Why I am a Titoist

[Ismail]

His post had little to nothing to do with Stalin. Address it, you cowardly bastard.

No.

They would have.

Prove it.

If you're going to blame them for the Hungarian uprising you're a fucking idiot. The uprising would have occurred regardless.

Hoxha noted in The Khrushchevites that the Hungarian leaders refused to listen to him. Hoxha called for the Petofi Club to be shut down and for some liberals to be shot to "teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is." The Hungarian leaders instead looked at him, as Hoxha noted, like he was insane, and just spoke about the need for "socialist legality" and such. This was not long before the uprising, of which the seeds were able to spread due to the "destalinization" drive.

[gorillafuck]

Hoxha called for the Petofi Club to be shut down and for some liberals to be shot to "teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is."

Hoxha's advice: shoot some liberals

[Ismail]

Hoxha's advice: shoot some liberals

Well he couldn't express the idea of overthrowing Khrushchev, since he was responsible for those liberals emerging as "victims" of "Stalinism" to begin with.

[Amal]

Hoxha's advice: shoot some liberals

Why not? The liberals behave far more badly with communists when they are in power. They are like pests to the humanity and must be cleansed.

[Rafiq]

No.

Than you're a coward and an idiot. You not responding (but responding to me) signifies his victory (And mine, considering you gave up about the topic we were discussing). You pulled a stunt in an attempt to fragment the giant post into what you wanted to respond to, making it easier on you. Nope, you fuck.

Prove it.

You can't prove a hypothetical event (Stalin not dying) but if we use a Materialist analysis, if we look at the actions and policies Stalin upheld, in his opportunist ways, we could predict that even if these individuals were not rehabilitated, others in simliar situations would have been, and the Uprising would have occured regardless.

As a "vulgur materialist" I state that these individuals had little to nothing to do with the inevitability of the Yugoslav uprising.

Of course, someone like Grenzer has a good grasp on this kind of materialism, but I bet you're too cowardly to label him as an apologist for Revisionism as well. Or is every materialist a revisionist? Look, even in your signature attempts to give a materialist analysis of revisionism (Why did the Soviet Union collapse?)

Perhaps a re-read would be most helpful.

it also explains how Mao's productive forces theory is applied to this, which is why earlier in this thread I asserted At least Mao tried to give a materialist explanation for revisionism, unlike Hoxha.

Hoxha noted in The Khrushchevites that the Hungarian leaders refused to listen to him.

The masses were most dissatisfied and, the uprising would have occurred regardless of the compliance of the Hungarian leaders (whom were later shot).

Try again.

Hoxha called for the Petofi Club to be shut down and for some liberals to be shot to "teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is."

This wouldn't be a bad move if it was actually a dictatorship of the proletariat and not just a Bourgeois state draped in red.

The Hungarian leaders instead looked at him, as Hoxha noted, like he was insane, and just spoke about the need for "socialist legality" and such. This was not long before the uprising, of which the seeds were able to spread due to the "destalinization" drive.

This shit Idealist analysis was given after the uprising, much after. The final straw was the Yugoslav endorsement of it. Again, it all goes back to Yugoslavia with Hoxha. The refusal to give up Kosovo created Hoxhaism.

[Rafiq]

Well he couldn't express the idea of overthrowing Khrushchev, since he was responsible for those liberals emerging as "victims" of "Stalinism" to begin with.

Your sig link would classify you as an adherer of the Traitors thesis.

Khrushchev did what he did to feed Soviet capital. All his policies were done to do so. As were Stalin's. If feeding capital means denouncing Stalin, by all means, whether it be Khrushchev, or Molotov successing Stalin they would have done the exact same thing. Such is a principle of Historical Materialism.

Of course, a Hoxhaist like yourself would sacrifice such a core structural tenet of Marxism in order to agree with Hoxha.

[A Marxist Historian]

I am top posting, as nobody could possibly have the patience to read all the way to the end.

Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

Just the logic of "socialism in one country," one more time.

And, BTW, one of the interminable postings to this thread from Rafiq made some claims about how the Ukrainians felt about the Soviet regime. Well, the Ukraine still exists, and Ukrainians make their views felt.

Western Ukraine, which was under Poland not the Soviet Union during the 1930s, and was a fascist stomping ground during WWII, is very anti-Soviet, and western Ukrainians hate communism by and large.

