Results 161 to 180 of 228
As interesting as this has been, I thought I'd interject here. Orthodox Marxism could be construed to be the school of thought which was created by Karl Kautsky and was the dominant ideology of the Second International.. indeed, it could be argued that Marxism as a cohesive school of thought didn't really exist until people like Kautsky came along. It is said that Lenin didn't really have that many novel innovations, and that most of his theoretical foundations were just borrowed directly from Orthodox Marxism to the degree that it could be said that Lenin was not a Leninist, but an Orthodox Marxist. It's not my opinion, it's just what gets passed around in certain circles. Orthodox Marxism died with the collapse of the Second International.
In more recent times, it seems that there has been an interest in resurrecting the ideas of the Second International, and one of it's chief theorists, Kautsky in particular. In this sense, one could call themselves an Orthodox Marxist if that is where they get the foundation of their theory from. Exceedingly few people do these days; primarily the people in the CPGB for the most part. DNZ, Q, and Rakunin(when he was around) are some supporters of this, and is Rafiq I think. It's certainly true that there haven't really been any revolutions under the banner of Orthodox Marxism, but I think it would be a mistake to use this as the basis of a critique. After all, with the creation of Leninism and the world communist movement having been subordinated to it from the October revolution to the fall of the Berlin Wall; I'd say we are objectively further away from socialism in terms of class consciousness than we were before we had Leninism! I don't think it's necessarily anachronistic, as the entire impetus behind the resurrection of Orthodox Marxism is that it has more relevance to our struggles today than does Leninism. Historically, Leninism has shown itself to impotent in advancing class struggle in industrialized countries, so there may be merit to it.
Regarding Lenin and the Mensheviks, I think it's fair to mention ahead of time that restating Lenin's opinion isn't an argument.
Anyway, I didn't mean to disrupt the argument; but it seemed fair to point a few things out about Orthodox Marxism as you have made the statement that it "doesn't exist" in the past. I mean, if Marxism-DeLeonism can exist, then I don't see why Orthodox Marxism can't too.
If you really, with all your heart believe bowder was expelled because Revisionism and not because that was the exact moment where the U.S. and the Soviet Union butt heads (With bowder still being pro-U.S.) your head is literally inside of your anus.
Seeing Albania as an extremely irrelevant country, it's hard to find just about anything in regards to their foreign policy during the Soviet-Afghan war. I didn't pull it out of my ass, though, as I recall hearing this somewhere. Even if they didn't arm them, it would only be because they couldn't afford it.
It's not comparable to support the ANC and the Muhajadeen (One being Bourgeois, the other Reactionary-petite bourgeois). I don't recall cases of the ANC sponsoring organized human trafficking, slavery, and throwing acid upon the faces of young school girls. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
And yes, the so-called "Left Wing" groups in Palestine today are Islamist asslickers, adopting several reactionary viewpoints to appeal to Hamas and it's supporters.
ISo much moralist bullshit with absolutely no scientific character whats so ever. It is not as simple as "Country vs. Invaders". Anti Imperialism minus class collaboration is not inherently Anti "Leftist", but our Maoist friends have proved to us class collaboration inevitably leads to the victory of the oppressing class, in the end.
By the way, Ismail, Afghanistan got it's victory over "Soviet Social Imperialism", just like Hoxha wanted, the Muj's won. Good job, Hoxha, Afghanistan is such a beautiful Marxist Leninist paradise.
You cannot deny that they were progressive in the construction of Afghanistan. For the first time, Women were being educated, Religious fundamentalism was becoming a thing of the past, secularization was rapid. Bourgeois, none the less, but if I was living in Afghanistan as a "Proletarian" (If any existed) I'd much rather live under that, than the Muj.
Jesus fucking christ this is pathetic. So, are you honestly trying to tell me that the Afghan "people" saw these policies as revisionist, and therefore started to join the Muhajadeen? Leftism wasn't shattered because of "revisionism". Actually, Ismail, can you please provide us with some of those "revisionist" policies? Not much was going on in Afghanistan except the modernization of the country.
Because they couldn't afford it.
1. There wasn't an Afghan Proletariat.
2. The struggle against the Soviet Occupiers was 100% organized by the Afghan landowners, who were furious that their land was being confiscated by the state and given to the Peasant Population.
3. There was no evidence that an single Afghan proletarian movement arose and fought against Soviet Social Imperialism. None. And if there was, I'd be the first to support it.
Your presupposion relies on the notion that there was an exploited Afghan Proletariat in the first place, and even if that was true, it also relies on the fact that there was an Organized proletarian based movement that fought against hte Soviet Union because of their level of class concision.
This argument, you fall flat on your face, Ismail.
"No, because the Afghan people as a whole were not against the Soviet Union, and because the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan forcefully (The Afghan govt called for assistance) and set up a puppet regime (The Ukrainian SSR) on a state-capitalist basis (Something that doesn't exist)".
There isn't any statistical evidence to show whether the majority of Ukrainians supported the Stalin regime, and if there is, it was "evidence" recorded by the NKVD, which, if you ask me, isn't the most trustworthy source. No doubt Afghanistan was a capitalist state, but no more than Stalinist Russia was, both operated within the realm of the capitalist mode of production (And not because THE GOVEMEEEENT IS THE CAPITALISTS INZTEAD AND DA PROLETARIAnZ ARE EXPLITED BY THE GREEEDY STATEZ AND TA STATEZ GOT ALL ZA PROFIT).
Cite this. Cite me that they told Afghan Communists to work with "Bourgeois nationalists".
Those are very seperate in nature.
For one, support for Kemalists (And the massacre of Turkish communists) and Khan were done as a direct response to Russia's isolation. It didn't have any "Friends" internationally. Support for Kemalists and Khan was never a moral support. (thus had to do with russia never surpassing the capitalist mode of production itself to adjust to these state of affairs).
And, during the Russian civil war, with a Majority of Muslims in the population, the Bolsheviks sought the opportunity to rally them against the White counter revolution, but in the end, the Bolsheviks never supported class collaboration, and indeed, they divided their support among the Muslims, trying to turn the peasantry against the Feudal Lords. They said to the Afghan peasants something like this, not exact quote btw "To the Muslims of hte former empire, for hundreds of years you have been rallying under the green banner of your prophet, on behalf of the oppressing class for holy war. Now it is time to emancipate yourself for the real holy war, against the classes that have oppressed you".
Doesn't sound much like Class collaboration to me.
Hoxha was a nationalist. You claimed(in a different thread) you had no theoretical qualms with Hoxha. So that must mean you are a nationalist.
