Soviet war in afghanistan

[Blanquist]

were there any war crimes? how was the interaction between russians and afgans? what were the effects on the economy? how did the literacy and human rights programs go about?

[Art Vandelay]

Who cares? Imperialism is imperialism, regardless of whether or not you call it social-imperialism.

[Geiseric]

From what I understand it was to protect the afghanistan revolution, and the workers councils. The taliban rose in the same way as the white army.

[Blanquist]

Who cares? Imperialism is imperialism, regardless of whether or not you call it social-imperialism.


if you dont care then stay out of the thread and enjoy your ignorance


From what I understand it was to protect the afghanistan revolution, and the workers councils. The taliban rose in the same way as the white army.


thanks but this doesn't address my questions, i am well aware of the reasons for the war, looking for details such as the questions i listed in the op

[Comrade Samuel]

Who cares? Imperialism is imperialism, regardless of whether or not you call it social-imperialism.

I dont like the fact that the holocaust happened, I guess we should forget it and act like it never happened.

[Ismail]

A good read: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7b69p12h;brand=eschol
And another: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE45AFGHANISTAN.html

@Blanquist:

were there any war crimes?Yes, on both sides. Soviet forces bombed various villages and committed atrocities against peasants seen as potential recruits for the Mujahidin. On the other side, Mujahidin forces at times conducted attacks on pro-government women, teachers, etc. seen as being agents of the occupying forces.


how was the interaction between russians and afgans?Generally not good. In the capital the relationship was somewhat like Americans in Saigon during the Vietnam War, relatively privileged persons saw the Soviets/Americans as better than the alternative, whereas many others resented their continued presence.

In the countryside the Soviets were a lot less welcomed considering the aforementioned bombing campaigns, etc.


what were the effects on the economy?The land reform program was halved in an effort to appease landowners and whatnot. As with civil wars generally, the economy was quite badly damaged.


how did the literacy and human rights programs go about?Literacy made gains, as did health care and education. "Human rights" is vague but most sources would indicate that the KHAD (Afghan security police) weren't very nice, nor were the Mujahidin.

@NRZ:

Who cares? Imperialism is imperialism, regardless of whether or not you call it social-imperialism.Except the point is that social-imperialism is imperialism, much like social-patriotism is patriotism. Both are under "socialist" masks, as Lenin pointed out.

@Leon Brotsky:

From what I understand it was to protect the afghanistan revolution, and the workers councils.What "workers councils"? The revolution was carried out by a military coup. Eventually there arose Hafizullah Amin, who the Soviets didn't like because domestically he was more "hardline" than Taraki (who he had killed) and resented the strong influence the USSR had on Afghanistan's foreign policy. The Soviets invaded and promptly shot him, bringing forward Babrak Karmal who was a puppet leader. Eventually Karmal was replaced by Najibullah who praised Islam and pretty much removed any "Marxist" pretenses the government had, and winded up praising Gorbachev's reforms in the USSR as a "real revolution."

The Soviets invaded for their own social-imperialist interests. They behaved as occupiers and their troops, following the example of Americans in Vietnam, developed both sadistic tendencies against local inhabitants and problems of drug and alcohol abuse, etc. There was no glorious internationalist mission, it was the Soviets suppressing the majority of the Afghan people who viewed the USSR as an aggressor.

As Hoxha said in 1980, "Having occupied Afghanistan and placed it under the iron heel of their military forces, the Soviet social-imperialist aggressors are now trying to 'placate' public opinion by claiming that they have dispatched only a few contingents which will stay there 'temporarily', 'only as long as necessary', but in fact they will stay there indefinitely. They will act in Afghanistan as they did in Czechoslovakia where, even today, 12 years later, their occupation troops are still stationed." (Selected Works Vol. V, p. 755.)

Afghanistan is a generally lame subject because you have Brezhnevites, most Trotskyists and many liberals in an alliance to show how the Soviet invasion was a wonderful civilizing mission to bring the dumb natives towards social and economic progress. Never mind that it was thanks to the Soviets that Afghanistan is in the state it's in today, where communism is a dirty word and the Taliban is able to represent opposition to imperialism in the country.

