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

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

POST REPLY

Do you support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?

Yes
26
59%
No
16
36%
Other
2
5%
 
Total votes : 44
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 May 2012, 21:22
Quote:
Afghanistan was the testing ground from which Muslim socialism could be displayed and eventually exported to its neighbors.

There's no such thing as Muslim Socialism, or Jewish Socialism or Christian Socialism or any "national" Socialism (Juche etc...).
And "Muslim" Socialism existed in the Soviet Central Asia for decades. It didn't really spread to, say, Iran or Pakistan.
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 May 2012, 21:23
Political Interest wrote:

Because the Soviets intervened to support their warlord there. It was done to secure the Russian position in Central Asia and China. Mind you I do not think the Chinese have much of a claim to Xinjiang (East-Turkestan) either.


I highly doubt that a Chinese province would be enough to secure a position in the entire China and Central Asia if this was really the case and Stalin's intention, even because China was invaded in that period by the Japan forces.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 May 2012, 21:49
Loz wrote:
There's no such thing as Muslim Socialism, or Jewish Socialism or Christian Socialism or any "national" Socialism (Juche etc...).

Just saying things don't exist doesn't make it so. Although that's not the point I was making. Christian and Muslim countries are different, culturally and structurally, so socialism in Europe is not Socialism in the Middle East.

Loz wrote:
And "Muslim" Socialism existed in the Soviet Central Asia for decades. It didn't really spread to, say, Iran or Pakistan.

Maybe you forgot about this little thing called the Iranian Revolution, which was a worker's movement subverted and thermidor'd by the ayatollah.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 14 May 2012, 21:49
Considering the intensity of the conflict over the last 35 years, my view is that it was a mistake for the Soviets to give those Afghan officers that came to the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s political training, since they played the decisive role in the April 1978 coup. But when the urban revolution occurred, and the Khalqi faction of the PDPA quickly tried to introduce many radical reforms at gunpoint, there was no longer any alternative for the USSR but to intervene, speaking simply of strategic implications. If the DRA was smashed, the Islamic revolutionaries would spread to neighbouring countries and into the southern republics of the USSR, which had similar ethnic makeup to that in northern Afghanistan. Even if one is ignorant or unsympathetic to socialist ideology, I don't understand how they couldn't at least understand the security implications the USSR faced. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, today more young people die in Russia from heroin flowing from Afghanistan than soldiers died from the entire 10 years of Soviet involvement in that country in the 1980s. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In the 1990s Tajikistan had a bloody civil war with over 100,000 people dead, the radical Islamists getting most of their support (and even some of their fighters) from Afghanistan. Even within Russia Chechen and Dagestani Islamist separatists got many of their ideas, their guns and their money from Afghanistan.

Tails wrote:
Yes and it's a shame that Gorbachev abandoned Najibullah and left him to the Taliban.


It would have better still if he let Babrak Karmal continue to develop his conception of a grand national front to fight radical Islam and foreign mercenaries. Given the trouble the Khalqi faction had caused in the few years prior, he and the Parcham faction of the PDPA were trying to build the unique model of Islamic socialism Dagoth mentioned. This model could be compared to the Popular Front governments of Eastern Europe of the mid-to-late 1940s, or the Sandinista movement in Nicaragua.

Shigalyov wrote:
What a bloody mess they've made of it all!


And to think that today one of the main justifications for NATO's presence is human rights, and women's rights in particular. That Time magazine cover a few years ago with the girl without a nose and the phrase 'This is why we're here' still makes me shake with anger, given the blatant hypocrisy of the message while the CIA and other agencies gave those same bastards things like poison grenades to put in school wells in the 1980s. If the West and China had just stayed out of Afghanistan (and of course if there was no Gorbachev) the Soviet and Afghan armies would have crushed fundamentalism and converted the country to something similar to what existed in the southern republics of the USSR. Even if the supporters of the Mujihideen had continued to try to sabotage everything, I'm certain that they would be weakened to the extreme by this point if the USSR had not experienced counterrevolution. We have to remember that it took the Soviets several decades to eliminate the most backward practices and ideas from regional national cultures in the Central Asian republics too.

JAM wrote:
The Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty and its materialization in the Afghan intervention were imperialistic in its nature. The imperialism of USSR represents one of the pillars of the revisionism implemented in Moscow after Stalin's death alongside peaceful coexistence, liberal reforms, decentralization, etc... What is usually referred as "De-Stalinization" I call it "De-Leninization".


