Communist (Maoist)Party of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Liberation Organization

[Aspiring Humanist]

Can someone give me some links to information on these two groups? I've scoured search engines but I haven't found any concrete information on their platforms and their history of actions. Unless they've disbanded recently Wikipedia says they are active and currently fighting occupation forces, but I've never heard of them prior to today and I can't find anything about them
Thanks a lot.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

Tey worked with Talliban.

[Gustav HK]

Here is their site: http://www.sholajawid.org/update/index_english.html

Taliban only came in existance in 1994. But yeah, they fought on the same side, as those, who would later found the Taliban.
They fought against Soviet social-imperialism.

[hashem]

Tey worked with Talliban.


you lie.



sholajawid, has been active in afganestan since 1960s. they have combated imperialists, social-imperialists and taliban. many of their members have been killed by USSR , taliban or other islamist groups.

unlike supporters of Russian social-imperialism, they have never sold them selfs to anyone, nor have they worked with taliban.

[hashem]

both of them are very small groups right now. they have suffered heavy casualties during USSR occupation and islamists rule.

they have roots in sholajawid newspaper which was published in 1960s. they were bigger organizations than Khalg or Parcham factions (which joined together and made so called "democratic peoples party of afganestan") but unlike them, they had no foreign support.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Here is their site: http://www.sholajawid.org/update/index_english.html

Taliban only came in existance in 1994. But yeah, they fought on the same side, as those, who would later found the Taliban.
They fought against Soviet social-imperialism.

Yeah, they certainly did. Side-by-side with profoundly reactionary Islamic fundamentalists. You are blinded by your anti-soviet views. Comrade, there is no way that this was progressive. Life under the PDPA in Afghanistan at least had the general feel of the 20th Century. They sided with the guys who tortured teachers for teaching women how to read, who went into revolt when the Bride Price was substantially reduced. Fighting with the guys who wanted to continue keeping women as chattel. National liberation, such as it is here, is subordinate to certain questions. Of course, these tribal warriors are not even nationalists as their program is really from before the age of nation states -- Afghanistan is the creation of imperialist map makers.

[khad]

They worked with Hekmatyar and their leader was tortured to death by him.

Worthless organization, worthless people.

[hashem]

Yeah, they certainly did. Side-by-side with profoundly reactionary Islamic fundamentalists. You are blinded by your anti-soviet views. Comrade, there is no way that this was progressive. Life under the PDPA in Afghanistan at least had the general feel of the 20th Century. They sided with the guys who tortured teachers for teaching women how to read, who went into revolt when the Bride Price was substantially reduced. Fighting with the guys who wanted to continue keeping women as chattel. National liberation, such as it is here, is subordinate to certain questions. Of course, these tribal warriors are not even nationalists as their program is really from before the age of nation states -- Afghanistan is the creation of imperialist map makers.

they didnt fought side by side with islamists, they fought against both islamists and USSR. they were the sole progressive forces of afganestan. even today there is no progressive trend in afganestan except supporters of former Sholajawid.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

they didnt fought side by side with islamists, they fought against both islamists and USSR. they were the sole progressive forces of afganestan. even today there is no progressive trend in afganestan except supporters of former Sholajawid.

It was a civil war, comrade. What you are saying would be analogous to saying this about the US Civil War: "They fought against both the Union and the Confederates." Strikes me as being extremely confused.

[bots]

It was a civil war, comrade. What you are saying would be analogous to saying this about the US Civil War: "They fought against both the Union and the Confederates." Strikes me as being extremely confused.

Why? There were slave and indigenous uprisings during the US Civil War where these people fought against both Union and Confederates. What's strange about not picking an imperialist team to fight for?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Why? There were slave and indigenous uprisings during the US Civil War where these people fought against both Union and Confederates. What's strange about not picking an imperialist team to fight for?

So, you would have taken a "pox on both your houses" position on the US Civil War? Marx sure as hell didn't. My point is that there were no other "sides" in the Afghan civil war. It was a specious position, and yes, very confused.

