country where a communist revolution is happening.

Ok...that is true on a national level and on a strict interpretation if imperialism.

My logic follows from the following:

It is a predominantly Pashtuni organisation. In effect theb Pashtun tribes establish control and dominance on other tribes in effect claiming and asserting control over territory they do not belong in.I think the organisation is supported by Pakistan to assert control over the region. As was first assessed by mulsim scholars on the subject. I also think the Taliban in Afghanistan have a goal of spreading domination of their interpretation of sharia law/Islam and rule into other countries. They are a pan-arabic mulsim organisation.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

ITT: False Equivalence, Straw Men, etc.

Here's my question. We're not supposed to support either of the capitalist parties in the US because neither group is for the working class. Yet, most people would say that for the past forty years the US has not experienced a point in time that resembled a revolutionary moment. Despite this, communists and socialists STILL supported revolution. So, how is supporting a revolutionary movement in Afghanistan any more "naive and idealistic" than supporting one in your own country? I'll fight tooth and nail for NATO's withdrawal, but I'll also fight just as hard for the destruction of the Taliban and the building of working-class consciousness in Afghanistan. What other position IS there for a communist? If you lend your support to the military cause of the Taliban, the people there will just perceive communists as the left-cover for the Taliban. Instead, international communists need to support the withdrawal of NATO's troops AND any group in Afghanistan which is fighting for the working-class against reaction and against bourgeois democracy.

[Imposter Marxist]

National self-determination is bullshit.

Are all anarchists against national self-determination? Is that common? I'm asking a legitmate question.

[Comrade J]

:lol: LOL people who joined 2 years ago talking about how RL has changed. We need some of those 2003'ers ITT.

One thing I noticed that has changed since I first joined is there is now a lot less creativity being shared on the board, there used to be a lot of drawing and writing threads, and the general level of 'humour' is overall less subtle and somewhat more crass these days. Also the destruction of the CC was a pretty major change - it's a pity the CC went under, it certainly needed reforming because people took it too seriously, like we were in the Politburo of the CCCP or something, but it was - imo - a more democratic style to run the board.

@727Goon - did you ever get round to watching that documentary we chatted about?

[RGacky3]

no we are not all against it, but not for the sake of national-determination, for the sake of ending imperialism.

Our goal is to undo unjust power, strip off layers of it, and national-determination, is one way of stripping off layers of imperialist power.

[The Douche]

I would apply the same analysis of events to any struggle against capital, anywhere.


I wasn't accusing you of theoretical inconsistency.


Who are the "Afghans"? The nation of "Afghanistan" comprises everyone from the poorest worker to Hahmid Karzai himself. Nations are not homogenous entities. They are imaginary groups within society that were conceived in order to foster class collaborationism (supporting bourgeois interests disguised as "national" interests). The "people" of Afghanistan have no "right" to do anything as a social force. To be a communist is to support working-class self-determination and independent, affirmative action no matter how distant the possibility may be.


:mellow:

You can fuss with semantics if you want, the US has invaded Afghanistan and kills people there everyday. Now you can claim that they "have no rights" since nations are "imaginary groups", but that doesn't do much to help anybody, except the imperialists.

I do support working class self determination, but if you think the working class can determine their own fate while under the grip of US imperialism you are lying to yourself.


No-one on this forum does this. Nobody who I would consider a respectable human being, anyway.


In a war, one side will win, which one do you support? Of course, anarchists and the communist left avoid this issue, and won't grapple with real life, preferring to remain in a world of abstract theory and hold the non-position that they support the victory of the working class, and not either side. But ultimately, in the real world, this is a non-position.


National self-determination is bullshit. I expected this false dichotomy from the likes of TVC, not you.

There is no false dichotomy, its common sense, working people in afghanistan can't be free if they're ruled by the US imperialists. And its not my place to tell them how to fight or run their country. Of course I would encourage and promote communist organizations in Afghanistan, but I won't abandon the people of Afghanistan in their anti-imperialist struggle just because I disagree with them. The defeat of US imperialism is necessary for both afghans and myself as a communist in the US.


Here's my question. We're not supposed to support either of the capitalist parties in the US because neither group is for the working class. Yet, most people would say that for the past forty years the US has not experienced a point in time that resembled a revolutionary moment.

Because fucking bombs aren't falling on our heads in the US everyday. Imperialism has to be defeated, then communism can be built in afghanistan.




In a war somebody has to win. In afghanistan it will either be the afghans (who have thrown their lot in with the taliban) or it will be the imperialists. Which side are you on? (in before the non-answer: "the working class")

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Because fucking bombs aren't falling on our heads in the US everyday. Imperialism has to be defeated, then communism can be built in afghanistan.

In a war somebody has to win. In afghanistan it will either be the afghans (who have thrown their lot in with the taliban) or it will be the imperialists. Which side are you on? (in before the non-answer: "the working class")

So, because it's brown people in a third world country, we have to support the biggest baddest native reactionaries? Also, why would you say the Afghans have thrown their lot in with the Taliban? That shows an utter lack of understanding about the nature of Afghanistan (tribal and multi-ethnic) and the fact that the Taliban is a Pashtun organization which has historically oppressed other tribes and ethnicities. Why do you think the Northern Alliance exists? They weren't getting US funding before 9/11 so there must have been some reason for different reactionaries to be opposed to the Taliban and it might have something to do with ethnic and religious imperialism of one tribe over another. And beyond that, the Taliban isn't the only groups fighting the Coalition, there are also communist groups fighting the coalition as well, so explain how the choice is solely between reaction and imperialism?

Also, how in the fuck can you call yourself a communist and say that "the working-class" is a non-answer? The working-class is always the answer, and the organizations that deserve our support are working-class and fighting for socialism. Otherwise you end up supporting people like fucking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who doesn't have a progressive bone in his body. Communists should be actively campaigning for the overthrow of reactionary leaders and governments, anti-imperialism isn't sufficient to support a government or leader, they must also be working for the working-class or of it.

[Bronco]

LOL at people who actually support the Taliban. Even in the very short time I've been here it does concern me how obsessed RevLeft is with "Imperialism" and this misguided concept that it is always the greater evil, and that "anti-Imperialists", whoever they might be, should always be supported.

It's bull. Fuck the US and their warmongering obsession but, equally, fuck the Taliban and their oppression of Afghans & women in particular. Neither represents the interests of Afghanis and neither should be supported.

[∞]

Having been in Pakistan I have witnessed the full force of Islamic oppression.

A victory for the Taliban is a defeat to women and children. If the Taliban ever gain political power, it would be one of the most oppressive regimes to ever exist. The working class can never support the Taliban.

[#FF0000]

I'm with the folks saying "Neither side should be supported" but it's still pretty much a fact that whoever are shooting Americans are generally the better side.

[Blackscare]

Because your second round pick is the United States, the very same beast that rose to power on lynchings, indian massacres, and imperial expansion.


Oh, take your petty moralism somewhere else. There are plenty of reasons to oppose US actions around the world, but your reasoning is childish and totally unmarxist.

[RGacky3]

So, because it's brown people in a third world country,

Really? Do you have to cheapen your pretty good argument by insinuating racism?

I agree with all your points, but doing shit like that just makes you sound goofy.

[mikelepore]

I guess that's true, in a hypothetical sense, but I fail to see where the US has, at least recently, honestly responded to a direct attack by another nation with appropriate force.

In the U.S. political and legal system, there is no concept of giving a response to an offense the appropriate magnitude, because the system holds that refusal to comply is simply never an an option.

Consider the case of a very small offense against the system. Suppose that you steal a bag of peanuts from Walmart, and then, when the police yell "stop", you keep running. The situation would automatically begin to escalate toward infinity. They will call 50 cops, and if they still can't get you they will call 500 more. If you hide in a building then the building will be burned down. If they can't locate you, an unlimited amount of funds will be spent to establish a large investigative agency devoted to your case. The one thing that may not be considered is that the arrest warrant will not be executed. The effort must grow exponentially until you are either in handcuffs or you are dead. The size of the original offense is now irrelevant.

We need to understanding that the U.S. system operates in this way to interpret the U.S. response to the attack on the navy ship Cole, the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attacks of September of 2001. These original offenses didn't determine the outcome as much as the fact that someone foolish had gone up to a tiger and pulled on its whiskers, and expected the beast to do nothing impulsive. The inevitable chain of events were in motion.

The U.S. government contacted Commander of the Faithful, Mullah Mohammed Omar, Supreme Leader of the Taliban government of Afghanistan, and told him just how many hours he was being given to turn over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. to "face justice." As soon as Omar replied to the U.S. that bin Laden was his invited guest, and therefore would not be extradicted, destiny was written. It was now an indisputable fact that the U.S. military was going to topple the Taliban government, with no limit placed on the amount of death and destruction that would accompany the process. All the U.S. system could see is that there was a warrant outstanding, and "no" is never an option.

