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
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 26 May 2011, 02:54
Quote:
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 can understand, but the majority of people here are still against the Invasion of Afghanistan, it is only a few who are defending this war.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2011, 16:35
Quote:
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!

No, because self-determination means the ability to self-determinate as a people, not as an individual.


Quote:
But are they part of the actual Taliban or simply independent warlord armies?

There is no such thing as independant Taliban warlords since the Taliban goal was to destruct the warlords.

Quote:
may ultimately be necessary in the short term to destroy the Taliban in the long term.

Of course the Afghan communists will destroy the Taliban, not the NATO.

Quote:
Is that cash being invested in production or is it just going towards paying for private armies? Pretty sure it’s the latter…

What are private armies for? Are you a marxist or not?

Quote:
How is it non-dialectical? Change in quantity leads to change in quality.

Not necessarily. It is non-dialectical because you believe that the world's history is a mere accumulation of production factors.

Quote:
*By a simply process of elimination, if the comprador bourgeois regime were removed then the Taliban would return to power.

They will come to an agreement anyway, they have no choice.

Quote:
Out of these two groups the comprador bourgeois regime is more progressive than the backward medieval theocrats that are the Taliban.

The Taliban are not backward medieval theocrats, as I explained, they greatly rely on imperialism, and used to be the best friends of the United States. By crushing the warlords, they led Afghanistan to political centralization. Thus, supporting US imperialism means chaos and spoliation.

Quote:
*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.

I support the independance of Afghanistan, the war against imperialism, which is decaying capitalism. Supporting US imperialism is the most ignominous betrayal since, as Lenin explained, imperialism is the prelude to a socialist revolution.Which is again confirmed today, all over the Arab world, and now in Europe, even in the United States. Moreover, supporting US imperialism means supporting US reactionary capitalism against its enemies, the peoples of the world. So, who is reactionary?

Quote:
I can understand, but the majority of people here are still against the Invasion of Afghanistan, it is only a few who are defending this war.

But it's still too much. It means that at least 1/5 of the members are not communists.
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: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 26 May 2011, 16:51
Red Rebel wrote:
When I look at the poll I saw "Do you support U.S. imperialism?"


Funny, because when I looked at the poll I saw "Do you prefer the U.S. or the Taliban?" That is what this boils down to rather than rabble rabble imperialism rabble rabble.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 May 2011, 17:32
Quote:
No, because self-determination means the ability to self-determinate as a people, not as an individual.


Afghans don’t exist as “a people”; just as French, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc don’t exist as a people. Nations are imagined concepts.

The concept of “a people” having self-determination is an utterly empty phrase. The population of Afghanistan didn’t collectively appoint the Taliban. The Taliban merely seized power at the end of a civil war. Thus the Taliban rule itself cannot be considered the result of Afghan “self-determination.”

Quote:
There is no such thing as independant Taliban warlords since the Taliban goal was to destruct the warlords.


I meant warlords who are independent from the Taliban. Not every insurgent in Afghanistan supports Mullah Omar.

Quote:
Of course the Afghan communists will destroy the Taliban, not the NATO.


Got any evidence of this? The Afghan communists seem pretty quiet and impotent at the moment.

Quote:
What are private armies for? Are you a marxist or not?


No idea what you’re getting at here. Correct me if I’m wrong but maintaining private armies does not constitute the development of the means of production.

Quote:
Not necessarily. It is non-dialectical because you believe that the world's history is a mere accumulation of production factors.


That is not what I believe, please stop putting words in my mouth. I said it also results in social development as people’s relation to the means of production develop as they becomes increasingly capitalised. I also said how imperialism, while of limited progressive value, ultimately limits the development of socioeconomic factors thus making it only temporarily progressive.

Quote:
They will come to an agreement anyway, they have no choice.


Who will come to an agreement? Who will have no choice?

Quote:
The Taliban are not backward medieval theocrats, as I explained, they greatly rely on imperialism, and used to be the best friends of the United States. By crushing the warlords, they led Afghanistan to political centralization. Thus, supporting US imperialism means chaos and spoliation.


Provide evidence that they are not medieval theocrats with complete disregard for the development of the means of production.

Just because they have been supported by imperialism in the past does not mean they are bourgeois. I have also previously pointed out how political centralisation automatically equates with capitalism. Yes Afghanistan is suffering from chaos and civil strife at the moment but this is not what imperialism wants any more than we do (it is bad for business). Thus the US would like to have political centralisation under the comprador bourgeois regime who actually want to develop the means of production and improve society. This is better than political centralisation under a regime who doesn’t and wants to ban girls from being educated beyond the age of 8.

Quote:
I support the independance of Afghanistan, the war against imperialism, which is decaying capitalism. Supporting US imperialism is the most ignominous betrayal since, as Lenin explained, imperialism is the prelude to a socialist revolution. Which is again confirmed today, all over the Arab world, and now in Europe, even in the United States.


hahaha!

Quite the dogmatist, aren’t you? Incapable of thinking outside the box. “Lenin said this so it must be true!”