[gorillafuck]

Why? There were slave and indigenous uprisings during the US Civil War where these people fought against both Union and Confederates. What's strange about not picking an imperialist team to fight for?just for the record, when you say that it makes it sound like blacks did not support the union. which would be false.

[hashem]

It was a civil war, comrade. What you are saying would be analogous to saying this about the US Civil War: "They fought against both the Union and the Confederates." Strikes me as being extremely confused.

they fought against both reactionary sides in Afganestan. they managed to liberate a small region in afganestan for some time.
even today supporters of former Sholajawid are carring the banner of revolution, unlike the supporters of social-imperialism who are supporting US imperialist camp at the moment.

why do you think progressive forces should necessarily join an imperialist camp?

wasnt there a "third front" during the first world war? did the revolutionaries of worker class encouraged workers to join the Central powers or Allies?

same thing is true about a civil war. there were three sides during the Russian revolution: 1- tsarists (with support of landlords and reactionary section of bourgeoisie) 2- liberal democratic bourgeoisie (with support of liberal bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie democrats) 3- social democrats (with support of proletariat and other toilers).

[bots]

So, you would have taken a "pox on both your houses" position on the US Civil War? Marx sure as hell didn't. My point is that there were no other "sides" in the Afghan civil war. It was a specious position, and yes, very confused.

I don't know very much about the Afghan civil war. I was just calling attention to your poor reasoning. It doesn't always have to be "one or the other". Sometimes it can be "neither". You may be right about there being no other sides, but some people disagree. Maybe you can provide more evidence for your position.

[bots]

just for the record, when you say that it makes it sound like blacks did not support the union. which would be false.

I'm sure some black people did support the Union. I'm also sure some decided they wanted nothing to do with either side of the settler conflict and hoped both sides would wipe each other out. I would suggest Sakai's "Settlers" which is a great exposition of the history of America from an anti-colonial perspective. You can read it here www.readsettlers.org

[Sir Comradical]

They're worthless traitors basically.

[thälmann]

i dont understand the discussion here. they fought both, the social-imperialists and the islamists, its a fact. that is one reason why it was so hard for them and they lost so much people.

and when it comes to afghanistan, they are the only political force worth to call them progressive.

[hashem]

They're worthless traitors basically.

history shows the contary:

supporters of Russian social-imperialism were and are worthless traitors.

aside from Afganestan and east europe, they had a reactionary rule everywhere and especially in middle east. they supported dictatoships of bourgeoisie against the worker class. they supported islamist regime of Iran while it was killing any kind of leftist, progressive and democrat activist, they supported the islamist regime until they became its victim as well.

true revolutionaries exposed social-imperialism. after the collapse of USSR its former servants showed their true faces. they are now serving their new capitalist masters while true revolutionaries (including supporters of former Sholajawid) are still holding the banner of revolution.

[thälmann]

heres thze historical view of the ALO:

http://a-l-o.maoism.ru/historical.htm

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't know very much about the Afghan civil war. I was just calling attention to your poor reasoning. It doesn't always have to be "one or the other". Sometimes it can be "neither". You may be right about there being no other sides, but some people disagree. Maybe you can provide more evidence for your position.

And sometimes, it is crystal clear which side is progressive and which side is reactionary. In both civil wars I mentioned that would be the case. The side fighting against slavery, you support that one if you are a revolutionary. This seems basic and self-evident. It is true that in some cases you do say, a pox on both your houses. Like between the imperialist powers in WWI or WWII (not the USSR). But, any force on the ground choosing neither side in the Civil War or the War in Afghanistan, was doomed to complete irrelevance in a very important struggle to free blacks, and women, respectively.