Ironically, it turns out that, since the Taliban regime wanted to turn world history back to medieval times, with its strict theocracy, the enslavement of women, and other serious regressions, the existence of that regime had to terminate, one way or another. The sleeping tiger, that impulsively snapped at the intruder who had plucked its whiskers, had accidentally performed a necessary service for the tide of history. The accompanying death and destruction would be damnable, but so were the deaths of 600,000 working class people in the 1860s in the process of abolishing slavery in the U.S. History often moves in this dilemmatic way, where all sympathetic people must condemn the suffering and injustice that occurs along the many steps, while we also know that the composite motion is inevitable for long term historical motion.

[#FF0000]

In the U.S. political and legal system, there is no concept of giving a response to an offense the appropriate magnitude, because the system holds that refusal to comply is simply never an an option.

Consider the case of a very small offense against the system. Suppose that you steal a bag of peanuts from Walmart, and then, when the police yell "stop", you keep running. The situation would automatically begin to escalate toward infinity. They will call 50 cops, and if they still can't get you they will call 500 more. If you hide in a building then the building will be burned down. If they can't locate you, an unlimited amount of funds will be spent to establish a large investigative agency devoted to your case. The one thing that may not be considered is that the arrest warrant will not be executed. The effort must grow exponentially until you are either in handcuffs or you are dead. The size of the original offense is now irrelevant.

Woah, woah, woah, woah what? That is not what happens. What happens is the cop runs out of breath and says "fuck it". I mean I understand what you're trying to say -- that it takes a lot of bodies to gum up the gears of war once they've begun turning, but goddamn.



Ironically, it turns out that, since the Taliban regime wanted to turn world history back to medieval times, with its strict theocracy, the enslavement of women, and other serious regressions, the existence of that regime had to terminate, one way or another. The sleeping tiger, that impulsively snapped at the intruder who had plucked its whiskers, had accidentally performed a necessary service for the tide of history. The accompanying death and destruction would be damnable, but so were the deaths of 600,000 working class people in the 1860s in the process of abolishing slavery in the U.S. History often moves in this dilemmatic way, where all sympathetic people must condemn the suffering and injustice that occurs along the many steps, while we also know that the composite motion is inevitable for long term historical motion.

What!? The very existence of the Taliban, though, is a result of imperialism and the fundamentalism there isn't just some ancient way of doing things that has been fighting off modernization for hundreds of years. The fundamentalism and all these reactionary things associated with Taliban rule are a result of imperialism and a result of Afghanistan being brought even more to heel under global capitalism.

Are you seriously saying that the invasion of Afghanistan is good or justified? Or that the answer to imperialism is more imperialism?

[Comrade J]

LOL at people who actually support the Taliban. Even in the very short time I've been here it does concern me how obsessed RevLeft is with "Imperialism" and this misguided concept that it is always the greater evil, and that "anti-Imperialists", whoever they might be, should always be supported.

It's bull. Fuck the US and their warmongering obsession but, equally, fuck the Taliban and their oppression of Afghans & women in particular. Neither represents the interests of Afghanis and neither should be supported.

Allow me to paint a picture that might better explain my point - You were born in Afghanistan, you're 18 years old and you're an average muslim guy who just wanted a peaceful life, until your father was killed by a US drone strike whilst he tended his goats with his rifle at hand to defend against wolves, and your best friend's house was shot up and everyone inside killed by ISAF troops because some gung-ho soldier thought he saw a gun in the window. Naturally, you want revenge, you want these murderous foreign armies out of your country, but your only gun is an old Soviet rifle, and there is no underground resistance you can join. If you try fight alone you will have minimal impact and will almost certainly die. However, the Taliban have plenty of weapons; a semblance of order; men with decades of military experience and funding for radios, guns and ammo coming out of Pakistan. So what do you do...?

The US government and the private media lapdogs of the government perpetuate the myth that the entire 'Taliban' are the same people who behead women, enforce strict Islamic law and so on. It's a catchy title that that simplifies and generalises all resistance, and gives them some sort of 'moral highground' and maintains support for the war at home. But do you really believe that after 10 years of war and slaughter, the only enemy is the original Taliban government and its soldiers, all with the exact same ideological stance? If so, then frankly, you are a fucking idiot.

[Ele'ill]

The quality of OI took a hit when I became unrestricted.

[The Douche]

Having been in Pakistan I have witnessed the full force of Islamic oppression.

A victory for the Taliban is a defeat to women and children. If the Taliban ever gain political power, it would be one of the most oppressive regimes to ever exist. The working class can never support the Taliban.


Having been in Iraq I have witnessed the full force of imperialist oppression.

A victory for the imperialists is a defeat to women and children. If the imperialists ever gain power it will be one of the most oppressive regimes to ever exist. The working class can never support imperialism.

[RedSunRising]

I'm with the folks saying "Neither side should be supported" but it's still pretty much a fact that whoever are shooting Americans are generally the better side.

The thing is that its impossible to establish any type of socialism under Imperialist occupation and also that Imperialist occupation tends to swell up any religious, cultural or ethnic divisions in a country because the occupiers will majorly play off one group against another in a way that a "normal" government just wouldnt (in the interests of "stability").

[Ocean Seal]

Having been in Pakistan I have witnessed the full force of Islamic oppression.

A victory for the Taliban is a defeat to women and children. If the Taliban ever gain political power, it would be one of the most oppressive regimes to ever exist. The working class can never support the Taliban.
The Taliban does hold significant political power. And of course I don't think that anyone here actually thinks that the Taliban deserves the praise of the left, but consider who put them in power. The United States, which has historically interfered to put into power the most oppressive and backwards groups in the world. The mafia in Cuba, the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, Mumbarak in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, and so on. The United States will always chose the most backwards leaders to put into power for the reason that the poorer and more reactionary a nation is, the easier it is for the US to control it and keep the compradors up against the national bourgeoisie. Suppporting imperialism is necessarily supporting the most backwards leadership possible.

[Bronco]

Allow me to paint a picture that might better explain my point - You were born in Afghanistan, you're 18 years old and you're an average muslim guy who just wanted a peaceful life, until your father was killed by a US drone strike whilst he tended his goats with his rifle at hand to defend against wolves, and your best friend's house was shot up and everyone inside killed by ISAF troops because some gung-ho soldier thought he saw a gun in the window. Naturally, you want revenge, you want these murderous foreign armies out of your country, but your only gun is an old Soviet rifle, and there is no underground resistance you can join. If you try fight alone you will have minimal impact and will almost certainly die. However, the Taliban have plenty of weapons; a semblance of order; men with decades of military experience and funding for radios, guns and ammo coming out of Pakistan. So what do you do...?

The US government and the private media lapdogs of the government perpetuate the myth that the entire 'Taliban' are the same people who behead women, enforce strict Islamic law and so on. It's a catchy title that that simplifies and generalises all resistance, and gives them some sort of 'moral highground' and maintains support for the war at home. But do you really believe that after 10 years of war and slaughter, the only enemy is the original Taliban government and its soldiers, all with the exact same ideological stance? If so, then frankly, you are a fucking idiot.

Of course not all members of the Taliban are the same but that's hardly the point. That is what the Taliban stands for, what it represents and what it would enforce regardless of whether there are a few individuals who dont necessarily buy into it.

[mikelepore]

#FF0000 says: "Are you seriously saying that the invasion of Afghanistan is good or justified?" Only outcomes that could have been otherwise, actions that have resulted from someone's choices, can be described as justified or unjustified. Outcomes that could not have been otherwise, that are inevitable in a mechanical way, cannot be justified or unjustified. No matter who had been elected president of the U.S. in 2000, Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, Workers World Party, Socialist Equality Party, -- anyone of them would have taken the same actions that George Bush took. The invasion of Afghanistan might have taken place a few days sooner or a few days later, but would otherwise be the same. The only difference would have been in the question of how much time would have to pass before the military occupation would be considered no longer necessary and be discontinued. The present government in the U.S. hardly ever leaves anywhere, as we see from the fact that the U.S. went into the 21st century with troops still stationed in England, France, Germany and Egypt in response to Hitler. If a leftist administration ran America, the post-invasion occupation of Afghanistan would probably have been ended by now. The continuing occupation of the country is the result of someone's choice -- and that is where the element of imperialism enters into the picture --- but the initial incursion of October 2001 was not.

[#FF0000]

words

Ah, alright. I don't think I agree with you but that clears some things up. Thanks.

