Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Do you support the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan?

POST REPLY

Do you support the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan?

Poll ended at 17 Aug 2011, 09:50

Yes
7
16%
No
32
73%
Other
5
11%
 
Total votes : 44
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 23 May 2011, 22:48
Quote:
The second argument, the idea that the United States would bring capitalism to Afghanistan - And thus it would be a progress -, is a monstrous anti-dialectical and anti-marxist simplification.


I would say that the economic development that imperialism has brought to Afghanistan is both quantitatively and qualitively superior than what existed before.

Quote:
Contrary to the idea propagated by the bourgeoisie, the Taliban are not a feudal power. During the 1990's, the country was so much destroyed by years of war (the Soviet intervention was actually criminal), that the warlords were dismembering the country (kidnappings, roadblocks, assassination...). The Taliban tried to bring back some order, on the basis of Afghanistan's religious cohesion.


Aside from the lack of an aristocracy and a codified status system, I don’t see how they weren’t feudal. One could say that the notion of aristocracy was replaced with theocracy. The concept of religious authority in a sense doubled for one of political authority - i.e. “we have a right to rule over you because of our superior religious praxis (backed up with force of arms).”

“National unity” does not automatically mean capitalism.

Quote:
They were the best path for a national capitalism. Afghanistan's businessmen thought that the Taliban could stop the warlord's robbery, and they were right.


How so? As far as I can tell the Afghan economy at the time focused on opium production and primary industries. I haven’t seen any evidence that they encouraged the development of productive forces.

Quote:
After the invasion, the United States relied on the warlords (e.g. Karzaï), and so they brought both imperialism (economic exploitation) and feudalism (political and economical control).


Imperialism is part of capitalism. Capitalism is good for Afghanistan. Imperialism has resulted in economic development of the country and the improvement of infrastructure. And of course it brings economic exploitation but then the Afghans were exploited economically beforehand.

How is it any more feudal now than during the Taliban?

Quote:
In terms of political theory, every movement brings its own contradiction. Why have we not supported the 1914-1918 imperialist war? Didn't it developed the contradictions in many countries? In Russia, especially? Didn't it brought the Revolution in Europe? Some social-democrats, such as the left-wing French socialist Jules Guesde thought that the war was not so much a bad thing. They said "La guerre est mère de révolution" (War makes revolution), and when the war started, they entered the "sacred union" with the bourgeoisie.


Yes. Ultimately, wars have resulted in exacerbating social tensions enough to trigger revolutions. People often say things have to get worse before they get better and this is an example. As for Social Democrats at the time who voted to support their national bourgeoisie, they did it out of a misguided adherence to “nation” (a bourgeois invention for manipulation), not to hurry along the revolution.

Guesde is essentially right. The French Revolution, in part, came out of the American War of Independence, the Paris Commune came out of the Franco-Prussian War, the Russian Revolution came out of WW1. Of course we communists can’t publicly voice support for these wars as it is the working classes who bear the biggest brunt. However, that isn’t to say we can’t use them to our advantage (and they clearly do present a big advantage).

Quote:
We have always opposed imperialism, in any situation, because it is the main enemy of the socialist movement.


We oppose it in the developed world because the bourgeoisie use it as a means to bribe revolutionary zeal out of the proletariat. If we are to analyse this just as the isolated case of Afghanistan however, it is more beneficial than what went before it. Of course, I oppose the bourgeoisie in the developed world far more than I recognise the use of their actions abroad.

Quote:
When I see that some comrades believe, for a fallacious argument, that we can support US imperialism, I'm deeply worried.


When I see that some comrades have such a hatred for capitalism that they seem to think it unnecessary and not inevitable, I am also worried.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 24 May 2011, 01:24
Other. I don't support them originally invading Afghanistan but now that the USA started it I think they should finish it up. They should help stabilize the government and defeat the Taliban. Even if the current Afghan government is a USA puppet it's better then the Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban.
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 24 May 2011, 04:29
Quote:
When I see that some comrades have such a hatred for capitalism that they seem to think it unnecessary and not inevitable, I am also worried.