In Afghanistan, the PDPA government built schools to teach women how to read, hired them into government jobs and reduced the bride price (the price a man had to pay to buy their bride -- this fee was the equivalent of the mortgage on a house -- money had to be borrowed from money lenders, usually mullahs). The mullahs went to war over this and were materially supported by the CIA and a lot of very confused leftists. The Soviet intervention had a lot wrong with it, but they represented the only powerful and progressive force there. How anyone who favors the French Revolution, let alone the Russian, can support Islamic reactionaries against the PDPA and USSR escapes me.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

history shows the contary:

supporters of Russian social-imperialism were and are worthless traitors.

aside from Afganestan and east europe, they had a reactionary rule everywhere and especially in middle east. they supported dictatoships of bourgeoisie against the worker class. they supported islamist regime of Iran while it was killing any kind of leftist, progressive and democrat activist, they supported the islamist regime until they became its victim as well.

true revolutionaries exposed social-imperialism. after the collapse of USSR its former servants showed their true faces. they are now serving their new capitalist masters while true revolutionaries (including supporters of former Sholajawid) are still holding the banner of revolution.

Hmmm, let's see. Cuba/Castro, Vietnam/Ho Chi Minh, China/Mao. Seems to me the USSR was on the progressive side now and again. And yes, the USSR did support some awful regimes -- the leaders were Stalinist after all, it's what they do. But in Afghanistan they were clearly on the progressive side. This was not Spain in the 1930s, where they played a counterrevolutionary role. There was no significant proletariat to defend the PDPA in Afghanisthan and crush the mullahs. In this case, it was abandoning Afghanistan that was the betrayal.

[Yehuda Stern]

Quite the contrary. The Soviets invaded exactly in order to paralyze the progressive wing of the PDPA and halt any sort of uprising. The first thing they did was to assassinate the left-wing leader of the PDPA and install in his place one of their puppets. This also led to rapprochement with the most reactionary elements of the Islamists - the mullahs had their first ever conference in Afghanistan under the auspices of the USSR occupation government.

[Babeufist]

I read on UNHCR website that some Khalq PDPA members (e.g. Shanawaz Tanai) supported the Taliban.

[RedHal]

A recent interview with a member of the Communist-Maoist Party of Afghanistan, by anti imperialist Radio Basics of Canada:

http://www.radio4all.net/responder.php/download/57900/64625/78334/?url=http://www.radio4all.net/files/[email protected]/3604-1-Radio_Basics-120220.mp3

[gorillafuck]

I'm sure some black people did support the Union. I'm also sure some decided they wanted nothing to do with either side of the settler conflict and hoped both sides would wipe each other out. I would suggest Sakai's "Settlers" which is a great exposition of the history of America from an anti-colonial perspective. You can read it here www.readsettlers.org"some" seems to imply that it is not "the vast majority of"

[GoddessCleoLover]

The PDPA Khalq faction. Now that is a blast from the past. I suppose they went underground when they saw what happened to Najibullah.

[Sir Comradical]

Quite the contrary. The Soviets invaded exactly in order to paralyze the progressive wing of the PDPA and halt any sort of uprising. The first thing they did was to assassinate the left-wing leader of the PDPA and install in his place one of their puppets. This also led to rapprochement with the most reactionary elements of the Islamists - the mullahs had their first ever conference in Afghanistan under the auspices of the USSR occupation government.

Hafizullah Amin was responsible for assassinating Nur Muhammad Taraki (first president of the DRA) who was in his same faction (Khalq), he then began persecuting the Parcham faction of the PDPA. As for rapprochement, what do you expect? It's a conservative muslim country, if they pushed an ultra-left agenda they wouldn't have lasted very long so obviously they'd have to make concessions.

[khad]

The PDPA Khalq faction. Now that is a blast from the past. I suppose they went underground when they saw what happened to Najibullah.
Many of the Khalqis became guns for hire and eventually found themselves in the ranks of the Taliban. Like Dostum's goons, they were the most capable soldiers in the country, and much of the military success of the Taliban can be attributed to their arms. The Taliban had an air force at one point.

Also to those whining about the Soviets stunting "genuine revolution" through a purge of the progressive wing of the PDPA. Purge of the Progressive wing? Amin killed thousands of his own party, thousands of his own Khalq faction members, including President Taraki. If you go to the diplomatic record, a lot of the Soviet communication with the government of Afghanistan at the time consisted of pleas to release imprisoned communists. Amin had to die to stop the PDPA from destroying itself.