[Devrim]

In a war, one side will win, which one do you support? Of course, anarchists and the communist left avoid this issue, and won't grapple with real life, preferring to remain in a world of abstract theory and hold the non-position that they support the victory of the working class, and not either side. But ultimately, in the real world, this is a non-position.

I don't think that anybody either left communist or anarchist really holds a position of "support[ing] the victory of the working class" in reference to Afghanistan. The working class in Afghanistan is tiny and extremely weak. It has no hope of victory in itself.

The idea that you have to support one side in a war and that to refuse to is "preferring to remain in a world of abstract theory" is a rejection of the revolutionary history of the working class. In the First World War revolutionaries refused to support either side, raised the slogan "turn the imperialist war in to a civl war", and stated that the main enemy was at home.

Now you can say that this war is of a completely different character, which obviously it is, but the line that "In a war, one side will win, which one do you support?" is a complete rejection of communist politics.


In a war somebody has to win. In afghanistan it will either be the afghans (who have thrown their lot in with the taliban) or it will be the imperialists. Which side are you on? (in before the non-answer: "the working class")

I am on neither. I don't think that there is a working class solution within Afghanistan. Rather I think that peasants and workers in Afghanistan are being dragged into dying for the interests of local warlords, regional and international powers.

It is to be noticed that you drop any pretense of a class analysis here and start to talk about the Afghan people, who you say have thrown their lot in with the Taliban. I suppose that this definition of people doesn't include the Shia about whom the Taliban have stated "Hazaras are not Muslim, they are Shi’a. They are kafir. The Hazaras killed our force here, and now we have to kill Hazaras… If you do not show your loyalty, we will burn your houses, and we will kill you. You either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan". Nor is this just words, but it has been backed up by sectarian murders of thousands of civilians.

Up to 1 in 5 of the Afghan population is Shia. I would presume though that you don't include them in the 'Afghan people' who have thrown in their lot with the Taliban.

The we could go into the ethnic tensions. The Taliban of course is overwhelmingly a Pashtun organisation, and Pashtuns although the biggest single ethnic group are still a minority of the population as a whole. There have of course being massacres of members of different ethnic minorities too.

These so called representatives of the Afghan people that you speak about when looked at in a bit more detail, seem to be actually an ethnic, sectarian murder gang which draws it base from an, admittedly large, minority of the population.


No, the taliban is not "imperialist", it was an organization which grew up out of radical islamic thinkers in the Pastun tribes which reside along the border of/inside both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This organization has been supported by many different states and state agencies throughout history as it served different geo-political interests.

How is it imperialist? The taliban does not seek to create Pakistani rule over Afghanistan, the taliban does not even control Pakistan, it just has a little influence in the government. (though obviously not much since the Pakistani government allows US raids into Pakistan)

You are right. The Taliban is obviously not imperialist. Rather as you rightly point out, it has effectively been a tool of "many different states and state agencies". It is the imperialists plaything.


Imperialism has to be defeated, then communism can be built in afghanistan.

I think that this shows a complete lack of understanding of what imperialism actually is. It is not the policy of a specific country, or even a specific country in itself. It is a global system. The defeat of the US in Afghanistan would not be a defeat for imperialism, but rather for one, if even the main one, of the imperialist powers. National independence is an impossibility today. The defeat of one imperialist power in this sort of war can not but lead to the strengthening of others. Rather than defeating imperialism it is merely a shift in the balance of terror.


but I won't abandon the people of Afghanistan in their anti-imperialist struggle

What does your 'support' mean in reality? Both left communists and anarchists are opposed to the imperialist adventures of their own states. The difference is that they don't end up being cheer leaders for reactionary organisations like the Taliban whilst doing so.

Devrim

[Franz Fanonipants]

Oh, take your petty moralism somewhere else. There are plenty of reasons to oppose US actions around the world, but your reasoning is childish and totally unmarxist.

What the fuck is this?

[Viet Minh]

People need to get over nations and ideologies and tribal/ ethnic identities for a moment here, especially the attitude of dividing everything into good and evil. For example in the case of a working class Soviet soldier raping a bourgeouis woman who was complicit in the nazi regime, is that okay because of the respective ideologies? No. The Taliban as a group have some regressive ideologies, and even if there are good people who fight with them for personal freedom, their ultimate ideology is not leftist, so why even bother supporting them? The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan is long gone unfortunately, but there are still progressive groups like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (http://www.rawa.org/index.php), it is them we should be supporting.


Are all anarchists against national self-determination? Is that common? I'm asking a legitmate question.

I'm not an anarchist, but as far as I know anarchism is fundamentally anti-nationalist. Besides the notion of 'self-determinism' is a false one in this case, there is no democracy on offer from either side, ultimately when the war is over they're left with a dictatorship of the US, or they're 'own people'.

[RedSunRising]

People need to get over nations and ideologies and tribal/ ethnic identities for a moment here.

Says the Loyalist. http://sn.loyal4life.org/_UFF/photo/4902370/109928.html?b=

What are you playing at? :confused:

[727Goon]

Because your second round pick is the United States, the very same beast that rose to power on lynchings, indian massacres, and imperial expansion.

so you cant support the US over anything, ever, even in like World War II? Anyways my first round pick is the victory for progressive forces, people here pretend the Maoists in Nepal and India are relevant so I should be allowed to pretend whatever tiny Communist resistance in Afganistan counts for shit. My "second round pick" these days is really fuck both sides, it's essentially a pick between Naziism or German Style fascism, both suck incredibly hard for the Afghan people. Your either killed in a drone attack by the imperialists or shot in a soccer stadium for adultery by the Taliban either way your fucking dead.


Basically, bro, if this were the 19th century you'd be really for the British vs. independent nations in India. Sure, those independent nations aren't socialist, but being pro-British Imperialism is kind of worse.

Why should I support the bourgeios of any country at any time in history?

[727Goon]

So you support an imperialist victory in Afghanistan then? Just like the (troll) OP?


Yeah thats totally my position. better a troll than a tankie, do you critically support the KKE in greece when they murder anarchists as well?

[727Goon]

the line that "In a war, one side will win, which one do you support?" is a complete rejection of communist politics.

Ultimately this is the best position when you think about it. I mean I pretty much got wrapped up in semantics and lost sight of class politics, communists should never support bourgeois sides in a war.

[gorillafuck]

The idea that you have to support one side in a war and that to refuse to is "preferring to remain in a world of abstract theory" is a rejection of the revolutionary history of the working class. In the First World War revolutionaries refused to support either side, raised the slogan "turn the imperialist war in to a civl war", and stated that the main enemy was at home.Is that really a good comparison? considering that the first world war was imperialist powers against eachother, not the main imperialist power of the world invading a weak, non-imperialist nation.

[progressive_lefty]

I think it just goes to show the difference in opinion and ideology on revleft - I think the pornography thread is a big example of that. But I would also say that there are some on this forum that are committed to arguing even if it is based on nothing. You get this kind of thing 'so your denouncing x army, that must mean that aliens are all orange, that's reactionary - get off revleft'. (If you get my point). Someone makes a post - and then all of a sudden some users try to pick it out into being something an extreme right-winger would say, or they try to make an entirely unrelated assumption based on an opinion you had expressed in only one or two sentences.

I love being on revleft to learn about different things, but it's hell annoying when people start attacking you for little or no reason. I usually just ignore threads when the argument (or lack there of) becomes incredibly predictable.

[Ocean Seal]

Is that really a good comparison? considering that the first world war was imperialist powers against eachother, not the main imperialist power of the world invading a weak, non-imperialist nation.
Yes Zeekloid raises an important point here. Keep in mind Devrim that during the First World War you had both sides with the possibility of invading one another. The Allies could have turned the Entente into colonies and taken the Entente's colonial territory and vice-versa. Hence supporting either side would have led to the same thing. However, if NATO wins a war against a nation then they can move in and oppress the people (not saying that Saddam, the Taliban, and Qaddafi don't already do this, but to a greater extent) by turning these countries into neo-colonies. Neo-colonies tend to be more economically backwards than nationalist dictatorships because they tend to rely on more parasitic classes. In addition to keeping the people from revolution they also lower living standards tremendously and in general make people's lives more horrible. Suppose that the bourgeois anti-imperialist side wins the war. What happens to the working class in NATO countries? The winning side cannot oppress the workers of the other nation simply because they don't have the power to do so. So effectively the victory of one side is worse than that of the other.

[Devrim]

Is that really a good comparison? considering that the first world war was imperialist powers against eachother, not the main imperialist power of the world invading a weak, non-imperialist nation.

Maybe I didn't express it very well, but what I was trying to say was that as an argument in itself it doesn't work.

My next line was:


Now you can say that this war is of a completely different character, which obviously it is, but the line that "In a war, one side will win, which one do you support?" is a complete rejection of communist politics.