Yes, the USSR had imperialistic intentions to capture the vast quantities of rocks and dirt in Afghanistan and to sell them on the global market. This kind of theorizing about Soviet imperialism reminds me of the US Republican-spouted theories that the USSR had invaded to push to the Indian Ocean -a long-standing dream stretching back to Imperial Russia's days. Just like the latter theory falls apart because of the existence of Pakistan and its mountains, the former does because statistics on trade and aid clearly indicate that the USSR had absolutely nothing to gain materially (or politically either, as quickly became evident).

JAM wrote:
PS: I'm M-L, not Maoist, very far from it.


Me too.


JAM wrote:
Skirmishes in the Sino-Soviet border are far from being consider imperialistic. We had it before and after this episode. How can you consider it imperialistic when the subject of the dispute was a mere Chinese Province in the Sino-Soviet border?


I never understood how Stalinist MLs and Maoists can cite instances of 'Soviet imperialism' in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan while ignoring entirely what was going on in the late 1930s and 1940s under Stalin. All I'm saying is that if you're going to make up a concept and apply it, at least have the courtesy to be consistent about it.

Loz wrote:
This is one of the issues where i disagree with most MLs.


American and West European MLs perhaps. Russian MLs rarely approach the USSR's history post-1953 with the kind of vehemence displayed by their Western counterparts, given that many think that the USSR continued on a Marxist-Leninist course all the way until Gorbachev, even if Khrushchev's era is often severely criticized.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 14 May 2012, 22:03
Quote:
Comparing the US invasion with USSR intervention is a fallacious analogy. The DPRA requested the presence of soviet troops to help them defeat an internationally supported band of rebels. As opposed to the Taliban government which was intensely unpopular and only exists as a group today because of the American invasion.


Fair enough.

Quote:
The Soviets were the last nation to throw their weight around in Afghanistan. Saudis, Americans, and Maoists had been assisting these terrorists for years before the Soviets finally helped the DPRA. If they hadn't dragged their heels we'd perhaps be talking about the DPRA today as an existent nation.


The Soviet Union had always had an interest in Afghanistan but it is natural.

Quote:
It's all easy to blame the Soviets but the Soviets aren't the ones who came in to frag with Afghan development. The Soviets came in as a response to this foreign intervention.


Did the people support this intervention?

Quote:
This is a complete mischaracterization of the DPRA and Soviet intervention. The analogy to Vietnam is insane. America created South Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh won the national elections. The DPRA was a popular government which was under attact by international reactionaries and anti-Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden. The DPRA was desperate for Soviet aid and if anything the Soviets are to be blamed for not intervening soon enough.


To what extent did it have popular support? If it had such a wide backing then why were the guerillas able to win? Guerilla victories can only be attained with popular support.

Quote:
I highly doubt that a Chinese province would be enough to secure a position in the entire China and Central Asia if this was really the case and Stalin's intention, even because China was invaded in that period by the Japan forces.


Yes, but gradually.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 May 2012, 22:12
Political Interest wrote:
Did the people support this intervention?

At first, yes the majority of Afghans supported it. Although over time even the most ardent supporters were worn down.

Political Interest wrote:
To what extent did it have popular support? If it had such a wide backing then why were the guerillas able to win? Guerilla victories can only be attained with popular support.

Incorrect. Outlasting your enemy can be much more valuable than mass support. The American revolution for instance only ever enjoyed the support of one-third of the colonists yet they still won because the Crown pulled out. In the same sense the mujahideen, supported immensely by western capital and hardware, was able to outlast the Soviets and took victory easily over pro-socialist afghans (which isn't surprising given the training and tech they had).
Image
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 May 2012, 23:30
soviet78 wrote:
Yes, the USSR had imperialistic intentions to capture the vast quantities of rocks and dirt in Afghanistan and to sell them on the global market. This kind of theorizing about Soviet imperialism reminds me of the US Republican-spouted theories that the USSR had invaded to push to the Indian Ocean -a long-standing dream stretching back to Imperial Russia's days. Just like the latter theory falls apart because of the existence of Pakistan and its mountains, the former does because statistics on trade and aid clearly indicate that the USSR had absolutely nothing to gain materially (or politically either, as quickly became evident).


