The U.S. empire is headed for a cliff. Maybe it will even collapse within our lifetimes. But that collapse likely won't be the end of capitalism as a system; it has survived the collapse/diminishing of other hegemonic powers before. But what would the next hegemonic power even be? The EU? Russia? Japan?
I want to believe that the U.S. is the last stop on Mr. Capital's Wild Ride, but that seems naive.
They had the support of small social classes, but not the ones needed to control the country. So yes. Nothing.
No. It really isn't.
It's the reality. It's also the Marxist position. Afghanistan was not ready for Revolution, which is why the Soviets were so reluctant to go in and so eager to water down the government's radicalism.
The Imperialist position is "we can save Afghanistan if we just occupy it for one more year," repeated year after year. It's the same one you hold. That enough Soviet aid would have held the country together.
IT. HAD. ONE. Clearly it was ready for Revolution because it fucking happened. Is your Marxist theory from 1855 or something?
The Soviets weren't the imperialists here! America was. They supported reactionary elements, who were themselves deeply fractured, and even still are to this day. The Soviets withdrew their forces years before the PDPA government fell, the only thing they still needed was oil.
Afghanistan had an uprising. Overthrowing a government doesn't constitute a successful Revolution.
America is now supporting the "progressive" elements of Afghanistan, with the same base of support as the Afghan Democratic Republic, and losing to the same forces. Same situation. Same methods. Same actors.
Call it what you will. I'm not interested in your semantics or who's the more "progressive" foreign occupier.
And the PDPA spent that time losing what little land they still held.
Way to show that you don't know what the Northern Alliance is.
The Northern Alliance doesn't exist anymore. The US is supporting a new Kabul-based government, supported by educated urban middle class, while the countryside is controlled by the Taliban. How is than different other than "America isn't the USSR"?
But what does it tell you that the Northern Alliance was able to control the country better than your communists?
I never denied that the countryside was full of reactionary elements. I don't think that's in doubt. Saying that means Afghanistan didn't have a real revolution or that the PDPA didn't have real support or a real chance, or that the whole thing amounts to a one dimensional narrative of "the Soviets forced Socialism on Afghanistan" is the thing I have a problem with. You may as well say that France didn't have a revolution in 1789 if religious reaction in the countryside disqualifies a revolution.
One of them supported a socialist revolution that already happened, and the other is an imperialist power that kicked off its invasion by installing the grandson of a minister of the old British-backed monarchy.
For one thing, it says that America is imperialist and the Soviets weren't, because they supported warlords who practiced ritual pedophilia and the Soviets didn't.
I said it wasn't a real Revolution because it didn't achieve anything. They overthrew the old government, but couldn't form a viable alternative.
I said quite the opposite. The PDPA wanted to impose Socialism. The USSR wanted to stop them, because they recognized it would be disasterous. The USSR favoured stability over adventurism. Unfortunately, it was too late.
Okay, so the Soviets can pick and choose the factions in Afghanistan to support, bomb the opposition, drive millions from their homes, and occupy the country, but the US can't because you've defined Imperialism in a way to preclude any actions by governments you like.
This is fair enough. The Khalq faction were counterproductive, and the assassination of Taraki was a tragedy.
The Soviets didn't "pick and choose" their faction to support as you yourself just noted- they supported a socialist government, mostly because they had no choice. One socialist government supporting another against a reactionary insurgency isn't imperialism in any way, shape or form. It's weird that you're not even mentioning the entire history of the US supporting the various Mujahideen factions.
He is arguing the literal opposite of that. Afghanistan had a communist seizure of power, and the Soviets urged the Afghan communists to be less radical as to not anger the countryside and reactionary elements too much.