Maybe if I had added the phrase 'in itself' after the quotation it would have been more clear.

I think that communists should not take sides in wars like this. 'Redbrother' disagrees and argues that in this case "effectively the victory of one side is worse than that of the other". I will try to address that when I get home from work. What he does though is to explain why he thinks this in this type of situation, which is very different from the line "In a war, one side will win, which one do you support?".

Devrim

[Johnny Kerosene]

yankee imperialism is unfortunately the fuedalistic and backward taliban.

IMO Taliban victory is infinitely more progressive than Yankee imperialism.
.

You say it would be better for a more feudalistic government to win, and claim to be a Marxist, yet according to Marx, Feudalism comes before Capitalism on the way to Communism. If the Taliban won, by Marx's logic, it would take longer for Afghanistan to get anything resembling Communism. I'm not saying I support either side, I'm just saying what I said.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I saw this thread and thought I would offer my two cents. Tbh, it's really a lose-lose situation; if the Taliban win women and others are heavily oppressed by extremist interpretations of Islam, but if the Americans win then there's likely going to be an imperialist occupation. I'd have to say that the Americans winning is the lesser evil though, considering since they have been in the country women have been able to get educated and have been granted some rights. That alone is a huge improvement from Taliban rule. Obviously the Americans are hypocrites though for allowing the Taliban to gain control in the first place by funding them in the 1970's/1980's to fight against the Soviets.

[robbo203]

That's hypothetical bullshit though why does my 2nd round pick matter. Anyways it's not really about my restriction it's about revleft in general. This thread isn't about me getting unrestricted and I'm not here to debate my restriction, I want to know how revleft has changed since then and especially since all the (Organization that you can't say here) people got banned. I think there are a lot more authoritarian socialists and "anything but imperialism" types.


I find this apparent readiness to just ban people at the drop off a hat disturbing, undemocratic and in a sense quite insulting really - as if one needs protecting from views that are deemed unacceptable. I accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere e.g. outright racist or sexist rematks but in practice I think some of the bannings have been in excessively restrictive.

If you are saying that you were banned for supporting the defeat of the Taiban by the US, then I m appalled. I recall ComradeOm supporting NATO assistance for the Libyan rebels as being the only realistic way of removing Gaddafi. While I dont support his actual position I would be pretty dammed annoyed if someone then suggested he should be banned. Like many others here I oppose both the despicable Gaddafi regime and the Nato bombings and indeed, if any point of view might be considered questionable it is the the view of some "anti-imperialists" as they call themselves that we should support Gaddafi, a billionaire tyrant who sanctions the murder of unarmed protesters.

Not that I would support the banning of these anti imperialists but it does go to show that a certain amount of double standards seem sometimes to apply

[ZeroNowhere]

I find this apparent readiness to just ban people at the drop off a hat disturbing, undemocratic and in a sense quite insulting really - as if one needs protecting from views that are deemed unacceptable. I accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere e.g. outright racist or sexist rematks but in practice I think some of the bannings have been in excessively restrictive.

If you are saying that you were banned for supporting the defeat of the Taiban by the US, then I m appalled. I recall ComradeOm supporting NATO assistance for the Libyan rebels as being the only realistic way of removing Gaddafi. While I dont support his actual position I would be pretty dammed annoyed if someone then suggested he should be banned. Like many others here I oppose both the despicable Gaddafi regime and the Nato bombings and indeed, if any point of view might be considered questionable it is the the view of some "anti-imperialists" as they call themselves that we should support Gaddafi, a billionaire tyrant who sanctions the murder of unarmed protesters.

Not that I would support the banning of these anti imperialists but it does go to show that a certain amount of double standards seem sometimes to apply
I think it's best to avoid that section of their OP, even though it's probably the case that the whole point of the OP was to whine about their restriction outside of the designated thread. They weren't restricted for merely opposing the Taliban, but it's best not to play into their hands by responding to that section of the OP.

[robbo203]

LOL at people who actually support the Taliban. Even in the very short time I've been here it does concern me how obsessed RevLeft is with "Imperialism" and this misguided concept that it is always the greater evil, and that "anti-Imperialists", whoever they might be, should always be supported.

It's bull. Fuck the US and their warmongering obsession but, equally, fuck the Taliban and their oppression of Afghans & women in particular. Neither represents the interests of Afghanis and neither should be supported.

Absoluterly spot on. The so called "lesser evil" argument, unprincipled and opportunist to its very core, is a recipe for getting nowhere and for maintaing the status quo. Supporting one bunch of murdering lying exploiting bastards against another is no way to make progress; but it is certainly a way of ensuring that a murdering lying exploitative system remains intact.

To hell with so called anti imperialism and its reactionary nationalist subtext. It serves the capitalist goal of divising the working class in order to more effectively rule over it. The problem is not imperialism but capitalism. All nation states are latently or manifestly imperialist - even the little ones - because capital itself is inherently expansionist. Imperialism is just the symptom and not the cause and by constantly diverting our attention away from the cause the so called "anti-imperialists" do the the revolutionary cause a great disservice

[Niccolò Rossi]

You either support self-determination or you support imperialist victory.

For fuck's sake, when did you become a PSL candidate?

You used to be cool.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

One thing that can be said about people who support the defeat of the American imperialist intervention under the leadership of the Taliban - at least they have a political spine. This is more than can be said about the 'Star-Spangled Banner Communists'.

Nic.

[dernier combat]

I wasn't accusing you of theoretical inconsistency.
Though you were implying that such analyses which the likes of myself make are/would be restricted to the third world.


There is no false dichotomy, its common sense, working people in afghanistan can't be free if they're ruled by the US imperialists. And its not my place to tell them how to fight or run their country. Of course I would encourage and promote communist organizations in Afghanistan, but I won't abandon the people of Afghanistan in their anti-imperialist struggle just because I disagree with them. The defeat of US imperialism is necessary for both afghans and myself as a communist in the US.
Unfortunately, the defeat of US imperialism specifically by means of fighting for the Taliban can bring with it a few negatives (namely the fact that if the Taliban fills the power vacuum in post-war Afghanistan [likely if it wins the war, as the Taliban's power and influence will have expanded over its course], the repression that had existed under the Taliban before the war would return). Just as a NATO victory would be counter-productive to the interests of the working class, so would a Taliban victory. The fact that the Taliban are fighting against a major imperialist military means shit all, as the heads of the organization will just secure their hegemony over the working class if they win.


Because fucking bombs aren't falling on our heads in the US everyday. Imperialism has to be defeated, then communism can be built in afghanistan.
Imperialism exists wherever there is capitalism. The expansion of capital is imperialism. Under an inevitable Taliban government, capitalist production will live and thrive, and thus so will imperialism, as it will under a NATO-backed government. Capitalism cannot be stripped of its imperialist character.


In afghanistan it will either be the afghans (who have thrown their lot in with the taliban) or it will be the imperialists. Which side are you on? (in before the non-answer: "the working class")
The "Afghans" as a social entity cannot win because those perceived to be members of an Afghan nation have taken both sides. There are Afghans who support Karzai and what NATO/ISAF is doing to Afghanistan, and there are Afghans who are staunchly opposed to Karzai and the NATO, ISAF, etc. A "nation" cannot claim victory in an intra-class conflict.

[Viet Minh]

Says the Loyalist. http://sn.loyal4life.org/_UFF/photo/4902370/109928.html?b=

What are you playing at? :confused:

Says the person who registered a 'BNP4EVA' account on that site.. :confused: But yeah, there's over a thousand pictures on the site I need to go through them when I get a chance. BTW What ethnic identity are loyalists? They're a mixture of Scots, Irish and English, who we've already established are completely different races! :rolleyes:


One thing that can be said about people who support the defeat of the American imperialist intervention under the leadership of the Taliban - at least they have a political spine. This is more than can be said about the 'Star-Spangled Banner Communists'.

Nix.

Well if they have a spine, and fully support the Taleban maybe they should go and join them. I'm sure they'll welcome a communist westerner! :rolleyes:

[Viet Minh]

During the rule of the Taliban (1996 - 2001), women were treated worse than in any other time or by any other society. They were forbidden to work, leave the house without a male escort, not allowed to seek medical help from a male doctor, and forced to cover themselves from head to toe, even covering their eyes. Women who were doctors and teachers before, suddenly were forced to be beggars and even prostitutes in order to feed their families.
Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, many would agree that the political and cultural position of Afghan women has improved substantially. The recently adopted Afghan constitution states that "the citizens of Afghanistan - whether man or woman- have equal rights and duties before the law". So far, women have been allowed to return back to work, the government no longer forces them to wear the all covering burqa, and they even have been appointed to prominent positions in the government.


http://www.afghan-web.com/woman

[PhoenixAsh]

Well...I do not support imperialism. I do not support the spread of capitalism...and I most definatedly do not support any of th reasons the US invaded Afghanistan.

