Soviet/Afghan War

[AGITprop]

I was wondering if anyone could give me a concise summary of the conflict and the political meaning of it.

I was reading through what Wikipedia had on it, but of course I'd prefer a comrades opinion.

Who was at fault during this conflict?

From what I understood, the United States played a completely reactionary role in this, supporting the slaughter of all non-Islamic communists in the Arab world.

Was there a real revolution in Afghanistan? What were the real reasons the SU was involved?

[redSHARP]

there was a movement of communists in afghanistan before the war. the SU picked up on this and invaded. their motivation was varied:

1. getting closer to a warm water port
2. put pressure on middle east countries
3. get valuable oil and gas regions near the middle east
4. put pressure on US intrests
5. show the world that the SU is not weak
6. to support socialist groups around the world

the US response was to had money and arms to the pakistani secret service or the ISS. The ISS gave this money to many radical islamist groups and none to any secular groups. the whole situation went to hell, when the SU relized that the rebels knew what they were doing (due to CIA training). Osama bin laden was able to raise millions of dollars and a private army for the war. the soviets pulled out, but the civil war between the religous and seculars waged on. the communist group was defeated early on in the 90's, and the rest of the seculars retreated to the north. they made the northern alliance (a secualr rebel group), while the tailiban ruled the nation and fought off the northern alliance.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Islamists who fought against the Red Army were known as the "Afghanis" even though many of the fighters were not from Afghanistan but had travelled from other countries (including Saudi Arabia, which was and still is a major diplomatic partner of the United States) to become part of the movement fighting against the Soviet invasion. The members of this movement (also described as the "Mujahideen" which is actually a term meaning "holy army" and is not specific to this conflict) have since conducted terrorist attacks in other countries, and form the basis of the Al Qaeda network.

During the war (and under the Taleban regime which emerged after a period of civil conflict, following the war) the Islamists committed numerous abuses, including shooting women who refused to wear the veil, and throwing acid in the faces of schoolteachers who had helped young girls learn how to read. Despite this treatment, the United States provided the movement with funding and access to advanced military hardware (such as the Stinger missile, which could be used to disable Soviet aircraft) to force the Soviet Union to enter a prolonged war.


they made the northern alliance (a secualr rebel group), while the tailiban ruled the nation and fought off the northern alliance.

"Secular" is not the correct term to describe the Northern Alliance. The following article (link (http://www.rawa.org/na2.htm)) hosted on the website of RAWA (a feminist group which adopted a neutral position during the Soviet conflict) notes that the full name of this group is the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan" and goes on to describe several of the group's leaders:


Senior members of the alliance, including former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and northern warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, a key ally of the Soviet Union during that country's attempt to occupy Afghanistan, have been cited by the U.S. for human-rights abuses.


Deputy-premier Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, the alliance's number two political figure, is a hard-line, vehemently anti-American Islamic fundamentalist who is so strict on the subject of separation of the sexes that, according to one Associated Press report, he won't even speak to women.


Yet another figure in the alliance, eastern warlord Haji Abdul Qadir, was Osama bin Laden's first sponsor in Afghanistan when the Saudi millionaire — already wanted at the time by the U.S. for his alleged involvement in anti-American terrorist attacks — fled to that country in 1996. At different times, both Rabbani and Dostum have found themselves in informal alliances with the Taliban and occasionally against each other.

Secular? This article also shows that the "Northern Alliance" was never really an "alliance" due to the lack of cohesion between the various factions which comprised the "alliance" and the frequent changes of allegiance - many groups which are now described as being part of the "alliance" were once supporters of the Taleban and fought against other factions. In addition, when this unstable coalition of hostile factions defeated the Taleban, they carried out attacks against ethnic Pashtuns, who had formed the main support base of the Taleban.

[AGITprop]

Thanks to the both of you.

What I am wondering wight now, is how big was the Communist movement in Afghanistan?

[gla22]

Ok I just did a huge project on this and read books watched documentary's and interviewed primary sources.The U.S and the U.S.S.R were at fault. After Amin took power in 1979 the U.S.S.R thought he was getting to close to the Americans,the U.S. was trying to convert him. The U.S.S.R killed him, put their puppet in power and implemented socialist policies on the people of Afghanistan. It was classic imperialism. The U.S funded the fighters against the U.S.S.R and later the Taliban when the Soviet Union withdrew.

I talked to someone who fought against the soviets in the 80's.He said they were horrible, (he was shot his father was killed). But even with this he says the U.S is way worse. He says the U.S rapes and indiscriminately murderers more than the soviets. He also says there are huge mining operations by U.S corps and the U.S has completely taken over the natural resources.

[Guerrilla22]

There was a Soviet Puppet regime in control of the country at the time the war broke out. Many different factions attempted to overthrow the pro-Soviet government. The USSR initially only sent arms and advisers, but soon sent in their military. The Soviets and the government forces fought against the other factions, which included thousands of Islamist volunteers from everywhere from the Phillipines (CIA trained Abu Sayef) to Saudi Arabia.

The "mujahadeen" was backed by the CIA. The support was subtle and largely covert at first, but soon escalated as advanced US weaponry such as the stinger missile system was introduced. In the end, the Soviets withdrew, the puppet regime was defeated and all the factions that were fighting against the government and the Soviets began fighting each other for control of the country. The war lasted from '79 to '89. That's pretty much the jist of it.

[Andres Marcos]

A lot of the blame can be put on the USSR for de-stabilizing the Afghani nation.



There was a Soviet Puppet regime in control of the country at the time the war broke out. Many different factions attempted to overthrow the pro-Soviet government. The USSR initially only sent arms and advisers, but soon sent in their military.
Exactly, which was catalyzed by overthrowing the Afghani leaders who were independent of Moscow.



After Amin took power in 1979 the U.S.S.R thought he was getting to close to the Americans,the U.S. was trying to convert him. The U.S.S.R killed him, put their puppet in power and implemented socialist policies on the people of Afghanistan.
I don't believe that, the USSR killed him and destroyed the Afghani govt. and smeared him as a CIA agent to wipe away the fact that the DRA was passing radical reforms, letting girls go to schools and get jobs(something which the USSR in the 60s and 70s discouraged women from doing!!!), and getting rid of Shari'a law which pissed off islamist conservatives.

[gla22]

Is there a way to put audio files online.I have an audio clip of a soviet general stating what i said about Amin.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't believe that, the USSR killed him and destroyed the Afghani govt. and smeared him as a CIA agent to wipe away the fact that the DRA was passing radical reforms, letting girls go to schools and get jobs(something which the USSR in the 60s and 70s discouraged women from doing!!!), and getting rid of Shari'a law which pissed off islamist conservatives.

The USSR did not invade to prevent progressive reform. Progressive reforms such as changes to marriage proceedings and the extension of education to women had been initiated under the previous government of Taraki, whom the Soviets had supported. In 1978 the USSR had signed a treaty of friendship with the Afghan government which allowed the USSR to provide military support and intervene if the Afghan government was unable to retain control of the country. When Amin was faced with internal revolt after his seizure of power, he requested and was eventually given Soviet aid, before he was overthrown and replaced with a more effective leader.

Is it also ironic for a Hoxhaist to criticize the USSR for allegedly trying to prevent progressive reform, given that Hoxha banned abortion and prevented the sale of contraception.

[gilhyle]

Its important to differentiate between the two Communist Party regimes that pre-dated the Soviet Invasion. The first regime had significant elements of a popular, secular revolution. Soviet machinations led to a coup within the CP which put in place a far less popular regime and the invasion then happened to support that latter regime.

[Andres Marcos]

The USSR did not invade to prevent progressive reform. Progressive reforms such as changes to marriage proceedings and the extension of education to women had been initiated under the previous government of Taraki, whom the Soviets had supported. In 1978 the USSR had signed a treaty of friendship with the Afghan government which allowed the USSR to provide military support and intervene if the Afghan government was unable to retain control of the country. When Amin was faced with internal revolt after his seizure of power, he requested and was eventually given Soviet aid, before he was overthrown and replaced with a more effective leader.

Is it also ironic for a Hoxhaist to criticize the USSR for allegedly trying to prevent progressive reform, given that Hoxha banned abortion and prevented the sale of contraception.

You are a patheticfor attempting to smear me as a sexist because of my ideology, according to you then I must automatically be against abortion or contraception, just because the Albanians did , so therefore I want to repeat EVERYTHING the Albanians did, because admiring the heroism of the Albanian people and its Revolutionary Communist Party means liking EVERYTHING THEY DID the good and bad traits. You know nothing of the historical and national context on WHY the Albanians prevented the use of abortion or contraception, it was build up their little population, but of course you would not know that nor would you care you just wanted to get your little cheap shot in there, of course not because for you the socialist Albania before where women could not get abortions was as bad as the Albania of before where women could not vote, were stoned to death, could not divorce, and were wed to many men.

I guess according to your deranged logic:

:rolleyes:Trotsky as well as Stalin, Marx, and Engels thought Homosexuality was repulsive and a ''mental disorder'' and was caused by sexism and should have been repressed so I guess you must too, using your deranged logic. Hey did you know Bakunin was an anti-semite so I guess all anarchists must be as well, according to the deranged Bobkindles. Hey Trotsky and his clique were racist(they said you ''can expect anything from an Asiatic'' in reference to Stalin.) so I guess it must be ironic for you NOT to be a racist as well.

Go back to handing Revolution Betrayed out to oppressed College kids since it must be ironic for you not to be doing that.

[Comrade Hector]

there was a movement of communists in afghanistan before the war. the SU picked up on this and invaded. their motivation was varied:

1. getting closer to a warm water port
2. put pressure on middle east countries
3. get valuable oil and gas regions near the middle east
4. put pressure on US intrests
5. show the world that the SU is not weak
6. to support socialist groups around the world

the US response was to had money and arms to the pakistani secret service or the ISS. The ISS gave this money to many radical islamist groups and none to any secular groups. the whole situation went to hell, when the SU relized that the rebels knew what they were doing (due to CIA training). Osama bin laden was able to raise millions of dollars and a private army for the war. the soviets pulled out, but the civil war between the religous and seculars waged on. the communist group was defeated early on in the 90's, and the rest of the seculars retreated to the north. they made the northern alliance (a secualr rebel group), while the tailiban ruled the nation and fought off the northern alliance.

You couldn't be more wrong. At first the Soviet Union did not want to send troops to Afghanistan, inspite of the repeated requests made by the pro-Soviet left-wing regime in Afghanistan. The Soviet presence in Afghanistan was not an invasion, but an intervention in honor of the treaty signed by the USSR and DRA. The Soviet objectives were to secure its borders from Islamic fundamentalists, and prevent an imperialist-allied fanatical state ruled by mullahs from being established. Soviet troops in Afghanistan fought on behalf of social progress in their war against the Mujahideen butchers. It was Soviet troops the defended the gains allowing women to read and pursue a life equal to a man. Which the imperialists saw a an evil. Your reasons for Soviet intervention are exactly the ones used by Carter to escalate his war against the USSR. Imperialist propaganda.

[Comrade Hector]

"Secular" is not the correct term to describe the Northern Alliance. The following article (link (http://www.rawa.org/na2.htm)) hosted on the website of RAWA (a feminist group which adopted a neutral position during the Soviet conflict) notes that the full name of this group is the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan" and goes on to describe several of the group's leaders.