Basically the story of Afghanistan goes like this: there was a King named Zahir Shah who in the 1960's instituted a constitutional monarchy. The pro-Soviet party split into a lame reformist wing and a more "radical," illegal wing. Then the King was overthrown by his cousin who established a Republic and worked with the aforementioned reformist party. Eventually the cousin decided that the "communists" were being a bit too left-wing for their own good and began to move against them. The "radical" element took power in a military coup which followed left-wing demonstrations. The new government, loyal to the Soviets, sought to build state-capitalism similar to the Soviet revisionist framework. Since it did not come to power on a truly popular basis the vast majority of Afghans considered it foreign. Flash forward to the Soviet invasion; the lame reformist faction is put in power and the government now becomes a tool of the Soviets and discredits itself. The West meanwhile generally arms the most backward elements of the Mujahidin because that's what Pakistan wants. After 1989 the Soviets leave, the regime becomes avowedly bourgeois, and it is kept alive by the paid loyalty of its military. A sizable portion of the military defects and the government dies.

Thus what initially looked like a progressive attempt at bourgeois-democratic revolution against tribal and feudal elements crashed into flames.

Trots and Brezhnevites lecture us on how revolutions can't be exported, but apparently they can be kept on life-support while simultaneously being beat to death.

[Teacher]

From what I've heard a rather nuanced account of this war came out called Afghansty or something like that recently. Haven't had a chance to check it out personally. My general sense is to be sympathetic with what the Soviets were doing but the Americans succeeded in turning it into a Soviet Vietnam. Probably would have been better to never get involved to begin with.

[Geiseric]

Interesting. I knew that the CP in afghanistan had a large military presence and base of support, but did they have any support from the working class? also weren't there some kinds of soviets or workers councils in afghanistan? I'm not necessarily supporting the invasion either, honestly I don't know much about afghanistan.

[Ismail]

Interesting. I knew that the CP in afghanistan had a large military presence and base of support, but did they have any support from the working class? also weren't there some kinds of soviets or workers councils in afghanistan? I'm not necessarily supporting the invasion either, honestly I don't know much about afghanistan.I've never heard of workers' councils in Afghanistan.

The military rank-and-file had elements sympathetic to social change just as the military had such elements in Somalia, Libya, Ethiopia, Congo-Brazzaville, Benin, etc. which were countries where "socialism" emerged via military coup.

I've never actually seen examples of working-class support for the government. As was the case in these sort of countries the main urban force backing "socialism" were students. I'm sure workers were generally supportive at first since, again, the government was carrying out bourgeois-democratic reforms, but it's fair bit harder to find out about working-class support after 1979 when the Soviets invaded and began "advising" in pretty much every aspect of the government and economy. From what I know pretty much all Afghans resented such "advisers" combined with the generally brutal nature of the Soviet war effort.

It's also worth noting that there was actually a sizable amount of Maoists who had both urban and rural presence in the 60's and 70's. The PDPA made it one of their goals upon taking power to destroy their influence and after 1978 in any case they split up into pro-Chinese (and within this pro-Gang of Four, pro-Deng, etc.) and pro-Albanian groupings. The most notable armed Maoist group was called the Afghanistan Liberation Organization.

[A Marxist Historian]

I've never heard of workers' councils in Afghanistan.

The military rank-and-file had elements sympathetic to social change just as the military had such elements in Somalia, Libya, Ethiopia, Congo-Brazzaville, Benin, etc. which were countries where "socialism" emerged via military coup.

I've never actually seen examples of working-class support for the government. As was the case in these sort of countries the main urban force backing "socialism" were students. I'm sure workers were generally supportive at first since, again, the government was carrying out bourgeois-democratic reforms, but it's fair bit harder to find out about working-class support after 1979 when the Soviets invaded and began "advising" in pretty much every aspect of the government and economy. From what I know pretty much all Afghans resented such "advisers" combined with the generally brutal nature of the Soviet war effort.

It's also worth noting that there was actually a sizable amount of Maoists who had both urban and rural presence in the 60's and 70's. The PDPA made it one of their goals upon taking power to destroy their influence and after 1978 in any case they split up into pro-Chinese (and within this pro-Gang of Four, pro-Deng, etc.) and pro-Albanian groupings. The most notable armed Maoist group was called the Afghanistan Liberation Organization.

