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

Afghanistan

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5167
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 24 May 2010, 13:09
Russia was feudal in the sense it was overwhelmingly populated by peasants. Still I'm not sure if it's feudal, as there were no serfs, just poor peasants employed by rich peasants or by the state.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 489
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 15:15
Komsomol
Post 24 May 2010, 14:28
Dagoth Ur wrote:
As though such conditions exist today.


I never said they do. But the current situation is certainly better than the one of the 19th century.

Commie77 wrote:
If you mean revolutions/wars/coups in general there is Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, China... But if you mean unpopular revolutions or something then there is Grenada um and i have to search for others


Revolution =/= coup.
"You're a pretty cool guy" - Mabool
"the social democrats don't give a frag about changing this capitalist system [...] so they can lick my greasy peanut buttered balls like the dog they are." - Greenanarchism
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 24 May 2010, 14:46
Commie77 wrote:
If you mean revolutions/wars/coups in general there is Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, China... But if you mean unpopular revolutions or something then there is Grenada um and i have to search for others


Revolutions =/= coups. A coup is a where a small group of elites bump off established leadership for their group's gain. Socialist revolution could never be accomplished by such means.

Valex wrote:
I never said they do. But the current situation is certainly better than the one of the 19th century.


Better by inches.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 25 May 2010, 08:45
well why not, i guess they need the support of the population after. but in a democracy where the communist party is voted in there needs to be substantial change in society thus a revolution. and coups are usually unpopular and need external protection or military protection.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 26 May 2010, 07:21
Greenanarchism wrote:
well why not, i guess they need the support of the population after.


Because top-down revolutions don't work.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 26 May 2010, 08:47
doesn't top down means that it is imposed without the consent of the people? i don't exactly see the difference of general strikes and riots leading to a newly elected socialist leader . or a military coup installing an equally popular socialist leader.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 26 May 2010, 08:54
Coups don't install popular people. That's why they used a coup. If they were really so popular they could stage a real revolution. Plus after you stage a coup you're trying to stabilize things not stir them up.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 28 May 2010, 13:11
Well if people like you sometimes revolutions still are not possible. If the government is to powerful and the people are to scared to do anything sometimes coups are reasonable.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 May 2010, 14:19
No they aren't. If the people are too scared to stand up for themselves then they'll be too scared to do what's necessary to build socialism. Top-down revolutions, ie coups, are doomed from the get-go.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 May 2010, 10:44
Pioneer
Post 12 Jun 2010, 16:26
From what I understand, the Afghan communists were trying to turn a very traditional, islamic society into a modern, socialist one. They definitely had the best interests of the people in mind, but they went the wrong way about it. I just don't think Socialism in the way that it was implemented in Afghanistan can work in the middle east. It's just such a strongly religious and theocratic region that any true form of socialism just could not work.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 06:54
British Kommissar wrote:
It's just such a strongly religious and theocratic region that any true form of socialism just could not work.


soviet78 wrote:
he DRA regime was not against Islam, but rather against feudalism. In the 1980s the government spent monies to build and restore mosques, and sent thousands of Afghanis to the Haj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the National Fatherland Front -a movement of hundreds of thousands of non-communist supporters of the regime, included many Afghan Muslim groups and leaders. The radical period of semi-associating Islam with Afghan backwardness and otherwise insulting it ended in 1979 when Babrak Karmal came to power and began persuing more rational, careful and progressive policies. Among the first symbolic steps he took when he came into office was to revert the flag to one including the colours associated with Islam.


I'm amazed that I still hear the augment that Islam and Communism are somehow mutually opposed. Such nonsense is purely capitalist/islamist propaganda.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 May 2010, 10:44
Pioneer
Post 13 Jun 2010, 12:24
In some ways, it can work. But Communism is pretty Atheistic by nature, and if the majority of the Afghani muslim population was truly happy with the Socialist regime then there wouldn't have been such a violent resistance to it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 14:22
British Kommissar wrote:
But Communism is pretty Atheistic by nature


False. Religion justifies so much of what we want, in the same sense that its used to justify capitalism. Religion is a tool, and no scientist throws away a tool.

British Kommissar wrote:
and if the majority of the Afghani muslim population was truly happy with the Socialist regime then there wouldn't have been such a violent resistance to it.


Perhaps not happy but going forward. The disastrous policies of Hafizullah Amin are what largely led to the drop in party popularity, as opposed to Nur Taraki who was more or less overzealous. Also considering the support given by the US and, as the traitors to socialism that they are, the PRC directly led to what was a group of disorganized tribesmen with world war two guns.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 14:35
Quote:
False. Religion justifies so much of what we want, in the same sense that its used to justify capitalism. Religion is a tool, and no scientist throws away a tool.


That's idealization and "metaphysics".It doesn't matter what religion could be,it's the current character(and role in the class struggle) of religion that is important to us.
Religion is tied to the bourgeoisie and that cannot change because there is no need for religion after the Revolution,therefore religion has to be destroyed,therefore "Communism is atheistic".
You can't just "reform" religion or send priests to re-education camps.
Last edited by Loz on 13 Jun 2010, 14:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 May 2010, 10:44
Pioneer
Post 13 Jun 2010, 14:57
I agree with you, Loz. Although a region as volatile as the Middle-East cannot be quickly transformed into an Atheistic society. If a Communist regime is ever established in a Middle Eastern country again, the introduction of Atheism should be taken very slowly, without infringing on the rights of Muslims in the area. The Middle East hasn't even become secular yet, so jumping straight to State Atheism would be a ridiculous thing to do.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 15:10
Loz wrote:
That's idealization and "metaphysics".