Actually, RAWA supported the Mujahideen. The chairman, an Afghan feminist heroine to imperialism Meena Keshwar Kamal attempted to integrate feminism into the program of the anti-woman Mujahideen, and sought imperialist help. In the end she was killed by the Mujahideen along with her Maoist husband.

[PRC-UTE]

You couldn't be more wrong. At first the Soviet Union did not want to send troops to Afghanistan, inspite of the repeated requests made by the pro-Soviet left-wing regime in Afghanistan. The Soviet presence in Afghanistan was not an invasion, but an intervention in honor of the treaty signed by the USSR and DRA. The Soviet objectives were to secure its borders from Islamic fundamentalists, and prevent an imperialist-allied fanatical state ruled by mullahs from being established. Soviet troops in Afghanistan fought on behalf of social progress in their war against the Mujahideen butchers. It was Soviet troops the defended the gains allowing women to read and pursue a life equal to a man. Which the imperialists saw a an evil. Your reasons for Soviet intervention are exactly the ones used by Carter to escalate his war against the USSR. Imperialist propaganda.

Yes, the Soviet role in Afghanistan, though not without self-interests for the SU, was actually quite principled and progressive. Comparisons to the US loss in Vietnam (quite common) are absurd as it had more to do with political developments in the SU that wore down resolve to see the conflict through than the actual military conflict itself.

[BobKKKindle$]

Actually, RAWA supported the Mujahideen. The chairman, an Afghan feminist heroine to imperialism Meena Keshwar Kamal attempted to integrate feminism into the program of the anti-woman Mujahideen, and sought imperialist help. In the end she was killed by the Mujahideen along with her Maoist husband.Do you have any evidence to support the allegation that the position of RAWA as an organization was to support the Mujahideen? The statements on RAWA's website indicate that, in addition to fighting against the Soviet occupation, RAWA also fought against the Mujahideen.


You are a patheticfor attempting to smear me as a sexist because of my ideology..

You did not address my point in relation to your allegation that the USSR invaded to prevent progressive reform.

[Wanted Man]

It's amazing that there are some people on RevLeft who still unconditionally support the mujahideen's historical role. YKTMX once described the left-wing government as "the Soviet puppet regime many on the Western left get teary-eyed about" after saying that the Afghans supported the Taliban. Of course, anyone who unconditionally supports shooting women for not wearing burqas, throwing acid at schoolteachers and hanging communists by their balls from the lampposts, is firmly in the reactionary camp.

Not that the Afghan government or the Soviets were perfect, though. The bloody murder and coups within the government, some supported by the Soviets, are proof of this. This was definitely a weakness that the reactionaries could exploit. But that doesn't mean that we should therefore support the reactionaries against the popular movement that liberated and educated millions of people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In regards to Cold-War politics, in spite of my stance towards the reductionist and grossly revisionist nature of "Marxism-Leninism" in general, I'm a tankie. The Afghanistan affair is yet another case wherein the Soviets played a progressive role, in spite of its own interests. "Social imperialism" is NOT a bad thing (because the Bolsheviks tried this just after their victory in the civil war). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index3.html)

Meanwhile, the "left deviationists" (not really revolutionary, and "deviationist" relative to the Soviet position) inadvertently helped contribute to the modern need to abandon that "double-duth" term known as "national liberation."

[BobKKKindle$]

In regards to Cold-War politics, in spite of my stance towards the reductionist and grossly revisionist nature of "Marxism-Leninism" in general, I'm a tankie.

What is your position on existing workers states such as North Korea and Cuba?

[Wanted Man]

I think 'tankie' is an insult that is now used by reactionaries in sheep's clothing to dismiss any discussion about their support for blatantly reactionary movements.* This support stems from the fundamentally flawed third camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_camp). The cliffite version of the third camp** claims to support the working class movement against both the Americans and Soviets, because they are 'both imperialists', with the Soviet variants being 'state capitalist' and 'social imperialist'.

This view is flawed, because there's no meaningful way to classify which movements belong to the 'third camp'. The cliffites who support the mujahideen and taliban come with arguments as: "The USSR trying to bring 'freedom' was no different than what America is doing in Iraq today, do you want to support the Iraq War too?" and "Almost all liberation movements were backed by some kind of foreign power, that was just the geopolitical reality" and "Sure, the mujahideen did some things that aren't nice, but let's not cry over the Soviet puppets being hung by their testicles from the lampposts."

As you can see, any meaningful positions on class or imperialism are far removed from any of this. It's sad, because Cliff originally actually sought to disassociate from Schachtmanism (the idea that Soviet 'bureaucratic collectivism' is worse than western capitalism and imperialism, and that the latter should be supported over the former). Yet in practice, they are now often one and the same.

*Originally, it was an insult to people who supported the crushing of the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
**Some variants of maoism (and hoxhaism? I'm not sure) also have this theory, and some of them also end up supporting the mujahideen as a result. They're no better, IMO.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is your position on existing workers states such as North Korea and Cuba?

I said "Cold-War politics" for a reason. They pertain to the Cold-War era.


As you can see, any meaningful positions on class or imperialism are far removed from any of this. It's sad, because Cliff originally actually sought to disassociate from Schachtmanism (the idea that Soviet 'bureaucratic collectivism' is worse than western capitalism and imperialism, and that the latter should be supported over the former). Yet in practice, they are now often one and the same.

*Originally, it was an insult to people who supported the crushing of the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
**Some variants of maoism (and hoxhaism? I'm not sure) also have this theory, and some of them also end up supporting the mujahideen as a result. They're no better, IMO.

Here, here!

My "tankie-ism" extends to criticisms of the revisionist "Comrade" Stalin not taking more aggressive action against the junior revisionist Tito, criticisms of the junior revisionist Hoxha not aligning himself more with the revisionist Soviet camp (since the junior-revisionist "people's democracies" were satellite states, anyway), and criticisms of various junior-revisionist satellite leaders in terms of not following the revisionist East German example of towing the revisionist Soviet line more rigidly (Romania comes to mind, but especially Poland and its revisionist lack of collectivization).

Moreover, why weren't the satellite states just absorbed into the Soviet Union? :(

That people would support border clashes between two revisionist states, but started by an agrarian revisionist clique against the industrial country of (read: founded by) Lenin, is insane!

[YKTMX]

Of course, anyone who unconditionally supports shooting women for not wearing burqas, throwing acid at schoolteachers and hanging communists by their balls from the lampposts, is firmly in the reactionary camp.


This is true but, of course, no one on here, certainly not me, has every advocated such a thing. We offer unconditional but critical support for anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist movements. Of course, you use all sorts of emotive words to try and elicit sympathy for the corrupt Soviet proxy government, but do we really have to go through all the techniques and methods favoured by the Soviet Union when putting down "national rebellions"?

Scaremongering about the behaviour of the Afghan resistance is a tactic much favoured by supporters of both Western and Soviet Imperialism. Every enemy is demonized and every doubter dubbed a traitor. It's not particularly illuminating and doesn't add much to the debate either way because most people can dismiss it as the transparent paranoia that it is.

The things that De Baron says the Mujahadeen were involved in are undoubtedly bad and regrettable but, for a Marxist, it doesn't change the decision making criteria.

Does the attitude of the Afghan resistance mean the Kabul government wasn't corrupt and hated? No.

Does it mean that the Soviet Union had a right to invade (anyone who buys who the shit about "invited military specialists" is deluding themselves)?

Does it mean that only atheists have a right to defend themselves against an illegitimate government and its foreign allies?

Does it mean that the Soviet Union had a right to dominate Central Asia and beyond?

These are the criteria for Marxists (I can't speak for "Leftists") to judge the matter on; not rubbish about acid and schoolteachers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Does it mean that the Soviet Union had a right to invade (anyone who buys who the shit about "invited military specialists" is deluding themselves)?

If anything else, they should have invaded earlier! :(


Does it mean that the Soviet Union had a right to dominate Central Asia and beyond?

With hindsight in mind, YES. You should read an old thread of mine - "Soviet Union or Soviet Republic" - wherein I specifically took Stalin's 1917 and 1922 stance(s) against Lenin's:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalities-soviet-union-t61251/index.html

[YKTMX]

If anything else, they should have invaded earlier!

I fear this is where we part company on the issue.


With hindsight in mind, YES

The colonialism-as-artificial-progress argument starts in India, gets going in Libya and ends in the ovens at Auschwitz, unfortunately.

[PRC-UTE]

Scaremongering about the behaviour of the Afghan resistance is a tactic much favoured by supporters of both Western and Soviet Imperialism. Every enemy is demonized and every doubter dubbed a traitor. It's not particularly illuminating and doesn't add much to the debate either way because most people can dismiss it as the transparent paranoia that it is.

The things that De Baron says the Mujahadeen were involved in are undoubtedly bad and regrettable but, for a Marxist, it doesn't change the decision making criteria.

Does the attitude of the Afghan resistance mean the Kabul government wasn't corrupt and hated? No.

Does it mean that the Soviet Union had a right to invade (anyone who buys who the shit about "invited military specialists" is deluding themselves)?

Does it mean that only atheists have a right to defend themselves against an illegitimate government and its foreign allies?

Does it mean that the Soviet Union had a right to dominate Central Asia and beyond?

These are the criteria for Marxists (I can't speak for "Leftists") to judge the matter on; not rubbish about acid and schoolteachers.

You're not only using basically abstract arguments here, but you're flat out wrong. You can't claim this is Marxism when the comintern specifically said communists shouldn't ally themselves with anti-colonial movements that strengthened the reactionary muslim clerics.

And I'm not interested in whether they were atheists or not, but which their program's class interest supported. the logical outcome of fighting the Soviets was to strenghthen the fuedel afghani landowners and reactionaries. The Maoists found this out the hard way. For a Marxist of any type to follow your suggestions here would almost guaranteed suicide, and sets the workers and peasants back generations at least.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The colonialism-as-artificial-progress argument starts in India, gets going in Libya and ends in the ovens at Auschwitz, unfortunately.

Yeah, as if Stalin's successors - or even Stalin himself - were planning to exterminate the satellite locals (the latter's case in point being the East Germans in the wake of the Nazi regime). :rolleyes:

Besides, the Soviets behaved like a typical imperialist power in only the political aspect (you Trots keep saying that they had trade deficits with their satellites, and that economic autarky for everybody prevented more flows of capital between Comecon states).

[YKTMX]

You can't claim this is Marxism when the comintern specifically said communists shouldn't ally themselves with anti-colonial movements that strengthened the reactionary muslim clerics.

Lenin said something like that, although the "comintern" behaved somewhat differently, most notably at the famous (or infamous from some points of view) Baku conference.

The problem with adopting this line is that it doesn't really apply. No one here has ever declared a fidelity to social vision of the Afghan resistance, or to their tactics, or to their behaviour in all aspects.

The only thing being defended here is the view that:

a) the Soviets have no right over Afghanistahn, for good or ill. If the regime in Kabul holds support then let it stand on its own two feet with, if neccessary, international solidarity (with the people, not the government)

b) Afghans must have a right to defend themselves from an alien power enforcing on them, in a violent and undemocratic fashion, an alien form of government

That is, in the "Soviet-Afghan" war, the point is that the SOVIETS MUST LEAVE.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh, and Hafizullah Amin was a CIA agent, so the "anti-imperialist" card can be thrown out of the window.