Soviet Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, where the "holodomor" actually happened, is pro-Soviet and leftist, and people there have little time for Ukrainian nationalism. As they're the people who actually lived through it, they know that Hitler fascism, and the right wing Ukrainian nationalists from Western Ukraine who collaborated with it, was much, much worse. And they don't care much for the capitalism that's been shoved down their throats since the USSR collapsed.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian Communist Party is thoroughly pro-capitalist, indeed it is basically a capitalist party altogether, with lots of Ukrainian capitalists in it and little or no involvement with trade unions or workers' struggles, so it doesn't have as much weight as even the Russian equivalent does, as Ukrainian nationalism is much less popular in Eastern Ukraine than Russian nationalism has in Russia, and nationalism is the real calling card of the degenerated ex-Stalinist parties in that part of the world calling themselves "communist."

-M.H.-

The Middle East and Palestine aren't irrelevant, they're of main interest to United States and Imperialist foreign policy in modern times. Albania could never be compared in the same way.



Would you support Fascists if they were fighting against Imperialism? Which side would you consider more progressive? Communists oppose both. But which one is more socially progressive in regards to views on Women, minorities, etc. ?



Communism is irrelevant in both Tunisia and Portugal. When you say "Largest CP", that could have anywhere from two to 100 members in those countries. Nice try, shit head.



All of them are. The Tunisian and Portuguese Hoxhaist parties are just as irrelevant as the rest.



Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thought. It's not, in any way shape or form, an ideological vanguard for a mass movement. It's not comparable to hoxhaism, trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Even though none of those would exist without Orthodox Marxism.



If Hoxha "Normalized" relations with the U.S., it would make little to no difference. It still didn't have an option, it was never a large player in world politics, despite your obscure fantasies of Hoxha's Albania ever being relevant.



What's your point, exactly? That they had the option to put an embassy in the USSR and the United States? How noble of them.



The regime was only unpopular on the Rural, isolated side of Afghanistan in which the population was largely illiterate and uneducated. The Landowners took advantage of this and as a result... We know the story.



Again, the sky is blue, who cares? We are arguing on whether the Muj are to be supported.



Actually, shit head, this was probably the most significant factor, all others merely being a chain of events in response.



What kind of Populist bullshit is this? That still isn't viable justification for supporting the Muj ("Afghan people" in bullshit terms).




The Vietcong can't be compared to the fucking Muhajadeen, I'm sorry.



Many Maoists claim it was. Okay, even if it was not in Hoxhaist terms, can you name me a couple successful National Liberation wars (that INCLUDED class collaboration) that didn't end up with the oppressing class in power?



Yes yes, dismiss my whole post because I mentioned Nepal.



Actually, it's just Imperialism, because we Scientific Marxists understand the terms in a strict materialist matter, and recognize a country is Imperialist regardless if it prefers to drape itself in a red banner.



Hoxha wanted the "Afghan People" (The Muj) to be victorious over the Soviet Union. He got what he wanted. He predicted that this would pave way for real class struggle in Afghanistan and real grounds for "real communists" (Hoxhaists which don't exist) to gain the support of hte population and take over the country. You tell me, was he right? Is Afghanistan a better place without the Soviet "puppet regime"? A real Marxian such as myself would oppose both sides in the conflict, seeing that both the rule of the PDPA and modern day Afghanistan are pretty shitty. But since Hoxhaists chose to side with the Muj, they have to be consistent and identify with the result.



These are not comparable scenarios. Like I said, the Albanian PPSH cannot be compared to the Muhajadin, but the Muj can definitely be compared to several Fascist currents. The PPSH were more Progressive than the Italian Fascists, yet the Muj was extremely reactionary in comparison to the Soviet Union. That's the difference.



Okay, more Bourgeois academic works. I can cite you 100 books that are "Academic" that assert Stalin killed 30 million people. This isn't a viable source, though.



And what was end result? A shit hole. A bigger shit hole than the "revisionist" countries. As a matter of fact, revisionist countries on average did much better than Albania.



A situation emerges between Liberalist Imperialists and Fascist resistance that has support of the majority of the population. What's your answer?



When did I have illusions in regards to the Soviet motives in Afghanistan? Just because it's easy to point out that a group which forces women to marry their rapists is a tad bit less progressive than the Soviet Union.



Okay? I don't care if the majority of Afghans didn't identify with it. Also, from experience, it doesn't look like the majority of Albanians identified with their state. The mass immigration from Albania immidetly after the collapse could be a sign.



And foreign imperialism external from the Soviet Union had nothing to do with this. You seem to be under the impression that the Soviet Union was the only power that had interests in Afghanistan...