Where are these socialist revolutions occurring at the moment? The Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions are not showing much sign of being socialist.

Quote:
Moreover, supporting US imperialism means supporting US reactionary capitalism against its enemies, the peoples of the world.


And still you insist on putting words in my mouth. I never said I support worldwide US imperialism. I said I can see its benefits in certain situations. In the vast majority of cases I oppose it. Why the hell would a neo-con imperialist join this site?

Quote:
So, who is reactionary?


You are. You support a feudal theocracy over a regime that wants to capitalise the means of production. You’re not even a reactionary in the sense that you support capitalism, you support feudalism! You know full well that if the US pulled out of Afghanistan and the Karzai regime were overthrown it would be the Taliban who replaced them. You have seen how reactionary the Taliban were from their five years in power. You claim that they aren’t a medieval theocracy but have provided no evidence to back up these claims. I think you are a dogmatist who doesn’t know why he supports the things he does. You just see “Lenin says…” and you blindly accept. Thus you cannot comprehend something which challenges your assumption that all imperialism is always automatically the worse thing possible.

Quote:
But it's still too much. It means that at least 1/5 of the members are not communists.


hahaha!

1/5 of the people who voted (8), not the entire membership of this site! And it doesn’t mean they are ‘not communist’, it just means they disagree with you.

You’re like a member of a strict Christian sect who denounces every other Christian as a “heretic” if their views of Christianity are different to yours! Very dogmatic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4779
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 26 May 2011, 17:58
Quote:
But it's still too much. It means that at least 1/5 of the members are not communists.


Well, I voted "yes" only in the sense that I see the American military intervention as useful to fight the Taliban and other militant religious fundies, and also have the effect of causing the people of Afghanistan to become exposed to more ideas from the West and develop greater consciousness, though not necessarily supplanting their own culture and beliefs with Western ones. I see this as much in the same way the actions of colonial powers in China had the effect of leading to the collapse of the monarchy and the rise of revolutionary intellectuals and the republican and socialist movements. Not to say that it was good, and maybe it might not have been necessary if China had been allowed to develop in its own way, but it provided a push in the right direction in any case.

I'd still like to see the US out of there regardless, though, so this is not an endorsement of US foreign policy, just pointing out its usefulness. But hey I've been re-evaluating my own opinions lately, and you're goddamn right, maybe I'm really not a communist after all, so what can I say? What are you gonna do? Ask me to be "impeached"? Ask me to be banned? Have me shot when your glorious revolution comes?


Damn man, course my political views lean toward the Left, but I hate identifying myself with political groups anyway, since everybody ends up pissing me off with their dogmatism and sectarianism, so whatves, I don't give two shits about not having "communist cred" or whatever.
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2011, 18:53
Quote:
Afghans don’t exist as “a people”; just as French, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc don’t exist as a people. Nations are imagined concepts.

Really? So when comrade Stalin wrote Marxism and the national question, he was speaking about an invented concept?

Quote:
The concept of “a people” having self-determination is an utterly empty phrase.



Quote:
The population of Afghanistan didn’t collectively appoint the Taliban. The Taliban merely seized power at the end of a civil war. Thus the Taliban rule itself cannot be considered the result of Afghan “self-determination.”

I don't think so, since they never "seized power" but struggled for years and won only because they had the support of Pakistan but also of a great part of the population. It is only after they took power that their government made many errors (bloody struggle against the Northern alliance, economic and diplomatic failure...).

Quote:
Thus the Taliban rule itself cannot be considered the result of Afghan “self-determination.”

Then, what is self-determination? Communists seizing power? I think you empty the words of their meaning.

Quote:
I meant warlords who are independent from the Taliban. Not every insurgent in Afghanistan supports Mullah Omar.

Indeed, but what do you want to prove?

Quote:
Got any evidence of this? The Afghan communists seem pretty quiet and impotent at the moment.

That's why the US and the Soviet Union should never have invaded Afghanistan.

Quote:
No idea what you’re getting at here. Correct me if I’m wrong but maintaining private armies does not constitute the development of the means of production.

Indeed, but it protects the means of productions, and the system, especially through the state. The Taliban tried to build a state where there was only chaos, while the United States are clearly failing.

Quote:
I also said how imperialism, while of limited progressive value, ultimately limits the development of socioeconomic factors thus making it only temporarily progressive.

What do you think about Lenin saying that capitalism isn't progressive anymore since 1871?

Quote:
Who will come to an agreement? Who will have no choice?

Karzai/US and the Taliban. Especially since Ben Laden is dead. It has already started. A few months ago, Turkey opened a bureau to mediate between the Taliban and Pakistan. The myth of the bad religious guys between the good capitalist world has already started to crumble.

Quote:
You support a feudal theocracy over a regime that wants to capitalise the means of production.

I don't support them either, I explained why we must crush imperialism, and why the Taliban are not as bad as the imperialists pretend they are.

Quote:
You claim that they aren’t a medieval theocracy but have provided no evidence to back up these claims.