Yes, because when USA invaded Afghanistan some years later it was also because of "vast quantities of rocks and dirt".
This also reveals that you don't know also very much of Afghanistan natural resources. Do some research about it and you'll see that Afghanistan is more than "vast quantities of rocks and dirt". Your argumentation is perfect to legitimize USA imperialistic interventions as in Afghanistan.

Moreover, resuming Imperialism to the material aspect is neglecting the geo-political and ideological aspects of it which is a basic error.



Quote:
I never understood how Stalinist MLs and Maoists can cite instances of 'Soviet imperialism' in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan while ignoring entirely what was going on in the late 1930s and 1940s under Stalin. All I'm saying is that if you're going to make up a concept and apply it, at least have the courtesy to be consistent about it.


I'm being consistent about it. Give me examples of Stalin's imperialism.

[/quote]American and West European MLs perhaps. Russian MLs rarely approach the USSR's history post-1953 with the kind of vehemence displayed by their Western counterparts, given that many think that the USSR continued on a Marxist-Leninist course all the way until Gorbachev, even if Khrushchev's era is often severely criticized.[/quote]

Perhaps because the Russians ML's see it more from a patriotic perspective than a ideological one
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 May 2012, 23:44
Political Interest wrote:
Yes, but gradually.


How it was gradually if the soviet forces didn't advance further or invaded other region in the area?
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 May 2012, 00:11
JAM wrote:
Yes, because when USA invaded Afghanistan some years later it was also because of "vast quantities of rocks and dirt". This also reveals that you don't know also very much of Afghanistan natural resources. Do some research about it and you'll see that Afghanistan is more than "vast quantities of rocks and dirt". Your argumentation is perfect to legitimize USA imperialistic interventions as in Afghanistan.


In the 1980s, it was known that Afghanistan had some good untapped reserves of natural gas, and Karmal's government did work with Soviet technical experts to try to connect them to the existing Soviet pipeline networks to the north, in order to reduce the country's trade deficit and the need for Soviet aid. The vast mineral and other resources which have only recently been discovered were not a factor in the 1980s, given that nobody knew about them.

JAM wrote:
Moreover, resuming Imperialism to the material aspect is neglecting the geo-political and ideological aspects of it which is a basic error.


During the Cold War and into the present, NATO activity has proceeded in various ways, and for various stated or real purposes in any individual country (police action, to open markets, to obtain resources, to protect human rights). More often than not direct intervention and economic takeover is not necessary for neocolonialism and financial imperialism to work. So despite the fact that some countries like Afghanistan aren't being fought for 'for oil' or for any other resource doesn't change the reality that all capitalist imperialist activity on the whole ultimately comes down to the need for financial gain, markets, and the preservation of first world economic hegemony over the developing world. Even the United States' 'ideologically motivated' interventions, like that in Vietnam, were economic in essence, given that part of the reason the domino theory was so frightening was because a communist country would not so willingly open itself to transnational corporations and to economic exploitation, instead trying to build up its ability to produce finished goods and to obtain fair prices for its resources. In its development aid activity, the USSR actually promoted the development of producer goods industries, since they had no market or labour market to lose. This was the fundamental and crucial difference between the Western Alliance and the Socialist Bloc, even if both played geopolitics.

JAM wrote:
I'm being consistent about it. Give me examples of Stalin's imperialism.


Based on how you use it toward Afghanistan, the definition applies to all Soviet activity in Eastern Europe (apart perhaps from Czechoslovakia) in the late 1940s, Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Romania before that. I know that your reply may constitute an explanation for why each case (or most at least) were justified behaviour, but there's no need, since I will simply agree and you'll be preaching to the converted. What I don't understand is how the justifications for Soviet behaviour in the late 1930s and 1940s don't carry over to the 1950s, 1960s and late 1970s.

JAM wrote:
Perhaps because the Russians ML's see it more from a patriotic perspective than a ideological one


Or maybe because their living memory reminds them that apart from improved economic conditions, a more relaxed repressive apparatus and a newly educated and technically advanced society, there weren't many fundamental ideological differences between the USSR of Stalin's time and what came after (apart from the Khrushchev period, most of whose' economic, political and foreign policy tinkering was quickly reversed after he was removed).
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 15 May 2012, 01:34
soviet78 wrote:

In the 1980s, it was known that Afghanistan had some good untapped reserves of natural gas, and Karmal's government did work with Soviet technical experts to try to connect them to the existing Soviet pipeline networks to the north, in order to reduce the country's trade deficit and the need for Soviet aid. The vast mineral and other resources which have only recently been discovered were not a factor in the 1980s, given that nobody knew about them.