First: Imperialism is not bringing the development of capitalism needed for it to be progressive. The US uses imperialism for dependency sake. Raw materials=cheaper American goods=/=progressive.
Second: If you don't have any level of humanism to accompany dialectics, you're a fence-sitter, not a Marxist.
Third: We made no mention that capitalism wasn't necessary or inevitable, it's just stupid to support American imperialism...just about ever.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 24 May 2011, 11:02
Quote:
First: Imperialism is not bringing the development of capitalism needed for it to be progressive. The US uses imperialism for dependency sake. Raw materials=cheaper American goods=/=progressive.


And yet with massive US economic investments since the invasion the economy and infrastructure of Afghanistan have improved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 964429.stm
http://www.paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=125710

It is providing a modern and capitalised infrastructure that Afghanistan would struggle to have otherwise.

Quote:
Second: If you don't have any level of humanism to accompany dialectics, you're a fence-sitter, not a Marxist.


Well I think the Karzai government is better than a government that bans the education of females beyond the age of 8, insists women where burkhas in public, pays people to beat women in the street, bans television, satellite dishes, music, any art form which depicts life, board games, dancing, etc. How’s that for humanist?

I have also yet to see evidence that the Taliban had any interest in expanding the means of production and developing capitalism.

Quote:
Third: We made no mention that capitalism wasn't necessary or inevitable, it's just stupid to support American imperialism...just about ever.


Well then you should know that imperialism is inevitable. Obviously we should fight against it in the vast majority of cases. However, in some instances (such as Afghanistan) it has and does bring benefits. In these instances we should recognise the opportunities it bring to these regions.


Ask yourself this: how is Afghanistan going to industrialise without the influence of imperialism?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 24 May 2011, 15:24
Yes, I unequivocally support the NATO liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Prior to the liberation of Afghanistan, the Taliban forbade girls from attending school, women were beaten with sticks for showing flesh and there was no constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". As a result of Afghanistan being liberated in 2001, the citizens enjoy a high amount of economic and social freedom. The people have the right to elect their own leaders and as a result of that right, they elected Hamid Karzai to represent their country. The people of Afghanistan are grateful for the sacrifices our soldiers made in securing the freedoms of Afghanistan and realise that life under democratic rule is much better than life under the Taliban.

Also, we managed to smash the drug trafficking ring the Taliban set up during their terrible reign.
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 24 May 2011, 15:36
Tails wrote:
Yes, I unequivocally support the NATO liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Prior to the liberation of Afghanistan, the Taliban forbade girls from attending school, women were beaten with sticks for showing flesh and there was no constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". As a result of Afghanistan being liberated in 2001, the citizens enjoy a high amount of economic and social freedom. The people have the right to elect their own leaders and as a result of that right, they elected Hamid Karzai to represent their country. The people of Afghanistan are grateful for the sacrifices our soldiers made in securing the freedoms of Afghanistan and realise that life under democratic rule is much better than life under the Taliban.

Also, we managed to smash the drug trafficking ring the Taliban set up during their terrible reign.


Image


But for srs. People really think the Taliban should be back in power just because 'murrica evil'?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 24 May 2011, 15:48
gRed Britain wrote:
It is providing a modern and capitalised infrastructure that Afghanistan would struggle to have otherwise.


It only has to struggle because the US decided that the last time it was trying to build itself up that it would be a better idea to support he mujahideen.

gRed Britain wrote:
I have also yet to see evidence that the Taliban had any interest in expanding the means of production and developing capitalism.


Yeah because everybody here who doesn't like the invasion loves the Taliban.


gRed Britain wrote:
Well then you should know that imperialism is inevitable. Obviously we should fight against it in the vast majority of cases. However, in some instances (such as Afghanistan) it has and does bring benefits. In these instances we should recognise the opportunities it bring to these regions.


Ha ha oh wow. Already to the point of supporting imperialism? Imperialism is hindering Afghanistan once again. We didn't intervene to remove the ultra-reactionary taliban, we invaded to seize on their weakness and make sure the US corporations make loads of capital off the 'development' of Afghanistan and so that the US can control the very strategic location that Afghanistan represents. Just because something positive comes out of them fragging a country over for the second time does not mean fragging the country over was a good idea.

gRed Britain wrote:
Ask yourself this: how is Afghanistan going to industrialise without the influence of imperialism?