I think that, if someone read all of your arguments, he won't find any evidence that the Taliban are against capitalism, while I gave many evidences that they are nothing more than a tool of capitalism, just as the nazis were capitalists and certainly not "feudal reactionaries" as some left-wing socialists thought.


Please, listen to this guy : [url]http://anticap.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/taliban-land-reform/]http://anticap.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/taliban-land-reform/[/url]

Quote:
And still you insist on putting words in my mouth. I never said I support worldwide US imperialism. I said I can see its benefits in certain situations. In the vast majority of cases I oppose it.

But objectively, you are helping US imperialism, in a very important war for them.

Quote:
Why the hell would a neo-con imperialist join this site?

"In the vas majority of cases", you may not be a neo-con.

Quote:
You’re like a member of a strict Christian sect who denounces every other Christian as a “heretic” if their views of Christianity are different to yours! Very dogmatic.

We need inquisitors.

Quote:
I guess I'm really not a communist after all, so what can I say?

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
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 26 May 2011, 19:33
gRed Britain wrote:
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 they didn't because like every other product of imperialism they were just cancer.

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?


Better by degrees. The problem is that the root cause of the taliban (imperialism) has not been removed and the puppet Karzai government has way too many ultra-reactionary tendencies for me to believe this is anything but a temporary removal of the taliban.

gRed Britain wrote:
What do you think is going to happen if the US pull out?


Lots of chaos. But at least Afghanistan will have a chance to move itself forward rather than being conditioned into a gimp for US imperialism.

gRed Britain wrote:
How do you come to that conclusion?


Because Imperialism is the reason the Taliban exists and continues to exist. The Taliban's legitimacy as the ruling body of Afghanistan probably wouldn't have lasted another decade without the US invasion. Now they're part of the puppet government and the only opposition to it. Imperialism in Afghanistan is the best possible thing that could happen for the Taliban.

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.


That 'far more reactionary force' is a product of imperialism. What you're suggesting is fighting fire with gasoline.

Trentski wrote:
Can we just not even acknowledge these fauxreds? They dont even do anything(Not MIM, they're atleast sorta active somewhere)


It's important to constantly reject their reactionary bullshit.

proletarian wrote:
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.


This.

Red Rebel wrote:
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.


It was this exact logic that led so many 'communists' of the 60's to neo-conservatism in the 80's.

gRed Britain wrote:
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?


Since we don't have self-determination it's cool to take it from others?

gRed Britain wrote:
Got any evidence of this? The Afghan communists seem pretty quiet and impotent at the moment.


Because of Imperialism (read: the taliban). Ending the Taliban from afar only hindered Afghan communists even more since, most likely, they would have led the charge against the Taliban in the end.

gRed Britain wrote:
You’re like a member of a strict Christian sect who denounces every other Christian as a “heretic” if their views of Christianity are different to yours! Very dogmatic.


Agreed.

Komissar_KW wrote:
Damn man, course my political views lean toward the Left, but I hate identifying myself with political groups anyway, since everybody ends up pissing me off with their dogmatism and sectarianism, so whatves, I don't give two shits about not having "communist cred" or whatever.


Allowing sectarianism to affect your ideology is just going to give you trouble. Jus sayin'.

Actually dude you're really pissing me off if you're not going to be a communist because of dogmatic assholes. We need as many non-sectarian communists as we can get. It's even worse when they're as good a communist as you are.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Then, what is self-determination? Communists seizing power? I think you empty the words of their meaning.


gRed is right in this regard. The Taliban was purely the product of Imperialism not Afghani self-determination. Hell they blatantly denied any form of self-determination to half the population (the wimminz).

OP-Bagration wrote:
That's why the US and the Soviet Union should never have invaded Afghanistan.


The USSR invaded to actually combat the mujahideen at the behest of the Afghani people. The US invaded to take Afghanistan for itself. To act as though these two events are similar is not only entirely disingenuous but belies a basic ignorance of the social factors that went into both invasions.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 May 2011, 21:50
Quote:
gRed is right in this regard. The Taliban was purely the product of Imperialism not Afghani self-determination. Hell they blatantly denied any form of self-determination to half the population (the wimminz).

I don't think the Taliban are only an imperialist puppet or "just cancer" (they appeared after the war with the USSR, not before, and they fought the Northern Alliance). It is rather a mistake to put everything in the same bag. I totally agree with Tariq Ali when he says that they are more Pachtoun than islamists. However, I think you are right about the fact that, without the US invasion, they may have collapsed since their government was mostly a failure.

Quote:
Where are these socialist revolutions occurring at the moment? The Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions are not showing much sign of being socialist.

This isn't what I meant. There is a big break in the imperialist system, and we are undoubtedly facing a third wave. You can't ignore this phenomenon, and its consequences on imperialism. Especially when you want to take position about Afghanistan.

Quote:
Allowing sectarianism to affect your ideology is just going to give you trouble. Jus sayin'.

I don't know what your political experiences are IRL, but there is a lot of things that can't be tolerated when you are a communist, and encouraging imperialism, using the same arguments ("bad feudal muslisms, dont like women... and what about the children they violate???") is one of these things.


