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.

  • HarryLime [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.

    How is than different other than “America isn’t the USSR”?

    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.

    But what does it tell you that the Northern Alliance was able to control the country better than your communists?

    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.

    • Soleimani [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Saying that means Afghanistan didn’t have a real revolution

      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.

      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.

      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.

      For one thing, it says that America is imperialist and the Soviets weren’t,

      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.

      • HarryLime [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        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.

        This is fair enough. The Khalq faction were counterproductive, and the assassination of Taraki was a tragedy.

        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.

        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.

    • hamouy [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      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.