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.

[–] OffSeasonPrincess@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] 0__0@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

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.