Quote:
The USSR invaded to actually combat the mujahideen at the behest of the Afghani people. The US invaded to take Afghanistan for itself. To act as though these two events are similar is not only entirely disingenuous but belies a basic ignorance of the social factors that went into both invasions.

And who is supposed to be a dogmatic?? Is there a word for caricature and oversimplification? Furthermore, the fact that both invasions were errors doesn't means that they were the same.

Quote:
I'd still like to see the US out of there regardless, though, so this is not an endorsement of US foreign policy, just pointing out its usefulness. But hey I've been re-evaluating my own opinions lately, and you're goddamn right, maybe I'm really not a communist after all, so what can I say? What are you gonna do? Ask me to be "impeached"? Ask me to be banned? Have me shot when your glorious revolution comes?

I don't intend to shoot anybody. And I'm not the admin of this board. I thought I was speaking to communists, so at least people who refer to Lenin. If you are not communists, I will have to reassess my argument.
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, 23:41
Quote:
Really? So when comrade Stalin wrote Marxism and the national question, he was speaking about an invented concept?


Yes

Quote:
I don't think so, since they never "seized power" but struggled for years and won only because they had the support of Pakistan but also of a great part of the population. It is only after they took power that their government made many errors (bloody struggle against the Northern alliance, economic and diplomatic failure...).


Well they sure as hell weren’t voted in. I also doubt they had the support from a great part of the population (why would any woman support them?) They simply filled a power vacuum.

Quote:
Then, what is self-determination? Communists seizing power? I think you empty the words of their meaning.


Well technically it’s being able to do what you want. However, since nations don’t exist the concept of national self-determination doesn’t exist. Basically, the only people who have self-determination are the ruling classes (across all societies).

Quote:
Indeed, but what do you want to prove?


That when you say the US funds the Taliban, that doesn’t necessarily mean Mullah Omar’s group. As previously stated, the term “Taliban” is used as a catch-all phrase for various insurgent groups in Afghanistan.

Quote:
That's why the US and the Soviet Union should never have invaded Afghanistan.


So no evidence then.

Quote:
Indeed, but it protects the means of productions, and the system, especially through the state. The Taliban tried to build a state where there was only chaos, while the United States are clearly failing.


The Taliban have no developed means of production to protect! Their militia defend trade routes and opium plantations! Hardly high-tech lithium mines are they!

And the US client state is doing better at developing the means of production (as I posted earlier with examples of infrastructural improvement) than the Taliban state ever did.

Quote:
What do you think about Lenin saying that capitalism isn't progressive anymore since 1871?


Is that in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism? (I haven’t had time do go looking through it at the moment). As far as I can recall, in that book he refers to the impact of capitalism and imperialism upon the metropole (I.e. Britain, France, Germany, USA, etc). I don’t think he mentions much on the impact of imperialism upon the developing countries themselves.

Quote:
Karzai/US and the Taliban. Especially since Ben Laden is dead. It has already started. A few months ago, Turkey opened a bureau to mediate between the Taliban and Pakistan. The myth of the bad religious guys between the good capitalist world has already started to crumble.


I thought they were going to negotiate with “moderate” Taliban. Ultimately though they won’t just let the Taliban come back into power. The US has too much at stake to let this happen.

Quote:
I don't support them either, I explained why we must crush imperialism, and why the Taliban are not as bad as the imperialists pretend they are.


You know full well that if you oppose the US client state and want to see it overthrown, the only viable body to fill the power vacuum will be the Taliban. Thus you support them.

If you want to look at it simply: the Karzai regime is the lesser of two evils.

Quote:
I think that, if someone read all of your arguments, he won't find any evidence that the Taliban are against capitalism, while I gave many evidences that they are nothing more than a tool of capitalism,


Yes they originated as a tool of imperialism. However, they have proven themselves to be indifferent to capitalist development (their track record in this department speaks for itself!)

Why do you think Karzai wants to use capitalist development to defeat the Taliban?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/economy-is-key-to-beating-taliban-says-afghan-leader-424942.html

Quote:
Please, listen to this guy


I’m not going to listen to an hour long speech. Please summarise his arguments. Just because the Taliban instigated a certain amount of land reform (in Pakistan) this does not make them capitalist.

Quote:
But objectively, you are helping US imperialism, in a very important war for them.


And objectively you are helping the Taliban in a very important war for them. Which is more progressive?

Quote:
We need inquisitors.


Oh dear…

Quote:
Of course they didn't because like every other product of imperialism they were just cancer.


I disagree with that last bit. Look at how imperialist influence has helped the initial capitalist development of east Asia. Look at how Japan developed under the influence of the Western powers in the 19th century.

Thus while the Taliban are utterly useless products of imperialism, the Karzai regime has some potential for economic development. If they are the only choice we have for progress we unfortunately have to support them.

Quote:
Better by degrees. The problem is that the root cause of the taliban (imperialism) has not been removed and the puppet Karzai government has way too many ultra-reactionary tendencies for me to believe this is anything but a temporary removal of the taliban.