You remove the influence of imperialism and Afghanistan will be free to industrialize itself as it previously attempted to do as the DRA. Imperialism only moves things forward enough to make the graft go smoother.

Tails wrote:
Also, we managed to smash the drug trafficking ring the Taliban set up during their terrible reign.


lol dude this is so wrong I barely even know where to start. The Taliban in power pursued one of the most violent anti-drug campaigns in the world. If you grew opium before the invasion you were dead and your death was going to be pretty brutal. It's only been since the invasion where the Taliban needed funds that it changed it's tune.

This thread is really starting to stink of neo-con shit.

EDIT:
Re-reading tails post I lol'd.

Jingle_Bombs wrote:
But for srs. People really think the Taliban should be back in power just because 'murrica evil'?


Who's saying that?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 24 May 2011, 15:57
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Who's saying that?


Anyone who thinks Nato should leave Afghanistan is basically saying this.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 24 May 2011, 16:01
The longer we stay the more likely a return to Taliban control is. Not to mention the government we put in place is just a hop and a skip away from being the taliban again. Only MIM//M3W turds take anti-imperialism to mean supporting third world reactionaries.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 24 May 2011, 17:09
Quote:
Yeah because everybody here who doesn't like the invasion loves the Taliban.


I never said that. Though I take it that if this is your response then you have no evidence that the Taliban had any interest in developing the means of production?

Quote:
Ha ha oh wow. Already to the point of supporting imperialism? Imperialism is hindering Afghanistan once again. We didn't intervene to remove the ultra-reactionary taliban, we invaded to seize on their weakness and make sure the US corporations make loads of capital off the 'development' of Afghanistan and so that the US can control the very strategic location that Afghanistan represents. Just because something positive comes out of them fragging a country over for the second time does not mean fragging the country over was a good idea.


By ‘fragging the country over’ you are implying that Afghanistan is worse now than it was under the Taliban. Is this what you believe?

Quote:
You remove the influence of imperialism and Afghanistan will be free to industrialize itself as it previously attempted to do as the DRA. Imperialism only moves things forward enough to make the graft go smoother.


Yes, this would be an example of when we should definitely not support imperialism. If the alternative to US imperialism in Afghanistan was the DRA or something equivalent which was determined to develop the means of production then we should oppose imperialism in Afghanistan at every level.

However, this is not the alternative being presented to the US puppet government. The alternative to US imperialism has shown absolutely no desire to build a capitalist infrastructure. Thus, on this occasion, we should acknowledge the benefits that US imperialism can bring to Afghanistan in terms of capitalist development because the only potential alternative is simply not an option.

Quote:
Who's saying that?


What do you think is going to happen if the US pull out?

Quote:
The longer we stay the more likely a return to Taliban control is.


How do you come to that conclusion?

Quote:
This thread is really starting to stink of neo-con shit.


I’m not saying we should support imperialism. Nine times out of ten it is disadvantageous to the developing world (read the article I linked to earlier on how Western companies are inhibiting the development of African manufacturing). However, in certain specific instances, like Afghanistan, imperialism provides some benefits because it encourages the development of the means of production along capitalist lines whilst combating a far more reactionary force.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world ... ls.html?hp



Here is the mining example again.

Western companies will build a modern mine with all their technology, expertise and experience. They have the methods to train Afghans to operate the mine.

If the Western companies don’t build a mine, the Afghans would have to do it themselves. The Afghans lack the material means to build a high-tech mine, the experience or expertise in mine construction, or the levels of education to organise and execute construction and train workers.

The situation in Afghanistan is at a level where, chances are, the mine will not get built at all. Construction of a modern mine is a small progressive step in developing the means of production and developing capitalism. Having no mine at all is not progressive in the slightest.
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 24 May 2011, 21:48
Quote:
Only MIM//M3W turds take anti-imperialism to mean supporting third world reactionaries.

Can we just not even acknowledge these fauxreds? They dont even do anything(Not MIM, they're atleast sorta active somewhere)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 24 May 2011, 23:03
Quote:
I’m not saying we should support imperialism.

Funny. That's what I'm getting from this argument of yours.
gRed Britain wrote:
However, in certain specific instances, like Afghanistan, imperialism provides some benefits because it encourages the development of the means of production along capitalist lines whilst combating a far more reactionary force.