Sigh, so you don't know what Orthodox Marxism is after all. Orthodox Marxism is mostly theoretical, but, pre-war SPD and others could be classified as Orthodox Marxist. The Mensheviks, on the other hand, were Left Liberal scum bags who had nothing to do with Marxism, and if ever, only because it's in their opportunist nature.
During World War 1, a division between the revolutionaries and the reformists occurred, and many of the "Orthodox" Marxists became counterrevolutionary bastards (Like Kautsky). Lenin, though, could be easily clasified as an Orthodox Marxist.
Here are some concepts of Orthodox Marxism, via Wikipedia:
A strong version of the theory that the economic base determines the cultural and political superstructure (see also economic determinism, economism and vulgar materialism).
The claim that Marxism is a science.
The attempt to make Marxism a total system, adapting it to changes within the realm of current events and knowledge.
An understanding of ideology in terms of false consciousness.
That every open class struggle is a political struggle, as opposed to economist claims.
A pre-crisis emphasis on organizing an independent, mass workers' movement (in the form of welfare, recreational, educational, and cultural organizations) and especially its political party, combining reform struggles and mass strikes without overreliance on either.
The socialist revolution is necessarily the act of the majority.
Sorry to break it to you, Ismail, but without Orthodox Marxism, we wouldn't have the Marxism we know today, and as a matter of fact, Marxism Leninism wouldn't exist in the same way that it did. Orthodox Marxism had a tremendous amount of influence on Marxism, both in the Reaction to it(Frankfurt School) and the emphasis of it. Hoxhaism had an influence on absolutely no Marxist School of thought, there aren't any academic circles adhering to Hoxhaism, or any historical ties to proletarian based movements.
I'm not here ot play the "MY tendency is better" game, because I fucking hate the concept of the tendency to begin with. But it is foolish to dismiss Orthodox Marxism, contrary to Hoxhaism, which is a theoretical Joke in almost all Marxian schools of thought.
Because Mao was such a bastard, if you're worse than Mao, that means something. That's why I said "At Least Mao tried to give a materialist explanation of Revisionism (And failed)". Because Mao was one crazy motherfucker, and if you're dumber than him, and then claim to be the last remnants of real "Marxism", you're a joke.
Barry Lyndon requested to be banned because of his College or whatever. Hold on, Hold that thought. Attention, Rafiq is now a Ultra Left Juche Brezhnevist Nazi Tito-Maoist Dengoid Revisionite-Trotskyite-Communist.
Yup, Ismail actuallly believes that, with all his heart.
Seriously, are you just pulling shit out of your ass now?
Well, you don't read my posts anyway, so I figured if I make them bigger it's like shoving it down your throat. You keep coming to the same conclusions because you aren't reading my post, because, I don't know, they make you insecure about your views of Hoxha?
If this is called a debate, I am winning Ismail. Look at the post size comparison between me and you. I make a giant post, and you only respond to maybe 1/5 of it. That means you are bowing down to the rest of the 4/5th of my post. Because if you're failing to address them, but address another section of my post, this means you either a) lack the ability to address them b) agree with it. So the section that you're replying to is the only one that you think you can respond to. See where I'm getting at?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
What do you mean about the passport?
It was one of the best in the world.
I don't know much about passports other than you need it to travel/get through airport security.
But how is that passport different from others?
Maybe add to the list; Tito held Yugoslavia together, after he died it took 10 years before a civil war broke out and around 140,000 died.
+ rape camps were mumslim women were used to produce Serbian offspring.
"No force, no torture, no intrigue, no deception can eradicate Marxism-Leninism from the minds and hearts of men."
- Enver Hoxha
"All men are born with a nose and ten fingers, but no one was born with a knowledge of God."
- Voltaire
National chauvinism sure is awesome, isn't it Rafiq?
Not really. You could read old Zëri i Popullit issues denouncing the war in pretty clear terms. You could also read Hoxha's Reflections on the Middle East.
They didn't even fund "official" pro-Albania parties around the world (I've talked to people from the KPD/ML, PCdoB, etc. who recalled the 1970's-80's.) Out of all the books on Albanian history I've read, not one says that the Albanians funded any rebel movement in Afghanistan.
Well considering that Hoxha viewed the USA and China as imperialist superpowers, I doubt they'd be coordinating their activities with them.
Typical Brezhnevite argument. The actions of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and others like him whose popularity owed more to American and Pakistani support than any enduring loyalty amongst the Afghan populace do not negate the fact that the Mujahidin were seen by said Afghans as leading the way against the Soviet occupation.
A strange argument. By waging the national liberation war the communist forces actually gain strength by demonstrating their resolve against the foreign invader. Obviously the goal is to not subordinate yourself to bourgeois or other reactionary forces in the process, but to play a leading role in this struggle. The Maoists obviously couldn't be relied upon to do this.
You've now gone from "opposing" the Soviet invasion to putting its imperialism in quotation marks. Nice strawman as well. Hoxha did not call for a "Marxist-Leninist paradise" in Afghanistan, he called for a war of national liberation against the Soviet occupiers. Only when freed from this occupation could the Afghan communists actually work on the basis of waging class struggle against the feudal forces who, thanks to the Soviet occupation, were able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan to begin with.
Basic Brezhnevite apologia for Soviet social-imperialsim.
Really? Is that why the Soviets basically controlled all of Afghanistan's resources, dominated its civilian life, etc.? The book Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation has quite a bit on this.
There's also this Marxist-Leninist analysis: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssu...GHANISTAN.html
The "modernization of the country" Brezhnevites and people like you go on about was in the service of Soviet social-imperialism. The Sparts actually gave examples of Afghans working as mechanics on Soviet tanks as an 'example' of the expansion of the Afghan proletariat. And you're right, not much was going on in Afghanistan, its government was composed of sham "socialists" who had been either subservient to the monarchy (the Parcham faction) or who confused a military coup with a revolution (the Khalq faction.) After 1987 the Soviets had Najibullah pray on national TV, the constitution was amended to praise Islam, and basically any remaining "socialist" veneer was eradicated.
Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany also worked to "modernize" Albania. I guess opposing the fascist occupation was a bad move, too? The funny thing is that you accuse me of being "idealist" yet your whole analysis here is basically "the Soviet occupiers built schools" versus "the Mujahidin were fundamentalist Muslims." Therefore, even though you recognize that the USSR was an imperialist entity (apparently), you have some sort of need to apologize for its intervention and highly unpopular occupation of the country. You do realize that people didn't jump to their feet and fight just because their religious leaders called on them to do so, right? You are aware of the fact that the Soviets behaved brutally towards rural Afghanistan and bombed countless villages because, as with Israelis arguing about Palestinian resistance, "the Mujahidin use civilian areas."