[YKTMX]

Yeah, as if Stalin's successors - or even Stalin himself - were planning to exterminate the satellite locals (the latter's case in point being the East Germans in the wake of the Nazi regime).

I'm not suggesting that they were. It's just a demonstrable fact that "civilizing" missions either lead to horror and genocide, or provide the lessons for future horror and genocide.

Cesaire pointed out that "Europeans tolerated "Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack."

We have no reason to believe that Soviet Imperialism behaves any differently. In fact, all the evidence, from Hungary to Poland, suggests that it doesn't.

[YKTMX]

Oh, and Hafizullah Amin was a CIA agent, so the "anti-imperialist" card can be thrown out of the window.

I think I may have misread Jacob's intentions with this post so I'll retract my comment.

[PRC-UTE]

Lenin said something like that, although the "comintern" behaved somewhat differently, most notably at the famous (or infamous from some points of view) Baku conference.

Which was a notable failure and was abandoned.



a) the Soviets have no right over Afghanistahn, for good or ill. If the regime in Kabul holds support then let it stand on its own two feet with, if neccessary, international solidarity (with the people, not the government)

Yet this is completely abstract, divorced from anything approaching a class analysis.



b) Afghans must have a right to defend themselves from an alien power enforcing on them, in a violent and undemocratic fashion, an alien form of government

Yet the Soviets and Afghani progressives were the only force defending democratic rights. I'm not saying the Soviets were a civilising force, but that their victory there could've opened space for democratic forces to succeed. The conflict was afterall stated by Afghani communists, not the Soviets.

And arguing against a 'foreign form of government' is completely utopian and reactionary anti-imperialism.



That is, in the "Soviet-Afghan" war, the point is that the SOVIETS MUST LEAVE.

...for the landowners and reactionary clerics to keep their power and class privelages, yes.

[YKTMX]

Yet this is completely abstract, divorced from anything approaching a class analysis.

An analysis (i.e yours) that pretends that the SU was "principled", interested in upholding the class interests of the Afghan working-class (eh?) and trying bravely to hold back the tide of radical Islam is not only divorced from a class analysis (of the Soviet Union or the corrupt Kabul proxy) but also of the basic facts of the situation.

If we want to talk social class, let's talk about how the Proxy's support was mainly among East-looking intellectuals and professionals, and how the Mujihadeen's base was amongst extraordinarily poor people based in the areas around Kabul in the North.


The new government lacked any social base outside Kabul, and its program of reforms soon provoked a popular backlash. The Kabul regime was completely isolated from the mass of the population in the countryside:
[They] had neither survey information nor local leaders with knowledge of actual conditions in the countryside. In short, it would have been virtually impossible for them to devise a successful land-reform program. As it was, their reforms were implemented by blundering and often brutal officials from the city who dropped into the countryside by parachute.



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

Or are you going to invent an Afghan working class?


I'm not saying the Soviets were a civilising force

Well, you should be saying it because that is the logical position from your point of view. The Afghans were ignorant of the benefits of a benevolent Soviet backed regime and instead wanted to rule their own lives as they saw fit. It's just a shame you weren't there to explain all this to them. You could have had pie-charts and plotted graphs.

[Peacekeeper]

The only thing being defended here is the view that:

a) the Soviets have no right over Afghanistahn, for good or ill. If the regime in Kabul holds support then let it stand on its own two feet with, if neccessary, international solidarity (with the people, not the government)

b) Afghans must have a right to defend themselves from an alien power enforcing on them, in a violent and undemocratic fashion, an alien form of government

That is, in the "Soviet-Afghan" war, the point is that the SOVIETS MUST LEAVE.

Hmm. This is probably the only situation where I do not support the Muslims. The Taliban (I don't like to call them "Mujihadeen," I reserve that term for Muslim warriors I support) was horribly reactionary, oppressive, and contrary to a lot of basic Muslim ideals. For one, they allowed the growing of opium!

[PRC-UTE]

An analysis (i.e yours) that pretends that the SU was "principled", interested in upholding the class interests of the Afghan working-class (eh?) and trying bravely to hold back the tide of radical Islam is not only divorced from a class analysis (of the Soviet Union or the corrupt Kabul proxy) but also of the basic facts of the situation.

But that's not what I actually said. Let's see the full quote:

'Yes, the Soviet role in Afghanistan, though not without self-interests for the SU, was actually quite principled and progressive.'

I believe the Soviets were pulled into the conflict out of a need to secure their borders. I also believe the evidence shows they were pulled into it by the Afghanis, and reluctantly. I didn't say every single act there was done well- I agree that much of it was hamhanded. However that doesn't make it imperialist in the Marxist analysis, and doesn't change the fact that it was basically progressive to supersede Islamist fuedel rule with a modern state.



If we want to talk social class, let's talk about how the Proxy's support was mainly among East-looking intellectuals and professionals, and how the Mujihadeen's base was amongst extraordinarily poor people based in the areas around Kabul in the North.


And you don't think the coercian of landlords and reactionary clerics played a role here? And anyway, I was speaking of class interest, not where actual support materialised.



Or are you going to invent an Afghan working class?


Surely there were peasant rural labourers, landless peasants, etc. I didn't imagine there was an industrial working class.



Well, you should be saying it because that is the logical position from your point of view. The Afghans were ignorant of the benefits of a benevolent Soviet backed regime and instead wanted to rule their own lives as they saw fit. It's just a shame you weren't there to explain all this to them. You could have had pie-charts and plotted graphs.

I've been too busy actually resisting imperialism and capitalism to travel to other lands to advise them. I didn't realise that to have an opinion on a subject I had to have been there, implimenting my own analysis. Perhaps you should follow the same reasoning and stop making up fantasies of an Afghani national liberation force that were in reality just fuedel warlords- or otherwise you should mount a dhsk mg and slaughter some infidels.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I believe the Soviets were pulled into the conflict out of a need to secure their borders. I also believe the evidence shows they were pulled into it by the Afghanis, and reluctantly. I didn't say every single act there was done well- I agree that much of it was hamhanded. However that doesn't make it imperialist in the Marxist analysis, and doesn't change the fact that it was basically progressive to supersede Islamist fuedel rule with a modern state.

Comrade, they were pulled into it because of the CIA adventurism of Hafizullah Amin. I believe that, shortly before or after the overthrow of his predecessor, he mentioned Stalin positively, which alarmed the Soviets. I saw the CNN "Cold War" episode on Afghanistan when it first came out. Sufficed to say, the late-night emergency meeting of the Politburo that decided on the invasion occurred months after Brezhnev and co. consistently refused to provide more support to the pre-Amin government that took power.

[Its funny that the US supported outright "Stalinist" (political superstructure only) regimes like the Stalin-loving Saddam and Amin, while the Menshie Soviets supported more progressive regimes, no? ;) ]

[YKTMX]

I believe the Soviets were pulled into the conflict out of a need to secure their borders.

I believe this was their excuse for every violation of national sovereignty going back to the 40's.


I also believe the evidence shows they were pulled into it by the Afghanis, and reluctantly.

Possibly. The corrupt Kabul proxy probably did want a Soviet invasion as they knew there was no way they could survive without it. It's not really important (the first American military specialists in South Vietnam were probably invited by the South Vietnamese).


However that doesn't make it imperialist in the Marxist analysis

It depends what you think the "Marxist analysis" is. I might hold a different interpretation from you.


And you don't think the coercian of landlords and reactionary clerics played a role here?

Possibly. I would guess that it was similar to the nexus between the Catholic Church and the Irish Republican movements - one of mutual support and aid and high levels of religiosity. Also, you don't need to repeat "reactionary clerics" like some mantra. We all get it - you don't like Muslim priests.


I've been too busy actually resisting imperialism and capitalism to travel to other lands to advise them. I didn't realise that to have an opinion on a subject I had to have been there

That's noble of you and I didn't suggest that you did. I might suggest that before you go around slandering the Afghanis who died defending their villages from the Russian armies you might acquaint yourselves with some of the conditions surrounding their struggle.

Or you can just deal in cheap stereotypes, your preference.

[PRC-UTE]

Possibly. I would guess that it was similar to the nexus between the Catholic Church and the Irish Republican movements - one of mutual support and aid and high levels of religiosity. Also, you don't need to repeat "reactionary clerics" like some mantra. We all get it - you don't like Muslim priests.

Jaze, do you really believe that? The Church is at times more anti-republican than the British! Priests condemned some of the hunger strikers at their own funerals. They'd lose their cozy status dominating education, etc. under a Republic.

[YKTMX]

Jaze, do you really believe that? The Church is at times more anti-republican than the British! Priests condemned some of the hunger strikers at their own funerals. They'd lose their cozy status dominating education, etc. under a Republic.

You're not telling me there was no relationship between the Republicans and the Catholic Church, are you?

And I'm talking about local priests (as it was also in Afghanistahn), not the hierarchy.

[PRC-UTE]

You're not telling me there was no relationship between the Republicans and the Catholic Church, are you?

And I'm talking about local priests (as it was also in Afghanistahn), not the hierarchy.

Of course there was some relationship, but it's not as if anything other than a tiny number of rogue priests were encouraging republicans on as you suggested previously in your comparison.

[YKTMX]

Of course there was some relationship, but it's not as if anything other than a tiny number of rogue priests were encouraging republicans on as you suggested previously in your comparison.

And you'd have opposed and supported the British against IRA men linked with said reactionary Catholic priests would you?

[PRC-UTE]

And you'd have opposed and supported the British against IRA men linked with said reactionary Catholic priests would you?

apples and oranges; republicans did not push a political programme that was Catholic in content. That's what we're talking about here. Anyway, you're grasping at straws as the Church as a whole was deeply against republicanism and quite often condemned it. Those very few priests who were the exception like Fr Des Wilson were punished.

I said previously it's not an issue of what one's religious beleifs are. The fact is, republicans were nothing like al qaeda or the taleban, they were pushing for a secular republic. you can't be a Republican and push for the Church's interests- republicanism is non-sectarianism or it's not republicanism, more accurately nationalism/catholic defenderism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't have a lot of time, but a few things:

YKHSOW repeats the old State Department socialist line of the anti-communist Cliffite trend. This trend has placed itself outside of the workers' movement for all intents and purposes by continually supporting reaction and imperialism, and actively fighting against all gains made by workers. The trend itself was born from its refusal to join other Trotskyists in defending north Korea against imperialist invasion. These "comrades" have consistently allied themselves wiht counterrevolutionaries in the pay of the CIA, and hailed the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR (which brought about a fall in living standards, employment and life expectancy unparalleled in history) as 'a fact that should have every socialist rejoicing.' This trend claims to stand in the tradition of Trotsky, despite the fact that Trotsky waged a fight against Shachtman over a similar question (that of the USSR's invasion of Finland to secure a piece of land to aid in its defense; which Trotsky supported).

The civil war in Afghanistan was waged between modernizing communists (who came to power with widespread support among Afghanistan's -- admittedly small -- working class, students and a section of the poor peasantry) and U.S./Pakistan/Saudi-backed counterrevolutionary warlords, landowners, money lenders and mullahs (loosely grouped together as the "mujahideen," or holy warriors).