I think that your statement is incorrect.

Look:


"At its peak in the late 1970s, Afghanistan supplied 70%-90% of its natural gas output to the Soviet Union's natural gas grid via a link through Uzbekistan. In 1992, Afghan President Najibullah indicated that a new natural gas sales agreement with Russia was in progress. However, several former Soviet republics raised price and distribution issues and negotiations stalled. The last Soviet technical advisors left Afghanistan in 1988. After a brief hiatus, oil production at the Angot field was restarted in the early 1990s by local militias.

Between the 1960s and mid-1980s, the Soviets had identified more than 15 oil and gas fields in northern Afghanistan. Only three gas fields - Khwaja Gogerdak, Djarquduk, and Yatimtaq - were developed in the area surrounding Sheberghan, which is located about 120 kilometers west of Mazar-i-Sharif. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period and boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978.

The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. "

http://www.mbendi.com/indy/oilg/as/af/p0005.htm

"The Soviets had long exhibited interest in the natural gas deposits across the Amu Darya in Afghanistan. They began geologic exploration in earnest in 1957 with the conclusion of a technical assistance agreement. From the beginning, Soviet aid was designed to promote large exports of natural gas to the Soviet Union. Although production started in 1967, there was no Afghan gas consumption until 1975, when about 2 percent of the output was diverted to a thermal power plant at Mazar-e Sharif. The value of these gas reserves jumped with the advent of the Iranian Revolution. In late 1979 a dispute over prices caused Tehran to halt gas exports to the Soviet Union. It was, as a result, a cold winter for many citizens of the Soviet Central Asian republics. After their intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviets secured control of the Afghan gas facilities, whose production aided the development of the Turkmen, Uzbek, and Tadzhik republics. By the mid-1980s gas exports to the Soviet Union represented 90 percent of total production and constituted a vital element in the Afghan budgetary and trade picture. The Soviets, however, paid Afghanistan a very low price for gas; in 1981 it was only half the price of Soviet gas piped to Western Europe. These relatively low prices dated back to the initial Afghan gas exports. Whereas world gas prices varied according to calorific value, Afghanistan received prices far below those of any major world exporter. In addition, Afghan officials were unable to verify the actual amount of gas pumped to the Soviet Union because the meters were on the Soviet side of the border, and Afghan officials had no access to them."

"In 1956 the Afghans had their first oil find, and, with further Soviet help, the oil reserves were evaluated. The country was estimated in 1978 to have petroleum reserves totaling some 70 to 100 million barrels located in Faryab and Jowzjan provinces. In late 1984 there were reports of seven new oil fields discovered with Soviet aid"

http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/afghanistan/Industry.html




Quote:
During the Cold War and into the present, NATO activity has proceeded in various ways, and for various stated or real purposes in any individual country (police action, to open markets, to obtain resources, to protect human rights). More often than not direct intervention and economic takeover is not necessary for neocolonialism and financial imperialism to work. So despite the fact that some countries like Afghanistan aren't being fought for 'for oil' or for any other resource doesn't change the reality that all capitalist imperialist activity on the whole ultimately comes down to the need for financial gain, markets, and the preservation of first world economic hegemony over the developing world. Even the United States' 'ideologically motivated' interventions, like that in Vietnam, were economic in essence, given that part of the reason the domino theory was so frightening was because a communist country would not so willingly open itself to transnational corporations and to economic exploitation, instead trying to build up its ability to produce finished goods and to obtain fair prices for its resources. In its development aid activity, the USSR actually promoted the development of producer goods industries, since they had no market or labour market to lose. This was the fundamental and crucial difference between the Western Alliance and the Socialist Bloc, even if both played geopolitics.


The socialist economies need natural resources so much as the capitalist ones. This is not a matter of markets.



Quote:
Based on how you use it toward Afghanistan, the definition applies to all Soviet activity in Eastern Europe (apart perhaps from Czechoslovakia) in the late 1940s, Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Romania before that. I know that your reply may constitute an explanation for why each case (or most at least) were justified behaviour, but there's no need, since I will simply agree and you'll be preaching to the converted. What I don't understand is how the justifications for Soviet behaviour in the late 1930s and 1940s don't carry over to the 1950s, 1960s and late 1970s.