Really? So who existed in the urban areas, then? The proletariat was small, yes, but it existed. Communists did interact with it.
And this same "modernizing" government offered the landowners their land back in 1983. Very nice. More Brezhnevite apologia.
I don't know your definition of a "proletarian movement." The ALO and smaller left-wing rebellions did organize amongst students and workers, and obviously amongst many peasants who bore the brunt of the Soviet occupation.
I like how you don't know your history.
Yes, the Afghan government called for assistance under Taraki, because entire sections of the army were defecting to the rebels. So desperate was Taraki that he actually asked the Soviets to send in Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc. from the USSR proper and just dress them up as Afghan soldiers. Then Taraki was overthrown by Amin, whose more "independent" foreign policy worried the Soviets, and who wasn't calling for assistance anymore. Thus the Soviets finally decided to answer the request for "assistance" months later and promptly shot him. That's a very interesting definition of "call[ing] for assistance."
The Ukrainian SSR was set up in the course of guerrilla struggle covertly backed by the Russian Bolsheviks and enjoying the support of the majority of the proletariat. There's no evidence of dissatisfaction amongst Ukrainians for Soviet rule even during the absolute worst time (the famine) approaching anything like that of Afghanistan.
Did you mean Albanians? In that case sure. Nicholas C. Pano in his book The People's Republic of Albania states the following (pp. 27-30):
There was clear class collaboration; there were communists in Noli's entourage and involved with his government. Besides Boshnjaku there was Sejfulla Malëshova and Llazar Fundo (Noli's secretaries.) Halim Xhelo and Selim Shpuza also became oriented towards communism in this period. Ali Kelmendi, who was to become the main man of Albanian communism in the 1930's, also backed the Noli government.Originally Posted by Pano
I can provide more sources, if you'd like.
As for Afghanistan, any history book concerning it will note Soviet support for Amanullah Khan.
Is that why many delegates protested when Ismail Enver Pasha was invited to give a speech to the Bolsheviks at one point and there was so much opposition that a letter had to be sent instead, to be read on behalf of him?
So basically you get your ideology from a Wikipedia article.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
This is not a marxist view,as a single man can't 'hold the country in shape'.Tito and the rest of the revisionists were the ones responsible for the war and the problems in the 20th and 21st century Balkans.If you want some more details,i could write more.
What?
Albania was an irrelevant country, there's nothing chauvinistic about that.
And while we're add it, why don't you read Mao's justifications for supporting the aparthied? :rolleyes". I don't give five fucks about Hoxha's excuse, we want Facts. Hoxha isn't a credible source.
That's because they were broke... And that's also because there were barely any Hoxhaist parties in the world and usually if there were, they were tiny and irrelevant.
The hell if he wouldn't. The U.S. and China had relativly no interest at all with Albania, anyway. You act as if Albania even had the option, militarily, and financially.
The Muhajadeen were leading this Landowner's revolt, and, it's undeniable the only support they got was outside of the cities. The Muj took advantage of the fact that many of the country side weren't educated and were relatively isolated. Btw, are you going to deny it was organized by Afghan landowers? Because I do have proof for that.
You've now
Yes because National Liberation wars, such as Nepal, Algeria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. were not countries, in the end, ruled by the oppressing classes. Hoxha and Mao aren't too different on their class collaborationist bullshit. At least Stalin just all together went and funded the oppressing class anyway, as if the outcome would be any different.
"Soviet Social Imperialism" doesn't exist. It's just Imperialism. Only idiot Maoists and their offshoots say otherwise.
Okay, Hoxha got what he wanted, a National Liberation war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This totally paved the way for Afghan "communists" (Who didn't exist externally from the "revisionists" other than groups made up of 5 assholes).
Why don't you point out why I'm wrong instead of being a dismissive piece of shit?
Why don't we just go ahead and cite the black book of communism while you're at it.
They blame the problem in Afghanistan was that there wasn't a strong Hoxhaist party. Yet, in places where their were, most notably Albania, the end result was shit. What the fuck is your point?
Yes, and? The country was still being modernized. I mean fuck both, but to support the "Afghan People" (I.e. the Muj) is reactionary.
...Okay? There wasn't a proletarian coincious based movement in Afghanistan that fought against the Soviets, and if there was, I'd be the first to support it. The only real opponents to Soviet Imperialism were Afghan Landowners, who were more reactionary than the Soviets themselves, and history is my witness.
Did I say that the Afghan govt. was ruled by a mass-party movement?
Yes, we should criticize Najibullah pray on TV, and then support the (Islamist) Mujahadeen under the guise of the "Afghan people". What the fuck?
Except the PPSH at the time wasn't composed of Reactionary Landowners who sought to enslave the Peasant population. In comparison with the Fascists, the PPSH was more socially progressive (And they were "relevant" for Albania).
The Soviets were indeed more progressive, but if anything this just goes to show how reactionary the Taliban were. If the Soviet Imperialists were progressive, what the hell does this have to say about the Muhajadeen?
Take for instance, a Fascist movement arises in the United States. Are they to be supported (If they have a lot of support from the South)? Who is more progressive, the Liberalist State of the U.S. or the Fascists who want to bring a return to some, I don't fucking know, Thomas Jefferson Agrarian dreamworld? Of course the Liberalists should never be supported. But does this signify we should openly support the Fascists under the guise of the "American people"? No. One is Conservative Bourgeois and the other is Reactionary petty bourgeois. You're probably not going to respond to this, so I'm going to use this big font so everyone can see that. (And if you are going to respond to it, it's because I just pointed out you were not going to).
The Mujaheddin formed long before the actual war. And yes, the Peasants whom were the "Property" of the landowners did Jump on their feet, they were uneducated, manipulated, and brainwashed. It is not as if the Soviets started massacring people and then the Muj formed in response. No, the muj formed in response to the Afghan Landowners getting fucked. Reactionaries.
Blah Blah blah, I don't want to argue with you about the several excuses that are made in War. I think what's more important is to note the origins of the Muj.
There was no "Proletariat" in the sense that there was no proletarian movements. I'd suspect you'd think so, since, yes, they were organized democratically, like in the good old Stalinist (30's) USSR. Of course we Marxian scientists recognize that Worker's "Democratically" organizing things isn't a change in the mode of production. Albania was Socialist because there were worker's councils? That's bullshit. There were worker's councils in Afghanistan.
It was too late by then. Please cite that by the way. But yes, if they did, it was out of desperation.
The ALO wasn't a proletarian movement. It was Left of capital (Maoist). There was absolutely no Proletarian base in the movement at all, it was made of petty bourgeois Islamist-asslickers
the history that you want to think is true, yes, I don't concur with it.