At this point, I'm just so sick of this entire debate, because any good deed that any communist does will be picked apart by the mewling miasma of perverse western ideologies. The Alan Woods/Noam Chomsky worshipping chauvinists can believe what they to believe, together with the Mao and Stalin groupies (who all have ZERO connection to the countries affected by those leaders). I'm out.

[Babeufist]

The PDPA Khalq faction. Now that is a blast from the past. I suppose they went underground when they saw what happened to Najibullah.

But Najibullah was member of the competitive Parcham faction.

[Yehuda Stern]

Hafizullah Amin was responsible for assassinating Nur Muhammad Taraki (first president of the DRA) who was in his same faction (Khalq), he then began persecuting the Parcham faction of the PDPA. As for rapprochement, what do you expect? It's a conservative muslim country, if they pushed an ultra-left agenda they wouldn't have lasted very long so obviously they'd have to make concessions.

Ah, well, if persecuting opposition within the party was Amin's crime, the USSR is certainly the state with the authority to judge him. And don't give me that nonsense about having to make concessions: it's the excuse reformists everywhere use to explain why they're selling out the struggles of the oppressed.

[bots]

And sometimes, it is crystal clear which side is progressive and which side is reactionary. In both civil wars I mentioned that would be the case.

It's obvious to me that you know far more about the Afghan Civil War than I do, and so I'll concede that I am in no position to argue about that.

As far as the American Civil War goes, I'd say you've got quite a non-materialist understanding of what went down. The Union wasn't fighting to "free the slaves". It was fighting because of the contradictions within American society between the rural, agrarian based south and the industrial north. I would highly recommend Sakai's Settlers, which I mentioned earlier.

[Sir Comradical]

Ah, well, if persecuting opposition within the party was Amin's crime, the USSR is certainly the state with the authority to judge him. And don't give me that nonsense about having to make concessions: it's the excuse reformists everywhere use to explain why they're selling out the struggles of the oppressed.

Read khad's post.

Besides you don't support the USSR's humanitarian defence of the PDPA regime anyway so why should you care? If the PDPA pushed an agenda that complied a hundred percent with your revolutionary checklist, how do you expect them to survive without any assistance? Face it, if history went your way, you'd be content to sit on the fence and watch the soviet bureaucracy (or state capitalists if you're a cliffite) throw the most progressive regime in Afghanistan's history to the wolves of the CIA.

[Yehuda Stern]

To read Khad post where he whines about being sick of the discussion and then says that he is "out"? I've read better. As for yours, I've never said anything remotely close to this:


If the PDPA pushed an agenda that complied a hundred percent with your revolutionary checklist

So if we're in the business of recommending which posts to read, I highly recommend you read mine before releasing another automatic pro-Stalinist reply. Read carefully; isolate the arguments; respond to them. That is how debates usually go. Automated arguments from the Stalinist handbook are of no interest to me or anyone else.

[hashem]

USSR's humanitarian defence of the PDPA regime

yes! yes! targeting civil areas with Scud missles was very humanitarian! people of Afganestan together with rest of nations which were a part of east bloc, as well as people of north korea miss USSR's "defence"! they pray every night for Brezhnev and wish to see restoration of USSR! you think im joking?!

[Sir Comradical]

To read Khad post where he whines about being sick of the discussion and then says that he is "out"? I've read better. As for yours, I've never said anything remotely close to this:



So if we're in the business of recommending which posts to read, I highly recommend you read mine before releasing another automatic pro-Stalinist reply. Read carefully; isolate the arguments; respond to them. That is how debates usually go. Automated arguments from the Stalinist handbook are of no interest to me or anyone else.

Automated arguments from a cliffbot more like it.