We should not support imperialism if the result is industrialization. That is not the division between "good and bad" imperialism. By that regards, we should support the US occupation of Korea, and Vietnam, and Colombia.
gRed Britain wrote:
I never said that. Though I take it that if this is your response then you have no evidence that the Taliban had any interest in developing the means of production?

Of course not. but the PDPA did, and the US funded the mujahideen to overthrow the Communists, therefore, the Taliban are the result of US imperialism. Supporting imperialism to overthrow imperialism is retarded.
gRed Britain wrote:
By ‘fragging the country over’ you are implying that Afghanistan is worse now than it was under the Taliban. Is this what you believe?

No, but the Afghani people don't have self-determination. Therefore, the US is fragging the country over because of the foreign rule combined with the tensions of a war zone.
gRed Britain wrote:
However, this is not the alternative being presented to the US puppet government. The alternative to US imperialism has shown absolutely no desire to build a capitalist infrastructure. Thus, on this occasion, we should acknowledge the benefits that US imperialism can bring to Afghanistan in terms of capitalist development because the only potential alternative is simply not an option.

Tell this to the people in Arab States including but not limited to: Egypt and Tunisia.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 24 May 2011, 23:53
Quote:
Funny. That's what I'm getting from this argument of yours.


I’m saying we should support it in exceptional circumstances. In the vast majority of cases we should not support it.

Quote:
We should not support imperialism if the result is industrialization. That is not the division between "good and bad" imperialism. By that regards, we should support the US occupation of Korea, and Vietnam, and Colombia.


Military occupation does not, on its own, equal imperialism. You are forgetting the economic and social aspects of it.

Quote:
Of course not. but the PDPA did, and the US funded the mujahideen to overthrow the Communists, therefore, the Taliban are the result of US imperialism. Supporting imperialism to overthrow imperialism is retarded.


That would have been a situation where we should not have supported US imperialism because there was a viable alternative to it (and in the vast majority of cases this is true).

Though it does make me want to ask a question: would you be ok with a foreign power destroying the Taliban if it wasn’t the US?

Quote:
No, but the Afghani people don't have self-determination. Therefore, the US is fragging the country over because of the foreign rule combined with the tensions of a war zone.


They didn’t have self-determination under the Taliban and they won’t have self-determination under a developed bourgeois Afghan state. Only the ruling class ever has self-determination, regardless of whether they are a theocratic elite or a bourgeoisie. Obviously a non-comprador bourgeoisie has more self-determination than a comprador bourgeoisie (thus we would prefer “organic” Afghan capitalism to capitalism imposed by imperialism), however if the only choice is between comprador bourgeoisie or theocrat, the former is preferable.

Quote:
Tell this to the people in Arab States including but not limited to: Egypt and Tunisia.


We oppose US imperialism in these countries because the alternatives to the US puppet leaders are viable choices who seek to maintain and increase the economic development of these countries in terms of the means of production (as well as social progress). If the only opposition to Mubarak had consisted solely of a group of medieval ignoramuses who just wanted to plunge Egypt into a backward theocracy with no thought for such progress then the US client states would have been marginally preferable in terms of dialectical development.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 25 May 2011, 00:43
gRed Britain wrote:
Military occupation does not, on its own, equal imperialism. You are forgetting the economic and social aspects of it.

Tell me what South Vietnam(former), South Korea, and the Colombian "war on drugs" is: imperialism.
gRed Britain wrote:
Though it does make me want to ask a question: would you be ok with a foreign power destroying the Taliban if it wasn’t the US?
If it were a non-imperialist foreign power, or the Afghani people, yes. Obviously the PDPA came into power once, and they could again.
gRed Britain wrote:
They didn’t have self-determination under the Taliban and they won’t have self-determination under a developed bourgeois Afghan state. Only the ruling class ever has self-determination, regardless of whether they are a theocratic elite or a bourgeoisie. Obviously a non-comprador bourgeoisie has more self-determination than a comprador bourgeoisie (thus we would prefer “organic” Afghan capitalism to capitalism imposed by imperialism), however if the only choice is between comprador bourgeoisie or theocrat, the former is preferable.

