You're viewing a single thread.
Now, I don't like violence. But even I can see that there's a difference between violence waged for imperialism and violence waged against imperialism.
And you can see the difference too. That's why Obama and Biden always say that their wars are being waged "for freedom". That's why you accept the violence of historical revolutions like the American Revolution.
The problem is, Obama and Biden are lying when they say their wars are for freedom. Their wars are for profit and control.
Their wars are for profit and control.
And USSR, China etc were different?
And USSR, China etc were different?
List any war after WW2 that the USSR joined for profit. List any war that China joined in the past 40 years.
Invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Invasion of Afghanistan.
China
Occupation of Tibet is still ongoing.
Invasion of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan used to border the USSR, and the US had been arming theocratic extremist militias in the region to prevent a socialist turn of the country. The USSR fought these zealot warlords, not the country as a whole, the government at the time was pro-soviet. It's these very people who are now in charge of the country, and look how that's working for them. Compare the Human Development Index of Afghanistan, to that of post-soviet Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan.
Occupation of Tibet is still ongoing
You're right, Tibetan people would be so much better off as literal serfs bound to the land they worked for the local aristocrats, as it happened up until the 50s
and the US had been arming theocratic extremist militias in the region to prevent a socialist turn of the country.
What? You don't even know how this started?
Look for Amin's assassination and such.
USSR didn't like their puppet socialist dictatorship (which already existed in Afghanistan, so I don't get which "socialist turn" you are talking about), so they tried to change its leadership by the simplest way - a company of paratroopers storming the presidential palace.
Then all hell broke loose in Afghanistan between various factions (because old dictator is still usually seen as more legitimate than new obvious puppet government simply installed by force) and then Soviet troops entered Afghanistan to help pro-Soviet socialist militias against anti-Soviet socialist militias. Mojaheds were socialist, if you didn't know that.
theocratic extremist militias
Came to relevance later as Pakistani influence, though of course USA tried to strengthen them too.
The USSR fought these zealot warlords, not the country as a whole, the government at the time was pro-soviet.
The government at that time didn't practically exist, parts of Afghani military did, which, yes, were USSR's allies.
not the country as a whole,
Killing a million civilians in process.
You’re right, Tibetan people would be so much better off as literal serfs bound to the land they worked for the local aristocrats, as it happened up until the 50s
Oh, so they brought those savages civilization, is that your case for China here?
What? You don’t even know how this started?
I do. And funnily enough, the US state apparatus also knows this. I quote from an article:
In 1996, eight years after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Robert Gates revealed in his memoirs that the US government actually began funding the Mujahedin in July 1979, “six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.”
In a 1998 interview with the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that, with this covert aid to the Mujahedin, the US government “knowingly increased the probability” that the Soviets would invade Afghanistan. Brzezinski enthusiastically defended this decision, saying: “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap…We now [had] the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.’”
Now I'll answer your point again about China
Oh, so they brought those savages civilization, is that your case for China here?
Again, there's no such thing as savages or civilization, it's a matter of the system in which people happen to live, you may want to paint it as colonialism but I've already proven first that you don't know what that word means, and secondly that it's not the case. China liberated Tibetan serfs from their feudal serfdom, no savages, no civilizing.
I know they were funding them. But USSR leadership's decision to depose Amin was not in any direct way connected to this.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Way to hurt your argument, the guy has said all kinds of things.
Not that he's wrong, just what these all people said post factum is not so valuable. Of course they were trying to stir up shit in Afghanistan, it's in a strategic location and a traditional point of contention since Russian Empire and British Empire.
But their attempts could have continued for another 10 or 20 years with limited success.
Instead the Politburo decided to shoot up the gas station just for the fun of it. Apparently they were feeling pressure from all sides. Apparently they felt it was a good idea to show how Soviet military is still a superpower's military.
So they relieved that pressure by USSR imploding and have shown that Soviet military is indeed a superpower's military - well-conserved since end of WWII though.
At least many in a generation went there and learned how to actually fight wars, and Afghanistan veterans are the reason Armenians won the first NK war, for example. (When people in Armenia say it was all in vain because of the relatively recent wars - I wonder what they are comparing it with, considering that Soviet and Azeri soldiers were "cleaning out" Armenian villages on Armenian SSR's territory, killing and abusing civilians, in the beginning of that war. The world today is better for Armenians because they fought back then, not worse.)
Occupation of Tibet is still ongoing.
Not a single country in the world has ever recognized Tibet as an independent country. Tibet has been universally recognized as part of China since it was conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century.
China lost control of Tibet during the Chinese Civil War, and you could say Tibet was a de facto independent country during that time. But not a single country recognized it as independent.
The popular Western concern about Tibetan independence seems to have come out of nowhere in the 1990s.
Also, Taiwan (the ROC) continues to claim sovereignty over Tibet too, and Western nations don’t seem to condemn Taiwan for that.
There’s certainly a case that could be made for Tibetan sovereignty, just as there is for Basque or Kurdish or Khalistan sovereignty. (And also a case that could be made against it.) I just want to point out that the Western concern about Tibetan sovereignty is hypocritical and rooted in propaganda.
Not a single country in the world has ever recognized Tibet as an independent country. Tibet has been universally recognized as part of China since it was conquered by the Mongols in the 13th century.
And this is irrelevant. If Tibetans think they are occupied - they are occupied. Others don't get a say.
I just want to point out that the Western concern about Tibetan sovereignty is hypocritical and rooted in propaganda.
You don't have to tell me about that. Especially since
... Kurdish ... sovereignty ...
Is being mentioned all the time as if sadly-sadly international law prevented them being independent from Turkey, but nothing is said about Western Armenia and Artsakh, because, well, Turks have already committed genocide there, so there is an actual hard argument against Turkish\Azeri sovereignty over anything Armenian. So if Kurds would have a real case, the mentions of them would suddenly disappear from politics. Cause those mentions are not about actually following any principles.
Agreed
But even I can see that there's a difference between violence waged forimperialism and violence waged against imperialism.
If you think violence is against isms, you don’t understand what violence is at all.
Was the French Revolution not violence against monarchism? The Haitain Revolution not against Slavery and Colonialism? The Russian Revolution not against Tsarism? The Cuban Revolution not against Fascism?
While people come up with post-hoc justifications for Wars all the time that relates to philosophical ideas, most of the time it is originally waged purly for economic reasons.
The French monarchy and the Russian Tsars were failing to feed their people so those people fought back. The philosophical ideas that the preceding leaders had about how to better distribute the food after the fact is another discussion, but make no mistake, the war was waged simply to get people fed by any means. There was by no means a uniformity of of thought among revolutionaries, but the victor writes history and creates a new myth to establish the following Society upon.
Something something material conditions.
While people come up with post-hoc justifications for Wars all the time that relates to philosophical ideas, most of the time it is originally waged purly for economic reasons.
100% correct, and I think I see the source of confusion. When people say they are fighting against Imperialism, they are referring to economic reasons, not philosophical ones. Society is driven by material conditions, not great people and ideas.