Progressive steps carried out by the revolutionary government (such as land reform, canceling peasants' debts, elimination of veil restrictions, compulsory education for both sexes, bringing women into the workforce and political life, etc.) sparked the reactionary wave, which was heavily supported by U.S. imperialism and its regional lackies (along with China, who participated under the guise of 'fighting Soviet social-imperialism'). The question of women's liberation particularly animated the rabid reactionaries. The New York Times wrote at the time: "Land reform attempts undermined their village chiefs. Portraits of Lenin threatened the religious leaders. But it was the Kabul revolutionary Government's granting of new rights to women that pushed Orthodox Moslem men in the Pashtoon villages of eastern Afghanistan into picking up their guns."

YKHSOW has no problem with allying himself with Reagan's "freedom fighters" -- counterrevolutionary parasites that fought with the full backing of U.S. imperialism and the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China; but let the still relatively weak revolutionary government ask for much needed assistance from the USSR to defend itself against this international attack and they are condemned as puppets!

YKHSOW's condemnation of communists introducing an 'alien system' to Afghanistan sounds like it came from ex-U.S. president Jimmy Carter's right-hand-man Brzezinski who attacked the USSR for trying "to impose alien doctrines on deeply religious and nationally conscious peoples."

The bureaucrats leading the USSR at the time were pulled into the battle out of a real need to secure their border. They sent 100,000 troops only after refusing to send troops for some time. Still, the intervention brought about a serious chance for great gains to be made in Afghanistan - such as those that were made possible by the October Revolution in neighboring Uzbekistan, then a section of the USSR. Afghanistan was 90 percent illiterate at the time of the civil war, while virtually everyone could read in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan had a doctor for every 400 people while Afghanistan had one for every 20,000! Not to mention the level of women's equality in Uzbekistan.

The imperialists and their allies wanted not only to "get back" Afghanistan - a buffer state imperialism created in Central Asia, but also to destroy the USSR. They saw a defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan as a way to make an opening into the USSR to push through counterrevolution, and to a large extent, they were right! How long after the treacherous withdrawal of the Red Army (which wasn't actually loosing the war at the time!!) did the USSR crumble?

And of course the USSR intervention was along the lines of what communists had long stood for (even though the bureaucrats didn't intend it that way). Lenin wrote "After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."

At the very least, communists were certainly not supporters of "national liberation" that benefited the mullahs! Lenin wrote:

"With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

"first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on; [so much for that, the 'leftists' in the U.S. and Britain jumped on the imperialist bandwagon!]

"second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries; [according to YKHSOW, this amounts to Islamaphobia in the Afghan context]

"third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.; [!!!]

"fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate—by setting up “working people’s Soviets”, etc.;"

[Illus]

The Brezhnev regime was just about as downright fascist as you can get, corporatism and a definite class structure was well formed by the time the Soviet intervention happened. The Soviet social-imperialists invaded to do away with a increasingly revolutionary government (which was a threat to them because the Soviet union was a reactionary state at the time.

"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).

[irredeemable bastard]

The Years of "Royal Democracy" The first revolutionary Marxist organisation in Afghanistan was founded in 1966 under the name of Progressive Youth Organisation (PYO). The revisionist Moscow-directed "People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan" (PDPA) had been founded some time earlier by a number of intellectuals with suspicious links to a faction of the ruling elite. (Prince Daoud, cousin of King Zahir Shah and prime minister of Afghanistan [1953-1963] was dubbed "The Red Prince" because of his soft spot for the post-Stalin Soviet leadership; Babrak Karmal, one of the founding fathers of the PDPA and leader of the Parcham faction of this party was notorious as a Daoud informer and as a pander to Daoud's political ambitions.)
A salient characteristic of the revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan since its very inception has been its unflagging struggle against revisionism and opportunism. It was in an anti-revisionist and anti-opportunist context that the revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan was founded and grew up. Those early years were dominated by ideological polemics between the communist parties of the Soviet Union and China on the one hand and the Cultural Revolution in China on the other. Both political phenomena had indelible ideological and political effects on the PYO. It can very well be claimed that the PYO was founded as a necessary entity for defending and propagating revolutionary Marxism against the revisionism and collaborationism of the PDPA led by Noor Mohammad Taraki and Babrak Karmal.
The winds of change were blowing in Afghanistan. In 1963 Daoud had to step down as prime minister in order to make way for King Zahir Shah to proclaim a constitutional monarchy. A new constitution was adopted and vestiges of democratic freedoms including a small measure of freedom of expression and freedom of the press was allowed to the people. Taking advantage of the thaw in the political climate, the PYO set out to publish a weekly mouthpiece, Sholai Jawaid [The Eternal Flame] which concentrated on introducing the principles of New Democracy (Mao Zedong Thought) and exposing the machinations of the PDPA and Soviet revisionism. Sholai Jawaid was banned after only 11 issues but that was enough to sow the seeds of revolutionary thought and to capture the hearts and minds of thousands of vanguard intellectuals and conscious workers.

The thaw in the political climate was appreciated by other political groupings also. Very soon political gatherings and demonstrations began to draw large numbers of adherents and to generate intense interest in Kabul and major towns. In most of such gatherings and demonstrations, three political currents were very visible: The Sholayis (as members, followers and sympathisers of the PYO came to be known after their mouthpiece Sholai Jawaid), the Khalqis and Parchamis (followers of the two rival factions of the PDPA, after their respective mouthpieces Khalq [The People] and Parcham [The Banner]), and the Ikhwanis (Islamists and Islamic fundamentalists, later renamed Moslem Youth, after the name of their prototype in Egypt -Ikhwan al-Muslimeen [Moslem Brotherhood]). From the point of view of numerical strength, the gatherings and demonstrations staged by the Sholayis in Kabul far outnumbered the Khalqis and Parchamis and completely dwarfed whatever the Ikhwanis could stage despite their claim on the religiosity and religious propensity of the general populace.
The Ikhwanis were initially not taken very seriously by political circles because of their inferior numbers and poor attraction for intellectuals. The Ikhwanis made up for their inferiority by their virulence, which first manifested itself by a spate of acid spraying onto the faces of young university and high school girl students. (This was motivated by Islamic fundamentalist misogyny which abhors the appearance of women in society and considers life-incarceration of women in houses and harems as the acme of Islamic piety.) This Ikhwani virulence grew by leaps and bounds and very soon reached the point of bloodthirsty murders of secular-minded intellectuals. A number of such murders were overtly committed by the Ikhwanis in Herat and Laghman and many covert cases of Ikhwani murders came to light in Kabul and other cities. The climax for the revolutionary Marxist movement came in June 1972 when Sholayis and Ikhwanis clashed on the campus of Kabul University, a hotbed of ideological and political struggle and debate. True to their nature, the Ikhwanis had come armed with knives and pistols. The situation on that fateful day quickly got out of hand and Saydal Sokhandan, a prominent PYO activist and fiery Sholayi orator was personally assassinated by Golbuddin Hekmatyar who later gained notoriety as the leader of the most rabid Islamic fundamentalist grouping, the Hizb-i-Islami . (It was this Hizb-i-Islami which got the lion's share of the CIA largesse during the years of the War of Resistance against Soviet aggression and occupation; like all Afghan fundamentalist parties the Hizb-i-Islami was nurtured on CIA arms and dollars until from a lowly jackal it grew into a bloodthirsty hyena, feasting on the entrails of the people of Afghanistan. This one fact alone is enough to expose the hypocritical howls of Western imperialism against Islamic fundamentalism.) Many other Sholayis were wounded, some of them critically. This clash further polarised the general political atmosphere and generated intense debate within the PYO, forcing an introspection into its policies and approaches.
The prevailing criticism amongst the Sholayis was that despite the fact that the Sholai Jawaid political current had amassed a large and dedicated following of thousands of young Afghans, the leadership of the PYO had been unable to harness the potential of these adherents for the political mobilisation of the peasant masses who comprised 90% of the people of Afghanistan. The outreach of the PYO and its leadership rarely extended beyond the urban intelligentsia, urbanites and a limited number of workers. It was in consequence of such introspection that at the beginning of the 70s different circles within the Sholai Jawaid political current began highlighting the mistakes of the PYO and opened up an extensive ideological struggle at all levels of the organisation. The most profound criticism of the PYO came from the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan (later upgraded and renamed Sazman-i Rehayi Afghanistan [Afghanistan Liberation Organisation]). The totality of such criticisms resulted in the dissolution of the PYO into a number of smaller revolutionary groupings generally adhering - with different degrees of disagreement -- to Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought.
The Daoud years
In July 1973 Daoud, the "Red Prince", supported by the Parcham faction of the PDPA, staged a bloodless coup d'état in which he ousted his cousin King Zahir Shah and proclaimed Afghanistan a republic with himself as the president. Daoud's Parchami cronies got appointed to key government posts, but the Parchamis and their Russian masters had underrated Daoud's famous self-willed bull-headedness. After a year of Parchami mismanagement and misdemeanour at all levels and their pursuance of a hidden agenda dictated by Moscow, Daoud sacked all key Parchami office bearers in his administration. This obliged Moscow to concentrate on the Afghan armed forces for the achievement of its ulterior motives. During Daoud's 5-year rule as president (1973-1978) the revolutionary movement remained in a state of stagnation. This was due to disunity amongst former members and followers of the now-dissolved PYO. The Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan (the precursor of the ALO) emerged as one of the few well-organised revolutionary groups having a clear agenda. It laid stress (with hindsight, perhaps overstress) on the need for more in-depth work with the peasantry and most of its cadres and activists shifted their activities to the rural scene.

