HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
You are spouting absolute nonsense, and indeed attempting to justify and support US. agressesion, as well as supporting Imperialism. The Russians did not "Invade" them on 7/12/79, in spite of what Jimmy "Human Rights" Carter said at the time since a major Covert Operation had started, under Carter's signature on 3/7/79. Quite clearly the government of that country was entitled to ask for assistance, as did Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique etc. etc. But in any case was being subjected to an unparralleled Covert Operation in its scale. The country always has had the most enormous strategic significance throughout history and since the days of the "Great Game", and this point must be grasped. Your ASC. and demonstrations were Front-organisations designed to prevent protests/ gain support for the American action. We have encountered similar organisations in Britian supporting all aspects of the attack on jugoslavia, all the way through to the attack on Macedonia, which incidentally was carried out by the same islamic fundamentalist paramilitaries used against Afghanistan. You are in fact openly supporting the policies and actionds of the US. and of Imperialism --- Rolf Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > > UNITE! Info #19en: 1/4 Social-imperialism's Afghan > war > [Posted: 09.10.96] > > Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anmaerkning: > On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / > !UNIOS! / > FOERENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series: > See information on the last page / Siehe Information > auf der > letzten Seite / Verrez information a* la dernie*re > page / Ver > informacio'n en la u'ltima pa'gina / Se information > paa sista > sidan. > > > INTRO NOTE: > > Two recent "UNITE! Info" items, #16en and #17en, of > 04.10.96 and > 05.10.96 respectively, have been dealing indirectly > and in part > also directly with the question of the aggression by > Soviet so- > cial-imperialism (which today no longer is in > existence as such) > against a third-world country, Afghanistan, in > 1979-1989. This > item too, and now more or less wholly, will be > dedicated to the > same theme. Why? Why do I hold this question to be > such a rela- > tively important one? > > The social-imperialists' overt aggression in > Afghanistan in '79- > '89 today is already history. But it's still > something which > shows up with quite extraordinary clarity the sharp > difference > between Marxism, on the one hand, and revisionism, > on the other. > And the phenomenon of revisionism, that's one of the > most impor- > tant political phenomena of all in our century. > > What is revisionism? It's Marxism, socialism, > proletarian poli- > tics in *words* but bourgeois politics, even > imperialism, in > *deeds*. A discussion on this phenomenon and its > root causes > follows in one of the chapters below. > > The openly bourgeois media, in the Western > countries, for in- > stance, of course never use the word "revisionism", > at least not > in this important political sense. To them, > everybody *is* a > "Communist" who has proclaimed him/her/self to be > one, and the > same goes for parties - indeed, such revisionist > parties as no > longer even find it tactically wise even to try to > pose as > "Communist" still continue to be called so by the > openly bour- > geois media. This of course is done in order to make > it more > difficult for the masses of people to distinguish > between actual > Communism on the one hand and revisionism on the > other, and to > disredit the very idea of Communism. For Marxists, > naturally > it's vital to draw a sharp dividing line between the > genuine and > the faked (notwithstanding the fact that it > sometimes may be > difficult to see which is which) and to enlighten > everybody on > this. > > An infamous example of a state ruled by revisionists > is the Chi- > na of today, which, as all (who know some elementary > facts of > history) can see, is completely different from the > earlier, so- > cialist China which was guided by Mao Zedong's > genuinely Marxist > political line. An even more infamous example of > such a state > was the Soviet Union of yesterday (from > approximately the mid- > 50:s until 1991). > > The aggression of that state against Afghanistan > exposed to the > whole world, even more clearly than its earlier > crimes, the true > character of it, and importantly contributed to its > eventual > downfall. > > Just as the US war of aggression in Vietnam, Laos > and Cambodia > in the late '60:s and early '70:s very clearly and > to the whole > world exposed the true character of US imperialism, > and that of > its hackneyed supporters too, so did the Afghan war > of the So- > viet Union expose the true character of *that* state > and of > *its* hackneyed supporters. > > This was so, despite the fact that in both of those > cases of > superpower aggression there was a certain amount of > meddling > on the part of the other superpower too, which tried > to further > its own interests under the guise of "supporting" > the resistance > of the respective country against the invader and > his puppets. > > After the invading Soviet troops were forced to > leave Afghani- > stan, in 1989, internal strife has continued in that > country, > undoubtedly to a great extent caused and aggravated > by continued > interference by both superpowers. One of the warring > factions, > the Taleban, recently conquered the capital and i.a. > executed > one of the earlier leaders of the Soviet > social-imperialists' > puppet regime in the country, Najibullah. This > occasioned a > heated exchange among some people who all are > calling themselves > "Marxists". > > I on my part expressed, on the Jefferson Village > Virginia Marx- > ism list, my opinion that this at least was a just > action on the > part of the Taleban. Some others protested against > this, and in > quite violent terms too. They made clear their > staunch support > for the earlier actions undertaken by the Soviet > Union in Af- > ghanistan and for those of its puppet regime. How > could someone > who *opposed* these "very benficial" and > "civilizing" deeds even > be allowed on a Marxism list at all, how could he > indeed be con- > sidered a "civilized" person? In this direction went > one "trend > of thought". > > This discussion, or whatever you might call it, is > the immediate > reason why I've now dedicated some Info items to the > question of > events in Afghanistan 1979-1989. The present one > contains the > following more or less brief chapters (each in one > of the four > parts of this item): > > Chapter 1: What took place in Afghanistan in > 1979-89 > Chapter 2: A discussion among Soviet leaders, 1979 > Chapter 3: Certain "Marxists" today on events > '79-'89 > Chapter 4: On Quisling "Marxism" and its root > causes, > on the strange "theory" of "Stalinism" and > on the superpowers as rivals and allies > > > > CHAPTER 1: WHAT TOOK PLACE IN AFGHANISTAN IN 1979-89 > > > In essence and very briefly, events in that country > during that > time may be described in the following terms. > > Soviet social-imperialist aggression against > Afghanistan === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