Of course, we don’t like the Karzai government and much of its tendencies are worrying. But as you say, it is better, and what’s more, they have the potential to improve; something I really couldn’t identify among the Taliban.

Quote:
Lots of chaos. But at least Afghanistan will have a chance to move itself forward rather than being conditioned into a gimp for US imperialism.


Even if a national bourgeois government comes to power and both destroys the Taliban and kicks the US out, it will still have to rely on imperialism in order for Afghanistan to develop. Where else will it get the technology, expertise and assistance in developing its economy? There is no Soviet Union to provide aid this time around. The only source for these essential requirements will be Western businesses.

Quote:
Because Imperialism is the reason the Taliban exists and continues to exist. The Taliban's legitimacy as the ruling body of Afghanistan probably wouldn't have lasted another decade without the US invasion. Now they're part of the puppet government and the only opposition to it. Imperialism in Afghanistan is the best possible thing that could happen for the Taliban.


You’re getting into “what if?” territory here. I really don’t see how a US pullout will result in the destruction of the Taliban. I do see how economic development will destroy them as people become better educated and find getting a job more appealing than joining the militia.

Quote:
That 'far more reactionary force' is a product of imperialism. What you're suggesting is fighting fire with gasoline.


It is a product of imperialism and must be destroyed. Currently, I don’t see who else is going to do it.

Quote:
Since we don't have self-determination it's cool to take it from others?


Well “we” (you, I and the vast majority of people in NATO countries) aren’t taking anything from the Afghans as we have no say in the war or its conduct. At the same time, the international bourgeoisie aren’t taking self-determination from the Afghans because they never had it in the first place. In fact, women in Afghanistan have received slightly more self-determination. The only self-determination which has been negatively affected is that of the Taliban (which is a good thing).

Quote:
Because of Imperialism (read: the taliban). Ending the Taliban from afar only hindered Afghan communists even more since, most likely, they would have led the charge against the Taliban in the end.


Yes, this would have been an ideal situation for us and if they were able to mount a credible opposition now, we would support them. However, this is not happening so the only viable choice is that of the comprador bourgeois state. As I said, they are the lesser of two evils between them and the Taliban.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 26 May 2011, 23:43
I can't argue with you on this forum if you don't grasp or accept the Leninist version of self-determination. My personal ideology is certainly surrounded by it. Maybe it would be a good idea to make a thread discussing the concept of self-determination?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 May 2011, 23:55
Quote:
I can't argue with you on this forum if you don't grasp or accept the Leninist version of self-determination. My personal ideology is certainly surrounded by it. Maybe it would be a good idea to make a thread discussing the concept of self-determination?


Yeah probably best if you start a new thread on it and I'll join in.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10759
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 29 May 2011, 22:19
gRed Britain wrote:
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?




So because nationalities are oppressed in the U.S.A., we should support the imperialist invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan? Is that your arguement?



gRed Britain wrote:
Like what happens in Texas oilfields and Virginia coal mines?


Same argument as above more or less. Because capitalist rape, pilage and plunder resources in the U.S.A., we should support the imperialist invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan? Is that your arguement?

gRed Britain wrote:
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.

[...]

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.


I'm sure most Afghan's would agree that having a McDonalds in Kabul outweighs the military occupation of their country.


You also can't have social-democracys across the world. Social-democracy needs imperialism and super exploitation of the third world in order to give scraps and left overs to the oppressed in the first world.

gRed Britain wrote:
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.


Considering you are supporting U.S. imperialism to invade other countries because they are "less advanced" and unable to develop on there own. My choice of words of what your supporting seems fine.

gRed Britain wrote:
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.


So invasion of Afghanistan is a "good war?" I'll state it again, anyone who can't tell the difference between the most militarized advanced killing machine on the planet, which is U.S. imperialism vs. tribes in Central Asia are straight up delusional at best.

gRed Britain wrote:
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).


You stated "no;" however, you blatantly stated that you support the U.S. choosing the Afghan government rather than the Afghan people choosing their own government. That is straigh up absurd.

gRed Britain wrote:
Capitalism needs to be developed in order to provide the grounds for socialism to form.


Perhaps I'm idealist, but I can't look at an oppressed person being shot at by mercenaries, dying in the hellish sweatshop conditions, being bombed by a foriegn power, having the wealth the produce stolen from them to profit monopoly capitalists and tell them they can not have their freedom from oppression now. They must consider to suffer from foriegn military occupation and imperialist economic devestation. They aren't smart enough to have freedom.

Your basically supporting that.

gRed Britain wrote:
This is not the white man’s burden.


When your arguing for U.S. imperialism and promoting imperialists interest over that of the Afghani people because of their "lack of progress," that is the same argument.

gRed Britain wrote:
There are currently two realistic choices for governing parties in Afghanistan: the US comprador bourgeois regime and the Taliban.


Opportunism.

Jingle_Bombs wrote:
Funny, because when I looked at the poll I saw "Do you prefer the U.S. or the Taliban?" That is what this boils down to rather than rabble rabble imperialism rabble rabble.