During this period the two rival factions of the PDPA (the Khalq faction led by Noor Mohammad Taraki and the Parcham faction led by Babrak Karmal) who had split some years ago in consequence of a personality clash between Taraki and Karmal were reunited in 1977 under strict orders from Moscow. This was in preparation for the implementation of strategic plans hatched in the Kremlin for a Russian version of 19th century colonial Britain's "forward policy". Daoud had in the meantime become disillusioned with his Kremlin sponsors and had turned to the West for help in his ambitious development plans. He mended fences with Pakistan (a long dispute with Pakistan over "Pashtunistan" was Daoud's favourite foreign policy quarrel) and visited Iran and Saudi Arabia to solicit financial assistance. Daoud's about-face was too abrupt and too alarming for Kremlin strategists to brook any delay in a swift, decisive counteraction. (Memories of Anwar Sadat and Mohmmad Siyad Barre's booting out of the Russians from Egypt and Somalia a few years earlier were still too fresh and too painful). In April 1978 the KGB engineered the assassination of Mir Akbar Khyber, a key Parchami figure, and had the unified PDPA stage a massive show of strength and defiance at his funeral. This was orchestrated in order to provoke Daoud into a crackdown on the PDPA. The arrogant Daoud fell into the trap and triggered an armed backlash spearheaded by KGB moles in key army and airforce units. The "Glorious Saur Revolution" was on. The bloody ensuing coup d'état of April 28, 1978, resulted in the massacre of Daoud and his entire family along with an estimated 7,000 military and civilian population and the coming to power of the PDPA with Noor Mohammad Taraki as president and prime minister and Babrak Karmal as his deputy. At this juncture in time Afghan revolutionary groupings were not a recognisable political force, but the correctness of their political appraisal of the Soviet Union as a social-imperialist power and of the PDPA as an agent of high treason and a mole of social-imperialism, and the Sholayis' oft-repeated refrain trying to bring home the need for unrelenting struggle against master and lackey did not fail to register itself on the minds and conscience of thinking and feeling patriots.
The "Saur" years
Neither the people of Afghanistan nor revolutionary groupings were sorry to see Daoud fall, but this did not prevent all revolutionary Marxist groupings --the political heirs of the PYO-- from swiftly, unequivocally and unanimously condemning the bloody coup d'état and calling on the people to rally to save the motherland from the fate that awaited her at the hands of the sold-out PDPA arch-traitors and their Russian masters. This swift and clear response was based on the fact that no revolutionary Marxist individual or grouping in Afghanistan had the slightest doubt that the indigenous Khalqi and Parchami lackeys of Soviet revisionism had any role or mission in Afghanistan other than to sell out their country to the Soviet Union under the guise of the touted "non-capitalist road to development" and to safeguard at all costs the interests of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Immediately after the "victory of the Saur Revolution" a nightmarish reign of terror was unleashed on the broad populace in general and on dissident intelligentsia in particular. Arbitrary individual and mass arrests, horrendous torture of suspects and mass executions of all "counter-revolutionary" elements arrested on the slightest pretext by hysterically obsessed functionaries commissioned by a frantically paranoid coterie of KGB agents at the helm of the state and government became commonplace and routine. None were spared. For the Khalqi parvenus (they very soon fell out with the Parchamis and, gaining the upper hand, turned on their erstwhile comrades-in-arms; under the aegis of Alexandre Puzanov, the Soviet ambassador, Babrak Karmal and his retinue of key Parchamis were banished abroad but a number of them were clapped into prison) anyone and everyone uttering a word against the Soviet Union and the "Saur Revolution" were traitors and counter-revolutionaries and all counter-revolutionaries were either "Sholayis" (if they were educated and secular-minded) or "Ikhwanis" (if they were illiterate, uncouth and/or religious-minded). Between these two categories, the harsher and crueller treatment was meted out to the "Sholayis" for they were "conscious enemies" with pre-meditated political motives for antagonism and animosity against "the achievements of the Glorious Saur Revolution" as opposed to "ignorant enemies" who opposed the "Saur Revolution" out of thoughtless religious fanaticism. Not in words but in deeds the regime lashed out at the religiosity of the masses, misreading the ABC of historical materialism and Marxist sociology. All this was perpetrated in the name of "democratic revolution", "people's democracy as the first rung on the ladder to socialism" and "the abrogation of exploitation of man by man". All concepts that were hallowed and venerable for workers, the exploited classes and the toiling masses were rendered profane and despicable, epitomising terror, treachery and "red villainy". Irreparable damage was done in the name of "revolution" to the image of true revolutionary intellectuals and workers and revolutionary concepts.
Galvanised by the universal atmosphere of terror, dismay and tragedy and the awareness of much worse and much more serious to come, groupings of revolutionary Marxists began to draw together again and in some cases reached some degrees of unification, but under the prevailing circumstances such unification had little practical results. However, each revolutionary grouping, spurred by the same relentless circumstances to becoming more organised and to evolving into Marxist organisations, were -each in its own way and according to its available means and capabilities- engaged in deepening and expanding the patriotic struggle. On August 5, 1979, the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan (precursor of the ALO) collaborating in a united front with a number of militant Islamist organisations participated in a military uprising in the Bala Hissar garrison in Kabul (popularly remembered as the Bala Hissar insurrection). The insurrection was savagely quashed by the regime and a large number of Revolutionary Group cadres were killed in the fighting, succumbed under torture or were summarily executed. The correctness of the policy and line of action taken by the Revolutionary Group in forming a united front with Islamists and participating in a military uprising is still debated in Afghan Marxist circles, but as mentioned in an ALO document, the 5th August insurrection showed that Marxist patriots did not flinch from being in the first line of battle when defence of the people and independence of the motherland were at stake, and that seas of blood separate the Sholayis from Khalqi and Parchami revisionist traitors.
For Afghan Marxist revolutionaries it was a foregone conclusion that in the light of the outright rejection of the regime by the people and the regime's increasing failure in all aspects of governance the Soviet Union would have to step in to safeguard its strategic interests. As was expected, the PDPA regime very quickly degenerated into a mêlée of party top dogs going for each other's throats with Alexandre Puzanov, the Soviet ambassador and veteran spymaster, acting both as patron and referee. Hafizullah Amin, Taraki's unscrupulous and megalomaniacally ambitious lieutenant in the Khalq faction very soon turned the Khalqis on the Parchamis and had the Parchami top brass banished and some of them handed over to the dreaded omnipotent AGSA secret police for "investigation". Soon afterwards he turned on his mentor, Taraki, and, in a dramatic scene strongly reminiscent of New York mafiosi settling scores, there was a shoot-out in the presidential palace in the presence of the Soviet ambassador. The Soviet godfather had given the Kremlin's tacit blessings to Taraki to have the egotistical Amin annihilated, but the plan went awry and Amin managed to escape unscathed while his trusted aide-de-camp Daoud Taroon was killed. This was the last straw. Amin had Taraki peremptorily arrested and assumed all his official titles. A couple of days later Taraki, the "Great Leader", the "Prodigy of the East", was smothered to death on orders of his "loyal pupil" and "devout disciple" Amin. Amin was now at the top and was effusive in his frequent eulogies of the Soviet Union, but he couldn't fool the Soviets. He had foiled the Kremlin's plans, had considerably embarrassed Moscow and had kicked out the Soviet old hand in political intrigue in Afghanistan who was present when he had his close call. But Moscow had taken pains to have spares. It now lifted a finger and Parchami bigwigs banished as ambassadors to different countries by the Khalqis scurried to receive their orders. On December 27, 1979, Babrak Karmal went on the air from a radio station in the then Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic dissembling Radio Afghanistan and announced the inauguration of the "new and evolutionary stage of the Glorious Saur Revolution". Amin had on that day been poisoned by his Russian guards in his palace in Kabul and "limited contingents" of the Soviet army poured into Afghanistan with Babrak Karmal perched on the barrel of their tanks. The former informer of Prince Daoud and the KGB's ace spook was now at the helm.

The War of Resistance

The worst had come to pass. The homeland of a fanatically independent people had been occupied by a foreign invader and a despised quisling had been foisted on them at gunpoint as their ruler. The people flew to arms, often nothing better than kitchen knives or rusty 19th century firearms. For the revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan it was a time of great tribulation. A fledgling movement which had not yet completely found it bearings and had not yet even teethed was saddled with the formidable challenge of putting its mark on a national liberation struggle against a superpower armed to the teeth. This was a country still in the throes of semi-feudal relations of production struggling with a primitive agricultural economy and an illiteracy rate of over 90% and, of course, deeply religious. The sacred sovereignty of such a people had been scandalously betrayed by "Marxists" and the integrity of such a country had been rudely violated by the country Lenin had built. Social-imperialism had struck home. The Afghan people's concept of honour and the totality of their world outlook, encapsulated in their religious faith, had been battered and insulted. The masses were crying out for the blood of the atheist "communist" traitors. In such an atmosphere a fledgling revolutionary Marxist movement was expected to perform its historical mission.
Afghanistan is the homeland of different ethnic groups who due to the under-development of productive forces have not yet been completely fused into one nation in the strict sense of the word. The same factors which have prevented the people of Afghanistan from becoming a modern nation have for more than a millennium conditioned them to look to their Islamic religious belief as the one unifying agent of all social classes and all ethnic denominations, particularly in times of historical adversity. With the coming to power of the quisling PDPA and particularly after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the call for a Jihad --a Holy War-- began to be echoed from all corners of the country's plains and valleys. As against the British in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, this was the only way a people barely out of the Middle Ages, both spiritually and materially, could articulate the need for a patriotic war of resistance against an alien invader. Only Jihad could provide a burning motivation, a simple and well-understood ideological elucidation of the need and duty of giving up life and limb in an all-out concerted effort to rid the country from the defilement of indigenous traitors and their alien masters. Amid the cacophony of Islamic exhortations to a Jihad after the pro-Soviet coup d'état and particularly after the Soviet invasion, Islamic fundamentalist merchants of faith were reaping gold.
The Ikhwanis had made a bid for power during Daoud's fateful years. Theirs was an exercise in folly as no segment of the Afghan society supported their feeble insurrections in Laghman and Panjsher. Most of their leaders were rounded up and put in jail and a number of them took refuge in neighbouring Pakistan where they offered their services to the intelligence agencies of the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They were put on modest payrolls and put away for a rainy day. With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the wakening up of Western imperialism to this chance of getting even with its social-imperialist rival after the humiliating defeat of the US in Vietnam, they were brought out of the closet and made into leaders overnight. The deity must have been smiling down on them as the wily secular-minded Bhutto had been deposed by his Islamist Chief of Army Staff, General Zia-ul-Haq, and the US arms-and-money pipeline and Arab petrodollars began pouring in. Inflated with US and Arab arms and money and surfing on a high tide of popular anti-Soviet religious sentiment, the fundamentalist small-time paid agents burst onto the political scene as leaders of the Afghan Mujahedin freedom fighters, and by extension, leaders of the people of Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the murderer of Saydal Sokhandan in bygone years, rose to stardom by dint of his political acumen, cruel, unscrupulous nature and shameless obsequiousness to Pakistani generals and bigwigs charged with dispensing US and Arab arms and dollars. He had not forgotten old animosities. He declared the Sholayis, as true revolutionaries, to be "the principal enemy" and more than at a par with the Khalqis and Parchamis. In the words of a revolutionary Afghan writer:


"The revolutionary movement in Afghanistan was pitted not only against the Soviet aggressors. The Khomeini regime in Iran and the Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship in Pakistan saw eye-to-eye and worked shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russians and the puppet regime in Kabul in decimating Marxist revolutionaries in Afghanistan and nullifying their work amongst the masses. Our fledgling revolutionary movement was under siege from all four directions."

