So, I know this is a given, but does anybody here support the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan. Before you leap to conclusions, I do not believe this or advocate this argument, but one could argue that the United States forcing capitalism, a more advanced stage of development, would be more progressive than if the Taliban took over again. On the other hand, the government there seems to be just as reactionary as the Taliban, and in fact, I read once that they had planned to hold talks with so call "Moderate (Read pro-western) Taliban".
Installing capitalism isn't progressive, building it is. Plus mopping up an ultra-reactionary terrorist organization that you funded and supplied isn't ever progressive.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Yep. The US (and other foreign agitators) caused the situation in the Middle East in a broad sense, and the situation in Afghanistan in a specific sense. The Soviets were attempting to supply a movement whose conditions already existed to develop, the US is simply attempting to maintain a sphere of influence in the region for future strategic interests. The distinction is pretty clear to me.
I agree with previous commenters; the US is there to build US capitalism and to turn Afghanistan into another dependency. If the US is successful, Afghan capitalism will be built to serve American needs, not local development.
"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
I accidentally voted "yes"
I'm not sure. Ultimately, time may show this to be progressive as it gives Afghanistan a kickstart into capitalism (which is what it really needs at the moment).
Well the word Taliban is generally used as an umbrella term to describe various groups in Afghanistan who are by no means united. As for the government, I would say it is marginally better than the Taliban (as in Mullah Omah et al) but contains within it the potential to be a lot better and develop into capitalism. With The Taliban governmenty I could never see any such potential.
Surely installing capitalism is a part of building it? Also, the whole funding thing is in the past under completely different politicians. Just because they funded them in the past doesn't mean it isn't progressive to get rid of the Taliban.
But even in countries where this has occurred before (Africa and Asia under the Europeans powers) it still resulted in the growth of infrastructure (railways and factories) as well as the introduction of modern technology and systems of government. The export of capital to foreign dependencies is still beneficial to these dependencies.
I voted yes. Mostly for kicks, but doing mental gymnastics I've concluded the following:
-Crackdown on a crazy islamic puppet that you installed which screwed you over.
-Civilizing backwards tribal communities back to SOME kind of national unity.
-Introducing some kind of economic system outside opium and rugs.
-Give Liberal hippie doochebags, progressives and communists something else to bitch about.
-oh, and COMPLETELY UNTAPPED UNEXPLORED RESOURCE LOCATION FOR ANYONE AND EVERYONE TO RAPE.
Before you go "thats very uncommunist of you Trent" remember, anything at this point for Afghans is progress.
Really? That seems like a bad example. America succeeded because all the natives died. India succeeded because India's elite was in collusion with the British government. Africa simply could not succeed because they were raped (for resources) and segregated with no intention of ever allowing any autonomy whatsoever to the region. Then when shit got too tight to handle they pulled out. Exactly what's going to happen in Afghanistan, mark my words.
Infrastructure in the Middle East COULD have developed through REAL free trade. Instead, imperialistic armies and covert ops prevented any kind of law and order, thus there was no law and order. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me. The US is not building capitalism at all, something which needs a consenting population to create. The US is fashioning out a client state that will provide them with strategic leverage... and failing at that.
Well I don't know what you mean by "succeed." I'm simply referring to the growth in infrastructure in both direct colonial possessions and nominally independent dependencies as a result of imperialism. And yes, Africa received its railways as a result of the Europeans. Many of the railways today are the original colonial lines (with aging rolling stock). Of course, the Europeans built them for their own benefit but they have inevitably come to benefit the Africans. Yes the railways suck and are in a shoddy condition today but the fact is that before the Europeans arrived there were no railways at all and thus you cannot deny that infrastructural progress has been made due to imperialism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world ... ls.html?hp
Yes it will be built by and for Western (and possibly Chinese) companies, yes the average Afghan will not see much material benefit from this. But ultimately, it will provide Afghanistan with a mining industry that it does not have as well as introduce a capitalist mode of production. This can only be considered progressive.