See my above statement.
gRed Britain wrote:
We oppose US imperialism in these countries because the alternatives to the US puppet leaders are viable choices who seek to maintain and increase the economic development of these countries in terms of the means of production (as well as social progress). If the only opposition to Mubarak had consisted solely of a group of medieval ignoramuses who just wanted to plunge Egypt into a backward theocracy with no thought for such progress then the US client states would have been marginally preferable in terms of dialectical development.

Who is to say that a group wouldn't have arisen in Afghanistan like it did in Tunisia?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 May 2011, 10:20
Quote:
Military occupation does not, on its own, equal imperialism. You are forgetting the economic and social aspects of it.

Capitalism didn't invented imperialism (Lenin said).

Quote:
I’m saying we should support it in exceptional circumstances. In the vast majority of cases we should not support it.

There can't be any exception. We are communists because we struggle for the working class, we would lose face if we brought support to such a criminal adventure. This is absolutely unforgivable to transform a free communist movement in an auxiliary of imperialism.

Quote:
We oppose US imperialism in these countries because the alternatives to the US puppet leaders are viable choices who seek to maintain and increase the economic development of these countries in terms of the means of production (as well as social progress).

Certainly not. Your arguments are not those of a marxist, but of a philistine and an opportunist. Have you ever read Lenin? We are not there to decide what would be the best for a country, because we must respect the independance of its people. The only thing we can do is to oppose imperialism in any circumstance, so that this independance be respected.

Quote:
would you be ok with a foreign power destroying the Taliban if it wasn’t the US?

Of course not.

Quote:
They didn’t have self-determination under the Taliban

No. Since they were all Afghan, they were independants, as a people.

Quote:
Obviously a non-comprador bourgeoisie has more self-determination than a comprador bourgeoisie (thus we would prefer “organic” Afghan capitalism to capitalism imposed by imperialism),

Are you trying to revise marxism? I mean, isn't it a way to dodge Lenin's ideas about the rights of a people to self-determination?

Quote:
however if the only choice is between comprador bourgeoisie or theocrat, the former is preferable.

You can be bourgeois and theocrat.

Quote:
If the Western companies don’t build a mine, the Afghans would have to do it themselves. The Afghans lack the material means to build a high-tech mine, the experience or expertise in mine construction, or the levels of education to organise and execute construction and train workers.

When did Vietnam developed? Before or after the French colonization? When did China developed? Before or after the Japanese colonization? Plus, you forgot that the Taliban control a great part of the US-build economic projects, they are more and more organized (they lose their credibility on the economy, but they learned form their errors) American investments are helping the Taliban, this is dialectical.

"The longer we stay the more likely a return to Taliban control is." Indeed, Dagoth Ur is right :

How the US funds the Taliban

The war in Afghanistan has already failed.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 May 2011, 11:01
Quote:
Capitalism didn't invented imperialism (Lenin said).


?
Please rephrase this.

Quote:
Certainly not. Your arguments are not those of a marxist, but of a philistine and an opportunist. Have you ever read Lenin? We are not there to decide what would be the best for a country, because we must respect the independance of its people. The only thing we can do is to oppose imperialism in any circumstance, so that this independance be respected.


The working class has no country and the working class has no independence while it is chained to capital.

Quote:
No. Since they were all Afghan, they were independants, as a people.


The concept of Afghans as a nation/country/people is as fictitious and ridiculous as any other. The vast majority of people living in Afghanistan weren’t “independent” under the Taliban and they aren’t now. Only the Taliban (I.e. the ruling class) were independent.

Quote:
Are you trying to revise marxism? I mean, isn't it a way to dodge Lenin's ideas about the rights of a people to self-determination?


I disagree with Lenin on the national question.

Quote:
You can be bourgeois and theocrat.


Then provide me with evidence that the Taliban were bourgeois.

Quote:
When did Vietnam developed? Before or after the French colonization? When did China developed? Before or after the Japanese colonization?


Both. Of course China and Vietnam are doing infinitely better now than under occupation. However, imperialism (and not just Japanese imperialism in China) did help to improve those countries in terms of developing the means of production and creating the roots for a capitalised economy.

If we look at China before the Japanese occupation, European and American imperialism resulted in the development of railways, telegraph networks, the introduction of new scientific advances and (limited) capitalisation of the means of production. Of course, as we can see, China (like any country) is developing capitalism and the means of production a lot better under its own steam and initiative than under the influence of imperialism. However, one cannot deny that imperialism in China did help and develop China dialectically.