Hundreds of Afghan revolutionary Marxists were executed in the Polygon killing fields of [I]Pol-i-Charkhy in Kabul during the Taraki-Amin period and later on during the Karmal and Najibullah years of Soviet occupation. Hundreds more were hunted down by Ikhwani parties in Pakistan and inside Afghanistan. The Khad secret services (the Afghan arm of the KGB) had a special section mandated with the task of annihilating all Sholayi organisations and groupings. The Sholayis were fighting against impossible odds. On the one hand they were duty bound to participate in the national liberation struggle, whether Jihad or War of Resistance, and on the other they had to fight off the KGB on one side and the Ikhwani bloodhounds on the other side. Yet participate in the national liberation struggle they did. The Afghanistan Liberation Organisation (the former Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan) and the Afghanistan People's Liberation Organisation (SAMA) are two revolutionary organisations which have actively and tangibly participated in the War of Resistance. At one time SAMA even had liberated areas of its own. With such prominent presence in the national liberation struggle it was too much not to expect rabid Ikhwani reaction. The Islamists did not spare any Sholayi falling into their hands and spared no effort at getting at prominent comrades of the revolutionary movement. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-i-Islami was the top bloodhound in hunting down Marxist revolutionaries. Many an intrepid revolutionary and many a stalwart patriot was gunned down or made to disappear without a trace in Peshawar, Pakistan, centre of resistance political and logistical activities. Comrade Dr Faiz Ahmad, veteran of the Marxist movement in Afghanistan and founding leader of the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan and subsequently of the ALO was handed over to the Hizb-i-Islami by a traitor commissioned by the Hizb, and tortured to death. Tens of other ALO cadres and comrades were assassinated by the Hizb-i-Islami. It is a well known fact that Prof. Qayum Rahbar, leader of SAMA, was gunned down by Hizb-i-Islami hit men in Peshawar, although SAMA --for reasons of their own-- have not yet documented this fact. Throughout the years of Russian occupation (by an irony of fate coinciding with the Zia-ul-Haq years in Pakistan) Afghan fundamentalist parties in general and Hizb-i-Islami in particular enjoyed highly privileged status afforded them by the Zia-ul-Haq regime. The resources of the Pakistan armed forces, intelligence services, police and the fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islami Pakistan party were all at the ready disposal of the Afghan fundamentalists, therefore Afghan revolutionaries and secular patriots had no refuge and no recourse to even a modicum of support or sympathy from the Pakistani authorities. By extension, they were deprived of any and all recognition and acknowledgement by the world media.
. . . Upto the present
The unsung and unnoticed revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan, battered to nigh extinction from right and left, is outstanding by its resilience. The almost totality of its leaders and the absolute majority of its cadres and veterans have been decimated by either the Khalqis and Parchamis or by the Ikhwanis. Yet by the fiat of history the Marxist revolutionary movement is alive and immortal. The incredibly overpowering circumstances of the years of the War of Resistance compelled true communists to adopt tactics apposite to the situation. One such tactic was to infiltrate the ranks of belligerent reactionary Islamist parties and organisations at the grassroot level with the intention of authenticating their unseverable bond with the masses and acquiring arms and ammunition for revolutionary forces. A lasting monument to the contribution of revolutionary Marxists to the people's War of Resistance against Soviet aggression is the fact that the names "Sholayis" and "Sholai Jawaid" have not been drowned out by fourteen years of thunderous Islamist stridency in a war which was never allowed by the Islamists to be labelled as anything but a war of Islam against atheism and communism. The prestige of Marxist revolutionaries has been enhanced by their active presence in frontlines of battle and the authentication of their personalities as intrepid, caring and popular individuals informed in military issues and evincing insight and discernment in political analyses. The known irreconcilability of revolutionary Marxists groupings and organisations with the puppet regime (notwithstanding the emergence of a few traitorous and capitulating elements amongst them) has greatly contributed to the growth of the revolutionaries' prestige amongst the masses and amongst honest elements of the Islamist opposition. One very orthodox Muslim compatriot is on record as saying, "I am and always have been inimical towards the Sholayis but I do not for a moment doubt their patriotism and their love for the people."
The War of Resistance against Soviet social-imperialism is over and the people of Afghanistan can rightfully claim the laurels of victory. Social-imperialism has been sent to its rightful place in the dustbin of history and classical Western imperialism is sure to follow suit sooner or later. But it is the historical misfortune of the people of Afghanistan that after giving the fatal mauling to the social-imperialist bear it now has to fend off rabid reactionary hyenas, the chained dogs of Western imperialism. As with the national liberation war of resistance against social-imperialism, the ALO shall continue to stand in the forefront of the battle with fundamentalist beasts.
The true communist movement in Afghanistan is beset by innumerable deficiencies, foremost amongst which are theoretical ambiguity and a concomitant organisational confusion; and is severely constrained in its political-awareness disseminating tasks. But it has amassed rich experience in combat activities and in work amongst the masses. Afghan revolutionary Marxists have become veterans in armed engagements with the enemy. Should it ever become possible for revolutionary Afghan Marxists to combine this fighting experience with a deeper understanding of class contradictions in Afghan society, with increased class consciousness of both its members and the toiling masses, and with the enjoyment of deeper trust of a people fatally betrayed in the name of Marxism-Leninism by social-imperialist stooges, history shall surely witness dramatic changes in the political arena in Afghanistan. The depth and breadth of the ignominy and savagery of the current Islamic fundamentalist rule in Afghanistan is unprecedented in contemporary world history, as is the devastation inflicted on the moral and material fabric of the country and the people. Not the fundamentalist but the ultra-fundamentalist beast is now worrying what is left of the living skin and bones of the Afghan people. What the world is witnessing in Afghanistan at the present juncture in time is ultra-reactionary religious fascism, mass gender apartheid and ultra-fundamentalism all rolled into one. Such unprecedented mediaeval tyranny is and shall be matched by the resilience, heroism and faith of true Afghan communists in their historical mission to deliver their country and people from the current inferno and to lead the toiling masses to a society free from the shackles of feudalism and the capitalist exploitation of the many by the few. This alone is sufficient to ensure that such an anachronistic political monstrosity cannot and should not live long. History shall always find the ALO at its post.

[chimx]

^ thread killer

When you copy and paste long ass articles, at least include paragraph breaks.

[irredeemable bastard]

I fucked it up, I'm really sorry. Will edit. Mate kicking me off this page.

[Hyacinth]

I’m not sure if this has been brought up, but regardless, one things that is of note regarding the entire Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, for the longest time the US maintained that they started supporting the Mujahedeen after the Soviet’s intervened. Well, as with many things, this turned out to be a lie. Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter’s National Security Adviser) admitted that the US funded the Mujahedeen before the Soviet’s intervened (See:http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm).

[YKTMX]

CDL should have saved his breath and his time (which is in such short supply). His pecuilar brand of Stalinist history and bare-faced sectarianism have, as most will have gathered, nothing to tell us about this question.


The civil war in Afghanistan was waged between modernizing communists (who came to power with widespread support among Afghanistan's -- admittedly small -- working class, students and a section of the poor peasantry)

Ah, I knew someone would invent the Afghan working class! And it had to be CDL didn't it? He can probably see the "working class" in Bronze Age Scandinavia! The Kabul proxy came to power in a coup, had no popular basis whatsoever outside the cosmopolitan, intellectual elites and was highly repressive. Now, it's clear that these characteristics suit CDL. His brand of politics has no space whatsoever for the social agency of the masses. Whenever the masses get involved in politics, CDL smells CIA/Fundamentalist machinations, particularly if they happen to be Islamic folk. This position informs his support of the American occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan, one presumes). There's no sense of even the possibility that this popular uprising (which it was) was based on a fairly common (to the extent of being ubiquitos) modern historical phenomena: people don't accept foreign domination. All I've defended here is the right of Afghans to defend themselves from a foreign force by any means they see fit: just as I defend the rights of Iraqis, or Cuban, or the Vietnamese to do the same.

Nothing in that should suggest that I support the political program of the Islamic fundamentalists, but that was not, and is not, the question. The question is whether political, economic and social progress (which I assume we all want) can be achieved by bombing campaigns, puppet regimes, failed "reforms", repression, war and bureaucratic turpor. It wasn't and it can't be. It ALWAYS FAILS.

The fact that it always fails should lead the inquisitive mind to ask why. Of course, CDL knows the answer before he's asked the question: it's the CIA/Saudi axis. Recent history has, of course, rendered this answer absurd. The CIA and Saudi Arabia (and all the other forces of international capitalism) are currently trying to achieve what the Soviet Union could not, domination-by-proxy of the Afghan people. This project (which I assume CDL supports, as he must) is also doomed to fail.

So the question is: if the Soviet Union can't beat the Afghans into submission and the CIA/Saudi Arabia can't beat the Afghans into submission, what is the problem here? Why won't they lie down and let historical inevitability runs its course?

The answer is the one I suggested above. The Bonapartist notion that foreigners can transfer their "enlightened" ways of live onto the lives of the benighted and the dark is false. It's false because for progress to actually be achieved, it must be achieved by the actual beneficiaries of progress engaging in the process of class struggle. Even if the Kabul proxy had managed to institute its ludicrous "land reform" program, the impact would have been negligible. The "gains" would have been turned back amidst the anti-Soviet backlash that inevitably came.

Think about modern day Poland: a country where "enlightened" bureaucratic elites spent years tackling the influence of the Catholic Church, of trying to build "socialism", of trying to raise the moral and cultural height of Poles. And what is Poland now, after all their efforts? A ultra neo-liberal pro-US aircraft carrier that hates gays and bans abortion.

CDL's response to this? He bleats about Tony Cliff and the CIA.

You're not serious.

[S.O.I]

rambo fought with the mujahedin.

and they won! go afghanistan!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

YKHSOW's reponse contains no real content, and addresses none of the real issues involved in the Saur Revolution, or my post ont he matter. Instead, he gives us bourgeois "common sense" and makes outrageous accusations that I support the imperialist invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which is funny, since his trend really did support imperialism in Afghanistan). None of it is really worthy of a response. But to clarify for other who may be interested:

1. Communists differeniate between proletarian states and capitalist states. An invasion by an imperialist state is entirely different than defensive assistance from a workers' state. State Department socialists like YKHSOW don't have the backbone to defend workers' gains unless they are perfect (which can never happen in the real world). This leads them to attack bureaucratized proletarian states as "state capitalist" and hop on the bandwagon for every imperialist-backed counterrevolutionary force that emerges; from Solidarnosc - the only union Ronald Reagan ever loved - in Poland to the mullah/warlord contras in Afghanistan.

2. The bureaucracy in the USSR was dragged into the civil war in Afghanistan. They turned down early requests for soldiers and air force assistance by the Afghan government (which could have eliminated the counterrevolutionaries easily, early on), and instead sent "military advisers." It was only when Reagan's "freedom fighters" began to advance, thus threatening the very security of the USSR, that they finally agreed to intervene.

3. The Saur Revolutionary was carried out with the support of large segments of the small Afghan working class, which included 35,000 manufacturing workers, public service workers and thousands of teachers. It also had the support of large segments of the students, who looked at the neighboring republics of the USSR as an example, and some intellectuals who sought modernization. Afghan was extremely backward, and no one can argue that. But the peasantry could have been won over to the revolution, under the leadership of the working class. As the U.S. SWP described it: "
"Tens of thousands of Afghan workers and peasants took to the streets, a section of the army rebelled, a new government came to power."

4. The Red Army intervention made possible the extension of the gains of the October Revolution to Afghanistan.

5. The imperialists supported the counterrevolutionaries from the beginning, before the USSR intervened. Why didn't YKHSOW's trend cry foul then? Why didn't they defend the Afghan state against imperialist intervention, at least under their favorite cover of "self-determination"? Why was it only when the USSR intervened much later, against the imperialist-backed contras that they cried about 'interference in the Afghan people's matters'? As the U.S. SWP wrote at the time: "... the issue is not Soviet intervention, but a growing U.S. intervention—aimed at taking back the gains won by the Afghan masses—that finally forced the Soviet Union to respond."

6. The Red Army was not defeated in Afghanistan, it was treachorously withdrawn when the war had began to turn in its favor. This reality is reinforced by the fact that the revolutionary government in Afghanistan continued to win battles (including it's success in defending Jalalabad), didn't fall until some time after the Red Army withdrew.

7. Afghan is not a nation in the traditional sense. It was carved out of central Asia as a buffer state. Many of the people in Afghanistan are unrelated to each other and have never lived under the control of any effective central state. They identify more along ethnic, tribal or language lines than as "Afghans."

8. Trotsky, a person that YHSOW's political trend claims as a political forebear, fought against comrades who cried about the USSR's invasion of Finland (which was carried out as a defensive manuever, during the time of the pact with Nazi Germany). He mocked their defense of "poor little democratic Finland" and asserted that the defense of the USSR - even in a bureaucratically deformed form - took precedence over formal democratic principles". I am not endorsing that line, but it's important to note in that this trend has nothing to do with any part of the workers' movement.