Third time repeating this but, anyone who can't tell the difference between the most militarized advanced killing machine on the planet, which is U.S. imperialism vs. tribes in Central Asia are straight up delusional at best.

Komissar_KW wrote:
also have the effect of causing the people of Afghanistan to become exposed to more ideas from the West and develop greater consciousness


An increase in "Western ideas" doesn't not equate to an increase in class consciousness. The oppressed gain class consciousness by being a wage slave or through war.
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: 5437
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Sep 2009, 00:56
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 29 May 2011, 22:53
The Taliban are not a bunch of harmless central asian tribes. You know this, and still you'd prefer they were in power over the American puppets. That's pretty disgusting.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 29 May 2011, 23:20
Is it true that the only real choice Afghan people have right now is either the US-occupation regime or the Taliban-occupation regime,or does there exist some other way,some other (potential) political power?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 May 2011, 23:44
There is no other choice for the moment, but the Taliban regime isn't an "occupation regime", which is the big difference. Taliban are Pachtounes.
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: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 29 May 2011, 23:53
other.

First: I don't even get the dichotomy here. To choose between imperialist oppression and feudalist-islamist oppression is like choosing between AIDS and cancer. A sickness is a sickness. Of course I will never agree with any of these.

Second: What does "support" even mean? Are the Taliban and the imperialists like soccer teams that we have to choose between? We can't influence what is happening in Afghanistan no matter whom we support, so why "support" anybody? I get the impression that there are people who just pick sides in whatever conflict so it's easier to maintain a "good guys vs. bad guys" style of thinking. But that just seems weird and stupid to me, because it just really prohibitively oversimplifies the affair.

Third: If we interpret "support" as "appreciate", the question becomes answerable however. Do I appreciate the U.S. imperialist invasion of Afghanistan? No, I don't like war. That's pretty much a dogma. But another, simpler, but equally important question is this: Do I think that it furthers progress? Yes, for a number of reasons:

- Bourgeois liberal values are being promoted in Afghanistan, which is obviously progressive over the previously prevailing feudalist, close-minded style of Islamic thinking. The same applies to relations of production.

- The Taliban are being weakened, which corresponds to a higher degree of self-determination for the Afghan people. To reduce self-determination to "economic freedom of the nation," as some seem to be doing, is childish economicism which also, in my opinion, veers off dangerously into the direction of fascism. It is also an important question whether a girl can self-determine her choice of spouse. I would even say that it is more important.

- The US imperialists are being weakened, because they will never win this war and waste billions and billions of dollars on it. See also the approaching economic collapse of the USA. I think that it's self-explanatory how this is a good thing.

This is my opinion.

Fourth: Lenin couldn't possibly have taken issues like Islamism or its severe conflict with Western bourgeois-liberal culture into account. Al-Qaeda didn't exist at his time. I believe that it's an impermissible oversimplification to schematically apply his "teachings" (and I am using the word with the highest degree of contempt possible, to which he would, by the way, agree) to any current example of imperialism that goes beyond the economic sphere. A war and occupation go beyond the economic sphere.

Fifth: I still don't get what the question is even about. I mean, like - okay, so you don't support it. You are in active opposition to it. Well done, go feel proud of your hippie opinion and leave me alone. (Sorry for the rude tone, but I want to get this across.) Again: The sides of a war are not football teams. As long as you're not in the position to truly support either side by going there and fighting, or at least delivering actual support to any of them, by financial, logistical, promotional or other means, you're not actually supporting them. You're just being a political fanboy or fangirl.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 May 2011, 00:45
Quote:
First: I don't even get the dichotomy here. To choose between imperialist oppression and feudalist-islamist oppression is like choosing between AIDS and cancer. A sickness is a sickness. Of course I will never agree with any of these.

We don't have to "choose", but to oppose imperialism so that the Afghan people can focus on its internal problems. The region has long been the victim of imperialism. It is high time to give them their sovereignty.

Quote:
- The Taliban are being weakened, which corresponds to a higher degree of self-determination for the Afghan people. To reduce self-determination to "economic freedom of the nation," as some seem to be doing, is childish economicism which also, in my opinion, veers off dangerously into the direction of fascism. It is also an important question whether a girl can self-determine her choice of spouse. I would even say that it is more important.

More important for what ? Your ideas are confused and lack of dialectics. Why would it be "more important" to be able to choose your spouse than to have national self-determination ? Do you think Lenin Should have postponed the Russian revolution in order to struggle for the rights of women? How ridiculous! You should read this(trotskyist) article, maybe you will learn about our attitude toward religion.
As I already said, the Taliban are more Pachtoun than islamists. Don't forget it.

Quote:
- The Taliban are being weakened, which corresponds to a higher degree of self-determination for the Afghan people.

They are not being weakened, this is the contrary. Maybe you are misinformed. Even if they were weakened, it would not give Afghanistan any more national sovereignty, because the national sovereignty isn't a matter of the communist party getting into power !!