I voted other. IMO the U.S. is cleaning up the mess it started in the first place, replacing the mess with a somewhat better form of government. A corrupt government headed by someone nobody voted for is better than a government run by a group of Islamic extremists. It's similar to its Central Asian neighbors, minus the stability.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
I voted no. I don't support imperialism, even if it would replace the Taliban. Afghanistan is the US Frankenstein that they lost control of. The provisional government is awful too. If Afghanistan was the end of the Soviet-US conflict, so be it. I still didn't prefer it.
gRed Britain wrote:
Imperialism's 'kickstarting' capitalism sure has proven to be progressive for the Middle East so far right? Why do you think Afghanistan will be any different?
gRed Britain wrote:
No it isn't. Installing capitalism is done by external forces. Building capitalism is done from within and with all the lessons a people need to learn.
gRed Britain wrote:
Who are pursuing an identical imperialist policy. Also there are a lot of them that were around back then too so that's not really a defense at all.
gRed Britain wrote:
I murder someone. If I bring them back to life it's progressive? There is nothing progressive about funding a reactionary organization and then bombing the country who you left them in charge of. It's especially not progressive when you consider that we waited over a decade and would still be waiting if it weren't for 9/11.
Funding the mujahideen = reactionary
Allowing the mujahideen to enforce radically reactionary policies = reactionary
Stopping the mujahideen only after it attacked you = reactionary
Pretending imperialism leads to progress = reactionary
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Forcing Capitalism through unnecessary, unproductive, and illogical way inhibits growth and increases resistance. Just look at Somalia for example, former colony of imperialistic powers and now an anarchy. The US's imperialism is unjustified (except for the economic motivations) but either way, Afghanistan, just like Korea and Vietnam are all tools in my eyes. Tools for the US increase their influence. It is unfair and immoral to "use" societies for domestic benefits, its as simple as that. the US isnt still there out of the kindness of their hearts, we have had plenty of opportunities to leave, including now, but choose not to for who knows why.
As a karate expert, I will not talk about anybody in this room......" - Jimmy McMillan
Voted "No" to coalition forces invasion and Hamid Karzai's puppet government. They bring "freedom" (oppression and terror), "economical progress" (capitalism) and never ending chaos in Afghanistan.
Inggris Kita Linggis, Amerika Kita Setrika ! -Sukarno-
Look, no matter how you look at it, Africa sucks. Pretty much completely sucks at that. It's not clear whether or not it sucked more before the Europeans came, but there certainly has not been a great deal of economic progress in Africa even accepting the fact that Europeans created infrastructure there. Law and order and a strong civil society simply does not exist, and whether or not it existed before the Europeans came does not matter because if it did they completely destroyed it. They crafted states whose purpose was to make Europeans that settled there rich, or better off. This worked in America because all the natives died and somewhat worked in India because of the ingrained hierarchy there which colluded with the foreign interests. Europeans were simply not interested or unable to do that in Africa.
Africa has a billion people living there, but most people are still subsistence farmers. That is simply an inefficient way to progress towards capitalism. You're acting as if it can simply be introduced into a land. It can't. Africa has all the indicators of a developing state as far as quality of life is concerned, with really no hint at progression given the myriad social issues (like rape and massive amounts of gang violence, along with overpopulation), combined with the AID's epidemic and the fact that they are still to this day being economically exploited in the name of private property, which was stolen from them a hundred take a few years ago.
I know your point is about infrastructure by the way, all I'm saying is that it's a pointless argument. Basic infrastructure was necessary for the development of capitalism, that's a given. But the material circumstances simply do not exist, so the infrastructure, which by your own admission is falling apart, is simply of hypothetical utility.
Resource industries are all well and good, but the capitalist mode of production, especially in the early stages, is characterized by manufacturing industries. Imo if you look at SE Asia, Europe, North America, and South America, that's when the quality of life really starts to increase.
I'd go into further detail but it's late and I'm going to bed, so I'll have to pick this up another time.
Yes it has.