9. Lenin described communist policy in his On the Slogan for a United States of Europe: "After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."


It's false because for progress to actually be achieved, it must be achieved by the actual beneficiaries of progress engaging in the process of class struggle. This is a possitively non-materialist viewpoint. This has nothing to do with the communism of Marx. To assert this as law is to deny that - despite all the horrors it brought about - imperialism did not introduce some modernization to certain places (which is not at all to say that it should be supported; but this is a reality). It also skirts the question of uneven development and the reality that the imperialist powers prevent socities in the imperialist-oppressed world from naturally developing. Finally, in this abstract form, the question itself cannot be correctly addressed. A defensive intervention by a workers' state is not the same as an imperialist war of plunder.


Think about modern day Poland: a country where "enlightened" bureaucratic elites spent years tackling the influence of the Catholic Church, of trying to build "socialism", of trying to raise the moral and cultural height of Poles. And what is Poland now, after all their efforts? A ultra neo-liberal pro-US aircraft carrier that hates gays and bans abortion.This would be incredibly funny if it wasn't so outright sad. Poland is what it is today as a result of the counterrevolution that occured in that country. And who lead that counterrevolution? The Catholic Church/U.S.-backed fake "Solidarity" union that bogus "communists" like YKHSOW backed!

Oh the absurdity.

[PRC-UTE]

excellent points raised, comrade. I hope you find the time to write a book on these subjects some day, would be worth a read.

[chimx]

2. The bureaucracy in the USSR was dragged into the civil war in Afghanistan. They turned down early requests for soldiers and air force assistance by the Afghan government (which could have eliminated the counterrevolutionaries easily, early on), and instead sent "military advisers." It was only when Reagan's "freedom fighters" began to advance, thus threatening the very security of the USSR, that they finally agreed to intervene.

If you read this politburo meeting, it seems tome that the USSR agreed to send in military advisers before the soviet army or air force:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/r1.pdf

Also interesting is the Soviet government's acknowledgment for why they entered Afghanistan:


In my opinion, we must commence from a fundamental proposition in considering the question of aid to Afghanistan, namely: under no circumstances may we lose Afghanistan. For 60 years now we have lived with Afghanistan in peace and friendship. And if we lose Afghanistan now and it turns against the Soviet Union, this will result in a sharp setback to our foreign policy.

The Soviet Government also identified the Afghan masses as "reactionary".


Ah, I knew someone would invent the Afghan working class!

Yes it was non-existent. In a phone conversation between Soviet Premier Kosygin and the Afghan PM Tarki, they discuss the Afghan workers support in Herat, as well as its size:

K: Do you have support among the workers, city dwellers, the petty bourgoisie, and the white collar workers in Herat? Is there still anoyone on your side?

T: There is no active support on the party of the population. It is almost wholly under the influence of Shiite slogans -- follow not the heathens, but follow us. The propaganda isunderpinned by this.

K: arethere many workers there?

T: Very few -- between 1,000 and 2,000 people in all.

SOURCE (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/r2.pdf)

Also, getting back to the first assertion, in this conversation the Afghan Prime Minister literally begs over and over for the Soviet Union to send in troops to deal with the problems in Herat, but the Soviet Premier says that would be impossible.

I believe similar requests were made in '78 and also denied.

[YKTMX]

An invasion by an imperialist state is entirely different than defensive assistance from a workers' state. The notion that the Soviet Union was a workers' state is, needless to say, fantastical.


This leads them to attack bureaucratized proletarian states as "state capitalist" and hop on the bandwagon for every imperialist-backed counterrevolutionary force that emerges; from Solidarnosc - the only union Ronald Reagan ever loved - in Poland to the mullah/warlord contras in Afghanistan.
Well, it's clear that this is all false. I, of course, wouldn't have backed the contras in Central America or the South in the Vietnam war. Why? Well, because the processes in Central America involved counterrevolution against gains made by actual revolutionary movements with real popular roots. Against them was pitted a reactionary/mercenary elite funded by big business and the CIA.

In Afghanistan, despite CDL's ludicrious fantasies about support for the Kabul proxy, the opposite was the case. The government was an agent of imperialism and the opposition was rooted in the people. Now, this doesn't mean we need to support everything the opposition did or stood for, and it certainly doesn't mean we support American/Saudi involvement. But the dominant question remains: do Afghans (and let's not countenance CDL's slur that Afghanistan isn't a "real" nation) have a right to defend themselves or don't they?

I think they do.


The bureaucracy in the USSR was dragged into the civil war in Afghanistan.It was not a civil war. There was a Soviet-educated caste amongst the Afghan military, some "socialist" intellectuals against....EVERYBODY ELSE.

To call this a "civil war" would be to stretch the boundaries of even CDL's imaginations. This was a Soviet invasion designed to protect a proxy government against the popular will of its people.

CDL, in denying the popular will of the Afghan people, comes off like a Stalinist Kissinger.

"We can't allow a country to go Green because of the irresponsibility of its people!"


The Saur RevolutionaryThis is a fantasy. It was a military coup staged by pro-Soviet military officials. The Soviets had prior knowledge (they acknowledged the new government before most of the world even knew the "revolution" had occurred).

CDL is telling bare faced lies.


They identify more along ethnic, tribal or language lines than as "Afghans."
This may be true but it's also true that "Afghans" (as you put it) had a long history of opposition to imperialist intervention in their affairs, particularly related to the British. This left a tradition of opposition to foreign powers that has expressed itself ever since and is the one area where real "national" consciousness was built up.


This is a possitively non-materialist viewpoint. Really? So when Marx said that "all History is the history of class struggle" what did he mean? Do you think he was "making it up"?


To assert this as law is to deny that - despite all the horrors it brought about - imperialism did not introduce some modernization to certain places (which is not at all to say that it should be supported; but this is a reality). I can't believe I'm reading this crap. Did Niall Ferguson just walk into the thread?

The "reality" CDL speaks to is one invented by apologists and racist crackpots. Let's take one example of two comparable nations, or places that would latterly become nations (India and China). Doesn't it give anyone pause about extolling the virtues of "Imperialism" that, for instance, the rate of infant mortality in China was lower than it was in India in the 50's and 60's? Despite the fact that India had been ruled by Britain up until the 40's and China had more or less resisted imperialist "modernization", and instead was "modernized" by a process civil war and revolution? Does it not give CDL a bit of pause when he thinks about the case of Ireland, where the economy was intentionally kept dependent and subordinate to the "British" economy for centuries and has only recently become "modernized"? Does he know nothing about dependency theory and how countries in the imperialist orbit are intentionally denied the right and the ability to modernize, so as to benefit the imperialist country?

Furthermore, if this is his position (that imperialism can still assist the dark people) what doesn't he state he explicitly supports the imperialist occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Both these occupations have the same rhetoric the Soviet invasion did: helping women, defeating fundamentalism, modernization, democratization.

Is CDL so dishonest that he can't accept the logic of his own logic?


Finally, in this abstract form, the question itself cannot be correctly addressed. A defensive intervention by a workers' state is not the same as an imperialist war of plunder1) The Soviet regime was not run by the workers and you can't seriously believe that it was
2) The notion that the intervention was "defensive" is ludicrous. The coup in '78 was directed by the Soviet government, carried out by Soviet agents and the eventual government packed with Soviet employees. These people knew the outcome that would result from their ludicrious "reform" programs and repression. It was defensive in the same way that the attack on Iraq was "preemptive".


And who lead that counterrevolution? The Catholic Church/U.S.-backed fake "Solidarity" union that bogus "communists" like YKHSOW backed!
So Priests and a fake union overthrow a popularly backed workers' state? And I'm being accussed of lacking a "materialist" analysis? My god, the CIA are powerful aren't they.

Once again, you're not being serious.

[Psy]

In Afghanistan, despite CDL's ludicrious fantasies about support for the Kabul proxy, the opposite was the case. The government was an agent of imperialism and the opposition was rooted in the people. Now, this doesn't mean we need to support everything the opposition did or stood for, and it certainly doesn't mean we support American/Saudi involvement. But the dominant question remains: do Afghans (and let's not countenance CDL's slur that Afghanistan isn't a "real" nation) have a right to defend themselves or don't they?

I think they do.

Afganistan was more backwards then Russia after Peter the Great (let alone 1917 Russia), the CIA was keeping Afganistan backwards for their imperialist interests. Afganistan was still in the dark ages, occupation by the USSR could have been a huge improvement if the USSR smashed the caste system in Afganistan and implemented the USSR mode of production, regardless of the flaws of the USSR mode of production it was vastly more progressive then that in Afganistan.



This may be true but it's also true that "Afghans" (as you put it) had a long history of opposition to imperialist intervention in their affairs, particularly related to the British. This left a tradition of opposition to foreign powers that has expressed itself ever since and is the one area where real "national" consciousness was built up.

This was tactical problem of the USSR occupation, the USSR should have focused on guarding the north and build massive industrial cities in the north (shorter supply lines) to suck the people of Afganistan from the rural areas into the factories of the north built by the USSR.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you read this politburo meeting, it seems tome that the USSR agreed to send in military advisers before the soviet army or air force:
Which is exactly what I said: the bureaucracy initially denied requests to send in the Red Army instead sent "military advisers." Early on, the bureaucracy in the USSR urged the revolutionary government in Afghan to slow down the pace of its reforms, so as not to upset the warlords, et. al. Brezhnev refused to send regular forces, saying it would provoke the imperialists. They were later forced to send in regular forces out of a need to defend themselves (to prevent the formation of a hostile imperialist-backed state on its southern border).

I'm not sure if you were trying to support or refute my arguments.. it wasn't exactly clear, though it seems as if it was the latter.


Yes it [working class] was non-existent.
Ah, I knew someone would invent the Afghan working class!As I said earlier, 35,000 people were employed in manufacturing.(source: United Nations Statistical Yearbook 1978)

There were also numerous school teachers and some university professors, along with public service workers. The PDPA's base of support was largely rooted in these groups.

I never said the working class was large or dominant; in fact I said the opposite. A small working class did exist however.


Afganistan was still in the dark ages, occupation by the USSR could have been a huge improvement if the USSR smashed the caste system in Afganistan and implemented the USSR mode of production, regardless of the flaws of the USSR mode of production it was vastly more progressive then that in Afganistan.
Exactly! Only the most stubborn liberal or anticommunist could argue otherwise. And even some liberals recognized the gains that were made under the revolutionary government, especially for women. Despite the bureaucracies that sat atop the heads of some of the socialist states formed in backwards countries, there can be no doubt that huge gains were made within them for workers. Full employment and healthcare, decent housing, giant strides in education and lifespan, etc., embodied these gains.

And the establishment of a bureaucratized proletarian state would have wrested control of the land out of the hands of the imperialists, created a large working class and raised the possibility for the future establishment of socialism.


..the USSR should have focused on guarding the north and build massive industrial cities in the north (shorter supply lines) to suck the people of Afganistan from the rural areas into the factories of the north built by the USSR.Well, they should have at least done something (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the approach you recommend - specific conditions at the time would have to dictate). But the outlook of the bureaucracy had nothing to do with proletarian internationalism.

Along with greatly increasing the size of the working class, many young supporters of the revolutionary government should have been sent to the USSR to study from the very beginning.