I already knew that you would come up with this.

Because as far as I can remember Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Afghanistan weren't ripped apart from USSR like those countries (except Romania but I don't know why you mentioned it since the situation was similar to Czechoslovakia) were after the I World War due to the Russian weakness at the time, the Brest-Litvosk treaty which was dropped by Lenin immediately after the war and the Versailles Treaty never signed by USSR. If you're gonna present this as an example of Imperialism than you may consider that Ukraine integration in USSR was imperialistic since Ukraine also had the same legitimacy of those nations to declare its independence due to the Treaty (and actually did it) and you also imply Lenin was also imperialistic since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine and waged war against the Baltics and Poland to recover the territories lost illegitimately. Stalin actions didn't distance from Lenin ones with only one difference: he did it successfully.


Quote:
Or maybe because their living memory reminds them that apart from improved economic conditions, a more relaxed repressive apparatus and a newly educated and technically advanced society, there weren't many fundamental ideological differences between the USSR of Stalin's time and what came after (apart from the Khrushchev period, most of whose' economic, political and foreign policy tinkering was quickly reversed after he was removed).


You are aware that all the things you mentioned except the relaxed repressive apparatus (which eventually led to the perestroika and those sabotage actions in the 80's provoking the end of the USSR) were consequence of Stalin's work and achievements, right? The economic effects of Stalin's era didn't end exactly in 1953. If you know economy you know that. Without what was done during his period nothing of what you mentioned would be possible. Actually, the stagnation era came shortly after and certainly wasn't by chance. Russia today is still a image of what was achieved during Stalin's era, specially its economic nature and world power status.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 May 2012, 16:58
So based on what you've posted, do you think that Afghanistan's natural gas reserves were a motivation for Soviet intervention there? The fact that the Soviets purchased or ran almost 100% of Afghan natural gas does not say much to me, except that it was convenient for the Afghans to use existing pipeline networks to the north instead of trying to work out arrangements with other neighbouring countries which would cost billions to finance. With regard to pricing, the Soviets regularly had similar agreements with other countries, sometimes buying and sometimes selling above or below then-present 'market' value, since most of their trade was based on bilateral agreements and fixed term prices. Whatever economic advantage the Soviets may have received was vastly outweighed by the economic and military aid received by the DRA.

JAM wrote:
The socialist economies need natural resources so much as the capitalist ones. This is not a matter of markets.


It is, since the Soviet economic system was not built upon the exploitation of foreign peoples.

JAM wrote:
Because as far as I can remember Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Afghanistan weren't ripped apart from USSR like those countries (except Romania but I don't know why you mentioned it since the situation was similar to Czechoslovakia) were after the I World War due to the Russian weakness at the time, the Brest-Litvosk treaty which was dropped by Lenin immediately after the war and the Versailles Treaty never signed by USSR. If you're gonna present this as an example of Imperialism than you may consider that Ukraine integration in USSR was imperialistic since Ukraine also had the same legitimacy of those nations to declare its independence due to the Treaty (and actually did it) and you also imply Lenin was also imperialistic since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine and waged war against the Baltics and Poland to recover the territories lost illegitimately. Stalin actions didn't distance from Lenin ones with only one difference: he did it successfully.


I agree with you on all counts. Of course there is the issue of the imposition of ML socialism in Eastern Europe, not necessarily based on majority support in each individual country. If the Soviet goal in all three cases you mentioned was to prevent counterrevolution, I don't see how Stalin would have acted differently. Why a Stalinist has to call Soviet actions post-Stalin imperialism when their character is fundamentally no different than what happened during Stalin's time, I can't understand. If you were a Maoist or a Maoist sympathizer, I would understand your ideological motivations, but at present I do not.

JAM wrote:
You are aware that all the things you mentioned except the relaxed repressive apparatus (which eventually led to the perestroika and those sabotage actions in the 80's provoking the end of the USSR) were consequence of Stalin's work and achievements, right? The economic effects of Stalin's era didn't end exactly in 1953. If you know economy you know that. Without what was done during his period nothing of what you mentioned would be possible. Actually, the stagnation era came shortly after and certainly wasn't by chance. Russia today is still a image of what was achieved during Stalin's era, specially its economic nature and world power status.