I love how you think Orthodox Marxism is some kind of Ideology or collective group of individuals who have the same opinion about everything. It's quite pathetic.



Be consistent. Want me to quote some Marx and Engels that were supporting British Imperialism in India?



No doubt. But as a women, as a religious minority, who'd you rather live under?



Oh fucking god, did you actually think it was supposed to be a deep fucking story? You totally ignored the fucking analogy. Ismail, answer me this: Conflict between Imperialist Liberalists and actual, existing Fascists. Whom do you think is more progressive? Both are to be opposed. But which one do you deem more reactionary?



Jesus fucking Christ you're a dumb one. Why do you take it so literal? It's a very simple analogy: The U.S. liberalists invade X place, X place Fascists opposing U.S. Imperialism with support of Rural population. Which one do you think, in your opinion, is more progressive? In your opinion, do you support Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad or Osama against U.S. Imperialism?



Something I pulled out of my ass, but the analogy brings up a great point. Would you support Fascists in the name of Anti Imperialism? Would you deem them as more progressive than the Liberalist-Bourgeois U.S.?



No, it just so happens that it's impossible to reach any sort of Victory in Afghanistan with such terrain, etc. when dealing with Geurrila warfare. Even if they had 20 million soldiers with them they wouldn't make a difference.



And this was after the Muj initially formed. And, I don't think there is much evidence to back up the claim that the Soviets massacred Peasants for no fucking reason, but oh well. Stalin probably did kill 30 million because he felt like it, glorious Imperialist sources told me this so it must be true.



But the Vietcong was socially progressive and the Muj were fucking disgusting Imperialist dogs. Don't you know the Muj was just a puppet of U.S.-Chinese interests in the region? Pakistani and Saudi dogs were merely part of the pack. It was an inter imperialist war. Feel free to support one end of the Imperialist spectrum of Capital.



Seems more progressive than massacring entire villages + bringing the country back 500 years back in time. The Soviet Soldiers fucked a lot of shit up in Hungary, but at least, in the end, it was better than what it was under Fascism. Why do you pick and choose? You'll deny Soviet Crimes in Hungary but assert they were made in Afghanistan. Why? Where in "Revisionist" doctrine does it say kill a bunch of fucking people for no reason"?



ML's are such good sources who aren't full of shit.



Lenin didn't ever make such a point. You can't have a proletarian basis when the majority of your makeup is from Students and Peasants. Sorry.



Of course not, but they were irrelevant and basically if they did not exist it would make no difference.




Who the fuck are you arguing with? Of course it was a puppet state. The question is, who is worse, the Muj or the puppet state? Both are to be opposed. You seem to concur with Hoxha in supporting the Muj against them.

No one in the West really knew the true face of the Muj until they actually got into power. Hoxha is not an exception. He was a stupid and naive bastard.



No, but that's different from the Soviets just invading the country for no reason. Surly a full blown puppet government wouldn't even need to call in Assistance, the Soviets would just come regardless.



It is common sense. Do you deny the Muhajadeen were growing under Amin? Do you deny many in the Afghan government thought Amin was fucking crazy as hell and wanted him deposed?




You need to get out of this fantasy land where you think people take Hoxha seriously. I don't care what he has to say. He isn't a credible source.




Those sources didn't say anything about the Bolsheviks supporting Class collaboration in Albania. Like I said, Albania didn't even have a communist party in the early 20's, so your source is not to be taken seriously.



Again, read what I said about Turkey, Afghanistan, etc. during the time. Besides, theoretically, Lenin had no illusions, National Liberation in class collaboration is to be avoided.



No, becuase you're the only one spouting out the bullshit. I'm responding to everything you've said. Even in this segment alone, you've only responded to little over half of what I actually posted.


So, the fact that you wouldn't respond to a lot of my post signifies that you either concur with them or cannot respond because you're too stupid. Which means that, in such an argument, they stand unrefuted.






Not progressive, but more progressive than the Muj. The Muj was an Imperialist proxy. One Imperialist power can be more progressive than the other, that doesn't mean their over all character is progressive.



Keep arguing with a ghost



Millions of Afghans civilians were not murdered as a direct result of Soviet Bullets. The same sources you post concur with the bullshit about the red army raping the shit out of Europe in WW2. Papa Hegel's notion of totality heavily remains relevant to this.



I wasn't denying it, I just was curious. And you haven't provided a source, and it wasn't common sense, so I'd take it your just talking out of your ass.