Yes, and?
This doesn't negate anything I said.
And you complain about Najibullah? He wasn't asking for asistance because he tried to appeal to the Afghan Landowners. He failed.
There were circle in the PDPA that wanted Amin gone. So yes, they did call for assistance. The Muj were growing and Amin couldn't do shit, so the Afghan Military decided to take matters into their own hands.
There isn't any evidence that an invisible banana man is fucking you as we speak, but it really isn't likely, now is it?
There isn't any evidence that suggests the Ukrainians were fond of the Soviet State in the 30's, but from personal accounts and people who lived in Ukraine, who were told stories by their elders, it doesn't look that way. Feel free to cite NKVD archives, though. It doesn't mean shit.
See my post about Turkey and Afghanistan during that time. By 1920, as stated in this text, by 1920 the Soviets were arming Kemalists in Turkey. They were desperate.
Albania didn't even have a fucking communist party in the early 20's.
This doesn't negate ANYTHING that I said. The bolsheviks strategically tried to divide the Muslim population on the basis of class.
Absolutely not, I came across the Article only after my introduction to Orthodox Marxism.
And, everyone listen up, despite my last post, Ismail again proves my point. He only responded to less than half of my post. The parts that negate his bullshit he refuses to respond to.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I may get in trouble (do not really care) because I am not really contributing to the discussion (enjoying it none the less) but holy shit that was funny.
"Irrelevant" how? You could say Palestine is "irrelevant" using this same logic. The same logic that allows people to brush off the entire Middle East as a place where the USA should just nuke it all, and other ignorant reactionary positions.
So Hoxha noting the social-imperialist USSR's war of occupation in Afghanistan is now akin to the Chinese backing UNITA and the FNLA? I must say, for someone like yourself who "opposes" the Soviet invasion, you sure seem to like defending it.
Yeah, like the PCdoB... the largest CP in Portugal. Or the PCOT, the largest CP in Tunisia. Or the Nicaraguan and Burkinabé CPs who were significant enough to have a say in the governments (the former against the rightist FSLN, the latter splitting over whether to work with Sankara or not.) Or the Malian CP which led the struggle against the Soviet-backed regime of Moussa Traoré. Or the KPD/ML, which was large and organized enough to operate simultaneously in the FRG and GDR, the latter obviously in a clandestine fashion. Or the PCMLE in Ecuador, which waged a fairly notable guerrilla struggle and today has seats (via a Front, since it itself is still technically illegal) in the legislature, etc.
Of course I'm sure some parties were tiny and "irrelevant." I don't think the pro-Hoxha party in the Netherlands ever amounted to much, and pro-Albanian sentiment never really took off in the USA.
Which reminds me, can you even name one modern-day "Orthodox Marxist" organization?
Actually Hoxha did have the option. In the 1970's the US Government was actually trying to restore diplomatic relations with Albania, and the Soviet press "praised" Albania for its work in the construction of socialism while also calling for the "normalization of relations." Hoxha and the Party of Labour refused to restore relations with either of the two superpowers. Even when Hoxha died the Soviets sent a telegram expressing their "sadness" for his passing, and the PLA promptly returned it back.
At both the 7th and 8th Congress of the PLA in 1976 and 1981 Hoxha stressed that the PLA would never restore diplomatic relations with these two states, and it wasn't until 1990 that this was done when Albania was transitioning to capitalism.
Again, I made my point clear. The Mujahidin were a reactionary force (as noted) but were only able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan because:
A. The Soviets invaded and occupied the country to prop up an unpopular regime which took power via a military coup;
B. Leftist sentiment in Afghanistan was discredited because of this.
Of course other factors assisted in this as well, like the USA, Pakistan and China funding the Mujahidin.
Just because the Mujahidin sucks doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were conducting a war of occupation against the Afghan population. The Vietcong weren't at the gates of Saigon either (the Afghan army wasn't that incompetent), too bad the people in the rest of the country mattered a whole lot more and made up a pretty hefty majority.
Nepal was not a national liberation war. You evidently don't know what the term means.
Because you don't know what the term means, you evidently don't understand the significance of national liberation.
Actually it is called Soviet social-imperialism (a term used by Hoxha, BTW) because it attempts to hide its imperialist nature via "socialist" demagoguery. Lenin used terms like social-patriotism to refer to "socialists" who did similar things in defense of imperialism in WWI.
Actually the Afghan people got what they wanted. Of course you can just sit there and go "har-de-har, stupid Afghans" but that's your prerogative.
Because the building of schools, roads and creating exciting new job opportunities for working under Soviet imperialists has nothing to do with the fact that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, exploited it, oppressed its people, and set up a puppet regime. Just like the Italians doing the same in Albania (they even used the bogus argument that "order" in Albania had to be restored) doesn't mean that suddenly resistance to imperialism goes out the window because unemployment was kept in check by the Italian forces.
Alrighty, here's another, more academic source: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...h;brand=eschol
Well, for one thing, the Communist Party of Albania did a pretty good job with its own national liberation struggle against fascist occupation. A notable and consistent Marxist-Leninist party would, presumably, do better under the conditions present than the Maoists.
Then how do you "fuck both"? Evidently this is not only impossible but is a bad thing because the Soviets were "modernizing" Afghanistan. So basically you're just being demagogic and contentless.
You do realize that most Soviet Army personnel from Afghanistan left in a condition similar to Vietnam War veterans, right? Most didn't see the war as a glorious event that assisted mankind's progress, but as an event where they either simply "answered their country's call" and just shrug their soldiers when it comes up, or they themselves took part in massacring Afghans and later developed problems like alcoholism, PTSD, etc.
No, but you seem to want to defend it for some reason even though the vast majority of Afghans did not identify with it in any way.
My point was that the Soviets had alienated the Afghan people so much that after a particularly strong offensive failed in 1986 the Soviets basically said "fuck it" and had Najibullah announce he was a glorious Muslim all along. It's just an example of how utterly unpopular the puppet regime was.
If the PKSh (as the PPSh was known in 1941-1948) hadn't existed there would have been the Balli Kombëtar (or a similar organization), which in history as we know it collaborated actively with the occupiers because of the fear they had concerning the communists. Yet do you really think the "Orthodox Marxist" position in this case would have been to "fuck both" the Nazi-Fascist occupiers and the bourgeois-nationalist opposition which, if somehow the PKSh never existed, would have gained support among the vast majority of the Albanian people?
There is, after all, that famous phrase by Engels that "the nation which exploits another forges its own chains."
The Soviet social-imperialists were not progressive. Nor were the Mujahidin.