Yes, of course I am aware that the Stalin era's achievements continued to benefit the country into the 1980s. I don't know why you've formed the impression that I'm critical of Stalin, but I am actually someone who defends both Stalin and what came after (minus most of the Khrushchev period). With regard to relaxed repression, that too was a consequence of Stalin's achievements, because it was the result of a new social order where previously poor and illiterate peasants became workers, obtained an education, and had offspring which had even more and which became a mass intelligentsia comprising probably one third or more of all adults in the country. A relaxation of the repressive apparatus was inevitable in an highly educated and modern society. Unfortunately it was in the way it took place that the problem stood. In Khrushchev's time de-Stalinization of mass consciousness was a concentrated political campaign as much as it was an opportunity for free and open criticism of past errors. Once Brezhnev replaced Khrushchev, Stalin's name was partially rehabilitated, within limits created by the new societal circumstances (i.e. he could no longer be praised as Czar and God, because people were too educated for the old-style cult of personality). In Gorbachev's time, again it was a hierarchically orchestrated campaign from the top that began to criticize the Soviet experience, except this time it was of every aspect of life, culture, history, and ideology. In both cases, it was the political game played by the leadership, rather than the mere relaxation of the repressive apparatus itself, which had negative consequences. The evidence for this lies in the fact that in both campaigns, those who resisted de-Stalinization or the destruction of socialist ideology as a whole faced repression in the form of being unable to publicly voice their criticisms through public means. It's not as if censorship was simply relaxed and there was a sudden explosion of criticism long and deeply held by the public. What occurred in each case was an information war waged by a small handful of opportunist (Khrushchev period) or outright counterrevolutionary (Gorbachev period) editors, publishers, artists and academics which convinced society that what happened in Stalin's time, or during the entirety of the Soviet experience, was erroneous and shameful.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 15 May 2012, 18:25
soviet78 wrote:
So based on what you've posted, do you think that Afghanistan's natural gas reserves were a motivation for Soviet intervention there? The fact that the Soviets purchased or ran almost 100% of Afghan natural gas does not say much to me, except that it was convenient for the Afghans to use existing pipeline networks to the north instead of trying to work out arrangements with other neighbouring countries which would cost billions to finance. With regard to pricing, the Soviets regularly had similar agreements with other countries, sometimes buying and sometimes selling above or below then-present 'market' value, since most of their trade was based on bilateral agreements and fixed term prices. Whatever economic advantage the Soviets may have received was vastly outweighed by the economic and military aid received by the DRA.


No, that was never my point although some people point out as one of the factors for the soviet intervention. My point was to show you that Afghanistan was more than vast quantities of rocks and dirt.

As I said to you Imperialism doesn't resume to the material aspect although its one major element, no doubt about it. What possible material interests could the USA have in Korea? The Truman Doctrine that USA adopted and used to intervene in Korea and Vietnam was similar to the Brezhnev Doctrine in its nature.



Quote:
It is, since the Soviet economic system was not built upon the exploitation of foreign peoples.


True, but this doesn't invalidate the fact that socialist economies needs natural resources so much as capitalist countries. The markets play a role in imperialism but as I said above you have more than economic factors behind imperialism.




Quote:
I agree with you on all counts. Of course there is the issue of the imposition of ML socialism in Eastern Europe, not necessarily based on majority support in each individual country. If the Soviet goal in all three cases you mentioned was to prevent counterrevolution, I don't see how Stalin would have acted differently. Why a Stalinist has to call Soviet actions post-Stalin imperialism when their character is fundamentally no different than what happened during Stalin's time, I can't understand. If you were a Maoist or a Maoist sympathizer, I would understand your ideological motivations, but at present I do not.


As I showed to you there was a difference between Stalin's interventions in the former Russian territories and the post Stalin interventions in countries with no association to USSR history. Stalin policy was a continuation of 1918-1922. During this time Lenin wasn't able to regain the territories due to the internal weakness of Russia and the debilities of the red army but in 1939 the USSR was in condition to do it.