Boo hoo let's get all emotional. Shut the fuck up. The Soviets, if anything, would have just left hte PDPA in head of state. And, as evidence shows, people who didn't "Respect" the Soviet Union, young girls, were never shot for this. I doubt it would be any different.

Look deep into yourself, you pile of shit. Do you really think that the Soviet soldiers would systemically shoot little girls for "protesting"? Sounds a lot like the Fascist propaganda in WW2 against the SU, more shock value bullshit. And yes, fuck both sides, fucking scum bag, now you're criticizing me because I'm not supporting the Muj? Little girls who just want an education have acid thrown on them, young girls taken as property as wives, fucking rape victims forced to marry their offenders, would never exist under the Soviet Union, nothing comparable, not even such reactionary atrocities would exist under the United States of America.



Except it was the U.S. who created that shit storm, who created the Muj, and, in the end, do nothing progressive for Afghanistan.



You want to lecture me on Class struggle yet you claim no classes existed in Afghanistan and that it was just "The people" verse "Soviet Union".




But did I say I fucked supported the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Yes, you piece of shit, in the end, the proxy regime the U.S. would set up would be more progressive than the Muhajadeen it is fighting against. That is a fact. That doesn't mean being more progressive signifies support from Radicals, it just means what it means. The U.S. style of Imperialism isn't setting up progressive govt and modernizing country, it is go in, fuck things up, and leave it to rot to shit.


You're the one taking sides in the conflict, not me. I just don't have my head in my ass and won't ever dare consider support for the Muj.




The U.S. Backed Islamic republic of Afghanistan is a theocratic Shit hole which more or less is on the same level of being reactionary as the Muj.




I didn't fucking say the Soviet Union's occupation was objectivly progressive, I said it was more progressive than the fucking Muj, there is a difference, you know, you fuck.





Orthodox Marxism is more structurally organized in Ideas than Hoxhaism, calling it eclecticism is absurdity. I am not the embodiment of Orthodox Marxism, by the way.

orthodox Marxism historically had more of a basis outside of the internet than Hoxhaism. Without Orthodox Marxism, Marxism Leninism would not exist, and Marxian thinking would be very much shit. Hoxhaism on the other hand, is very much so just an internet cult.





that's not consistency, that's just being a dumbass.



yes, okay? I didn't ever say I supported the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, feel free to cite me evidence that I did.




Ismail the dumbass thinks more Progressive is the same as Objectivly Progressive in general. Hezbollah Islamist are more progressive than the Muj but both are fucking disgusting reactionary scum who are to be opposed.

Ismail is the one taking sides supporting the Muhajadeen, which is why he's accusing me of supporting the Soviet Union, to justify his own shitty reactionary position.





Your prediction is wrong. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?




That's not propaganda from me, it's an objective historical fact.

[Drosophila]

Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

I don't know much about Albania, nor am I an "apologist" for it, but I can say that this is an incredibly wrong and stupid assertion.

[Corbeau]

Since this has turned into a discussion about Albania and everything else *but* Tito and Yugoslavia, allow me to try to set the discussion back on track. I'd like to offer a different view (and a short one) on one of the aspects of it.

There are many remarks that Yugoslavia wasn't really socialist. Maybe it wasn't by definition, but didn't Marx himself write something about how a country first needs to go through a capitalist/industrialisation phase, that is, a bourgeois revolution before it can start a socialist one? In other words, in order to have a workers' state, you need to have workers first. While the reality was that in 1945. 90% of Yugoslavia was farming and agriculture, doesn't it seem more natural that the communists first tried to develop an industrial society that is a precondition for a socialist revolution?

This "socialist capitalism" that Yugoslavia is being accused of seems to me like more of a developmental phase leading to socialism and communism and is actually pretty consistent with everything the Yugoslav communists were saying. If it wasn't torn apart by the fall of the Eastern Bloc and nationalism, who knows what we may have witnessed in another 50 years...

[Ismail]

This "socialist capitalism" that Yugoslavia is being accused of seems to me like more of a developmental phase leading to socialism and communism and is actually pretty consistent with everything the Yugoslav communists were saying. If it wasn't torn apart by the fall of the Eastern Bloc and nationalism, who knows what we may have witnessed in another 50 years...

Well yeah. In addition, the Chinese leadership could be right: they are gloriously advancing the productive forces in accordance with the teachings of Marx in order to pave the way for the continued development of socialism at a later date.

