Why I am a Titoist

[Grenzer]

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

Isn't this the same thing as implicitly supporting the Mujahideen? They are on the same side as American imperialism in this scenario. It seems difficult to deny that the Mujahideen coming to power(which they eventually did) would leave Afghanistan even worse off than the successful installation and defense of a Russian puppet regime.

If the historical experience has taught us anything, it seems that Afghanistan is a completely ungovernable. It is only through industrial development and the development of the proletariat that the foundation for positive change can be built, but the conditions for this seem impossible at the present time. It's made worse by the fact that the Saudi bourgeoisie use their funds to bankroll reactionary educational institutes in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan where the government's education infrastructure and budget is quite low. I think things will get worse there before they get better.

[Ismail]

The Soviet-backed puppet regime was absolutely hated outside the cities, and even there there was dissident. The Mujahidin were, for better or worse, made essentially synonymous with the national liberation struggle. Hoxha noted that the US, China and Pakistan sought to exploit said struggle for their own ends.

After 1989 Afghanistan's government was a joke. It was corrupt, it did away with any Marxist pretenses, etc. It survived as long as it did because of continued Soviet supplies and because of the loyalty of certain individuals within the armed forces who, needless to say, backed away from the government in the 1991-1992 period.

[A Marxist Historian]

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.

I think Albanians are intelligent people, intelligent enough to know that Afghanistan is an Islamic country, with or without government propaganda on the subject. And I kinda suspect that Albanians being "literally not allowed to be religious" didn't work too good, indeed one of the many reasons why Hoxha's regime collapsed with so little popular resistance.

Why didn't he back Pol Pot? Maybe because China was backing Pol Pot, and he was in the middle of a breakup with China. Or maybe because he was smart enough to realize anybody backing Pol Pot was making a serious political blunder.

As for Afghanistan, that backing the Mujahedeen was "aiding American imperialism, or something" is, well, duh, kinda obvious?

The CIA operation on behalf of the Mujahedeen was only the biggest, most expensive and largest scale operation in the CIA's entire history.

-M.H.-

[Grenzer]

The Soviet-backed puppet regime was absolutely hated outside the cities, and even there there was dissident. The Mujahidin were, for better or worse, made essentially synonymous with the national liberation struggle. Hoxha noted that the US, China and Pakistan sought to exploit said struggle for their own ends.

After 1989 Afghanistan's government was a joke. It was corrupt, it did away with any Marxist pretenses, etc. It survived as long as it did because of continued Soviet supplies and because of the loyalty of certain individuals within the armed forces who, needless to say, backed away from the government in the 1991-1992 period.

This is a good example of why I stay out of this national liberation crap. Usually both sides are just a faction of capital, but in this case it's arguable that that the Mujahideen represents something even worse than capital. I think supporting either side would be a mistake; but not only is the Mujahideen an extension of american imperialism, they are just as reactionary as fascists are. Seems like the "National Liberation" card is worse than the disease it supposed to cure. If one HAD to pick a side, purely for the sake of academic debate, then the only sane choice would be the Russians.

As it is though, the only rational choice is to tell them to all go fuck themselves and support the people of Afghanistan against their oppressors: the Islamist fuckers, American imperialism, Pakistani imperialism, Chinese imperialism(yes, even they are starting to meddle in Afghanistan), and Russian imperialism.. both in the historic case of the Russian invasion and as it stands today.

[A Marxist Historian]

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.

Now, Grenzer is an anarchist not a Marxist, so he can call the Russian invasion of Afghanistan "imperialist," since anarchism, as Marx pointed out so long long ago, is ultimately just the radical version of bourgeois liberalism.

But you claim to be a Marxist and a Leninist, so if you want to chime in with him and claim that the USSR under Brezhnev was "imperialist," you have to give us some sort of evidence that the USSR invaded to economically exploit Afghanistan or something like that.

Basically, what the war in Afghanistan started over was women's liberation. The Mujahedeen rose up in rebellion because women were being taught how to read and write, which they considered to be against Islam.

The Soviet forces in Afghanistan, just like the forces of the Russian Soviet Republic under Lenin, marched in as a liberating force, attempting to free the people of Afghanistan from age old medieval oppression just as the Red Army under Trotsky and Lenin marched into Central Asia to free the people of Turkestan, now Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc., from medieval oppression by the Mujahedeen's blood brothers and ancestors, the infamous Basmachi.

Now, this is the role they objectively played rather than necessarily being Brezhnev's motivation. But then when Lincoln invaded the South to crush the confederacy, freeing the slaves wasn't the original objective there either.

And now, as the New York Times broke down and started reporting recently, a wave of nostalgia for the Soviet occupying forces has been sweeping over Afghanistan. The Times can finally report the truth, as the New York Times wants to get out of Afghanistan, as for that matter does Obama.

"Many Afghans’ remembrance of the Soviet years is colored by this rosy nostalgia," as a Times reporter put it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/wo...ambitions.html

-M.H.-

[Grenzer]

Now, Grenzer is an anarchist not a Marxist, so he can call the Russian invasion of Afghanistan "imperialist," since anarchism, as Marx pointed out so long long ago, is ultimately just the radical version of bourgeois liberalism.

Interesting that Spart scum who would subordinate class struggle to support counter-productive things like pedophilia would talk about 'liberalism'. What rubbish. You prance around from thread to thread supporting any kind of imperialism done under a red banner touting "class interests"(Class interests indeed, but certainly not that of the proletariat). You're a joke and a reactionary liberal, nothing more.