[qote]Take for instance, a Fascist movement arises in the United States. Are they to be supported (If they have a lot of support from the South)? Who is more progressive, the Liberalist State of the U.S. or the Fascists who want to bring a return to some, I don't fucking know, Thomas Jefferson Agrarian dreamworld? Of course the Liberalists should never be supported. But does this signify we should openly support the Fascists under the guise of the "American people"? No. One is Conservative Bourgeois and the other is Reactionary petty bourgeois.[/quote]I actually did want to skip over this, since it sounds like a bad videogame plot.
Is the South somehow its own distinct nation and nation-state which was invaded by the North and occupied by it?
Like... is this intentionally meant to be the worst analogy you could come up with?
And it's telling that the "revolutionary" government was so unpopular that it had trouble fighting these relatively few initial forces.
Well yeah, and then the Soviets massacred peasants and the Mujahidin suddenly looked like the protectors of the people. Again, the Soviets acted like an occupying force. It's no different than how the people of South Vietnam became increasingly disaffected with the USA as a result of, you know, its atrocities.
Soviet soldiers would occasionally destroy entire villages because some guerrillas had family members there. Does that really sound like an army that was merely defending "progressive gains"?
The ML-Review article I linked to noted it.
I'd just like to note that movements can have a proletarian basis regardless of what actions they'd do once in power. Lenin made this point various times. Parties like the PSOE, Labour in the UK, etc. demonstrate this.
The ALO certainly had a more progressive basis (being as it was oriented towards students and the sons and daughters of peasant families) than the Mujahidin. Do you deny this?
Afghanistan was a puppet state. Najibullah sought to be "inclusive." That's how puppet regimes try to gain legitimacy. It's also why the National Fatherland Front (an auxiliary organization of the PDPA) was broadened in the mid-80's to try and encourage ex-Mujahidin to join.
So the Afghan military (the same force that was crumbling and seeing defections everywhere) was a legitimate force able to call for foreign "assistance" (an invasion, obviously something more dramatic than Taraki envisioned)?
Perhaps you'd like to provide a source for this claim, at any rate? I mean shortly after the invasion the USSR claimed that Amin was actually a secret CIA agent all along and that the Soviets were thus restoring "order" to Afghanistan from the evil agent and purger Amin.
The whole "assistance" stuff is bunk. I am reminded of Hoxha's words on a similar situation:
"Fully defeated, also, was the 'legal' argument of the Soviet revisionists to justify their aggression in Czechoslovakia. The 'famous' letter of some Czechoslovak personalities allegedly addressed to the Soviets and to some other Warsaw Treaty countries 'to ask for their aid in suppressing counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia' was absolutely proved to be a fraud. Nobody came out to confirm being the author of that letter. The Soviet troops were not invited either by the Czechoslovak Government, or by the President of the Republic, by the parliament or the Central Committee of the Party. Even Hitler in his time acted with more tact: as least be obtained by force the signature of the President Hacha, when he occupied Czechoslovakia."
(Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1972. p. 518.)
You asked for a source; you asked it two times in fact, and now you're backing away. The fact is that the Comintern encouraged communists in Albania to collaborate with liberal bourgeois-nationalist figures, both in Albania proper and in Kosovo.
Well yeah, that was the goal. What's your point? The fact is that at various times the Bolsheviks supported bourgeois-nationalist forces and figures even at the protest of actual communists.
Wouldn't that mean, by your own admission, that the majority of the content in your posts are bullshit?
The fact is that you're calling the brutal occupation of a foreign country "progressive." You can make excuses as much as you'd like, including the very same ones pro-Soviet and certain Trot parties worldwide made both then and now. It doesn't change the facts at hand. I'm sure the millions of Afghans murdered as "sympathizers" of the Mujahidin, or as "collateral damage" casualties would have been really proud to have been granted land the puppet regime not long after offered to return to the landlords in exchange for them no longer fighting the government (something that seems to cut at your argument so badly you timidly asked for a source.) I'm also sure many dead Afghan peasants would have enjoyed the prospect of sending their daughters to a school where they'd quickly learn the necessity of "respecting" the Soviet occupiers and otherwise risk being shot for daring to protest against their presence in the country, the same presence you proclaim should be "fucked" as much as the Mujahidin.
Quite frankly it's not much different from those "leftists" who praised the downfall of the Taliban at the hands of US imperialism as an "objectively progressive" development. It's the same reductionist logic which supplants class struggle in favor of some abstract notion of a "more progressive" society being built by a hated occupier that kills and maims in its effort to "pacify" the vast majority of the country in question, and which by its activities elevates the very same reactionary forces that fell from grace into the position of heroes amongst the populace.
In fact I have an idea, how about you tell me the difference between the Soviets invading Afghanistan to save its "objectively progressive" government from a triumphing but otherwise disparate collection of guerrillas led by landowning and clergy elements, and the USA invading Afghanistan to oust the obviously reactionary Taliban in favor of an "objectively progressive" government which allowed (in theory) for the schools to reopen, women to become productive members of society, etc.? What makes these two arguments fundamentally different? Here's an analogy that is based on the real world, not something requiring you to go across the Atlantic (or Pacific) Ocean to some alternate history USA. What makes the Soviet occupation "objectively progressive" and the American occupation not?
Feel free to accuse me of "moralizing" or whatever, your "Orthodox Marxism" remains a fraudulent internet eclecticism. At least Barry Lyndon was consistent on this point: he argued that the USSR was a "workers' state" basically throughout its existence, whereas you apparently recognize that the Soviet war in Afghanistan was an imperialist war. Yet, as clear as day, you've come right out and admitted you side with imperialism in this case because of its "objectively progressive" quality. Actually this may not be true by the time another post or two comes from you, since you're already trying to mimic the official Soviet line that the Soviets were selflessly entering Afghanistan at the request of... not the actual head of state (who was shot and replaced), and apparently (from your "military requested it" comment) not the government (which was dismissed and replaced as well) either.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
I've had only access to tapatalk for the past couple days... I'll address your horse shit in a matter of hours, though. :laughing: just had a glimpse and all I see is more half assed arguments that you' ve been making from start.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Well yeah, I actually adhere to an ideology and think consistency is important, I don't bounce from "I oppose both the Soviet occupation and the Mujahidin" to "the Soviets brought progress to Afghanistan against the reactionary Mujahidin" to "the Soviets were called in by (insert unrepresentative group or institution) to assist the Afghan (insert entity here since 'people' is a word you seem to despise, probably owing to your own anti-social views) against the Mujahidin."
