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.
Im gonna be honest i dont remember if this is the right comm
I would wish what they mean with Horn of Africa. I am certain they mean the Ogaden war. But why should the soviet union support pro-apartheid somalia under siad barre? Afterall Sharmarke was supported by the soviet union and Ethiopia was actually closer aligned politically with the warsaw pact.
fighting against misogynistic druglords and apartheid is bad actually, dont'ya know?
i swear to god, the maoist to neocon pipeline is nonexistent, because oftentimes there never was a difference in the first place.
Apartheid was in southern Africa, not the horn. In the horn the USSR backed the derg, a genuinely fucky "socialist" regime, and its wars on its neighbors
U could use basically the same argument to support US imperialism in Afghanistan. "Fighting against misogynistic terrorists is bad, dont ya know?" Soviet intervention in Afghanistan wasnt bad cuz they were fighting the mujahideen, it was bad cuz they imposed a brutal occupation to prop up an already unpopular government, which never beat the mujahideen either and very likely made more ppl support them, just like the US occupation made more ppl support the taliban. This is all Americas fault for arming the mujahideen (baiting the soviets into war was their plan from the start, after all), yes, but the USSR wasnt good in this war either (idk if id actually call it "social-imperialism", but it wasnt good either way)
Past few days have unleashed the worst takes I've ever seen it's glorious. It will not be difficult to argue the alt media is still one of the most useful tools of the CIA in these circumstances
Is this tweet not tongue in cheek?
What was wrong with the USSR in Afghanistan besides the fact they lost?
Isn't that kind of enough proof that it wasn't the right strategy? Warfare against guerrilla groups armed by the USA in their local territory was a horrible idea.
They could have applied other types of power in the region, and started to do that earlier. There were plenty of people in central Asia who could have been trained as "socialist missionaries" in the decades preceding that for example, bringing gifts and aid to the rural areas of Afghanistan in which the Mujahideen dominated. I'm just making up the example, but my point is that the fact that it wasn't the right strategy is proven by the results.
Isn't that kind of enough proof that it wasn't the right strategy?
this kind of sidesteps the moral dimension of the Soviets were there to help a project to improve people's lives and the US was there to grow opium and pretend to revenge 9/11
I'm having a conversation with comrades here. Obviously if I were having a conversation with a lib I'd make a point to spend some minutes talking about the cold war, how it's ultimately the US fault funding and arming radical militias in the area, and how if Afghanistan had been in the area of control of the Soviet Union it would be similar to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in terms of development and human rights nowadays.
it would be similar to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in terms of development and human rights nowadays.
Bold to assume libs know what those countries are
Agreed! I'm always feeling like comrades don't realize that being 'correct' but losing isn't useful or valuable. Learning from those mistakes is the only way to interact with strategic losses
The Afghan government was already aligned with the soviets, they had a communist government. You are talking as if they were trying to conquer them and that was the wrong strategy. You are talking about a strategy that doesn't make sense given the situation.
Well, the afghan government was also partially propped up by the Soviets.
The soviets lost because the afghan socialists were trying to do atheism in afghanistan. The failure lies with the policies of the afgahn communists, not really the soviet union (well maybe because they didnt correct them enough)
The soviets lost because the afghan socialists were trying to do atheism in afghanistan
That wasn't the only issue, and the soviets told them to not do that anyway. State atheism is just an easy scapegoat.
Edit: And anyway, if we're going to look at the history of communist movements. Not one has ever managed to maintain a fruitful relationship with religious authorities no matter how many concessions they give. State atheism is a necessity for any real communist movement at some point.
Nothing, necessarily. But the Communist Party of Afghanistan itself had some pretty hostile lines towards the peasantry, which didn't help matters.
war crimes