You don't know what either of those words mean. It would be idealism or metaphysics if I said Allah commands us to Communism, and used that as an argument. However I'm not, I'm saying that's how you convince muslims.

Loz wrote:
It doesn't matter what religion could be,it's the current character(and role in the class struggle) of religion that is important to us.


Which you're ignoring. Capitalism has justified itself through faith, and like everything else we must seize it and make it advance with us. Ostracizing them is retarded.

Loz wrote:
Religion is tied to the bourgeoisie


No its controlled by the bourgeoisie, while being made up principally of proletarians. It will be much easier to convince them we're right if we use what they know.

Loz wrote:
and that cannot change because there is no need for religion after the Revolution


There is no need for religion now outside of economic hardship and culture. Revolution isn't some magic device that auto-advances humanity past its old ways. Proletarian cultural hegemony means we take over EVERYTHING.

Loz wrote:
therefore religion has to be destroyed,therefore "Communist is atheistic".


Only by your ultra-leftist perspective. You're just as bad as the fundamentalists who claim Communists will come burn down their churches and force them to stop worshipping.

Loz wrote:
You can't just "reform" religion or send priests to re-education camps.


Re-education doesn't work. That's why we purge anti-proletarian forces and support existing socialist element which exist within all religions especially in times of revolution. Our revolution doesn't stop at economy, or the state, it covers all culture religion included.

British Kommissar wrote:
I agree with you, Loz.


You shouldn't since he's wrong.

British Kommissar wrote:
Although a region as volatile as the Middle-East cannot be quickly transformed into an Atheistic society.


Religion like the state will wither away as its root causes/necessities are solved. If we follow loz's ultra-leftist spiel we might as well accept the entire anarchist programme.

British Kommissar wrote:
If a Communist regime is ever established in a Middle Eastern country again, the introduction of Atheism should be taken very slowly without infringing on the rights of Muslims in the area.


There should be no programme to do what will already happen. You don't need a set system to breathe, your body just does it. When the world is alleviated of the issues that drive the masses to religion, religion will become a novelty adopted as heritage and/or the realm of fringe nuts (who will always exist).

British Kommissar wrote:
The Middle East hasn't even become secular yet, so jumping straight to State Atheism would be a ridiculous thing to do.


State atheism is a ridiculous thing to do. Establishing any faith, or the lack thereof, as state policy is absurd.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 May 2010, 10:44
Pioneer
Post 13 Jun 2010, 15:17
State Atheism would just mean that the state would not have to involve itself with religious matters. With secular societies, it's more that the state is supporting all religions rather than supporting none at all.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 15:18
Quote:
You don't know what either of those words mean. It would be idealism or metaphysics if I said Allah commands us to Communism, and used that as an argument. However I'm not, I'm saying that's how you convince muslims.

Of course i do understand.Don't nitpick.See the context,man-i used apostrophes.
Lenin,for example,also used that in his article against Kautsky.

Quote:
Which you're ignoring. Capitalism has justified itself through faith, and like everything else we must seize it and make it advance with us. Ostracizing them is retarded.

What's the use for religion is socialism?

Quote:
No its controlled by the bourgeoisie, while being made up principally of proletarians. It will be much easier to convince them we're right if we use what they know.

Like,reinvent the 10 commandments in the spirit of socialism.Tito tried what you're talking about,and it didn't work...you seem to forget that priest actively blacked communist-"evil godless tyrants"

Quote:
Only by your ultra-leftist perspective. You're just as bad as the fundamentalists who claim Communists will come burn down their churches and force them to stop worshipping.

Fundamentalists claim that because they want to prevent the revolution and preserve burgeois power.Simple.
I say that because there can't be true socialism with living religion.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 15:33
British Kommissar wrote:
State Atheism would just mean that the state would not have to involve itself with religious matters. With secular societies, it's more that the state is supporting all religions rather than supporting none at all.


No its supporting the lack of belief implicitly. Adopting any view of religion on the state level is, again, absurd.

Loz wrote:
Of course i do understand.Don't nitpick.See the context,man-i used apostrophes.
Lenin,for example,also used that in his article against Kautsky.


Because he was actually guilty of them. I however am guilty of neither. The only one being idealistic is you in you position towards religion.

quote="Loz"]What's the use for religion is socialism?[/quote]

Comrades, effective propaganda, and legitimizing ourselves as authentic to our cultures. In the west this will be largely pointless but should still be done to cut off the possibility of religion reaction (at least on a major scale).

quote="Loz"]Like,reinvent the 10 commandments in the spirit of socialism.[/quote]

They already are. Or at least the important parts are. Capitalism doesn't use all of religion to justify itself it just uses the specific parts that can be interpreted that way, we have to do the same.

quote="Loz"]Fundamentalists claim that because they want to prevent the revolution and preserve burgeois power.Simple.
I say that because there can't be true socialism with living religion.[/quote]

That's completely retarded and goes to show how ascientific your view of socialism is.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2010, 16:03
Quote:
That's completely retarded and goes to show how ascientific your view of socialism is.

OK.Explain how exactly is my view of socialism "ascientific".
And why is this "Fundamentalists claim that because they want to prevent the revolution and preserve burgeois power.Simple.I say that because there can't be true socialism with living religion" retarded?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.