* * *

YKHSOW's arguments again read like a laundry list of liberal viewpoints, asides and baseless jabs. Few of them are worth responding to.


I, of course, wouldn't have backed the contras in Central America or the South in the Vietnam war. Why? Well, because the processes in Central America involved counterrevolution against gains made by actual revolutionary movements with real popular roots. Against them was pitted a reactionary/mercenary elite funded by big business and the CIA.Who funded the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan? The CIA and the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China.

Whose interests did they fight in? The mullahs, land lords, the clergy and the imperialists. (Certainly they didn't fight in the interests of the tiny working class or peasantry; they opposed land reform, the seperation of church and state, women's liberation, universal education, lifting the ban on the veil, eliminating the bride price, etc. -- these are people who threw battery acid in the face of people who tought girls how to read, similar to the contras attacks on teachers in Nicaragua.. same boss, same tactics).

Because the revolutionary government's initial support dwindled, and because it was weakened by infighting and especially counterrevolutionary attacks, doesn't mean we should have thrown the masses of Afghanistan to the wolves! Taking on the same positions of Ronald Reagan because of some liberal notion of mass support is ludicrous -- even moreso for someone who calls themselves a communist!

The majority of people in the U.S. originally supported the invasion of Iraq.. maybe we shouldn't have opposed it..


It was a military coup staged by pro-Soviet military officials.It wasn't a coup.

It happened like this (a very short version):

Two large protests/uprising, lead by the PDPA, broke out in late 77 and early 78. Both were smashed by the government, and leading members of the PDPA were jailed.

After the second uprising, Kaibar, a union leader and leading member of the PDPA, was killed by government forces.

A massive protest broke out against the assassination. Many of the participants were union members.

The government then arrested many of the leaders of the PDPA. Amin and other leaders of the military wing of the party escaped arrest.

Another uprising started at the Kabul International Airport, and soon spread to Kabul itself. Under the orders of the military wing of the party, a section of the army rebelled and stormed the palace. The palace guard resisted strongly. Strategic places such as the Ministry of Defense, radio stations and telecommunication centers were seized. The palace guards were isolated and finally defeated.

After seizing power, the military forces handed control over to the civilian wing of the party (some coup.. a military seizing power to hand it over instantly).

People in the cities of Afghanistan welcomed the revolution. Hundreds of thousands held victory marches in the cities.

But don't take my word for it:

"On April 27, 1978, to prevent the police from attacking a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army intervened, and after firing a single shot from a tank at the palace, the government resigned. The military officers then invited the Marxist party to form the government, under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a university professor.

"This is how a Marxist government came into office -- it was a totally indigenous happening -- not even the CIA blamed the U.S.S.R. for this." - http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html)

Then we can see what Lenin has to say about such things:

"The term ‘putsch’, in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses." That clearly wasn't the case, as can be seen by the uprisings and large demonstrations.

Lenin also said "The exploiters can be defeated at one stroke in the event of a successful uprising at the centre, or of a revolt in the army."

As Emine Engin asked in his book on the Saur Revolution: "In Russia as well, soldiers made up an important section of the striking force. Clashes were brief and power was seized with relatively few losses. What did last for a long time were the sharp and bloody clashes throughout the civil war. And in the civil war certain backward sections of the people took the side of counterrevolution. Was the October Revolution a ‘coup’?"

On the counterrevolution:

Many in the backward countryside either did not support the revolution, or were neutral. The revolutionary government eliminated all peasant debt early on, but the landlords responded by hording grain. The government was unable to secure grain for the peasants, thus making things even harded for them then they were orginally. This turned many against the government. The U.S. helped organize and supported a counterrevolutionary armed based on the warlords and the mullahs the revolutionary government sought to eliminate. According to Brzezinki (Carter's right hand man), this was done largely with the intention of provoking the USSR to intervene militarily.


The Soviets had prior knowledge (they acknowledged the new government before most of the world even knew the "revolution" had occurred).This is meaningless. A communist party shared its plans with another communist party in a proletarian state, from which it sought aid.

No one -- not even bourgeois historians -- with any understanding of the situation today seriously argues that the revolutionary was staged by the USSR. The USSR was involved in all sorts of agreements and even sent quite a bit of military aid to the Doud government that the revolution overthrew. The bureaucracy in the USSR and Khalq were in conflict with each other from the start. It's nonsense to say this was a coup engineered in Moscow.. which is why no one who is serious makes that claim.


So Priests and a fake union overthrow a popularly backed workers' state? And I'm being accussed of lacking a "materialist" analysis?I never said it was a "popularly backed workers' state" [sic]. You invent positions for me then attack them.

Poland was a bureaucratized proletarian state. A privileged bureaucracy ruled over a collectivized economy that was created by the overturn of capitalist property relations.

The clergy/CIA backed fake "union" spearheaded the counterrevolution.

* * *

I won't respond to the strawmen about imperialism, as they have nothing to do with anything I said. As I said, despite the horrors that imperialism brought to the imperialist oppressed world, it did introduce some modernizing elements... just as the expansion of certain empires did to some extent in earlier times. This is not something any materialist, including Marx himself, would argue. This has nothing to do with supporting imperialism, saying it was good imperialism came on the scene, etc., it is simply stating a fact.

The Chinese Revolution state introduced many gains to the toilers of Tibet, which provoked resistance from the monks, who were coincidentally supported by the CIA. Liberals opposed that. YKHSOW shares their outlook.

[YKTMX]

After seizing power, the military forces handed control over to the civilian wing of the party (some coup.. a military seizing power to hand it over instantly).

...the anti-Chavez coup in 2002:

The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. This government has promised early elections.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/800

It was a pro-Moscow coup led by Soviet-educated lower officer corps sympathetic to a Stalinist organization with no mass base. This is the position most serious historians take because this is the conclusion the facts support. To call it a "revolution" should be beyond the pale, even for you.

Of course coups involve some degree of "civil unrest" accompanying them. The army always relies and plays upon some degree of public support when it decides to change things. But to equate this with, god almighty, the October Revolution?! You have brass neck, don't you?


People in the cities of Afghanistan welcomed the revolution. Hundreds of thousands held victory marches in the cities.

And millions of people welcomed the fall of "communism" in Eastern Europe. In fact, the movements against Stalinism in the East have fair more claim to popular, working class support and involvement than the military coup in Afghanistan. Yet, you bitterly oppose one of these movements and fervently support the other. This is because the working class only come into your narrow purview when they're subjects of the geopolitical concerns of imperialist states. I, and my "tendency", on the other hand, always support the rights of workers' and oppressed group to defend themselves from imperialism, whether directed from Washington or from Moscow. On that, we're consistent - workers' and the oppressed against all enemies.

So, please, stop deploying the "working classes" when it has some instrumental value for your Stalinist politics.

Moving on, CDL rather meekly pointed that the Soviet Union had previously supported the "Doud" [sic] government and this is true. But he then forgets their latter hostility to the government, a hostility that provided the basis for a second coup, in 1978, against him and his regime. It was based on their disgust that he had failed to become the puppet they had hoped for, aligning himself with the Shah in foreign policy circles and approaching Iran and Saudi Arabia for foreign aid in an attempt to lessen Afghan dependence on Soviet aid. He announced plans to meet Pres. Carter and visit Saudi Arabia. This was clearly in accordance with most Afghan's wishes, since most Afghans hated the Soviet Union and favoured closer alliance with the "Islamic" nations. Moreover, the Stalinist parties CDL credits with leading the "revolution" (coup) were tiny (the PDPA had something like 5000 members). Although, CDL is right in saying that the coup was launched partly because Daoud arrested some members of the PDPA (as well as arresting people on the "right") and threatening, it seemed, to shoot them.

The "crisis" preceeding and provoked by the PDPA-Soviet coup was nothing like a revolutionary upheaval. It was a coup, maybe planned, but definetly consented to in Moscow. From a KGB officer at the time:


Not only did he arrest the leaders of the Afghan Communist party, but he planned to execute them. The Afghan Communists were in a desperate position. They consulted the Soviet embassy in Kabul. Moscow quickly confirmed that we would support their proposed coup against Daoud. Just before it was too late, the Communist leaders ordered the coup—in fact, from their prison cells.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955063,00.html

Now, this man is a defector and so we might take his words with a pinch of salt, but I think they're believable considering the close links between Soviet educated officers, the Kremlin and the "Marxist" parties.

In terms of the role of the masses in the coup, most honest observers say that the only "popular rebellion" in Aghanistan was the rebellion launched by Afghans in opposition to the government's cack-handed and culturally insensitive practices (most of the middle class "socialist" intellectuals involved in implementing the government's policies had no connections whatsoever with the folk they met in the countryside). This opposition was met with good old Stalinist responses: strafing villages and burning crops in "rebel areas".

The reason for the Soviet invasion was that the government had so exhausted itself that even the army, its social base, had begun to become unreliable. The Soviets feared overthrow and a pro-U.S/Saudi government in Kabul. It had nothing to do with "socialist internationalism", not the least because it had become clear that the government had no traction at all outside Kabul to implement "reforms".

Anyone with access to JSTOR can read Middle East expert Alam Payind's article on the matter here (http://www.jstor.org/stable/163642?&Search=yes&term=soviet-afghan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dsovi et-afghan%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dsoviet-afghanistan%26hp%3D25&item=1&ttl=152&returnArticleService=showArticle), or David Gibbs (http://http://www.jstor.org/stable/424428?&Search=yes&term=soviet-afghan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dsovi et-afghan%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dsoviet-afghanistan%26hp%3D25&item=20&ttl=152&returnArticleService=showArticle). For those interested in the actual social base and organizing ideology of the Afghan resistance, this (http://http://www.jstor.org/stable/2644334?&Search=yes&term=soviet-afghan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26l a%3D%26gw%3Djtx%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3D soviet-afghan%26sbq%3Dsoviet-afghan%26prq%3Dsoviet-afghanistan%26si%3D51%26jtxsi%3D51&item=71&ttl=152&returnArticleService=showArticle) excellent article outlines its history and its roots. I'll quote one part of it:

"Virtually all social groups joined in the rebellion. Ethnic groups, religious movements, tribal factions, regional groups, radical leftist factions...some rejected the regime for religious reasons, others because they resented centralized authority. The rebellion was diverse and wholly uncoordinated, rising spontaneously amongst the people".

For those interested in tankie mythology, stories about the "socialism" of Leonid Brezhnev and forays into the "Stalin School of Falsification", send CDL a PM.


The clergy/CIA backed fake "union" spearheaded the counterrevolution.


Haha.

You're a joke.

[Psy]

Afganistan was still in the dark ages, Marx said that capitalism was more progressive then feudalism and Afganistan was not even a mature feudalist power. Meaning you have to stop think about Afganistan independence but would it better for Afganistan to be occupied by the USA of the USSR. Look at Afganistan now under US occupation where the US has not lifted a finger to smash the caste system, meaning US occupation is not drag Afganistan out of the dark ages and into the bourgeois mode of production. In hind sight the USSR occupation would have been better regardless of how brutal it turned out, just like Mao turned out better then Nationalist China as at least Mao destroyed the feudal order in China.

[chimx]

I'm not sure if you were trying to support or refute my arguments..

I must have misread what you said.

If you are interested in more politburo documents and such, I have a section of primary sources from soviet archives that deal with the soviet/afghan shit in the pinned primary source thread in this forum.