But you claim to be a Marxist and a Leninist, so if you want to chime in with him and claim that the USSR under Brezhnev was "imperialist," you have to give us some sort of evidence that the USSR invaded to economically exploit Afghanistan or something like that.

So you're playing this old tripe again. Textbook definition of imperialism: "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

This is precisely what describes the relationship between Russia and Afghanistan: one of domination and subordination. You're a first world chauvinist and an advocate of racist Western paternalism, so none of this comes as a surprise that you lick the boot of bourgeois scum like Brezhnev.

You rely on absurd formalism to try to make a point, the weakest way to go about an argument; and your support for imperialism is not really convincing anyone, not even your fellow Trotskyists. When the revolution comes, you and your insignificant petit-bourgeois sect will be swept aside and crushed along with the rest of the class enemy.

Whenever there is a thread on first world chauvinism and imperialism, you can be sure that the so called "Marxist" historian will be there at the front, shilling for his bourgeois heroes. He has no understanding of Marxism, and relies instead on childish technicalities to support his reactionary agenda.

[Ismail]

And I kinda suspect that Albanians being "literally not allowed to be religious" didn't work too good, indeed one of the many reasons why Hoxha's regime collapsed with so little popular resistance.

According to the work World Christianity and Marxism the anti-religious campaign worked quite well: when religious activities were made legal in 1990 people didn't know the difference between Islam and Christianity, so both communities held joint services and such. Some statistics have put the amount of Albanian agnostics at 70% or so of the population today.

And again, not every Albanian is a Muslim. Albanian nationalism was either pretty much anti-religious for all practical purposes (Pashko Vasa's call for Albanians to not let "priests and hodjas fool you, the true religion of Albanians is Albanianism") or quite liberal (the Bektashi sect, one of whose adherents was Naim Frashëri who called for Muslim and Christian Albanians to unite) to begin with.

Why didn't he back Pol Pot? Maybe because China was backing Pol Pot, and he was in the middle of a breakup with China.

Yet in his diaries he clearly demonstrates his dislike for Pol Pot. Even if we factor in the fact that Vietnamese troops entered Cambodia not long after the Sino-Albanian split, in both 1964 (when the Chinese wanted the Albanians to reconcile with Brezhnev) and in 1972 (when Mao met Nixon) the CC of the PLA sent letters to its CCP counterpart criticizing both decisions. In 1976-77 (when, it should be noted, Albania was still officially pro-China) the Albanians were calling for talks between Cambodia and Vietnam on the subject of border disputes to be decided only by those two states and no on else. Instead, of course, Cambodia continued its aggressive acts, etc. China by that point, in contrast, firmly on the side of Cambodia.

Or maybe because he was smart enough to realize anybody backing Pol Pot was making a serious political blunder.

Really? The USA, Britain, China and Yugoslavia backed Pol Pot without any problems, as did the vast majority of bourgeois states as the UN itself kept the Khmer Rouge ambassador at his post representing "Democratic Kampuchea in exile" all the way up to 1993.

As for Afghanistan, that backing the Mujahedeen was "aiding American imperialism, or something" is, well, duh, kinda obvious?

The CIA operation on behalf of the Mujahedeen was only the biggest, most expensive and largest scale operation in the CIA's entire history.

Well yes, the Americans wanted a "Soviet Vietnam," and the Soviets were desperate enough to fall for it.

As for your NYT link, that's Kabul. You can find many people nostalgic for South Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly known as Saigon) too.

[A Marxist Historian]

Interesting that Spart scum who would subordinate class struggle to support counter-productive things like pedophilia would talk about 'liberalism'. What rubbish. You prance around from thread to thread supporting any kind of imperialism done under a red banner touting "class interests"(Class interests indeed, but certainly not that of the proletariat). You're a joke and a reactionary liberal, nothing more.



So you're playing this old tripe again. Textbook definition of imperialism: "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

This is precisely what describes the relationship between Russia and Afghanistan: one of domination and subordination. You're a first world chauvinist and an advocate of racist Western paternalism, so none of this comes as a surprise that you lick the boot of bourgeois scum like Brezhnev.

You rely on absurd formalism to try to make a point, the weakest way to go about an argument; and your support for imperialism is not really convincing anyone, not even your fellow Trotskyists. When the revolution comes, you and your insignificant petit-bourgeois sect will be swept aside and crushed along with the rest of the class enemy.

Whenever there is a thread on first world chauvinism and imperialism, you can be sure that the so called "Marxist" historian will be there at the front, shilling for his bourgeois heroes. He has no understanding of Marxism, and relies instead on childish technicalities to support his reactionary agenda.

I have no interest in replying to your off topic lying trolling and baiting.

But on the essence of the matter, I guess I prefer Lenin and Marx to Noah Webster as to the definition of imperialism.

Imperialism is now what it has always been, all the way back to Julius Caesar the first self-professed imperator and imperialist. It is when one country exploits another economically. The USSR did not exploit Afghanistan economically at all, in fact it gave Afghanistan huge amounts of economic aid, unlike the US imperialists, whose "aid programs" only enrich the warlords and do the Afghan people no good whatsoever.

In practice, the essence of your line of supporting the Mujahedeen CIA-Islamic puppets is to put Afghan women under the domination and subordination of men, and Afghanistan as a whole under the domination and subordination of US imperialism.

-M.H.-