As for French Vietnam:

‘In the North, while irrigated rice remained the principal subsistence crop, the French introduced plantation agriculture with products such as coffee, tea, cotton, and tobacco. The colonial government also developed some extractive industries, such as the mining of coal, iron, and nonferrous metals. A shipbuilding industry was begun in Hanoi; and railroads, roads, power stations, and hydraulics works were constructed. In the South, agricultural development concentrated on rice cultivation, and, nationally, rice and rubber were the main items of export. Domestic and foreign trade were centered around the Saigon-Cholon area. Industry in the South consisted mostly of food-processing plants and factories producing consumer goods.

The development of exports--coal from the North, rice from the South--and the importation of French manufactured goods, however, stimulated internal commerce. A pattern of trade developed whereby rice from the South was exchanged for coal and manufactured goods from the North.’

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+vn0069)


French imperialism resulted in stimulating the development of the means of production and the capitalisation of society. Obviously the Vietnamese government are doing it better under their own steam (they want to do it), but the French development was clearly dialectical progress.

As for the US funding the Taliban - every imperialist war utilises mercenaries and local forces. Remember the Taliban are not one monolithic entity. The main goal we should support is to prevent the Taliban (i.e. the religious fundamentalists who ruled Afghanistan previously) from returning to power.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 25 May 2011, 22:30
When I look at the poll I saw "Do you support U.S. imperialism?" I was quiete shocked to see people vote "yes" or "other." I then thought WTF. Like a serious WTF moment. How the frag could Marxists be supporting the:
    *complete disrespect for self determination
    *rape of resources to profit capitalism
    *imperialist militarism
    *the terrorization of a people

The answers I got from a variety of posts
    *imperialism is progressive
    *imperialism helps the people it oppresses (even if they don't know it)
    *they're uncivilized
    *since the troops are all ready there, we might at well finish the occupation
    *inability to see the difference between Central Asian tribes and world imperialism
    *imperialism "cracked down" on illegal drug
    *Afghans are incapable of choosing a good government and require imperialism

After taking several days to try and solve my original "WTF question," I realized that the arguments members gave here to support imperialism are the same arguments that the bourgeois puppets and the Pentagon use to support imperialism. This more or less boils down to support of imperialism and its ideology of the white man's burden.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 25 May 2011, 23:38
Quote:
complete disrespect for self determination


Most people in America don’t have self-determination. Are you doing exactly what you want to do in life or are you being forced to do what you currently do by capitalism?

Quote:
rape of resources to profit capitalism


Like what happens in Texas oilfields and Virginia coal mines?

Quote:
imperialist militarism


Agreed

Quote:
the terrorization of a people


Agreed



As for your answers, I’m not sure if you are directing them all at me but I shall answer each.

Quote:
imperialism is progressive


As a blanket statement this is false. In specific situations though, it can lead to limited socioeconomic development in the exploited country and thus be considered progressive up to a point.

Quote:
imperialism helps the people it oppresses (even if they don't know it)


Yes, it does. Has domestic capitalism not helped the people it oppresses? I.e. the development of capitalism in the USA has meant life is better for the proletariat there now than when capitalism was less developed. Remember capitalism is a necessary stage.

Quote:
they're uncivilized


Civilization is a horrible word. Everybody considers themselves to be “civilized” (including the “barbarians”). We should not be considering anybody to be uncivilized, just living within a less advanced stage of production.

Quote:
inability to see the difference between Central Asian tribes and world imperialism


That’s why we must oppose imperialism in the vast majority of cases but at least acknowledge that in certain situations (such as combating the Taliban), it has its uses.

Quote:
imperialism "cracked down" on illegal drug


It hasn’t but hopefully it will in the long term (it is, after all, in the interests of everybody, including the imperialists).