Just like you talk about how much you "oppose" the DPRK, while still being an apologist for the adoption of Juche because "oh, well, Kim Il Sung had to do it in accordance with the material conditions against outdated(!) Stalinism." Now you're "opposing" the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan while using the same arguments as the USSR itself used to justify the occupation. This stems from the fact that you don't use any class analysis, but instead use an essentially geo-political one where there's just "good" against "bad," despite your attempts to deny this and create a "scientific" veneer as transparent as Juche itself.
As an aside, I forgot to reply to this:
Good. The last thing Marxism needs is an excuse for another Žižek, Sartre or Althusser. Considering that there's no such thing as "Hoxhaism" to begin with and that it literally just means Marxism-Leninism (or "Stalinism" if you prefer), that's doubly good.
"Marxism-Leninism is not a monopoly of a privileged few who 'have the brains' to understand it. It is the scientific ideology of the working class and the working masses, and only when its ideas are grasped by the broad working masses does it cease to be something abstract and is turned into a great material force for the revolutionary transformation of the world."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 179-180.)
"Knowledge, all the beautified academic advice is of no value, is just a worthless ornament without practice, without its complete and organized implementation in practice. 'The portentous advice and methods' of the conceited intellectual who is divorced from life, from practice, are sterile; they produce nothing, neither bread nor boots, nor butter, neither meat nor houses. Such an intellectual displays nothing but his unhealthy intellectualism, the great deficiency above all in his ideological formation with our Marxist-Leninist world outlook, as a result of which he does not know why he works and whom he should serve."
(Ibid. p. 544.)
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
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.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Just becaue you're dumb ass can't comprehend my position doesn't mean I'm not consistant:
The Soviet Union was an imperialist force in Afghanistan which seeked to relieve the hunger of Capital. It was to be opposed.
Although, the Soviet Union was fighting against the Muj, which was an Imperialist proxy. This should tell us that both the Muj and the Soviets should be opposed as an Inter Imperialist war, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was more Progressive socially than the Muj.
That's my position in regards to Afghanistan. That doesn't mean I have my head up my ass, though. I understand that a lot of the content against the Soviet Union is mere propaganda, which doesn't really mean anything.
And I'm inconstant?
Scumbag Hoxhaists: Support Soviet Social Imperialism after Khruschev for "Scientific" reasons, claiming that having a more progressive strucutre doesn't signify the class character of a country (Which is, true, no doubt).
- Then they support Soviet Imperialist ventures before 1953. Why? "Because worker's had more control and things were more progressive"
Literally, this doesn't mean anything. Ismail claims I have anti social views because I oppose the usage of the word "The People" as populist reactionary rhetoric. He then claims that he is a Marxist.
Ismail knows that before, I clearly said that the class character of all Stalinist countries was the same as the Bourgoeis Western countries, so it was better for the DPRK regime to retain it's class power by doing away with old Stalinism. Yet, he continues to say it is a contradiction that I point this out at the same time while I oppose the DPRK. Little does he know that, in reality, I oppose the Bourgoeisie of all shades.
A lot of them weren't false. That's a fact.
Actually, you mother fucker, I opposed the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. That doesn't change the fact taht the Muj were Feudalist Landowners while the Soviet Union were Bourgeois. The Bourgeoisie, according to Marx, are more progressive than the remnants of Feudalism. But in modern times, both are to be opposed, as we must analyze the outcome: the enslavement of the proletariat (Unless Afghanistan never sees a Proletariat).
They're still better than Hoxha. Hoxha was an idiot.
Marxism is a Scientists, and those (Besides Sartre) contributed ot the development of this science. Hoxha on the other hand sat on his ass and complained about Tito.
Because the working classes of modern times are more influenced by Hoxha than the individuals you mentioned
Because Hoxha said it, it must be true.
He's wrong. Knowledge is of great value. Because class struggle is something that sprouts about organically from the Proletariat, not from marxist leninists running around with Kalashnikovs screaming at people.
You're not a Marxist after all, you're just a Utopian Socialist who calls himself a Marxist because Hoxha did.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
What this thread has shown us? Ismail must constantly make up things about his opponents in order to actually formulate an argument.
Ismail, finds it necessary to censor parts of a paragraph I would make and respond to the rest. Why? Perhaps because if he were to respond to all of my post without tampering with it, his argument shatters to pieces in the eyes of everyone watching this thread.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Ismail and Rafiq must be breaking some records with post length here.
You obviously haven't been around to see my debate with the user: The Insurrection. Boy that one was long. But, it was none the less of good quality, i.e. he didn't just make up shit about me and pull things out of his ass.
But, I think Rosa's posts break records.
Also, Ismail's posts aren't as big as mine because he ignores half of my post
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
That's only halfway true: Historically, there have been plenty leaders who've gotten so good at the factional game that they can keep the different ethnic gangs in a semi-stable equilibrium.
When those leaders die, these backroom deals and power sharing agreements often fall apart and things go FUBAR.
Well that's relative, isn't it? After all, Albania was the first East European state to endure a coup attempt by both British and American forces. Various diplomatic measures were also undertaken to exert pressure in the 1944-1946 period. Albania was seen as a "weak link" in the "Iron Curtain" at the time.
I would support anti-imperialism, so would any consistent Marxist. If fascists somehow maneuvered to become the leading anti-imperialist force in the eyes of the people then that's of concern for leftists fighting against imperialism. The people who have to endure imperialist occupation while being told "sorry, please wave the glorious banner of Marx and Engels" or whatever will have no reason whatsoever to support a communist movement that is unwilling to oppose imperialism.
Communism in irrelevant in Portugal? Really? Great grasp of history. That's why reactionaries felt that the "Carnation Revolution" was some sort of radical communist seizure of power (or leading up to it) in 1974. That's why the Communists were the leading force in opposition to Salazar's fascistic government.
Also the PCOT was, excepting the Islamists, the best known clandestine opposition to the Ben Ali regime.
So basically I can point out notable pro-Albania parties, and you can't point out any "Orthodox Marxist" parties (or organizations in general, apparently) because they don't exist outside the internet.
Don't throw stones inside glass houses, and all that.
Why quotations around "normalized"? The USA broke off all diplomatic relations with Albania in 1946. Do you just put quotation marks around words for no reason?
For what it's worth, Albania was named by the West as the "worst offender" in terms of assisting the Greek Communists, as noted by Stavro Skendi.
My point is that Albania would not collaborate with US imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism, even though both were willing to roll out the red carpet for it if it gave up its struggle.
Really? What about protests that occurred in the cities and all the "Maoists" (real or just anti-Soviet persons with the label attached) who were arrested as a result of them? Do you have any sources on the supposed popularity of the puppet regime in urban areas? Obviously one can expect less open resistance since, you know, the first place said regime and the Soviet occupiers would make secure as possible would be those areas.