I consider both unlikely, since both operated/operate like capitalist states and since both bastardized/bastardize Marxism. Yugoslav sources continually claimed that the development of capitalism was making class struggle increasingly irrelevant since apparently better technology/computerization/etc. was unwittingly introducing aspects of "socialism" into capitalism. That's why Tito said things like the New Deal being a step towards "socialism." That's not a Marxist analysis, that's an analysis that found support among social-democrats, who in fact tended to adore Yugoslavia.

All Yugoslavia produced was an essentially social-democratic state with an unworkable nationalities policy (which went down in flames in large part because of the capitalist and competitive nature of the republics.)

Albania started off in most cases worse than Yugoslavia in 1945. It had no problems industrializing. It just didn't have some advantages like huge influxes of Western aid to combat Soviet influence as Yugoslavia enjoyed.

Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

Just the logic of "socialism in one country," one more time.

Hoxha said that seeing the Mujahidin fight in the mountains, hide behind rocks, rapidly move from place to place, etc. reminded him of Albania's very own National Liberation War.

I don't recall him saying that Afghanistan was another glorious Muslim country fighting the Christian invaders or anything, which makes sense since in Albania religion was totally outlawed in 1967, Hoxha denounced Sharia laws on women and the practice of the veil, he himself was an atheist since childhood (his uncle influenced him in that direction), and Albania doesn't have a history of religious zealousness; it was only 70% Muslim in 1945 and a good chunk of those were of the Bektashi sect (Hoxha's parents included), considered heretical by most other Muslims and tolerant towards Christians.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Than you're a coward and an idiot.

I know things can get frustrating, but cut out the personal attacks and insults - keep it political.

[Grenzer]

I
Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

Just the logic of "socialism in one country," one more time.

Socialism in one country is lame, but at least it beats cheering on Russian imperialism and pretending there is something revolutionary about it.

In addition, that statement betrays a profound ignorance of Hoxha's political doctrine. Hoxha was quite the anti-theist, particularly in regards to Islam. He went as far as to ban beards in Albania, in addition to the practice of Islam itself.

[khlib]

[A Marxist Historian]

Well yeah. In addition, the Chinese leadership could be right: they are gloriously advancing the productive forces in accordance with the teachings of Marx in order to pave the way for the continued development of socialism at a later date.

I consider both unlikely, since both operated/operate like capitalist states and since both bastardized/bastardize Marxism. Yugoslav sources continually claimed that the development of capitalism was making class struggle increasingly irrelevant since apparently better technology/computerization/etc. was unwittingly introducing aspects of "socialism" into capitalism. That's why Tito said things like the New Deal being a step towards "socialism." That's not a Marxist analysis, that's an analysis that found support among social-democrats, who in fact tended to adore Yugoslavia.

All Yugoslavia produced was an essentially social-democratic state with an unworkable nationalities policy (which went down in flames in large part because of the capitalist and competitive nature of the republics.)

Albania started off in most cases worse than Yugoslavia in 1945. It had no problems industrializing. It just didn't have some advantages like huge influxes of Western aid to combat Soviet influence as Yugoslavia enjoyed.

Hoxha said that seeing the Mujahidin fight in the mountains, hide behind rocks, rapidly move from place to place, etc. reminded him of Albania's very own National Liberation War.

I don't recall him saying that Afghanistan was another glorious Muslim country fighting the Christian invaders or anything, which makes sense since in Albania religion was totally outlawed in 1967, Hoxha denounced Sharia laws on women and the practice of the veil, he himself was an atheist since childhood (his uncle influenced him in that direction), and Albania doesn't have a history of religious zealousness; it was only 70% Muslim in 1945 and a good chunk of those were of the Bektashi sect (Hoxha's parents included), considered heretical by most other Muslims and tolerant towards Christians.

As for Yugoslavia, back in the 1980s, I have the advantage of having been around back then, the consensus of most random leftists was that Yugoslavia had gone capitalist under Tito's "market socialism," just as most random leftists go along with the myth that China is a capitalist country now.

But then when Yugoslavia fell apart into ethnic cleansing, the same leftists who were denouncing Yugoslavia as capitalist before were usually defending the Bosnians on the grounds that allegedly the Bosnians were continuing the Titoite tradition of ethnic harmony and workers control, vs. the murderous capitalistic Serbians.

And the leftists, the minority unfortunately, who had denounced Yugoslavia before as a capitalist country but now sided with Serbia were mostly claiming to defend Serbian "socialism," rather than just honestly defending Serbia vs. US imperialism no differently than Qaddafi's regime, or Saddam's.

Eh.