Quote:
Afghans are incapable of choosing a good government and require imperialism


No, that would be Orientalist. I’m not saying they require it. If the US invasion had never occurred and the Taliban regime had remained in power I have no doubt that eventually the Afghan population would have been overthrown it and replaced it with an increasingly bourgeois regime (obviously this would have been progressive). However, the facts are that this did not happen and the US invaded before such an event could take place. Thus, the best we have now in terms of progression is a US-installed bourgeois regime. Obviously for communists this is not normally desirable. However, in a choice between that and the Taliban back in power, the former is more preferable in terms of progress. If, instead of the Taliban, the main opposition in Afghanistan were looking to install a bourgeois government then we would be supporting them all the way against the US.

Hopefully in time the US-imposed bourgeois regime will be overthrown Egypt-style and replaced by a more organic bourgeois regime which will allow capitalism to develop fully (imperialism by its very nature does not want to develop capitalism completely within a country).



Quote:
After taking several days to try and solve my original "WTF question," I realized that the arguments members gave here to support imperialism are the same arguments that the bourgeois puppets and the Pentagon use to support imperialism. This more or less boils down to support of imperialism and its ideology of the white man's burden.


I thought the Pentagon stressed “global security” as its requirements for imperialism?

Capitalism needs to be developed in order to provide the grounds for socialism to form. China and Vietnam have realised this. Cuba is starting to change its tune having realised this has to happen. Hopefully these countries make sure capitalism doesn’t consume them and their respective communist parties remain in power so that, when the time is right, they can build socialism from a much stronger foundation.

This is not the white man’s burden. Japanese and Chinese companies are reportedly interested in investing in Afghan mining projects. If these companies introduce infrastructure which has a developed mode of production and spreads the capitalisation of society then this can only be considered to be progressive compared to what existed before.

Of course, we must also remember that imperialism does want to maintain a limit on the amount of development it spreads in dependencies. I.e. they don’t want to develop them to the extent whereby they can no longer influence politics, the local bourgeoisie becomes more powerful and independent (they lose their comprador status), the local proletariat become more organised (wages rise) and the dependency becomes less of a dependency and more of a competitor. Thus the progressive nature of imperialism can only be considered temporary as it puts a cap on local development.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 May 2011, 23:45
Quote:
?
Please rephrase this.

It means that imperialism already existed before capitalism, for example Roman imperialism.

Quote:
The working class has no country and the working class has no independence while it is chained to capital.

The working class isn't the whole people. If you read Lenin, you will see that there is a big difference.

Quote:
Remember the Taliban are not one monolithic entity

No, this idea was spread by imperialists when they thought the Taliban disappeared in 2003, due to a lack of intelligence. In fact, it appeared that the Taliban are well organized and much more centralized than what they believed.

Quote:
every imperialist war utilises mercenaries and local forces.

But they are not mercenaries, they are US' main enemies. If they gain control over trade and production, it's under the nose of their opponents.

Quote:
Then provide me with evidence that the Taliban were bourgeois.

The fact, as I said, that Pakistan (and therefore the CIA) used the Taliban to secure trade roads, and that they gained support from the bourgeoisie, is a proof that they are the tool of the bourgeoisie and nothing else. The Taliban do not refuse capitalism, they protect it. Their main failure was diplomacy, otherwise they would still rule the country, as the bourgeois "theocracy" in Iran.

Quote:
I disagree with Lenin on the national question.

Of course, you have the right to disagree with Lenin.

Quote:
Both.

I don't think you can say both, because there is a difference between before and after the colonization. The colonization was indeed, in a way, a progress. Thanks to the colonization, the peoples of the world understood that they had to gain their national independance. But I could also say that Nazism was a progress, because thanks to these infamous creatures we understood how bad capitalism was. Moreover, the colonisation brang its own tragic consequences, for example reinforcment of fictitious social divisions (French in Lebanon, brutal civil war, see Georges Corm ; UK in India, especially through caste segregation in the army...). Therefore, your analysis is cumulative and non-dialectical. So, what did you try to prove?

Quote:
Thus, the best we have now in terms of progression is a US-installed bourgeois regime.

As I said, this isn't dialectical. You admit that the more progressive would be an Afghan bourgeois government, but you support imperialism. How illogical! The best we have now in terms of progression is to oppose the US-installed compradore regime.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 May 2011, 00:58
Quote:
It means that imperialism already existed before capitalism, for example Roman imperialism.


But under different socioeconomic conditions than the imperialism of monopoly capitalism.

Quote:
The working class isn't the whole people. If you read Lenin, you will see that there is a big difference.