I did respond to your point. You're referring to the "progressive wing" of the Khalq faction and lamenting the assassination of their leader at the time, but I bet your ass you didn't know that Amin (leader of your "progressive wing") was in the process of massacring his own party, you know like Stalin. So my point is this, even if the Afghan working class produced an actual textbook workers revolution (not a coup) and rolled out a program that complied a hundred-percent to your revolutionary checklist, it would STILL need to be defended by the Soviet Army. Since you're not interested in the defence of Afghanistan's left-nationalist regime from imperialist-backed islamist cutthroats, why should you care if the PDPA negotiated with mullahs?

[Sir Comradical]

yes! yes! targeting civil areas with Scud missles was very humanitarian! people of Afganestan together with rest of nations which were a part of east bloc, as well as people of north korea miss USSR's "defence"! they pray every night for Brezhnev and wish to see restoration of USSR! you think im joking?!

That's war and you've got to take sides.

[Yehuda Stern]

Calling me a Cliffite is again an automated Stalinist reponse. My record on RevLeft will show that I have nothing to do with Cliffism. Not that you have to know everything I wrote; you just have to not make silly assumptions.


Since you're not interested in the defence of Afghanistan's left-nationalist regime from imperialist-backed islamist cutthroats, why should you care if the PDPA negotiated with mullahs?

I never said this, and I think you know that. Again; read what I wrote.

[Leftsolidarity]

Calling me a Cliffite is again an automated Stalinist reponse. My record on RevLeft will show that I have nothing to do with Cliffism. Not that you have to know everything I wrote; you just have to not make silly assumptions.



I never said this, and I think you know that. Again; read what I wrote.

Would you both shut the fuck up with that shit? You both sound like fucking sectarian morons.

[Yehuda Stern]

I've heard this before: "Stop discussing your political differences, you sectarians!" It's always very amusing and ironic. Let me tell you something: if you don't want to join the debate, don't join it. Leave us alone otherwise.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've heard this before: "Stop discussing your political differences, you sectarians!" It's always very amusing and ironic. Let me tell you something: if you don't want to join the debate, don't join it. Leave us alone otherwise.

I'm not saying don't have a debate. I'm actually very interested in a debate on this topic and that's why I haven't unfollowed this thread. I'm saying cut it out with your moronic "automated Stalinst response" or "Cliffite". That shit's stupid and isn't a debate. I read it and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. It really takes away credibility from your argument when you use personal attacks like that.

Now debate. Just shut the fuck up with the sectarian nonsense.

[Yehuda Stern]

While you may believe throwing the f-word around makes you seem mature and cool, it really just makes you seem ignorant and vulgar. Same with telling people to shut up. Again - if you don't like that people use certain terms, don't use them, and maybe even avoid reading what these people write if that's that much of a problem to you. But otherwise, leave us alone.

[Leftsolidarity]

While you may believe throwing the f-word around makes you seem mature and cool, it really just makes you seem ignorant and vulgar. Same with telling people to shut up.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I use vulgar language? I'm sorry.
This is the internet. Big kids can use the internet too. If you don't like the language that big kids sometimes use, don't come on here.

Anywho, why don't you take your own god damn advice?



Again - if you don't like that people use certain terms, don't use them, and maybe even avoid reading what these people write if that's that much of a problem to you. But otherwise, leave us alone.

[Yehuda Stern]

I would love to avoid your messages, but you keep pestering me. Maybe this would be a good time to explain something: the way we conduct ourselves in these debates / arguments is a reflection of how we conduct ourselves politically. If you come here and tell people to "shut up with the sectarianism" or whatever (when there's really no sectarianism involved, just a political discussion), it shows the kind of political attitude you will take to political debates in real life in the future. People like you, who think they can impose their political morals (if you can call them that) on others by using foul language and insults will generally do similar things in real life. People like me will tell you to fuck off,* just like here. But others might not be able to, for various reasons. In the end, people like you, thinking they're so high and mighty with their refusal to use words like "Stalinism", end up being the worst sectarians and, should members of their groups be so unfortuante, the most oppressive leaders once they reach that position.

*Oops, there I go stooping to your level. Oh well - you're a "big kid", aren't you? (Because throwing around cuss words where none are really needed is truly the sign of a mature adult.)