The Saudi oil industry was essentially built by the US with its resources and technological know-how. We can see today a developed capitalist mode of production in Saudi Arabia as a result. This can only be considered progressive considering what was there (or rather, wasn't) before.
Sure, socially Saudi may still be a pretty reactionary society but in terms of economic development along capitalist lines imperialism has assisted this. This is progressive.
Another example: British imperialism helped develop the Egyptian cotton industry.
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/brmill10/po ... otton.html
Britain introduced infrastructure, technological advances, railways, etc (all for its own benefit, naturally) resulting in the capitalisation of this industry. Again, this is progressive considering the state of the industry in Egypt before the British arrival.
In both “internally” and “externally” sourced capitalism people learn the lessons they need to learn because there is no other choice. It doesn’t matter if it had been British or Egyptian capitalists opening a mass-producing cotton plantation - Egyptian workers had to conform to bourgeois methods of production if they were to work on them.
You seem to be adhering to some moralistic stance of national responsibility - I.e. the US has no right to get rid of the Taliban because they supported them 30 years ago. The past is the past. If the medieval rule of the Taliban is replaced by capitalism (which is what Afghanistan needs) then it a step in the right direction. It doesn’t matter who does it (though capitalism in Afghanistan would spread deeper within society if it were the Afghans themselves - something I’m not sure is happening at the moment).
The mujahideen = reactionary
Will the world be a better place when they are destroyed? Yes
Ergo, is the destruction of the mujahideen progressive? Yes
I didn’t say there was much social progress. You’re right, Africa is swamped in a myriad of issues. However, the Europeans did introduce new types of crops (including cash crops) and the technology and social method of production to produce agriculture on a mass scale. I’m not saying it has solved problems in Africa, I’m not saying it has dramatically improved people’s lives, I’m not saying the Europeans should still be there.
I’m saying that in terms of dialectical materialism it is progressive. It is a step in the right direction, however small, towards developed capitalism. Africa needed this.
Here is an interesting article on commodity production in Africa. This shows how imperialism’s progressive nature has reached its limit in Africa. Africa needs to develop its manufacturing industry and is struggling as foreign MNCs are stifling domestic growth in private manufacturing enterprises.
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afr ... stries.htm
Last edited by Komissar_KW on 20 May 2011, 15:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: combine double post
I didn't support the invasion itself, although now they're there, I do support them in their war against the Taliban. I mean I really can't see a good reason why those idiots shouldn't be destroyed.
I voted other. I don't support their invasion on general principle, but I'm not really fond of the Taliban either.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
In terms of political theory, every movement brings its own contradiction. Why have we not supported the 1914-1918 imperialist war? Didn't it developed the contradictions in many countries? In Russia, especially? Didn't it brought the Revolution in Europe? Some social-democrats, such as the left-wing French socialist Jules Guesde thought that the war was not so much a bad thing. They said "La guerre est mère de révolution" (War makes revolution), and when the war started, they entered the "sacred union" with the bourgeoisie. We, communists, refused this mortifying justification. We have always opposed imperialism, in any situation, because it is the main enemy of the socialist movement. When I see that some comrades believe, for a fallacious argument, that we can support US imperialism, I'm deeply worried.
The idea that the United States would bring capitalism to Afghanistan - And thus it would be a progress -, is a monstrous anti-dialectical and anti-marxist simplification. Contrary to the idea propagated by the bourgeoisie, the Taliban are not a feudal power. During the 1990's, the country was so much destroyed by years of war (the Soviet intervention was actually criminal), that the warlords were dismembering the country (kidnappings, roadblocks, assassination...). The Taliban tried to bring back some order, on the basis of Afghanistan's religious cohesion. They did it with Pakistan's support, but they were also helped by the national bourgeoisie. They were the best path for a national capitalism. Afghanistan's businessmen thought that the Taliban could stop the warlord's robbery, and they were right. After the invasion, the United States relied on the warlords (e.g. Karzaï), and so they brought both imperialism (economic exploitation) and feudalism (political and economical control).
Is thinking in absolute terms reactionary? Yes.
"Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur
Alternative Display:Mobile view