Sorry for trying to analyze the situation in Afghanistan for you.
Really? Sure, militarily US, Pakistani and Chinese aid helped out a great deal. That doesn't alter the character of the conflict or the fact that, with aid or no aid, the Mujahidin would still come out being seen as the "liberators" of Afghanistan.
What other force was fighting the imperialists besides the "Muj" and the few left-wing forces that were able to not be arrested by the puppet regime and the Soviets, and who in any case are denounced as "Islamic asslickers" by you anyway?
Who cares what you think can't be compare to what? Anti-imperialism isn't about picking and choosing, it's about opposing imperialism.
Name one. That's a complete misuse of the term.
This is where your "Orthodox Marxism" comes in to try and "own" me. If I say Albania, of course, you'll just say "oh no, the evil Stalinist bourgeoisie bla bla bla," and if I say any other country you'll note that, amazingly enough, national bourgeoisie came to power against the comprador bourgeoisie and its imperialist (or colonialist) backers! Wow, just like Stalin, Hoxha, and others said it would! Yes, that's the point in national liberation wars where the communists aren't at the head.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of contradictions. That's why you don't understand (or rather refuse to understand) what anti-imperialism actually means and why it's undertaken. The point is to get rid of the external imperialist aggressor so that the the native bourgeoisie can be fought against.
Well you "scientific Marxists" should be smart enough, then, to know that Hoxha wasn't arguing that the USSR had some sort of "new" imperialism, just that it draped it in the color red, just like the social-patriots Lenin denounced were no different in practice from the "patriots" who backed imperialist war for "glory," the only difference was that the social-patriots (SPD, most notably) used inane arguments to "show" that a defeat in WWI would somehow be a defeat for the working-class.
The end result was the defeat of the Soviet social-imperialist aggressors. That was a victory. Of course American imperialism, along with Pakistan, produced the rise of the Taliban (as is known they tended to back the most reactionary forces amongst the Mujahidin, while Pakistan supported the Taliban regime) which demonstrated the need for continued anti-imperialism through leftist forces which, of course, did not exist.
Yet we don't base anti-imperialism on abstract notions of who is more "progressive" or not, especially when the only argument you can make is that the Soviets built roads whereas the Mujahidin liked Islam a lot.
100 "academic" books on what subject? Bill McGee's Overview of 2000 Years of History? The History of Romania With Some 2 Pages on How Stalin Sucked? The books I mentioned are specifically about Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation. You haven't given one single source (bourgeois or Soviet-apologist) for anything thus far.
The fact that you take such an approach shows how not only are you not "scientific" in the least, but that you can't even discern how to use sources.
And the USA and Western Europe did better than all of them if we're gonna discuss living standards and access to common goods. What's your point? Are you going to praise Deng Xiaoping and his calls to "liberate the productive forces" so that China would (on paper) have a gloriously advanced economy and flourishing domestic trade? Are you going to underrate the point of actually struggling for socialism in favor of abstract notions of being "better"?
Oppose imperialism, of course. Again, not the fault of the people that the fascists would come in and take advantage of a situation with no sizable leftist elements.
Of course not, you are an apologist of "progressive" imperialism. The Afghan people oppose American imperialism? Well too bad, guys, Uncle Sam > actual people of the country. Ditto with Iraq, I guess.
Well yeah, or it could be a sign of the economy completely collapsing in the 1991-1992 period as well. I'm fairly sure it's the latter, considering that in America tons of Albanians worked to get materials and funds to the KLA and other "patriotic" activities.
What's your point? Of course the USA and China had interest in Afghanistan. The Americans wanted it to be the "Soviet Vietnam," and the Soviet leadership was dumb enough to confirm that in practice in more ways than one.
I must admit I was a bit scared that all the "Orthodox Marxists" on earth were mentally ill lonely persons like yourself. Then I realized "Orthodox Marxism" is whatever you want it to mean.
No thanks, I've had many reactionaries bring those quotes up time and time again to show how "racist" Marx and Engels were. Of course the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred in the second-to-last decade of the 20th century, not the 17th to 19th centuries when capitalism still had a progressive role in the world.
Of course some "Marxists" use Marx and Engels' quotes to defend the American invasion of Afghanistan as well.
There was a collection of female "Islamic asslickers" who opposed the Soviet invasion in the 80's, and were quite left-wing to boot. You might have heard of them if you actually studied Afghan history.
No, it's just irrelevant to the question of national liberation. The South is not a nation.
The task of overthrowing them belonged to the working-class, not imperialism.
Objectively anti-imperialism is, in fact, progressive against imperialism (at least ever since imperialism, in its modern form noted by Lenin, came into existed.) The great thing is that you yourself are in a bind as a result of this fantasy scenario, because there's no real argument here that the "liberalist-bourgeois" USA would actually be "progressive" in any meaningful sense. You don't have the advantage of Afghanistan being underdeveloped and largely feudal and tribal in this instance.
But just to reply to this fantasy scenario: since there's no question of national oppression (and thus no question of national liberation), the communists must organize against both reactionary political forces.
Sorta like Vietnam?
Much like apologists for the Vietnam War would argue that "oh, well, American officers and troops had reasons" for various massacres as well.
Yet there were atrocities in Afghanistan perpetuated by the Soviets. The Soviets destroyed many villages and killed countless civilians because the Mujahidin was basically seen as the resistance of the Afghan countryside itself.
Using this logic the Vietnam were just "stooges" of the North Vietnamese government (actually that isn't really inaccurate), who were in turn part of Soviet and Chinese interests in the region.
The actual attitude of Vietnamese workers and peasants isn't put into the equation by you, though, it's just abstract "progressive" forces versus "reactionary" or "disgusting" forces. Because the Vietcong and DRV weren't fundamentalist Muslims, they earn your stamp of reluctant approval. Because the Mujahidin considered themselves fighting for a "holy war," and because the US and Chinese backed them, they become evil even if the overwhelming amount of the population of Afghanistan supported them.
There was no question of national liberation in Hungary. And no, we don't deny the crimes of Khrushchev and others in Hungary, who liquidated the party there in favor of a complacent replacement and who were to blame in the first place for allowing fascist and counter-revolutionary forces to emerge. Hoxha notes this in The Khrushchevites.
Even when you have the support of proletarians? Really?
Again, Hoxha did not support the Mujahidin. He supported the Afghan people against the Soviet occupation. Just because you're anti-social and have no concept of "people" doesn't mean anyone else has to follow your idiosyncrasies. If I say "I support the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation" that doesn't mean "may the Zionist pig-dogs be defeated by Hamas inshallah," it means that the primary task for the Palestinian people (obviously referring first and foremost to workers and peasants) is to achieve national self-determination as a precondition for the struggle for socialism.
