Im gonna be honest i dont remember if this is the right comm
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
75 points (98.7% liked)
Slop.
720 readers
477 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Where in my comment do i defend either the muj or nato? This is a thing i cant stand about some leftists on the internet, even when u admit the soviet occupation failed and was riddled with atrocities, if someone critizises it even when i critizise the US at the same time u instantly launch into an angry rant calling me a salafist nato simp. Jfc
Energy
her: the ussr was just as bad as nato, actually
me: fuck you for thinking that
her: where did i defend nato?
what exactly is me misinterpretating things here?
and before people get the wrong idea, no i am not claiming that the ussr was perfect, nor that the intervention was the correct course if action. im not even claiming that afghans arent justified in their dislike of the ussr.
all i want to say is that people who spew outright state department talking points shouldn't get to call themselves socialist.
"U could use basically the same argument to support US imperialism in Afghanistan" =/= "the ussr was just as bad as nato, actually"
"Fighting misogynistic terrorists" was the justification for Bush's war of terror on the Arab world.
Pointing out that you're using the same argument to defend the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan doesn't mean OffSeasonPrincess is equating the USSR and NATO.
She's equating your argument and Bush's.
We should own and learn from our losses instead of papering over them.
Your attitude is really poor and shows very little goodwill towards the other users of the site
you stated that the soviet occupation was morally equivalent to the us intervention. wouldn't it be nazi apologia to claim the reich was as bad as the people who fought against it, even if those people had comitted warcrimes?
The user is saying that СССР made a mistake in how they tried to intervene against the USA. My takeaway then is: СССР should have supported the Afghani people, instead of becoming a 3rd party. At least that's how I read it.
If both of you agree and the issue is communicating your thoughts, then we can all just move forward. Trying to find different interpretations of text, instead of resolving the underlying matter at hand, is very lib coded behavior.
if this was all her claims entailed, there would be no need to argue and everyone would be in agreement.
But instead she pretends like subjugating a nation for opium profits is actually the same as (again, admittedly in the wrong way) trying to defend a socialist state that explicitly asked for your assistance, since the soviet army committed human rights violations (though the much higher amount of atrocities from the various reactionary forces is somehow simultaneously irrelevant)
I said that "the soviets were right cuz they fought against islamic terrorists" os the same argument as "the us was right cuz they fought against islamic terrorists". U are seeing shit i never said if u think im making any claims about which occupation was "more moral" (i dont care which one technically committed less war crimes)
A ww2 comparison makes zero sense here and idk how the fuck u even came to that conclusion. Is it just "the soviets were good guys in ww2 so they have to have been kinda good guys here too"?
It's because you are using liberal idealist universal principles and not seeing that war, intervention and violence in general is simply a tool for the advancement of class interests. I don't think anyone can say that the Soviet intervention and counterattack on Poland that aimed to conquer it would be a bad thing, especially in retrospect where that border with Germany could be used to intervene on the side of the communists, altering the future of humanity where Germany becomes Red instead of Nazi. Materialism doesn't recognize these arguments outside of their material background. The Soviets invading Afghanistan was in support of a progressive regime, the american one is purely out of the class interest of the bourgeoisie.
If ur gonna make a "materialist" argument u also have to look at what the war actually materially accomplished, which is that Afghanistan itself got ratfucked and is stuck in a cycle of war and fundamentalism (arguably wouldve happened anyway, but the soviet invasion sure as shit didnt help), the USSR arguably collapsed faster/worse because of the disastrous war, the USSRs international standing got worse for it and the afghan jihad spread worldwide including to the countries of the now former USSR (again, couldve happened anyway, but the fact the muj could recruit a bunch of international volunteers to "fight against global communism" certainly didnt help with that). Defending an abject disaster cuz it was done for "progressive" reasons is extremely idealist and not slightly materialist
You said it yourself, the war didn't alter anything, but It did at least the give the Afghan people a chance not to be in that cycle if the Soviet Union won. I'm not making the argument that every single thing that happened during the intervention was right, the same way I don't argue that everything that Stalin did was 100% correct. But I don't have to argue that to say I support Stalin, nor do I have to argue it to say that the intervention itself wasn't a bad thing, especially when your argument equates Soviet and American interventionism, which is just wrong.
When it comes to the collapse, again, Stalin didn't do everything correctly, and the situation after the end of his leadership proves that. Then came revision, which led to the Sino-Soviet split, but also the failure of the Soviet leadership to adapt to new material conditions, which is especially stupid since the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism which they nominally espoused is literally based on changing material conditions.
the soviets tried to help a progressive régime, while the us and China propped up the most reactionary forces they could get their hands on, with the yanks later invading, in order to get control of the opium trade. definitely a "both sides bad" situation...
and the reason i brought up ww2 was because fascists and their sympathizers often resort to pointing fingers towards various real or imagined allied atrocities, in order to draw false equivalence, completely ignoring that the orders of magnitude of, as well as the ideological reasons for those actions make them completely incomparable! this is exactly what you and other liberals are doing with regards to afghanistan ("i dont care which one technically committed less war crimes"). interestingly, you dont seem as concerned with the warlords atrocities, which were much more numerous and vile than soviet violations