Stalin also had the same motives that you mentioned to intervene military in Korea and he didn't, choosing instead to provide material support the North Korean Government. This should have been the option taken by the USSR regarding the Afghanistan.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 48
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2012, 00:16
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2012, 01:52
No absolutely not. It was imperialism. No matter how you paint it it still was imperialism. It was a pointless war that saw no end in sight and the people of Afghanistan never supported the invading force. So no i do not support the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2012, 03:11
Bullshit. The DRA invited the Soviet forces into their country to defeat internationally supported terrorists. To be honest if you don't support the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan you're effectively supporting the mujahideen and western imperialism. And I'm not putting too fine a point on that.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 17 May 2012, 03:19
Not that I'm disagreeing with you here Dags, but it's a shame that Fox took all that post/rank info away from the default view of the forum... people don't know to be nice to the new posters.
It's still there, but you've got to click on things to see it:

Quote:
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 48
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2012, 00:16
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2012, 03:23
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Bullshit. The DRA invited the Soviet forces into their country to defeat internationally supported terrorists. To be honest if you don't support the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan you're effectively supporting the mujahideen and western imperialism. And I'm not putting too fine a point on that.


By not supporting the Soviets in this pointless war i support "terrorism" and "western imperialism"? The Soviets themselves were imperialists and supported imperialist actions.
I am 100% against unnecessary wars and this war is one of them
★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2012, 03:47
If you don't think the mujahideen was a terrorist group you've lost contact with reality. These are the same people who burn girls faces with acid for going to school, these are the people who blew up hospitals, roads, and all other types of Soviet built infrastructure. There was nothing unnecessary about eradicating the proto-Taliban and the Soviets are to be blamed for their failure to do so. And before you get any misconceptions about me, I'm a Muslim, so I'm not like many of the others around here who seem to think attacking Muslim groups is always good idea. The attacks on the DRA were coordinated with western imperialism and Maoist wreckers.

Btw what do you think imperialism is? Is helping allied states defeat foreign pressure imperialism?

Shigalyov wrote:
Not that I'm disagreeing with you here Dags, but it's a shame that Fox took all that post/rank info away from the default view of the forum... people don't know to be nice to the new posters.
It's still there, but you've got to click on things to see it:

New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)

Calling bullshit isn't being mean. It's a greater kindness.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 48
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 May 2012, 00:16
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 17 May 2012, 04:48
Dagoth Ur wrote:
If you don't think the mujahideen was a terrorist group you've lost contact with reality.

I have never stated that they were not a terrorist group

Quote:
These are the same people who burn girls faces with acid for going to school, these are the people who blew up hospitals, roads, and all other types of Soviet built infrastructure.

Ok. Its bad. But i never said they were not a terrorist group...

Quote:
There was nothing unnecessary about eradicating the proto-Taliban and the Soviets are to be blamed for their failure to do so. And before you get any misconceptions about me, I'm a Muslim, so I'm not like many of the others around here who seem to think attacking Muslim groups is always good idea. The attacks on the DRA were coordinated with western imperialism and Maoist wreckers.

So if a terrorist group is harming a country then there is justification for another country to come in and try to eradicate that terrorist cell?

Quote:
Btw what do you think imperialism is? Is helping allied states defeat foreign pressure imperialism?

Not but supporting a coup and a unpopular government in a proxy war for your own countries self interest is imperalism
★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 17 May 2012, 05:26
RATM8 wrote:
Not but supporting a coup and a unpopular government in a proxy war for your own countries self interest is imperalism


Just for the record, the USSR had nothing to do with the Saur Revolution in 1978. The Soviet Foreign Ministry found out about it from the news just like everyone else, and even the Soviet embassy in Kabul had no advanced warning.

...

JAM, I've made my arguments about the goals of Western imperialism and the concept of post-Stalin 'Soviet imperialism', and you've made yours. I suppose these are two issues we will just have to agree to disagree on.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2012, 06:07
RATM8 wrote:
So if a terrorist group is harming a country then there is justification for another country to come in and try to eradicate that terrorist cell?

Yeah if that country asks its friends to help. It's called alliance. It's kind of an old idea.

RATM8 wrote:
Not but supporting a coup and a unpopular government in a proxy war for your own countries self interest is imperalism

The DRA was not unpopular. It took years for the mujahideen to build any strength and it was only due to foreign fighters that they became a real threat to the DRA. Add to that the HUGE amounts of capital and weapons being given by western imperialists and Maoist wreckers. Now tell me how asking the Soviets for aid in repelling such an enemy was imperialism. And also what is gained from letting the worst type of radicals seize power?
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.