Sorry, what I meant here was that the vast majority of people have never had self-determination. For example: the French colonisation of Vietnam did not allow the people of Vietnam self-determination. However, prior to the French arrival, the vast majority of Vietnamese (subsistence peasants) had no self-determination. Even the majority of people in France at the time had no self-determination!

Quote:
But they are not mercenaries, they are US' main enemies. If they gain control over trade and production, it's under the nose of their opponents.


But are they part of the actual Taliban or simply independent warlord armies? Obviously it is not a productive way to get rid of the Taliban but (since we don’t know the full picture on the ground in Afghanistan) may ultimately be necessary in the short term to destroy the Taliban in the long term.

Quote:
The fact, as I said, that Pakistan (and therefore the CIA) used the Taliban to secure trade roads, and that they gained support from the bourgeoisie, is a proof that they are the tool of the bourgeoisie and nothing else. The Taliban do not refuse capitalism, they protect it.


Serving the bourgeoisie does not make them bourgeois. All they are doing here is receiving cash payments in return for security. I have yet to see any evidence that when the Taliban were in power they sought to seriously invest in developing the means of production and spreading a capitalist mode of production. I have yet to see any evidence that they are seeking to do it now in the areas they control. Is that cash being invested in production or is it just going towards paying for private armies? Pretty sure it’s the latter…

Quote:
don't think you can say both, because there is a difference between before and after the colonization. The colonization was indeed, in a way, a progress. Thanks to the colonization, the peoples of the world understood that they had to gain their national independance.


Well I’m not too sure how progressive the actual colonisation of China was because the war resulted in the damage of infrastructure and distorted socioeconomic relations. I would say that the influence of imperialism prior to Japanese occupation was more beneficial to Chinese development (a lot of Western influences entered China through Japan during this period).

Quote:
But I could also say that Nazism was a progress, because thanks to these infamous creatures we understood how bad capitalism was.


I don’t think many people really equate Nazism with capitalism today. Anyway this argument doesn’t hold up because I’m talking about progress in terms dialectical development of the means of production and social relations with those means. Nazism did not achieve this. A lesson learned from history does not constitute socioeconomic development.

Quote:
Moreover, the colonisation brang its own tragic consequences, for example reinforcment of fictitious social divisions (French in Lebanon, brutal civil war, see Georges Corm ; UK in India, especially through caste segregation in the army...).


I never said it resulted in the total transformation of societies. Yes, colonialism resulted in terrible things occurring including the exacerbating of existing divisions. However, it ultimately resulted in developing the means of production (in a limited way) and capitalising the social relation between the means of production and the workers (in a limited way).

Quote:
Therefore, your analysis is cumulative and non-dialectical. So, what did you try to prove?


How is it non-dialectical? Change in quantity leads to change in quality. A quantitative increase in the capitalised means of production leads to a qualitative change in the socioeconomic conditions of society. Read the piece I cited on the development of Vietnam under the French and you will see this.

Quote:
As I said, this isn't dialectical. You admit that the more progressive would be an Afghan bourgeois government, but you support imperialism. How illogical! The best we have now in terms of progression is to oppose the US-installed compradore regime.


Either I haven’t explained myself succinctly or you have misunderstood me.

I do not generally support imperialism (I have said this many times during this thread). Only in specific situations is it beneficial (to an extent).

*There are currently two realistic choices for governing parties in Afghanistan: the US comprador bourgeois regime and the Taliban.
*No other group has a realistic chance of coming to power at the moment.
*Out of these two groups the comprador bourgeois regime is more progressive than the backward medieval theocrats that are the Taliban.
*By a simply process of elimination, if the comprador bourgeois regime were removed then the Taliban would return to power.
*Thus, if you support the overthrow of the Karzai government you are effectively supporting the Taliban as they are the only group who will replace it. This would make you a reactionary.

Obviously, if there were a group within Afghanistan who wanted to install a bourgeois capitalist regime AND overthrow the Karzai regime and get rid of US imperialism then we should support them. However, while I’m sure such groups exist, they currently do not have the capacity (as far as I am aware) to come to power. Thus the choice remains between comprador bourgeoisie or feudalism. Logic dictates that the former is more progressive than the latter.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.