WE were not able to overthrow our governments, nor were we ale to stop the imperialist action and the simple fact is that that failure results in a perpetuation of its politics and therefore this resulted in a logical and inevitable invasion somewhere. Its the very nature of the beast.

A fait-a-complis. And I regard it as such.

A side effect of that is that it toppled a highly reactionary, theocratic, mysogenist, anti socialist dictatorship by not so funny men who think the world evolves around God and in which everybody who does not think, act, and look like they do are subhuman or not worthy of any regard...and can even be freely slaughtered...and everybody that does not have a penis is a tool, an object without any rights that should be isolated, shunned or used as they see fit.

Its sickening to think that all ideological basis is put aside when imperialist intervention is involved.

[RGacky3]

If the United States invaded Chile Under Pinoche due to a territorial dispute or whatever, would you pro-taliban guys support Pinoche?

[Franz Fanonipants]

If the United States invaded Chile Under Pinoche due to a territorial dispute or whatever, would you pro-taliban guys support Pinoche?

what i want to know is who's pro-taliban.

anyways, 727goon - no, you can't support the us pretty much ever sorry bro. i mean maybe like if the us was intervening in people's war on the side of the people but snrrkkgrk.

[#FF0000]

If the United States invaded Chile Under Pinoche due to a territorial dispute or whatever, would you pro-taliban guys support Pinoche?

1) Who is pro-taliban

2) Anti-imperialists would, yeah. See:


I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

But anyway if you support the United States or the West when they invade a country like this, you're supporting the worst of the two sides in virtually every situation. Not that you should support the lesser evil either, that is.

[727Goon]

anyways, 727goon - no, you can't support the us pretty much ever sorry bro. i mean maybe like if the us was intervening in people's war on the side of the people but snrrkkgrk.

not that I'm really looking to support the US but by this logic the principled position would be to support the Axis Powers over the US during WWII and the South over the North in the Civil War. to quote the great American warrior poet Ice T, everything in the world aint black and white.

[Franz Fanonipants]

not that I'm really looking to support the US but by this logic the principled position would be to support the Axis Powers over the US during WWII and the South over the North in the Civil War. to quote the great American warrior poet Ice T, everything in the world aint black and white.

You're literally taking irrelevant conflicts and trying to make some halfassed point about how awesome it is that you're kissing an imperialist power's ass because the Taliban are cartoon villains.

No one in this thread or anywhere else has said they prefer the Taliban. I would even qualify that for Marcyites that the Taliban qualify as an imperialist force under the Saudis, so pretty much there's no one to pick up the "rah rah kill those savages!" flag for. And that's ok. You were just dumb enough to openly advocate for the United States in the midst of an imperialist war. Hence, restriction.

[727Goon]

But by the logic of bourgeois anti-imperialist since you have to pick a side in every imperialist war even if that means supporting the bourgeois, I guess you have to pick a side in mainstream political contests because "One of the two sides is going to win". As Devrim said this is a straight up rejection of communist politics.

[Franz Fanonipants]

But by the logic of bourgeois anti-imperialist since you have to pick a side in every imperialist war even if that means supporting the bourgeois, I guess you have to pick a side in mainstream political contests because "One of the two sides is going to win". As Devrim said this is a straight up rejection of communist politics.

Where the fuck are you getting this from?

[#FF0000]

not that I'm really looking to support the US but by this logic the principled position would be to support the Axis Powers over the US during WWII and the South over the North in the Civil War. to quote the great American warrior poet Ice T, everything in the world aint black and white.

This is wrong.


not that I'm really looking to support the US but by this logic the principled position would be to support the Axis Powers over the US during WWII

Maybe this could be argued, but I don't see it. Liberal Democratic capitalist countries vs. Fascist capitalist countries with the latter as the aggressor? Why would supporting the latter be principled?


and the South over the North in the Civil War

Nope. (http://libcom.org/library/american-civil-war-karl-marx)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Besides not supporting the Soviet Union in WWII is basically stupid sorry bro.

I know "tankies" and whatever but get over it.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

not that I'm really looking to support the US but by this logic the principled position would be to support the Axis Powers over the US during WWII and the South over the North in the Civil War. to quote the great American warrior poet Ice T, everything in the world aint black and white.
Actually this doesn't equate to the matter, as the Axis Powers had engaged in various forms of aggression against other territories. Which makes your comment irrelevant, along with the other one that is ultimately irrelevant. Lenin himself had used the issue of the First World War against the Allied Forces with his using of German Imperialism against Western led Imperialism. This relates to this in the manner that you're not realizing that out of two Imperialist led powers, that inevitably the one that should be sided with is the lower Imperialist power in order to use the lesser Imperialist power against the by far more powerful Imperialist power.


http://www.afghan-web.com/woman
Yet, you seem to be somehow missing the fact that when the Northern Alliance was formed out of various groups that had continually slaughtered oppositional forces and were themselves to the point of the Taliban. Especially regarding Male Child Prostitution that is openly accepted in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance.

www.rawa.org%2Fs-mazar.htm&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFtqRUJiN4pgz0oPuHraNkiuuC7Eg&cad=rja (http://www.rawa.org%2Fs-mazar.htm&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFtqRUJiN4pgz0oPuHraNkiuuC7Eg&cad=rja)
www.wsws.org%2Farticles%2F2009%2Fjul2009%2Fnyag-j13.shtml&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFaQr-bvh-TNI1lQxiiV82jPHmD3Q&cad=rja (http://www.wsws.org%2Farticles%2F2009%2Fjul2009%2Fnyag-j13.shtml&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFaQr-bvh-TNI1lQxiiV82jPHmD3Q&cad=rja)

Among other reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiz_Ahmad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meena_Keshwar_Kamal


Ultimately, the situation needs to be exploited for Proletarian interests. In which a small faction could easily be a turning force against both the Occupational Forces, the illegitimate regime of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. In which, if those championing the Proletariat do it correctly, could successfully enable the Proletariat. However, this needs to be fitted with Afghani situations and needs to be precise in action.

[RGacky3]

But anyway if you support the United States or the West when they invade a country like this, you're supporting the worst of the two sides in virtually every situation. Not that you should support the lesser evil either, that is.

Sure, when I said pro-taliban I meant supporting that side in the conflict.

I don't think anyone should support the United States, nor should anyone support the Taliban, so who do you support? No one, unless a force that will make something better comes up.

At this point I don't know what would be worse, The Taliban, or the US controlling it, I don't know either which one would be easier for the locals to overtrhow.

[#FF0000]

At this point I don't know what would be worse, The Taliban, or the US controlling it, I don't know either which one would be easier for the locals to overtrhow.

tbh i think it's worse if the us wins. it will just encourage them

[Franz Fanonipants]

tbh i think it's worse if the us wins. it will just encourage them

but i mean basically it isn't going to happen.

[Viet Minh]

Yet, you seem to be somehow missing the fact that when the Northern Alliance was formed out of various groups that had continually slaughtered oppositional forces and were themselves to the point of the Taliban. Especially regarding Male Child Prostitution that is openly accepted in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance.

www.rawa.org%2Fs-mazar.htm&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFtqRUJiN4pgz0oPuHraNkiuuC7Eg&cad=rja (http://www.rawa.org%2Fs-mazar.htm&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFtqRUJiN4pgz0oPuHraNkiuuC7Eg&cad=rja)
www.wsws.org%2Farticles%2F2009%2Fjul2009%2Fnyag-j13.shtml&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFaQr-bvh-TNI1lQxiiV82jPHmD3Q&cad=rja (http://www.wsws.org%2Farticles%2F2009%2Fjul2009%2Fnyag-j13.shtml&rct=j&q=Northern%20Alliance%20Genocide&ei=s4feTebhBcLogQewkZj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNFaQr-bvh-TNI1lQxiiV82jPHmD3Q&cad=rja)

Those links aren't working for me, but yeah I wasn't deliberately cherrypicking I was just making a point that both sides are as bad as each other.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Those links aren't working for me, but yeah I wasn't deliberately cherrypicking I was just making a point that both sides are as bad as each other.
Which is the reason I afterwards edited my post in order to mention that the entire situation should be exploited to a maximum potential in order to ensure a positive effect for the Proletariat. However, as both sides are inherently bad, one side although is by far just as bad and will if successful create a regime that will serve as a fortress in the Central Asian region that is highly militarized and will revert to an extremely militaristic nature in the interests of Imperialism and suppress oppositional factions and remove any potential 'achievement' that can be regarded as progressive. Which is the reason, that this side obviously shouldn't be supported.