Certainly there were no workers councils in Afghanistan in 1979, for the simple reason that there were hardly any workers. Afghanistan is one of the most economically backward countries in the world. In 1979, some 15% of the population were Islamic mullahs, and this ultrareactionary class was the mass base of the Mujahedeen.

The urban population of Kabul, not just the students but the lower classes in general, backed the 1979 Revolution. Kabul, Afghanistan's only real city, is the center of all revolutionary possibility. In the countryside, as the land was controlled by mullahs not landlords, even land reform went up against the intense religious backwardness of the countryside. (Now it is controlled by warlords grown rich on the opium trade.)

The issue that the Mujahedeen rebellion actually started over was that the reform regime of the Revolution was teaching women how to read and write, which the mullahs saw as a crime against Islam. This is in fact the only war in history I know of which was first and foremost about the rights of women.

The mass support of the Mujahedeen was primarily from men who wanted women kept in their place. Women dared to raise their heads under the revolutionary regime, joined the army and the secret police, and hideous atrocities against women in general and women who supported the revolutionary regime in particular were the trademark of the Mujahedeen.

As for the Maoists, of course they supported the Mujahedeen, as did China. This was simply part of the Maoist/Chinese alliance with US imperialism. So the Afghan Maoists supported the Mujahedeen for the same reason that China supported Pinochet in Chile and the South African puppets in Angola.

The war began the same year that China invaded Vietnam at the behest of US imperialism (and Pol Pot), and was soundly thrashed by the Vietnamese liberation fighters.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

As for the Maoists, of course they supported the Mujahedeen, as did China. This was simply part of the Maoist/Chinese alliance with US imperialism. So the Afghan Maoists supported the Mujahedeen for the same reason that China supported Pinochet in Chile and the South African puppets in Angola.Except there wasn't one single Maoist organization in Afghanistan. Some were pro-Deng, some regarded Deng as a revisionist, etc. and, as mentioned, some became pro-Albanian. The Chinese didn't even really arm the pro-Deng Maoists much from what I know, since China indeed collaborated with the USA and Pakistan in focusing on the Mujahidin instead.

I've still seen no evidence that the Soviet occupation wasn't fundamentally unpopular with the Afghan populace as a whole.

[DasFapital]

Afghanistan is a generally lame subject because you have Brezhnevites, most Trotskyists and many liberals in an alliance to show how the Soviet invasion was a wonderful civilizing mission to bring the dumb natives towards social and economic progress. Never mind that it was thanks to the Soviets that Afghanistan is in the state it's in today, where communism is a dirty word and the Taliban is able to represent opposition to imperialism in the country.


as a trotskyist I can say that is not my view on afghanistan

[khad]

The pro-Chinese/Albanian opportunists got what they deserved when their fundie buddy Gulbuddin turned on them and annihilated their leadership.

But all this is a broken record. I know the Sparts had an observer in the siege of Jalalabad. Perhaps digging that article would do some more good than endlessly rehashing the same bullshit.

[Ismail]

The pro-Chinese/Albanian opportunists got what they deserved when their fundie buddy Gulbuddin turned on them and annihilated their leadership.I was unaware either the Akhgar or Paykar groups had anything to do with Gulbuddin. Again, there were multiple Maoist and pro-Albanian groups.

Nor were they "opportunists." The PDPA government denounced them and sought their eradication before the Soviets turned the country into a puppet-state.


I know the Sparts had an observer in the siege of Jalalabad. Perhaps digging that article would do some more good than endlessly rehashing the same bullshit.I don't see how a military battle is relevant to the subject of the thread. By the time of the siege Najibullah was praying to Allah on TV and had since dropped "communist" terminology from the government.

[A Marxist Historian]

Except there wasn't one single Maoist organization in Afghanistan. Some were pro-Deng, some regarded Deng as a revisionist, etc. and, as mentioned, some became pro-Albanian. The Chinese didn't even really arm the pro-Deng Maoists much from what I know, since China indeed collaborated with the USA and Pakistan in focusing on the Mujahidin instead.

I've still seen no evidence that the Soviet occupation wasn't fundamentally unpopular with the Afghan populace as a whole.