[hashem]

take your childish sectarian fight eslsewere.

long live supporters of Sholajawid.

[Leftsolidarity]

I would love to avoid your messages, but you keep pestering me. Maybe this would be a good time to explain something: the way we conduct ourselves in these debates / arguments is a reflection of how we conduct ourselves politically. If you come here and tell people to "shut up with the sectarianism" or whatever (when there's really no sectarianism involved, just a political discussion), it shows the kind of political attitude you will take to political debates in real life in the future. People like you, who think they can impose their political morals (if you can call them that) on others by using foul language and insults will generally do similar things in real life. People like me will tell you to fuck off,* just like here. But others might not be able to, for various reasons. In the end, people like you, thinking they're so high and mighty with their refusal to use words like "Stalinism", end up being the worst sectarians and, should members of their groups be so unfortuante, the most oppressive leaders once they reach that position.

*Oops, there I go stooping to your level. Oh well - you're a "big kid", aren't you? (Because throwing around cuss words where none are really needed is truly the sign of a mature adult.)

You weren't even debating politics. You were spewwing shit like this, "automatic pro-Stalinist reply" over and over again. That is not a debate. That is not anything other than sectarian bullshit.

Like I've said, I'm interested in this topic. I would actually like to read an educated and informed debate, not read your generalizations about "Stalinism" or whatever the other poster was saying about "Cliffites" or something.

It's stupid and it's completely pointless. Repeating "Stalinism" over and over again is not making a point. If you think your posts were an actual political discussion, that is pretty fucking pathetic.



Oh, sorry. I used a cuss word. I apologise. :rolleyes:

[Parvati]

I don't know if there is still people who are interested in talking and learning about the Communist Maoist Party of Afghanistan, but here is some stuff on them. I admit that I didn't read all the comments on the three pages, but it seems that some people needs to learn how peoples who are suffering from oppression must act with the objective conditions of their situation and not just idealist and unmaterial ideology.

Anyway, a comrade from the Party were in Canada recently and make two conferences.Here is a report of what was said during the Toronto conference. `:


"Our struggle in Afghanistan is part of the global struggle of the oppressed…" [Guest Post by Comrade M.] (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-struggle-in-afghanistan-is-part-of.html)

[Here follows a transcript of the talk that the visiting comrade representing the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan delivered, in various versions, in Europe and Canada. Since the promised post about RAWA/ALO will probably not be given to me for a month, I figured it was best to post this general summation of the current juncture in Afghanistan which provides some background to that issue.]


In October 2001, when the imperialist coalition led by the United States launched its war of aggression to invade and occupy Afghanistan, the imperialists proclaimed that the purpose of their war was the bringing to justice of the supposed perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. But more importantly they also declared that their war would liberate the Afghan people, particularly Afghan women, and the imperialist occupation would promote democracy and a state building project that would be conducive to human rights, women’s rights and other liberal democratic values. There is no doubt that the promises sounded practically and theoretically appealing to many bourgeois and petit-bourgeois forces and intellectuals in our country, including those with some leftist pretentions.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9HZzhEtwPfM/T1vjiTDyf-I/AAAAAAAAAnU/MBUNC_Y_r2A/s1600/33706.jpeg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9HZzhEtwPfM/T1vjiTDyf-I/AAAAAAAAAnU/MBUNC_Y_r2A/s1600/33706.jpeg)




In this talk I am going to outline the positions taken by the various camps with some kind of leftist credentials and pretentions. We can divide the left in Afghanistan into three camps: the first camp is the harbinger of national capitulationism––capitulationists with some leftist pretentions or left liberals; the second camp we will call semi-capitulationist or partially caputulationist, and the third camp is the anti-imperialist and internationalist left. (It is important to note that all three of these camps lay claim to the Maoist movement of the previous generation.)