Actually a puppet government would ask for assistance. The point of these governments is to bring legitimacy to the occupier. Both Italy and puppet Albania declared war on Greece. Nazi-occupied Albania praised Hitler for "liberating" Albania from the Italian occupiers and signed various things "regulating" the conduct of German troops in the country.
The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan for no reason. Hoxha noted that it had plenty: Amin was slowly moving out of the Soviet sphere of influence, Pakistan was a loyal American ally, Khomeini's Iran was influencing various Islamic movements (including in Afghanistan), and the Soviets wanted to maintain a pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan in the face of all these things.
Amin (and Taraki) belonged to the "radical" wing of the pro-Soviet Afghan revisionists, the Khalq. Amin apparently compared himself to Stalin and irritated the Soviets by being too "radical" in his plans for social reform. The issue here is that Amin presided over an unpopular government that did not enjoy the backing of the Afghan people. It did not matter if Taraki and Amin of the Khalq led the country, or if Karmal and Najibullah led it. The state itself was not trusted and that distrust was turned into outright despising as a result of the Soviet invasion, when it was turned into an outright puppet state.
The fact that Amin was purging some rivals does not in any way give the Soviets the authority to invade Afghanistan and immediately proceed to kill its head of state, no. As Hoxha wrote in his diary on December 21, 1979:
"The fact is that through their military intervention, the Soviets killed the first [Taraki, i.e. the Soviets didn't outwardly mind when he was couped] and second [Amin] and brought the next, the third [Karmal], from Czechoslovakia, where he was ambassador, and installed him as head of state.
It is rumored that the Soviets have intervened in Afghanistan with two or three divisions of tanks and aircraft in the same way that they intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968... saying that they have intervened on the basis of the Treaty of Collaboration and Friendship they have signed with Afghanistan."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. pp. 522-523.)
Nicholas C. Pano is a recognized authority on Albanian history. Even stern anti-communists like Nikolaos A. Stavrou have noted that the Comintern instructed the communist to work with democratic forces.
So tell me, what happened in Albania in 1924 then if not communists collaborating with the Albanian Government? This same government which promptly sought diplomatic recognition from the USSR and which was openly backed by the Comintern
The Mujahidin commanded popular support because it was the strongest force fighting the Soviets. An imperialist proxy would be something like RENAMO in Mozambique which was dependent on South Africa for aid and which had relatively little support.
What's the point in providing sources if you'll either call them "bullshit" (because they're Marxist-Leninist) or bring up "some people say Stalin killed 30 million people so this totally unrelated person is talking about Afghanistan and is a capitalist so he's unreliable"?
Rafiq here is saying "fuck you" to millions of Afghans and trying to keep up his façade of internet manliness. Still a joke. Reminds me of those fascist "national bolshevik" types who praise the DPRK to the sky. Ideology becomes secondary to attacking "liberalism."
So tell me how open protests against the Soviet occupation fared in the cities.
Really? I kinda thought the Mujahidin (you know, the original organizations) had origins going back to the late 60's and early 70's. Then of course some factions appeared after the rise of Khomeini in Iran.
The Mujahidin existed and were a serious problem for the Afghan government before the Soviet invasion and before the US (which had given arms to them shortly before said invasion to incite the Soviets) armed them.
You're the one making no class analysis.
Yes, it was the people. The workers, the peasants, the landlords, the clergy, the vast majority of every single social and economic force in the country was anti-Soviet and anti-government, in that order.
What is "Hoxhaism" anyway? There's an internet term if I ever heard one.
Also you could write the most eloquent text ever made in size 7000 front and I'll just skip right over that. If you're so angry you need to express it in such a way, then it's time to go to bed.
How was it an inter-imperialist war? Did millions of Afghans secretly sign up in the US Marines or something?
Yeah, while Žižek calls the London rioters "savages," Hoxha noted the capitalist and chauvinist nature of Yugoslavia. While Hoxha led a party and a country, Žižek is a worthless academic who just about every leftist (I've seen the strongest critiques concerning him come from Trots) agrees basically only exists to entrap otherwise good-willed leftists and for reactionaries to buttress their "proof" that Marxism is some sort of elitist academic enterprise.
Name one thing Žižek contributed to anything except somehow involving Lady GaGa in his... stuff.
Considering that a number of notable parties were pro-Albania (unless you'd like to state that the PCdoB and PCMLE were/are somehow tiny), I'd say yes.
... except when Soviet soldiers do it in Afghanistan, in which case it's "objectively progressive."
Believe it or not, opposing imperialism does play a part in raising the consciousness of workers and peasants.
You still haven't demonstrated how your defense of the Soviet occupation is qualitatively different from the defense of the American occupation. Apparently all the USA needs to do is have the present leaders of the country exchange traditional garb for suits and talk about getting rid of feudalism and it'll be "objectively progressive."
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
Just felt like I needed to chip in here again.
There is actually such a party. It's the Communist Party of Great Britain, and it does seem to have a sizable membership(at least what passes as such among communist parties these days. They don't have an official ideology, but the "Orthodox Marxist" current is the most dominant. They have released a number of theoretical works and spoken extensively on the topic, so I think it's a bit unfair to say that it doesn't exist outside the internet. It's not like Rafiq and DNZ got together one day on IM and made this shit up. What prompted the resurrection of the Erfurtian style Marxism was the publication of Lar T. Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, which goes on exhaustively about the Lenin-Kautsky link.
Outside the CPGB, I'm not sure if there is anything. It could become the next big thing that causes the bourgeoisie to shit their pants at the mention of the word 'communism' or it could just fizzle out and die as an unknown school of thought. I'm not a fortune teller, so fuck if I know.
Just a small comment to Ismail's post, fascism has never lead a full anti-imperialist movement, since by its own nature it is expansionist, nationalist and overall imperialist. In the few occasions in which movements that could be considered due to extreme right-wing nationalist views, but not necessarily were fascists, such as the Chetniks and Balli Kombetar, were in fact in a position to fight imperialism, they have always chosen to collaborate with imperialism in some way, such as for example, to hunt down communists.
This anti-imperialist fascists situation is pretty much an incoherent and implausible scenario
''...to keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be studied.''
Yes, I know, it's just indicative of Rafiq's fondness for fantasy worlds.
Ex-Brezhnevites and "New Left" types turned academic Marxists. I don't think Rafiq even identifies with Lars Lih.Originally Posted by Grenzer
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