But all the Maoists and Albanians for that matter supported the Mujahedeen, so these sect divisions are of no account.

That Kabul supported the Revolution is well known. A few months ago, I posted here accounts from the New York Times, not exactly a pro-Soviet publication, that in Kabul, Afghanistan's real political center, there is a tremendous mood of nostalgia for the Soviets now.

You said that things were different in the countryside. Well, so what? The smashing of the Paris Commune was very popular with the French peasantry, who were politically conservative, hated workers, and were still the majority of the population in 1871. Should we have therefore supported Thiers?

In fact by the end of the '80s, the Najibullah regime had managed to get a fair amount of support in the countryside, which is why it did not collapse like a punctured balloon when the Soviet troops withdrew, and in fact survived longer than did the Gorbachev regime. Indeed it won its most important victory on the battlefield of the whole war, the siege of Jalalabad, with little or no Soviet support.

-M.H.-

[Ocean Seal]

Who cares? Imperialism is imperialism, regardless of whether or not you call it social-imperialism.
But understanding the qualitative differences between imperialism and social-imperialism is important. Social-imperialism if you ask me is a bit of misnomer, since it actually has very little to do with monopoly capitalism and anything that Lenin called social-imperialism.

[Ismail]

You said that things were different in the countryside. Well, so what? The smashing of the Paris Commune was very popular with the French peasantry, who were politically conservative, hated workers, and were still the majority of the population in 1871. Should we have therefore supported Thiers?Equating the PDPA government with the Paris Commune is asinine.

As for the rest of your post, there's nostalgia for 1980's Kabul. Why wouldn't there be? It was stable and probably better off economically. I don't see how that's the basis for praising the Soviet invasion or thinking that somehow Afghanistan was a so-called "deformed workers state."

After the Soviets came in the whole land reform thing was mostly shelved in order to appease any possibly conciliatory Mujahidin or otherwise neutral tribal figures. There was no revolutionary policy in regards to the peasantry, just "these guys are backwards and are only rebelling because they are led by bandits."


In fact by the end of the '80s, the Najibullah regime had managed to get a fair amount of support in the countryside, which is why it did not collapse like a punctured balloon when the Soviet troops withdrew, and in fact survived longer than did the Gorbachev regime. Indeed it won its most important victory on the battlefield of the whole war, the siege of Jalalabad, with little or no Soviet support.Najibullah remained in office 4 months longer than Gorbachev. Meanwhile, the Soviets had a decade of "Vietnamization" in which they trained Afghan forces to fight independently of the Soviets. I still don't see what this has to do with anything.

There's not much more of a reason to back the Soviets in Afghanistan than the Americans in Afghanistan, especially after 1987 when, again, Najib decided to add "ullah" to his surname and to invite the Mujahidin to sit down and have talks in the name of national unity. The only argument advanced in either invasions is "if the Soviets/Americans leave then ignorant Islamists will turn Afghanistan into a backwards theocracy," as if these forces came to the fore independently of the Soviets and Americans giving pretexts through their invasions. In both cases such an argument is apologia for imperialism, under "socialist" guise or otherwise.

By the time the regime fell in 1992 it was corrupt, avowedly bourgeois and generally unpopular. You're right that it gained some popularity in the late 80's; it did this by invoking Islam and pursuing openly capitalist economic policies, including enthusiastic support for Gorbachev's "reforms." I don't see why leftists should support this.

[hashem]

But all the Maoists and Albanians for that matter supported the Mujahedeen ... That Kabul supported the Revolution is well known ... In fact by the end of the '80s, the Najibullah regime had managed to get a fair amount of support in the countryside

go find someone stupid enough to believe your lies. pro-soviets seized the power through a military coup. they never had any popular support in Kabul or in the countryside or anywhere else. they just gathered some mercenaries from the ranks of lumpens and organized an army using money and weapons which they had received from USSR. they committed war crimes against the people of Afganestan.

the only progressive trend which stood against them were supporters of former Sholajawid. even today they are the sole progressive force of Afganestan while former supporters of Khalg and Parcham factions have sold them selfs to any master which they could find.

[lan153rez]

This is really disappointing to have these kind of wars around the world:(. It is all about humanism not about nation.