The capitulationist camp is composed of former members and cadre of the Maoist-led New Democratic movement of past generations. In their private gatherings, sometimes even publicly, they still claim that they are the proud remnants of Afghanistan's glorious Maoist movement. They play a very important role for the puppet regime and the imperialist occupation, serving as the intellectual and political cadre for the puppet regime and the imperialist occupation. They are members of parliament; they are ministers in the cabinet; they are close and important advisors to the president; they are in charge of the many NGOs and the so-called civil society organizations; they are widely present in the media… In short they play the “legitimating” role for the puppet regime.


This camp's argument, its assessment of Afghanistan's political history, can be roughly summarized in the following manner: the history of the country has been the history of the contradiction between forces of modernity and forces of tradition, and the same contradiction is still shaping the political reality of Afghanistan. According to this interpretation, on one side are the forces of tradition in the shape of the Taliban’s Islamism (being the harbinger of the worst kind of feudal values, male chauvinism, national chauvinism, animosity with any and all kinds of democratic and modern values), and on the other side is the “international community” that is trying to prop up a democratic establishment, and promoting state-building favorable to modern/liberal/democratic values, in very difficult circumstances. Therefore, those in the capitulationist camp believe it is their duty as “progressives” to side with the forces of modernity––in this case, the imperialist occupation and the puppet regime.


These left liberals of modern day Afghanistan are the intellectual foot soldiers of the imperialist occupation. They have proven to be the more consistent and reliable partners of the imperialist occupation, even more so then the Islamist wing of the Karzai-led puppet regime.


The second camp, what I have referred to as semi-capitulationist, is another very broad camp composed of several clusters of reformist left organizations. Their leftist pretentions are sometimes more pronounced than the pretentions of the first camp; initially it was very difficult to draw a demarcation line between these two camps. Indeed, at the beginning of the occupation, the primary targets of the semi-capitulationist camp's political attacks were particular wings of the Islamist presence in the puppet regime as well as external force (i.e. “the warlords”, Taliban “terrorists”). Their only real problem with the imperialist occupation was that it had put "the bad guys" in power––the warlords, the Islamic fundamentalists, the Mujahedeen, ex-Taliban, etc.––and that, therefore, the occupiers did not have consistent anti-fundamentalist policies. The upshot of this reasoning is that, if only the good guys––them and the left liberals––had been put into power by the imperialists, then the occupation would not be a problem. As if imperialism would be nice if it chose a better puppet government.


A paradigmatic example of the semi-capitulationist camp is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan [RAWA], an organization that defines its activities according to the above reasoning. Now, after ten years of imperialist occupation creating havoc in Afghanistan, they have slightly and rhetorically changed their discourse. After years of refusing to use the word "occupation", now they use it here and there; to different levels and degrees they take a muted anti-occupation political position. However, they remain semi-capitulationist because they still equate the Taliban with the imperialist occupiers as the principle enemy. They show disdain for the call of armed resistance against the occupation. For the most part they are stuck within the discourse of bourgeois peace-mongering, reformism, and parliamentarianism. This position, in the context of an imperialist occupation, only means providing tacit support for the project of the imperialist occupiers. It should be noted, that the discourse of this camp is somehow projected and amplified by the social-democratic and reformist leftists in the anti-war movement in the imperialist countries. Unfortunately, on several occasions, the communist revolutionaries have also promoted the semi-capitulationist project.


The third camp, and the principal anti-imperialist force in Afghanistan, is the anti-imperialist internationalist left. This camp is composed of several Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups and organizations, but the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan [CMPA] is the largest and the principal force that has several mass organizations under its leadership and has been mustering a revolutionary anti-imperialist resistance in the country from the very beginning of the war of aggression and occupation of Afghanistan. This camp and the CMPA have an anti-imperialist analysis of the war against our people and the occupation of our country: it identifies the principal contradiction in Afghanistan as the contradiction between the peoples of Afghanistan and the imperialist occupying forces. Thus, the CMPA is calling for a revolutionary war of people’s resistance against the imperialist occupation. It should be noted that, from a class analysis perspective, we do consider the Taliban movement as our strategic enemy; however, in the current conjuncture of the imperialist occupation, we do not consider them the principal enemy. Nor are we equating them with the puppet regime and the occupation forces. We consider the imperialist occupation and the puppet regime as the principal enemy of the people of Afghanistan. Therefore, the occupation and its puppet regime would be the main target of the revolutionary people’s war of national resistance.