If the CCP gets overthrown and China actually does collapse into capitalism, all too possible, you'll see the same sort of thing all over again.

As for Hoxha not defending the Mujahedeen on the grounds of Islamic solidarity, of course not, he was a canny and intelligent politician. That would hardly have served him with anybody, including even the Albanian public, who would have seen that as hypocritical. Defending the Mujahedeen on whatever grounds he could cook up, however, most certainly did serve his interests as an Albanian leader.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

As for Hoxha not defending the Mujahedeen on the grounds of Islamic solidarity, of course not, he was a canny and intelligent politician. That would hardly have served him with anybody, including even the Albanian public, who would have seen that as hypocritical. Defending the Mujahedeen on whatever grounds he could cook up, however, most certainly did serve his interests as an Albanian leader.

Because simply saying "the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is an imperialist act" was totally out of nowhere and took Hoxha a lot of thinking to decide on, whereas "we love our glorious Muslim brothers who are fighting the Soviets" came natural to him (even though he was not only an atheist but presided over a country which was the only one on earth to totally outlaw religious practices), right?

I don't know where "Enver Hoxha endorsed the Afghan resistance because they were Muslims" comes from.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And khlib, please don't post images with nothing to add or one-liners - this isn't chit-chat.

[A Marxist Historian]

Because simply saying "the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is an imperialist act" was totally out of nowhere and took Hoxha a lot of thinking to decide on, whereas "we love our glorious Muslim brothers who are fighting the Soviets" came natural to him (even though he was not only an atheist but presided over a country which was the only one on earth to totally outlaw religious practices), right?

I don't know where "Enver Hoxha endorsed the Afghan resistance because they were Muslims" comes from.

Because Hoxha was a smart politician, and he knew what political position would go down well with the Albanian public, and would fit in best with Albania's diplomatic alignments.

For somebody like Hoxha, Marxist principles and theories were interesting hobbies, never allowed to contradict practical politics.

He happened to be quite good at hobby-Marxism. Intelligent, wrote well, etc. etc. But he never allowed Marxist theory to interfere with whatever happened to be most politically convenient.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Because Hoxha was a smart politician, and he knew what political position would go down well with the Albanian public, and would fit in best with Albania's diplomatic alignments.

Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? I don't see why Albanians, who after 1967 were literally not allowed to be religious, would be receptive to some Muslims fighting far away. Albanian Muslims did not have a history of religious fundamentalism, and Albanian media never mentioned that the Afghans were fighting a religious war.

I also like how you mention "diplomatic alignments." If Hoxha wanted to denounce the Soviet invasion in order to woo the West then he could have also denounced the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia as "Soviet social-imperialism" (which would be inappropriate in such a case) and instead back Pol Pot's government in exile at the UN like various bourgeois states did, but he didn't. He could have signed the Helsinki accords as well, but he didn't. He could have, you know, reestablished diplomatic ties with the USA, but he explicitly said he would never do this.

Basically Albania was doing a bad thing because it wasn't hailing the glorious "Red Army" in Afghanistan, as the Sparts you sympathize with literally did. Ergo there has to be a rationale unrelated to principles and the interests of socialism since, of course, anything other than "critical support" for Soviet social-imperialism ("gains of the Russian Revolution in Afghanistan") is aiding American imperialism, or something.

[Grenzer]

Careful, you're coming dangerously close to trashing his islamophobic, pro-imperialist thesis. Supporting the invasion is supporting Western paternalism, imperialism, and chauvinism, it's that simple.

The Afghanistan issue is a good example of why I think the doctrine of 20th century anti-imperialism is flawed. When you examine both sides, more often than not it's being bankrolled by imperialists on both ends. On one side, you have the imperialist Russians; and on the other you have reactionary Islamist fucks backed by American money. Why not just condemn both?

[Ismail]

The Afghanistan issue is a good example of why I think the doctrine of 20th century anti-imperialism is flawed. When you examine both sides, more often than not it's being bankrolled by imperialists on both ends. On one side, you have the imperialist Russians; and on the other you have reactionary Islamist fucks backed by American money. Why not just condemn both?

That is what we do, while still defending the struggle of the Afghan people against the Soviet occupiers. Quite simple.

The Mujahidin taking control of the anti-imperialist national liberation struggle can be ascribed to the policies of the invaders themselves, who discredited socialism amongst the populace by their war of occupation, and by the fact that, naturally enough, the Soviet revisionists and their puppet government persecuted any left-wing forces who opposed them.