[Viet Minh]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Democratic_Party_of_Afghani stan.svg/433px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Democratic_Party_of_Afghani stan.svg.png

[#FF0000]

but i mean basically it isn't going to happen.

Word. Anyone who thinks we will win in Afghanistan is dreaming. Even if we even still had objectives there at this point

[727Goon]

This is wrong.



Maybe this could be argued, but I don't see it. Liberal Democratic capitalist countries vs. Fascist capitalist countries with the latter as the aggressor? Why would supporting the latter be principled?



Nope. (http://libcom.org/library/american-civil-war-karl-marx)

You missed my point. If you're gonna argue that the US is always in the wrong no matter what then you have to ignore historical examples where the US was in fact more progressive than the countries they were fighting. If you say that anyone who is shooting at US soldiers is in the right, it logically follows that you would have to support fascists or the confederacy.

[Red Future]

You missed my point. If you're gonna argue that the US is always in the wrong no matter what then you have to ignore historical examples where the US was in fact more progressive than the countries they were fighting. If you say that anyone who is shooting at US soldiers is in the right, it logically follows that you would have to support fascists or the confederacy.

Most people here think the Union abolition of slavery in the civil war was one of the most progressive things the US goverment ever did.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

You missed my point. If you're gonna argue that the US is always in the wrong no matter what then you have to ignore historical examples where the US was in fact more progressive than the countries they were fighting. If you say that anyone who is shooting at US soldiers is in the right, it logically follows that you would have to support fascists or the confederacy.
You DON'T have a point as it wasn't due to the United States being 'more progressive' and instead it was due to Fascist aggression and the United States seeking to maintain its Economic Interests in Europe, however that doesn't make each action of the Untied States during the Second World War supportable simply due to the target being Fascists, as the United States had engaged in various crimes against the people of Europe and other nations (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and afterward seeking to further its own Imperialist interests.

The United States actions during the Second World War were hardly based out of progressiveness, they were supportable due to them being against the inherently aggressive Imperialist Germany, a Proletarian option during this conflict was to use the two Imperialist powers against each other in order to maintain a Proletarian position. Which is what was done the Comintern Parties and with the USSR. The Bourgeois attempted to act in the same method against the USSR and maintaining their own economic interests.

Inherently any force that forces Imperialists out of a given area is 'right', as it is a strike against Imperialism and allows for Proletarian forces to exploit this situation in their own interests.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You missed my point. If you're gonna argue that the US is always in the wrong no matter what then you have to ignore historical examples where the US was in fact more progressive than the countries they were fighting. If you say that anyone who is shooting at US soldiers is in the right, it logically follows that you would have to support fascists or the confederacy.

Marx sez "[The American Civil War] is the last progressive action of the bourgeoisie" or something like that.

Anyways, basically bro I'm for Comrade Stalin stepping down some storm trooper's face forever.

E: but I'm sure you and your RAANista/LeftCom bastardizing homies would qualify the United States as the far more "progressive" force in the European theater.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Marx sez "[The American Civil War] is the last progressive action of the bourgeoisie" or something like that.

Anyways, basically bro I'm for Comrade Stalin stepping down some storm trooper's face forever.

E: but I'm sure you and your RAANista/LeftCom bastardizing homies would qualify the United States as the far more "progressive" force in the European theater.
The Rural AIDS Action Network is at it again. :lol:

They're extremely Sectarian towards New Left leaning Maoists, Leninists and others as well.

It appears some haven't gotten over the Kronstadt incident, especially when the majority criticize the handling of it to begin with.

[PhoenixAsh]

If we apply the logic of Nepal Maoists to the situation (see the therad about Maoists support capitalism)...then we first need capitalism before we can have communism. http://www.revleft.com/vb/nepali-maoist-s-t147416/index.html?t=147416&highlight=maoists+support+capitalism

In THAT sense and logic the US invading and toppling a non, and even anti, capitalist theological mysogenistic ethnic tribal dictatorship (to cram in as much as possible) and establishing a capitalist puppet regime...is...well...not really a bad thing.

Not saying I agree...just saying.

[727Goon]

Marx sez "[The American Civil War] is the last progressive action of the bourgeoisie" or something like that.

Anyways, basically bro I'm for Comrade Stalin stepping down some storm trooper's face forever.

Cool I guess I mean you cant really disagree with that but Stalin's regime would have me killed or thrown in the gulags for being an anarchist so fuck that guy.


[QUOTE]E: but I'm sure you and your RAANista/LeftCom bastardizing homies would qualify the United States as the far more "progressive" force in the European theater.

Nah Russia was probably the most progressive force in the European theater, which isn't really saying shit like at all but I guess its something. I'm sure you think that Russia under Stalin was real socialism.

[727Goon]

@727Goon - did you ever get round to watching that documentary we chatted about?

Yeah it was pretty interesting, it didnt really change my opinion on anything except it made me realize how much being in the army would suck.

[Andropov]

You say it would be better for a more feudalistic government to win, and claim to be a Marxist, yet according to Marx, Feudalism comes before Capitalism on the way to Communism. If the Taliban won, by Marx's logic, it would take longer for Afghanistan to get anything resembling Communism. I'm not saying I support either side, I'm just saying what I said.
Good point but flawed.
As I stated imperialism copper fastens the status quo.
It will enshrine the path of least resistance and cater to every reactionary ideology to preserve their hegemony.
Hence why they will preserve the feudalistic structures of Afghani society where the mullahs control vast estates and many Afghani peasants are no better than serfs. Now couple this with the character of Imperialism which will suck all capital and natural resources out of the country which will translate into a country with no infrastructure or development, no progression with regards to its economic character. Its why the third world is so severely crippled with such poor infrastructure because of the legacy of imperialism.

[black magick hustla]

star spangled communists are the worst but anybody who thinks a taliban victory will open the road for socialism is dumb as hell. what is going to happen is that ethnic and religious tensions will be stronger and women will be thrown acid to their faces. for some reason, socialists always mistake ethnic murder gangs for working class self activity.

[727Goon]

Who the fuck are these "Star spangled communists"? Like Christopher Hitchens or something? I've never met a communist in real lie of online who is a patriot.

[Andropov]

what is going to happen is that ethnic and religious tensions will be stronger and women will be thrown acid to their faces. for some reason, socialists always mistake ethnic murder gangs for working class self activity.
But if Yankee imperialism is victorious these practices would be stopped?
Utterly bizarre, do people have no concept of history.
The same arguements supporting the Spanish genocide of Central America were used because of the barbaric practice of the Aztecs with their ritualistic human sacrafice.
Many still say that well, the Spanish were bad but sure cant be as bad as the Aztecs.
But what people dont realise is that not only were the people of Central America conquered by a ruthless empire who wiped out a significant proportion of the population either directly or indirectly but they also permitted the Tlaxcalans to continue their practice of human sacrifice because they were an Ally against the Aztecs.
Empires are never progressive, Empires never 'civilise', Empires will cater to every reactionary ideology and practice in order to sustain their hegemony and the overall reason for their occupations, economics.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The Taliban is indeed a reactionary organization. But guess what, the official name of Afghanistan is "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan." a funny load of hypocrisy on the part of the imperialists. The Islamic Republic of Iran is evil but the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is progress!

Now, Devrim was correct about the working class in Afghanistan, its puny. there is hardly and industry or free labor. It is the most underdeveloped country in the world. And over a third of the population is unemployed(how this number has been gotten i dont know because of the way afghanistan is, census must be difficult) and for the most part, work is done in agriculture. Whether or not it is a form of feudalism i dont know, but peoples lives rely heavily on the crops and livestock they raise.

The Argument could be made that imperialist occupation may develop the economy there. But what about the imperialist conquest of Africa? There was no base industry. Raw materials were exported on railroads built specifically to bring stuff form the interior of the continent to the coast!

There has been a discovery of roughly a trillion dollars worth of minerals in afghanistan but it will be bought up by US, EU, Indian, Russian, and Chinese capitalists. It wont be for the development of afghanistan, but be plundered by foreign countries.

Currently, the only way to expel foreign occupiers is thorugh the Taliban. The ALO aint shit in afghanistan compared to reactionary organizations. Would it be preferable for the ALO to be the leading force? hell yes! is it reality? no!

In the case of afghanistan, a Maoist movement would probably be able to build socialism better than a worker-only oriented movement only because there hardly exists an afghan working class.

The case for afghanistan is one of national liberation and national self-determination. Yes pakistan meddles in the affairs of afghanistan, and so does india and to a lesser extent, iran. Pakistan and India are at odds and what happens in afghanistan has to come out in the favor of one of the two competitors in their eyes.