The CMPA was founded in 2004, formed as a result of the unity of several older and important Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organizations: the Revolutionary Organization for the Salvation of Afghanistan, Revolutionary Alliance of the Workers of Afghanistan, and the Communist Party of Afghanistan. In 2001, when the US-led imperialist alliance invaded and occupied Afghanistan, the MLM forces and organizations in Afghanistan began a unity process to bring together the revolutionary communists into a single party in order to muster a significant revolutionary resistance to the imperialist war and occupation. The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) played an important role at the time in facilitating this unity process amongst the MLM organizations in Afghanistan. (Unfortunately, RIM, as a result of the deviationist line within its leading committee, has now collapsed and is in a paralyzed state.) Since the time of its formation, the CMPA has been the principal secular revolutionary force resisting the occupation. Under its leadership, there are several important mass organizations of workers, women, youth and students that are already producing an anti-imperialist mass movement in the country.


Although this revolutionary anti-imperialist resistance has not yet advanced to the stage of the People’s War. Nonetheless the students, youth, women and worker mass movements led by the CMPA in different parts of the country are an important pillar of the overall resistance––the principal new-democratic, revolutionary, and communist resistance––to the imperialist occupation. Now the CMPA has claimed in its recent statements that it has augmented the preparation for the start of the revolutionary People’s War of national resistance to the imperialist occupation.


It is also very important to note that we should not forget the international dimension of the struggle in Afghanistan. The imperialist powers led by the US have chosen Afghanistan as the main battleground for their project of the military grab of the planet. Therefore, they have plans of establishing long-term military bases in the country––and, so far, there seems to be a consensus among the imperialist powers over the question of Afghanistan. Thus, there is a coalition of 44 countries present with their armed forces in Afghanistan that are assisting the US imperialist project and propping up the puppet regime. And the regional reactionary powers that do not have an armed presence in Afghanistan have other very important roles in providing political, diplomatic and financial assistance to the occupation and its puppet regime. The UN umbrella is the expression of the imperialist and reactionary unity of international regional powers in regards to Afghanistan.


Similarly, the Taliban-led Islamist insurgency has the overwhelming political, military and financial support of the Islamist forces throughout the world. Pakistani Taliban, as well as other Islamist forces from Central Asia and China and the Middle East, are providing military resources, political and financial support to the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that without this international Islamist assistance, it would be very difficult for the Taliban movement to sustain itself.


This international state of affairs should explain why the CMPA is very interested in the affairs of RIM and the formation of a new international communist organization. We strongly believe that the struggle in Afghanistan and the revolution in Afghanistan is part of the global struggle and world revolution against capitalism and imperialism. Since the existence of RIM has helped the unity process of the MLM organizations in Afghanistan (as well as in other countries), the existence and activities of a new international communist organization would hopefully have an immensely important political and ideological supporting role for the revolutionary struggles in Afghanistan and elsewhere. With the emergence of the Avakianist post-MLM line and the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionist line, the RIM has collapsed. With the paralysis of RIM we believe the revolutionary struggle in Afghanistan has lost an important and internationalist dimension.


At this juncture, working towards forming a new international communist organization, or reactivating our dormant international organization, is the main internationalist task of the world-wide communist movement. It would be the practical expression of the communist motto of “workers of the world unite.” During an epoch where the imperialist capitalist system is in deep trouble, rocked by reoccurring economic and financial troubles, and where the oppressed masses are rising up to fight against this rotten system, we need such an international organization more than before in order to struggle for influencing these movements and working to provide them with a revolutionary communist dimension.

Our struggle in Afghanistan is part of the global struggle of the oppressed. Therefore, not only are we working for the revolution in Afghanistan, we are also playing our internationalist role in working towards the formation of an internationalist communist organization.