Quote:
Fifth: I still don't get what the question is even about.

Why don't you read what we wrote?

Quote:
Fourth: Lenin couldn't possibly have taken issues like Islamism or its severe conflict with Western bourgeois-liberal culture into account. Al-Qaeda didn't exist at his time.

Basmachi.

Quote:
I believe that it's an impermissible oversimplification to schematically apply his "teachings" (and I am using the word with the highest degree of contempt possible, to which he would, by the way, agree) to any current example of imperialism that goes beyond the economic sphere. A war and occupation go beyond the economic sphere.

And I believe that it is unforgivable to forget his teachings, which were so clear about the national question. And if you don't think you are able to understand what Lenin would have done today, it means that you lack of principles.


Quote:
I mean, like - okay, so you don't support it. You are in active opposition to it. Well done, go feel proud of your hippie opinion and leave me alone. (Sorry for the rude tone, but I want to get this across.) Again: The sides of a war are not football teams. As long as you're not in the position to truly support either side by going there and fighting, or at least delivering actual support to any of them, by financial, logistical, promotional or other means, you're not actually supporting them. You're just being a political fanboy or fangirl.

Of course ! And the Americain anti-war movement was so much useless for Ho Chi Minh ! Come back to Earth, a hippie is sometimes better than a decrepit communist.
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: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2011, 01:34
Quote:
We don't have to "choose", but to oppose imperialism so that the Afghan people can focus on its internal problems. The region has long been the victim of imperialism.


The biggest internal problem of the Afghan people is the Taliban. They were unable for decades to do something about them, and now the US is doing it for them. I'm afraid the world really seems to be more complicated than "IMPERIALISM BAD, SELF-DETERMINATION GOOD."

I don't think there even is a real Afghan nation you could refer to, the people there seem to be mostly split into clans that like to manage their own affairs. They don't give me the impression of even wanting self-determination as a united nation.

Quote:
More important for what ?


More important for the progress of the Afghan people, of course? What is it we're talking about? But likewise, I could ask -

Quote:
It is high time to give them their sovereignty.


For what? Now this is really an intriguing question, I'm looking forward to the answer.


Because I don't really understand where the problem is... They've obviously proven that "(national) sovereignty" sucks for them.

Quote:
Your ideas are confused and lack of dialectics.


Shit. Why don't you actually try to prove me wrong next time? You're behaving like an inquisitor.

Or at least give me an example for my supposed lack of dialectics. Please. That would be constructive criticism that I'd be really grateful for, because I take dialectics quite seriously. But just throwing an accusation of "lack of dialectics" at me is just useless and insulting.


Quote:
Why would it be "more important" to be able to choose your spouse than to have national self-determination ?


I dunno. If I was an Afghani person, it would seem more important to me. It seems weird to me to even try to deny this, to be honest. I mean it seems to be obvious unless you're a radical nationalist, which I'm taking the risk to define as a pretty worthless form of stupidity.

Why don't you tell my why it would be "more important" to have "national self-determination" (without there even being any sense of allegiance to a "nation") rather than focus on your actual problems in real life, such as choice of spouse? I mean it's obviously different with cases like Kurdistan, but here I really don't see any relevance for the concept.

Quote:
Do you think Lenin Should have postponed the Russian revolution in order to struggle for the rights of women? How ridiculous!


First: I never knew the October revolution was a national revolution. How enlightening, please tell me more about that. Because if Lenin's primary goal for the Russian revolution was national self-determination, I might begin to hate him.

Second: Lenin actually did introduce rights for women, and it was one of the goals of the revolution, of course. The Taliban don't even dream of doing that, quite the reverse. In general, Lenin was socially progressive, unlike the Taliban. Which is why he was a positive figure, unlike the Taliban. I really don't believe you can compare the cases. Any comparison would be a huge insult to Lenin. He wasn't a religious zealot either, for example...

Quote:
You should read this(trotskyist) article, maybe you will learn about our attitude toward religion.


That was a nice and informative article, thank you. I learned much from it. I fail to see how it is relevant, however. Maybe you can help me understand why you think it is relevant?

Quote:
They are not being weakened, this is the contrary. Maybe you are misinformed.


It is my impression that the Taliban have much less power now than they had before the war. Do you have a different opinion?

Quote:
Even if they were weakened, it would not give Afghanistan any more national sovereignty, because the national sovereignty isn't a matter of the communist party getting into power !!


When I talked about "self-determination for the Afghan people," I was referring to the Afghan people, as individuals - as explained above, in terms of choosing a spouse, for example. The weakening of the Taliban corresponds to social progress in areas that have been freed from their control. Again, national sovereignty seems to be of little importance here.

Quote:
Why don't you read what we wrote?


I did, it just didn't make much sense to me.

Quote:
Basmachi.


If you draw a comparison between the Taliban - whom you seem to think of as "the good guys" in this conflict - and the Basmachi, surely the conclusion would be that the Basmachi were also "the good guys" in their conflict with Soviet power?

I do disagree with that.