So, what about the taliban? It is a very reactionary organization, but, unfortunately; it is all the afghan people have. So what does it mean, only support the ALO? or support the whole of the afghan people in whatever way they choose to expel the plunderers.

also by support i mean in word to varying degrees. physically or materially supporting them pretty much means death or a one way ticket to occupied cuba.

just some thoughts.

[robbo203]

There has been a discovery of roughly a trillion dollars worth of minerals in afghanistan but it will be bought up by US, EU, Indian, Russian, and Chinese capitalists. It wont be for the development of afghanistan, but be plundered by foreign countries.

Currently, the only way to expel foreign occupiers is thorugh the Taliban. The ALO aint shit in afghanistan compared to reactionary organizations. Would it be preferable for the ALO to be the leading force? hell yes! is it reality? no!

In the case of afghanistan, a Maoist movement would probably be able to build socialism better than a worker-only oriented movement only because there hardly exists an afghan working class.

The case for afghanistan is one of national liberation and national self-determination. Yes pakistan meddles in the affairs of afghanistan, and so does india and to a lesser extent, iran. Pakistan and India are at odds and what happens in afghanistan has to come out in the favor of one of the two competitors in their eyes.

So, what about the taliban? It is a very reactionary organization, but, unfortunately; it is all the afghan people have. So what does it mean, only support the ALO? or support the whole of the afghan people in whatever way they choose to expel the plunderers.

also by support i mean in word to varying degrees. physically or materially supporting them pretty much means death or a one way ticket to occupied cuba.

just some thoughts.

Note the class collaborationist assumptions by our resident nationalists on this list. Kick out Johnny foreigner - and hey presto! - all will be hunky dory for the local peasans/workers. Bollocks. You simply replace foreign exploiters for local ones. And the local ones will, in any case, sooner or later have to come to terms with the global capitalist economy as they must in order to trade, acquire, materials, technology, investment etc. Which means, sooner or later, Johnny foreigner with his firstful of dollars, yens or euros, will be creeping back through the backdoor and set up business partnerships with the local Taliban capitalist scum (which they will become if there is a trillion dollars worth of minerals there waiting to be exploited). Much like those special free enterprsie economic zones in that goddam awaful state capitalist dictatorship of North Korea, i suppose...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Note the class collaborationist assumptions by our resident nationalists on this list. Kick out Johnny foreigner - and hey presto! - all will be hunky dory for the local peasans/workers. Bollocks. You simply replace foreign exploiters for local ones. And the local ones will, in any case, sooner or later have to come to terms with the global capitalist economy as they must in order to trade, acquire, materials, technology, investment etc. Which means, sooner or later, Johnny foreigner with his firstful of dollars, yens or euros, will be creeping back through the backdoor and set up business partnerships with the local Taliban capitalist scum (which they will become if there is a trillion dollars worth of minerals there waiting to be exploited). Much like those special free enterprsie economic zones in that goddam awaful state capitalist dictatorship of North Korea, i suppose...
National Liberation isnt inherently proletarian in character. In afghanistan, it would be impossible for it to be proletarian. A national bourgeoisie would have to develop and with that comes a proletariat.

[#FF0000]

You missed my point. If you're gonna argue that the US is always in the wrong no matter what then you have to ignore historical examples where the US was in fact more progressive than the countries they were fighting. If you say that anyone who is shooting at US soldiers is in the right, it logically follows that you would have to support fascists or the confederacy.

But the difference then was that the US was more progressive than the countries they were fighting.

I mean our logic isn't literally "Americans r badguys evryone who shots badguys is gud". That's just a rule of thumb.

[black magick hustla]

But if Yankee imperialism is victorious these practices would be stopped?
Utterly bizarre, do people have no concept of history.
The same arguements supporting the Spanish genocide of Central America were used because of the barbaric practice of the Aztecs with their ritualistic human sacrafice.
Many still say that well, the Spanish were bad but sure cant be as bad as the Aztecs.
But what people dont realise is that not only were the people of Central America conquered by a ruthless empire who wiped out a significant proportion of the population either directly or indirectly but they also permitted the Tlaxcalans to continue their practice of human sacrifice because they were an Ally against the Aztecs.
Empires are never progressive, Empires never 'civilise', Empires will cater to every reactionary ideology and practice in order to sustain their hegemony and the overall reason for their occupations, economics.

nobody is arguing for a yankee victory. my point is that there is this bizarre sentiment among the national liberationists that overthrowing yankee imperialism will make socialism possible. i dont think this is the case.

[727Goon]

But the difference then was that the US was more progressive than the countries they were fighting.

I'd say that the difference between those wars and this one is that the war effort's goals were progressive, not that America as a nation was. For example America had segregation and japanese interment going on which were some of the most reactionary domestic policies but the goal of stopping fascism was ultimately progressive. However in Afghanistan the end goal is clearly reactionary, the prolonging of an imperialist occupation and the establishment of a puppet government. However I don't think the Taliban have anything to offer the Afghan people either and for what it's worth the Karzai government is probably a little less oppressive towards communists and certainly better for women. It also seems like the Taliban have little popular support for all the talk of "the will of the people" In the end though lesser of two evilism is fucked and inherently anti-communist so fuck both.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'd say that the difference between those wars and this one is that the war effort's goals were progressive, not that America as a nation was. For example America had segregation and japanese interment going on which were some of the most reactionary domestic policies but the goal of stopping fascism was ultimately progressive. However in Afghanistan the end goal is clearly reactionary, the prolonging of an imperialist occupation and the establishment of a puppet government. However I don't think the Taliban have anything to offer the Afghan people either and for what it's worth the Karzai government is probably a little less oppressive towards communists and certainly better for women. It also seems like the Taliban have little popular support for all the talk of "the will of the people" In the end though lesser of two evilism is fucked and inherently anti-communist so fuck both.


the American contribution to the war against fascism should be noted and praised but at the same time, it was still a reactionary force in the world.

In afghanistan, the US presence is no more progressive than it was in the 80s. For imperialist occupation to somehow be good for women now when it, just decades ago, installed the taliban itself and caused the destruction of lives for women is just mind boggling.

The taliban is a reacitonary organization through and through, and some day, it will be defeated as well. I would prefer it be defeated by the people of afghanistan AFTER the US is defeated.

[727Goon]

the American contribution to the war against fascism should be noted and praised but at the same time, it was still a reactionary force in the world.

In afghanistan, the US presence is no more progressive than it was in the 80s. For imperialist occupation to somehow be good for women now when it, just decades ago, installed the taliban itself and caused the destruction of lives for women is just mind boggling.

The taliban is a reacitonary organization through and through, and some day, it will be defeated as well. I would prefer it be defeated by the people of afghanistan AFTER the US is defeated.

I mean I find it hard to view America's role in World War II reactionary at all so in that sense it wasn't a reactionary force. I don't know how you can say the US presence in the 80's wasn't worse though, I think that the Taliban regime were the worst thing to happen to Afghanistan and that was a direct result of US Imperialism. I still don't really see what the point of taking sides in bourgeois contests for power is, I'm certainly not going to support reaction in the name of anti-imperialism, especially when said reaction is a direct result of imperialism. I'll support the ALO or whoever else just like I'd support communist groups in the states. They won't win any elections but the communist position isn't to vote for a bourgeois party because they will, in fact picking sides like that is the definition of anti-communism. Does anyone have any information on oppression of communists under the Karzai government versus the Taliban though I think that would be helpful.

[Thug Lessons]

Stalinists used to be restricted.
Third-worldists too. I can't imagine how the standards of debate used to be so exclusive and arbitrary.

[727Goon]

I dont know, I think the policy against Stalinists was pretty understandable, I don't know how you can argue for socialism, which is supposed to be a bottom-up movement, and at the same time admire bourgie ass leaders.

[Thug Lessons]

If you don't like leaders with 'bourgie' background, you should probably go after Marx, Engels and Lenin before Stalin, since he was the only one of those born into truly poor family.

[DrStrangelove]

If you don't like leaders with 'bourgie' background, you should probably go after Marx, Engels and Lenin before Stalin, since he was the only one of those born into truly poor family.

Kropotkin and Bakunin should get mention for being of "bourgie" background. Although I doubt that's what he meant by calling Stalin bourgeois

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I dont know, I think the policy against Stalinists was pretty understandable, I don't know how you can argue for socialism, which is supposed to be a bottom-up movement, and at the same time admire bourgie ass leaders.

:rolleyes: How can you propose the restricting of 'Stalinists' and offer your support to the ALO at the same time, when the ALO are Maoists and uphold Anti-Revisionism and the contributions of Stalin?

