Question about the Revolutuionary Association of

[Cheung Mo]

Is it a left-liberal feminist organisation or is it a feminist front for a Maoist organisation that was both anti-Soviet and anti-Islamist?

[Andy Bowden]

It's founder, Meena who was later murdered was involved in a relationship with a Maoist leader in Afghanistan - but I don't see evidence showing that the organisation is a Maoist one.

It did oppose the SU invasion of Afghanistan and it's puppet PDPA govt, as well as opposing the warlords and the Americans.

It's truly an inspiring organisation keeping feminist objectives going strong despite attacks on all sides by reactionaries :)

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 23 2006, 06:26 PM
It's founder, Meena who was later murdered was involved in a relationship with a Maoist leader in Afghanistan - but I don't see evidence showing that the organisation is a Maoist one.

It did oppose the SU invasion of Afghanistan and it's puppet PDPA govt, as well as opposing the warlords and the Americans.

It's truly an inspiring organisation keeping feminist objectives going strong despite attacks on all sides by reactionaries :)
Yup, but do you have any idea what their political stance is in general, or if they even take one as an organisation?

I remember reading something in which they basically stated that the Afghani people have to liberate themselves, but I don't think a definitive statement was ever made.

Any ideas?

[Hiero]

http://www.rawa.us/index.htm

[Cheung Mo]

I've never heard of a feminist right of social democracy.

[bolshevik butcher]

I've heard of plenty but the RWA truley is an admirable group fighting for womens and especially working class womens rights in Afghanistan.

[Raubleaux]

RAWA is a completely reactionary anti-communist organization. Like most of the American left, they opposed the Soviet Union's humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan. Contrary to Andy Bowden's post, the Soviet Union never "invaded" Afghanistan. They intervened at the request of the Afghan government, and they only did so after turning down something like twelve requests!

Mr Bowden also accuses the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan of being a "Soviet puppet." Nothing could be further from the truth! The PDPA came to power entirely on its own, and was completely indigenous in its power base. The Soviets supported them after they came to power, but they were not installed by the Soviets without any support as Bowden's post implies. The PDPA endured for three years after the Soviet Union withdrew, outlasting even the Soviet Union itself by a year. That is one resilient puppet!

RAWA made common cause with the Islamic savages who the United States supported in Afghanistan (even prior to the Soviet "invasion"), who would eventually be responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Mujahedin were brutal, reactionary woman-haters. One of their leaders was famous for having thrown acid on the face of a woman for wearing makeup. These are the people whom Ronald Reagan praised as "freedom fighters"!

In reality, the real freedom fighters were the soldiers of the Red Army, who undertook a humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan after the Afghan government (the PDPA), besieged by the CIA-backed Mujahideen terrorists, pleaded to the Soviet Union for help.

The PDPA's leader was a famous poet and novelist named Noor Mohammed Taraki. The Taraki government instituted many progressive reforms: they legalized labor unions, established an income tax and minimum wage, started literacy and land reform campaigns, increased access to housing and health care, and improved public sanitation.

Perhaps most importantly, they began to emancipate Afghan women from tribal bondage. There were seven female members of parliament during this time. Kabul was a cosmopolitan city where women went on dates and drove cars. Half the university students in Kabul were female.

All of this was an affront to the American imperialists and Islamic warlords of the region, thus they formed the Mujahideen terrorist networks that would eventually spawn groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. These bloodthirsty, reactionary killers would do such things as bomb schools, killing thousands of children and teachers, because the evil commies had the audacity to educate both boys and girls in the same schools. Their treatment of captured Red Army soldiers was particularly savage: they would often chop off the soldier's limbs and genitals before killing him.

Most right-thinking Afghan women supported the Soviets. According to one woman, “Life was good under the Soviets. Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go wherever we wanted and wear what we liked." In Mark Urban's The War in Afghanistan he is forced to admit that "There is no doubt that thousands of women are committed to the regime, as their prominent participation in Revolutionary Defence Group militias shows. Eyewitnesses stated that militant militiawomen played a key role in defending the besieged town of Urgun in 1983. Four of the seven militia commanders appointed to the revolutionary Council in January 1986 were women."

These are the women who are an inspiration and deserve our support; not reactionary groups like RAWA, who unwittingly delivered Afghan women into the hands of the Taliban by opposing the Soviet intervention. Here is what one RAWA member had to say about the so-called "injustices" inflicted by the Soviets in Afghanistan:

"[the Soveits] were trying to give some rights to Afghan women that are obviously okay in Western societies, but are not acceptable in our societies.... For example, they wanted to give so-called liberties of having a boyfriend or dancing in a nightclub, which are not acceptable in our society."

What backward arrogance! And these are the kind of people the American left is idolizing nowadays! It is truly sad.

[Body Count]

This "We invaded to make things better for them" ideaology is the child of the "enlightenment" era and was one of the justifications for colonialism (And judging from your post, it still appears to be).

I don't claim to know much on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, however, I do know that the occupation of one country by another is not a progressive thing, and that regardless of what the aggressive imperialist force says....its done for the benefit of the invading country.