Quote:
And I believe that it is unforgivable to forget his teachings, which were so clear about the national question.


"Believe", as in "faith" seems to really be the right choice of words here...

I am not, however, under the impression, that Lenin ever "taught".

Quote:
And if you don't think you are able to understand what Lenin would have done today, it means that you lack of principles.


"Principles" go against dialectics, my dear friend.

Quote:
Of course ! And the Americain anti-war movement was so much useless for Ho Chi Minh ! Come back to Earth, a hippie is sometimes better than a decrepit communist.


I concede this point. I was wrong about this.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 30 May 2011, 01:59
Quote:
So because nationalities are oppressed in the U.S.A., we should support the imperialist invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan? Is that your arguement?


No, the working class is being oppressed in the USA. We should be viewing Afghanistan as a general exception to imperialism: the imperialists are better than the only viable alternative.

Quote:
Same argument as above more or less. Because capitalist rape, pilage and plunder resources in the U.S.A., we should support the imperialist invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan? Is that your arguement?


You’re talking as if capitalist rape and pillage can never be progressive. Are you denying that capitalism is necessary in the course of human history? What Afghanistan needs right now is capitalism.

Quote:
I'm sure most Afghan's would agree that having a McDonalds in Kabul outweighs the military occupation of their country.


There isn’t a McDonalds in Kabul (and if one appears it doesn’t matter). A high tech mining industry, widespread investment in infrastructure and the development of commodity production within the country are all in the interests of the Afghan people. It is not in the interests of the Afghans if they remain in cottage industries or as opium farmers.

Quote:
You also can't have social-democracys across the world. Social-democracy needs imperialism and super exploitation of the third world in order to give scraps and left overs to the oppressed in the first world.


Social democracy is not important at this stage. If Afghanistan were like China now it would be a huge step forward.

Quote:
Considering you are supporting U.S. imperialism to invade other countries because they are "less advanced" and unable to develop on there own. My choice of words of what your supporting seems fine.


Considering you support the Taliban… Actually, I’ll just leave it at that.

Quote:
So invasion of Afghanistan is a "good war?" I'll state it again, anyone who can't tell the difference between the most militarized advanced killing machine on the planet, which is U.S. imperialism vs. tribes in Central Asia are straight up delusional at best.


The fact you have to resort to using “tribes in Central Asia” should give you an idea of what you are supporting as opposed to capitalist development.

Quote:
You stated "no;" however, you blatantly stated that you support the U.S. choosing the Afghan government rather than the Afghan people choosing their own government. That is straigh up absurd.


Since when did the “Afghan people” choose the their government? I’ve stated before that such a decision has never happened. The Taliban just took advantage of a power vacuum.

Quote:
Perhaps I'm idealist, but I can't look at an oppressed person being shot at by mercenaries, dying in the hellish sweatshop conditions, being bombed by a foriegn power, having the wealth the produce stolen from them to profit monopoly capitalists and tell them they can not have their freedom from oppression now. They must consider to suffer from foriegn military occupation and imperialist economic devestation. They aren't smart enough to have freedom.


As I’ve said before in this thread: if there were a strong enough movement within Afghanistan that wanted to develop capitalism AND kick the USA out, we should be supporting them all the way. However, I have yet to see any evidence that such a group exists. Thus, at the moment the choice seems to be between the Taliban and the US regime. I believe the US regime is more progressive.

Quote:
When your arguing for U.S. imperialism and promoting imperialists interest over that of the Afghani people because of their "lack of progress," that is the same argument.


The interests of the Afghan people are the development of the means of production, the capitalisation of society and the liberalisation of society. In this instance, US imperialism is providing this.

Quote:
Opportunism.


Show me the evidence of a viable third choice.

Quote:
An increase in "Western ideas" doesn't not equate to an increase in class consciousness. The oppressed gain class consciousness by being a wage slave or through war.


Then it is in our and their interests if they become wage slaves through capitalism.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2011, 02:36
gRed, while I fully support almost everything you've said in this thread, I disagree with two things:

1st: Your total and resolute opposition to the nation construct - but that's for another topic.

2nd, and much more important: Your way of insisting that socialism be preceded by capitalism seems a bit too schematic to me. I believe history has disproven this... you just really can't say that the USSR developed out of capitalism. Yes, there was this other revolution 9 months prior, but really? Just nah man. Likewise you shouldn't just be dogmatically claiming that Afghanistan "needs capitalism (BECAUSE HISTORICAL MATERIALISM)" - now I know that this makes you look more stupid than you are, but this is really the impression you're giving here, at least to me, and I find that regrettable.
But maybe it's just me.


(But then again, this is probably why the USSR's socio-economic structure was so repulsively infested with capitalist relations of production. Stalin more or less tried to catch up with the industrial development capitalism "should have" provided, by constructing a planned economy around fundamentally capitalist principles, and they never got rid of that. Hmm. That sucked. But that was just a random, spontaneous thought which is totally off topic and I don't even know whether it makes sense.
)
Last edited by Mabool on 30 May 2011, 02:40, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.