'I don't know how you can argue for socialism, which is supposed to be a bottom-up movement'
Which is a Bottom-Up Movement, it simply doesn't mean that the contributions of J.V Stalin are to be disregarded. As the contributions of J.V Stalin in terms of positive contributions should continually be upheld. (IE: Industrialization)
:lol:

[Thug Lessons]

Kropotkin and Bakunin should get mention for being of "bourgie" background. Although I doubt that's what he meant by calling Stalin bourgeois
Maybe, I donno. Stalinists love to harp on how hard-working he was and how he lived such a spartan lifestyle, which is probably quite true, and the criticisms that actually have merit when it comes to Stalin are more about policy than anything about being bourgeois.

[727Goon]

If you don't like leaders with 'bourgie' background, you should probably go after Marx, Engels and Lenin before Stalin, since he was the only one of those born into truly poor family.

I think you forgot the part where I'm an anarchist. And theres a minority of the ruling class who come from modest circumstances, doesn't make them any less despicable.

[DrStrangelove]

Maybe, I donno. Stalinists love to harp on how hard-working he was and how he lived such a spartan lifestyle, which is probably quite true, and the criticisms that actually have merit when it comes to Stalin are more about policy than anything about being bourgeois.

I think his Stalin was a bourgeois comment was a crack at Stalin's authortarianism

[727Goon]

:rolleyes: How can you propose the restricting of 'Stalinists' and offer your support to the ALO at the same time, when the ALO are Maoists and uphold Anti-Revisionism and the contributions of Stalin?

'I don't know how you can argue for socialism, which is supposed to be a bottom-up movement'
Which is a Bottom-Up Movement, it simply doesn't mean that the contributions of J.V Stalin are to be disregarded. As the contributions of J.V Stalin in terms of positive contributions should continually be upheld. (IE: Industrialization)
:lol:

I don't really like their politics or think they're a legitimate communist resistance but they represent the best progressive working class resistance in Afghanistan, unless they engage in class colaborationism.

[727Goon]

I love how tankies always have to "uphold" shit.

[Thug Lessons]

I think you forgot the part where I'm an anarchist. And theres a minority of the ruling class who come from modest circumstances, doesn't make them any less despicable.
That has shit-all to do with anything honestly. 'Bourgeois' is a much more complicated concept than 'being disproportionately powerful politically' and if that term is to meaningful at all it's counter-productive to apply it to people like Stalin and Mao, whatever their flaws.


I think his Stalin was a bourgeois comment was a crack at Stalin's authortarianism
Apparently so.

[RedSunRising]

Third-worldists too. I can't imagine how the standards of debate used to be so exclusive and arbitrary.

Arent Third-Worldists still restricted?

[Thug Lessons]

Arent Third-Worldists still restricted?
No, but they remain gullible.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I don't really like their politics or think they're a legitimate communist resistance but they represent the best progressive working class resistance in Afghanistan, unless they engage in class colaborationism.

1. 'I don't really like their politics or think they're a legitimate communist resistance.'
Yet, as previously said you had chose to mention that you identify yourself as an Anarchist while you're yet again choosing between sympathizing for Imperialism in considering the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 'progressive' as compared to the Taliban, even though the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is simply a continuation of Fundamentalism. (Which is more or less choosing a lesser evil as opposed to simply confronting the entire situation and proposing Anarchistic solutions to the situation.) Afterward, you've chosen to 'support' the Maoist ALO and choose the lesser evil yet again according to yourself, albeit while criticizing 'Stalinism' afterward as being Bourgeois in nature and attempting to disregard the contributions of Stalin.
2. 'but they represent the best progressive working class resistance in Afghanistan'
Which would make them a legitimate Communist Movement towards a Workers State within Afghanistan out of the will of Afghanistan's Proletariat, which however you previously denied that they were.
3.) 'unless they engage in class colaborationism'
As an Industrial Afghani Working Class is lacking and the remnants of Feudal Landowning exists, along with the majority of the Afghani Proletariat being Rural, in order for Socialism to be obtained-- Capitalist relations must for a temporary period be achieved.



I love how tankies always have to "uphold" shit.

'I love how tankies always have to "uphold" shit.'
I'm not a 'Tankie', I'm simply not engaging in a Liberal form of thought that denies any contribution that J.V Stalin had made (Positive or Negative) in the sole attempt of attempting to apologize for any potential action that J.V Stalin had done. (Whether it be Positive or Negative.)

[Drosophila]

To be quite frank folks like you are and those you support are just as bloody and traitorous as any Stalinist from my perspective.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. My ideal world isn't one where dictators throw people in jail for having differing opinions.

[Andropov]

nobody is arguing for a yankee victory. my point is that there is this bizarre sentiment among the national liberationists that overthrowing yankee imperialism will make socialism possible. i dont think this is the case.
I never said 'that overthrowing yankee imperialism will make socialism possible'.
I have merely stated that a defeat of yankee imperialism is more progressive than a victory for imperialism.
Does that mean socialism will flourish if the Taliban are victorious? No of course not. But it will be a more fertile environment for progressive politics than if the yanks won.

[#FF0000]

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

From looking at the history of the center-left and the worker's movement, basically.


My ideal world isn't one where dictators throw people in jail for having differing opinions.

Likewise for Marxist-Leninists.

Maybe you should try actually engaging in discussion instead of hurling attacks at people whose ideologies you don't understand.

[Franz Fanonipants]

sorry bros i've been busy but basical 727goon makes a good point being that

[Tablo]

Kropotkin wasn't bourgeois, he was a member of the nobility. That is actually arguably worse than being bourgeois. :lol:

[727Goon]

Likewise for Marxist-Leninists.


Eh. Most of them have no qualms about openly being against freedom of expression.

[727Goon]

1. 'I don't really like their politics or think they're a legitimate communist resistance.'
Yet, as previously said you had chose to mention that you identify yourself as an Anarchist while you're yet again choosing between sympathizing for Imperialism in considering the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 'progressive' as compared to the Taliban, even though the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is simply a continuation of Fundamentalism. (Which is more or less choosing a lesser evil as opposed to simply confronting the entire situation and proposing Anarchistic solutions to the situation.) Afterward, you've chosen to 'support' the Maoist ALO and choose the lesser evil yet again according to yourself, albeit while criticizing 'Stalinism' afterward as being Bourgeois in nature and attempting to disregard the contributions of Stalin.
2. 'but they represent the best progressive working class resistance in Afghanistan'
Which would make them a legitimate Communist Movement towards a Workers State within Afghanistan out of the will of Afghanistan's Proletariat, which however you previously denied that they were.
3.) 'unless they engage in class colaborationism'
As an Industrial Afghani Working Class is lacking and the remnants of Feudal Landowning exists, along with the majority of the Afghani Proletariat being Rural, in order for Socialism to be obtained-- Capitalist relations must for a temporary period be achieved.

1) The ALO are essentially really radical social democrats. They're not truly communist but they're progressive.
2) Progressive and working class doesnt necessarily mean communist. Look at the labor movement in the US for example.
3) Or they could just organize the rural working class and not establish capitalist relations.



'I love how tankies always have to "uphold" shit.'
I'm not a 'Tankie', I'm simply not engaging in a Liberal form of thought that denies any contribution that J.V Stalin had made (Positive or Negative) in the sole attempt of attempting to apologize for any potential action that J.V Stalin had done. (Whether it be Positive or Negative.)

You're certainly acting like a tankie by calling anyone who disagrees with you on Stalin "liberal" with no concern for the actual definition of the word. I love how all these Stalinists who are trying to call me an imperialist because of some hypothetical shit think that Soviet imperialism was A-OK.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Eh. Most of them have no qualms about openly being against freedom of expression.

Black Nationalism - For Freedom of Expression

Anarchists - For Liberal Idealism

[redSHARP]

Restricting Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist's would only make for further silly Sectarianism as the majority of Marxist-Leninists themselves are simply pushing for a stronger transitional phase in order to ensure that the fruits that will result from it themselves will be successful.


As compared to the victory of the Northern Alliance (Which is a United States and NATO Puppet State),


I think it should be noted, the Northern Alliance was actually NOT supported by the US/NATO forces until 9/11, in fact CIA documents and witnesses would point to the US doing everything in its power to halt aid going to the Northern Alliance, specifically Moussad. The US and Taliban had some interesting negotiations going on during the mid 90's; isn't there a picture of some Taliban leaders chilling in Texas during the 90's?

[Drosophila]

From looking at the history of the center-left and the worker's movement, basically.


What the hell are you talking about? Stalin and Mao had thousands of "political opponents" arrested and thrown in jail. I don't see how a center-left government equates to that at all.

[RGacky3]

Anarchists - For Liberal Idealism

Liberal and idealism are words chucked around with NO meaning, you've lost the argument when you start that way.