Just because the invading force made things a little better doesn't make they just.....hell, I'm sure that life in Iraq will EVENTUALLY be better without Saddam. However, it should have been up to the people of Iraq when and how to overthrow a tyrant, the US has no right to decide for them.

My heart goes out to the people of Afghanistan, however, I WILL NOT support some invading army claiming to "make things better".

Maybe we should just invade every African country and "help them develope"....oh wait, I forgot, we tried that already, look at how well that turned out!

[Raubleaux]

There is an enormous qualitative difference between a colonial/imperialist invasion and a humanitarian intervention. To simply make a moral equivalence between all kinds of intervention is silly. As I said, the Soviets did not "invade" Afghanistan; they intervened because the government had been pleading for them to come in and help fight against the CIA-backed Islamic terrorists who were ravaging the country.

Your analogy between the American war in Iraq and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is way off-base. There was no "tyrant" to overthrow in Afghanistan. The country was facing an insurgency by Islamic radicals who had no business being there (or anywhere else, for that matter). A more accurate analogy would be with the Cuban intervention in Angola, or the American intervention in France during World War II. The Mujahedin were no better than the Nazis, and you would have the Soviets sit idly by and let them destroy Afghanistan's revolution and subjugate its women? Would you also have been in favor of leaving France to the Nazis?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 23 2006, 09:21 AM
Is it a left-liberal feminist organisation or is it a feminist front for a Maoist organisation that was both anti-Soviet and anti-Islamist?
RAWA's led by Maoists or ex-Maoists, that's retty clear from their politics. Whether or not it's a front for any other organization.

Their website says they supported the "national resistance" against the PDPA and the Soviets. That was in line with Mao's policy of backing all kinds of rightist forces in the world - after coming to an understanding with Nixon against the USSR.

They also seem to be a fairly virtual exile group; to what extent they exist and act inside Afghanistan is unclear.

***

There's a certain amount of truth to what Rableux's saying. Even though "humanitarian intervention" smacks of liberal imperialism, and his praise of the PDPA and the Soviets is over the top.

The PDPA did take some important progressive measures - though in a bureaucratic, rule-by-decree way, not through the political mobilization of the masses. And the Soviet intervention was motivated by fear that the mujahedeen would take over if they didn't act.

Afghanistan is, in many ways, a textbook example of how not to make a revolution. But clearly the PDPA was on the right side of the class barricades against the mujaheedeen.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:17 PM
There is an enormous qualitative difference between a colonial/imperialist invasion and a humanitarian intervention.

Its very easy to call something humanitarian, the fact of the matter is that that is rarely ever the case.


To simply make a moral equivalence between all kinds of intervention is silly.

I think its silly to back a world power with a growing track record of imperialism entering a tiny, helpless country.


As I said, the Soviets did not "invade" Afghanistan; they intervened because the government had been pleading for them to come in and help fight against the CIA-backed Islamic terrorists who were ravaging the country.

1) We have seen puppet governments plenty of times before. Whose to say whether that said government was speaking for the people or not.....maybe it was just leaders trying to save their own tale?

2) This "CIA-backed Islamic Terrorist" statement would have me believe that this was just another case of superpowers indirectly fighting each other.......


Your analogy between the American war in Iraq and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is way off-base. There was no "tyrant" to overthrow in Afghanistan.

Whether its a tyrant that needs to be overthrown, or a revolution that needs surpressed, or a resource that needs exploited....its all the same shit. It all ends up with a foriegn peoples completely dominating the other.


The country was facing an insurgency by Islamic radicals who had no business being there (or anywhere else, for that matter). A more accurate analogy would be with the Cuban intervention in Angola,or the American intervention in France during World War II.

I'm sorry, I just can't see this comparison.

I'm not sure what your beliefs are, but I believe that the Soviet Union at that time had nothing to do with socialism, communism, or leftism at all....they were simply another superpower that was out for their own interest.

Cuba invading Angola to help end colonialism? Cuba is a tiny Island, and they don't fit into what I consider to be an imperialist country by any means. And we have history to show us that this is correct.


The Mujahedin were no better than the Nazis, and you would have the Soviets sit idly by and let them destroy Afghanistan's revolution and subjugate its women?

Who says that I back the Mujahideen?

I'm against imperialism, theocracy, patriarchy, racism, chauvinsm, and a host of other things.

But I don't sacrifice one thing just to save another.

Should the US invade Iran and the Sudan? How about every African and Middle Eastern nation? Only for humanitarian reasons of course....

The answer to me is no.


Would you also have been in favor of leaving France to the Nazis?

This situation is so completely different and intricate that I can't even explain all the details.

France wouldn't have been invaded had it been in the middle of Africa.....and if it had been, it would have been for reasons other then freeing French people, if you catch my drift.

But as it turns out, France was a rich, white, western European country who shares American flag colours and is a "pinnacle of Western civilization"...oh and, it just so happens that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Nazi allies.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Body [email protected] 5 2006, 03:04 PM
1) We have seen puppet governments plenty of times before. Whose to say whether that said government was speaking for the people or not.....maybe it was just leaders trying to save their own tale?
No, I remember Ian telling me how a progressive president was in charge in Afghanistan, you don't have to support Imperialism or such to justify the Soviet repulsion of the fundamentalists

Oh, and RAWA are the good guys :)