• Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also I realize now that The Black panthers were ML and anti imperialst so I support them as well.

          • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They were supporting the socialists in Afghanistan against the CIA backed Mujahideen. How is that imperialist?

            Edit clarity: an invasion is not imperialist on its own., It’s not about who does it, it’s about the objectives of the invasion.

            LIB nonsense

            • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not about who does it, it’s about the objectives of the invasion.

              Lol do you hear yourself?

              Tankie bullshit friend.

              Afghanistan did not want to be invaded. The Afghans fought with the soviets through guerilla warfare for a decade.

              You sound just like Americans justifying the US invasion that would happen later.

              • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What’s bullshit about it? You just say its bullshit but not why.

                That’s why you get called a LIB

                Do you even read the Wikipedia articles you link people to? The Afghans were asking for Soviet aid against insurgents backed by the US. The invasion happened when the USSR feared their allies in Afghanistan were not capable of handling the US supported insurgency that they thought would institute a theocracy there as had happened in Iran. Which is exactly what ended up happening there.

                That’s not what happened during the US invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was a cover for war profiteeering, mineral extraction, and opiate production. Rhe US extracted value and resources from that region to enrich capitalists in the imperial core. That’s what makes it imperialist.

                • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_

                  Soviet period (1979–1989) Edit After a Soviet-backed left-wing government in Afghanistan failed to gain popular support, the Soviets decided to invade. A number of resistance leaders concentrated on increasing opium production in their regions to finance their operations, regardless of its haram Islamic status, in particular Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Mullah Nasim Akhundzada, and Ismat Muslim. The production was doubled to 575 metric tons between 1982 and 1983.[15][16] (At this time the United States was pursuing an “arms-length” supporting strategy of the Mujahideen, the main purpose of which was to cripple the Soviet Union slowly into withdrawal through attrition rather than effect a quick and decisive overthrow.) Hekmatyar, the leading recipient of aid from the CIA and Pakistan, developed at least six heroin refineries in Koh-i-Sultan in southwestern Pakistan, while other warlords were content to sell raw opium. Nasim Akhundzada, who controlled the traditional poppy growing region of northern Helmand, issued quotas for opium production, which he was even rumoured to enforce with torture and extreme violence. To maximise control of trafficking, Nasim maintained an office in Zahidan, Iran.[17]

                • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Its bullshit to paint an invasion as aid. This is what imperialist do.

                  The soviets invaded afaganistan for the same reasons as the us did later and Briton did before.

                  To protect their borders from afar,

                  To create and protect trade deal favorable to their country,

                  To spread their ideology.

                  And by the way I read a book about the history of afaganistan called: Games Without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan.

                  It outlined how the three main invasion of Afghanistan all followed the same basic lines, motivations and results. They devastated Afghanistan and created a situation where they would be invaded again.

                  • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    How could the USSR have invaded Afghanistan for the same reason as the US?

                    The USSR was there to oppose the US by fighting their proxies and defend the socialists in Afghanistan who supported them during the invasion.

                    The US invaded under the War on Terror pretext as a war profiteering entrerprise. They brought Unaco, Haliburton, KBR, PMCs, and other contractors in to extract value from the region to bring profits to the imperial core.

                    How are these two things the same?

    • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Rosa Luxemburg was a marxist who criticized Lenin.

      She also accused both Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks of having police state aspirations.

        • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          MLs like you are the reason I am an anarchist.

          You asked for more communists i support and I listed some and now Im anti-communist because I don’t support the ones who created police states. Were you just waiting for me to engage so you could call that?

          Lol you make me want to call more people like you tankies because it is so applicable.

          MLs who think the only path to revolution is thru police states, are authoritarian by nature.

          • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wouldn’t consider any AES a police state. They are states, they utilize state power to defend themselves from threats from the capitalist class both internally and extermely, because those threats are reality.

            Thats why Sankara was assasinated, Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated, why the Black Panthers were assassinated or imprisioned. The capitalist class kills its enemies utilizing the power of the state. And the Black Panthers, Sankara, and Luxembourg were well aware of that.

            Believing in using the power of the state is part of ML doctrine, not creating police states, but utilizing that power for the proletariat. I don’t think you actually differentiate between state and police state, or a capitalist state from a socislist one (since you conflate the Russian Federation with the USSR which are not the same thing).

            Except, you do seem to able to differentiate, but only in cases were our revolutions failed, like in Burkina Faso, the Black Panthers, and Luxembourg. I’m not sure why all the communists you support are one’s who failed.