When a professor of Marxist philosophy whom I know got wind that I may be deployed to Afghanistan, he was quick to send me an article in the Globe and Mail by Michael Byers entitled: “Afghanistan: We cannot risk complicity in torture.”
I agree with Byers actually, but the Professor - who is a member of the Communist Party of Canada - and I disagree on various other matters.
I asked him why the anti-war movement, and specifically the Communist Party, were always calling for “Troops out of Afghanistan NOW!” I argued that it wouldn’t make any sense to “let the people decide”, which was his recommendation, because the people are not powerful enough to defeat the warlords and Islamic fundamentalists. He countered that “the warlords are being elected into power, so it makes no difference”.
My concern was that if all international troops were pulled out, the warlords and various religious and political factions would resume the bloodshed that has characterized life in Afghanistan for too long. And most importantly, the rights gained by women since the Taliban were ousted would be lost. Call me a sucker, but I saw this picture of Afghani girls going to school and it really made me dread the possibility that they could be once again shut behind their burkhas in their homes.
The Professor maintained that although Afghanistan would experience more violence if international troops left, this would be preferable because it would let the Afghani people decide. I even brought up Engels, who once said that in the case of war we should support the more progressive forces (which are the international forces), but I got nowhere.
I can’t fall into line with much of the left and anti-war when they say “Troops out NOW!” It just seems crazy.
My buddy Phil is serving in Afghanistan right now. It looks like he’s having a great time.
Ahh shucks, its too bad we can’t get the Prof to post on our site.
Yeah I just don’t see how it would make much sense to pull out on a whim, and let the “people decide”. Of course we want the people to decide, but when the people have been living under oppression for decades, there’s no capacity for them to make decisions as hastily as we would expect. I am pretty sure the Taliban and the rest of those warlords won’t be waiting around for the people to govern themselves before they attempt to overrun the country again.
I’d like to hear more what this Prof has to say on the issue though. It’d be interesting.
comment by Purplehaze — October 19, 2005 @ 10:51 am
The problem with “Troops out NOW!” or any other blanket statement (always tell the truth, don’t steal, etc) is that it never seems to fit all the possible situations that can occur. So, you’re bound to hit trouble if you insist on always applying it.
Why do folks go on and over-do it, anyway? Because such a statement is convienient, you don’t have to hard. In fact, you don’t have to think at all.
comment by The Interloper — October 19, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
“you don’t have to hard” = you don’t have to think too hard
damn me to English grammer hell.
comment by The Interloper — October 19, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
First he has an obvious point about the warlord being elected.
The other point I would like to make is that we can’t consider our forces to be ‘international’.
Because in the end it sums up to the self interest of each respective country quite often.
The problem for example with Islam fundamentalism is the same as Christian fundamentalism. It is a reaction to an action (a bit of a pleonasm…).
It does not happen randomly.
There have not been extreme fundamentalism in the middle east in the ancient times…
It is the invasion/destruction of culture that makes people react and move drastically.
After all if you look at western history each country most of the time had its own history of violence, revolution by people, so why not let those countries have their own revolution by their own people so that it is really incorporated in them?
I think that your point of view would make sense Mercuda if the international force were backed by a communist society calling for a global.
Basically what your teacher is trying to say I think is that no matter who is at the head of the country… there will be corruption, tyranny in one way or another… Whether it is economical, moral, or intellectual…
Official comment by Zoroxstar — October 21, 2005 @ 9:59 pm
I guess the big question here then is indeed “why not let those countries have their own revolution by their own people so that it is really incorporated in them?”
And in my opinion there are a few answers, which still lead me to conclude that withdrawing “Western” forces would be negligent whether you’re a communist or a right winger…
First, because the forces that will prevail if “Western” forces remain in Afghanistan are more progressive, and paradoxically more capitalist. And for communism to even become an option in the future, I think we should see that this is preferable to both a fundamentalist Islamic state or an anarchic warlord-run “nation”.
Also, what you’re suggesting may be contradictory… To somehow have “international forces” backed by a “communist society” and simultaneously have an indigenously fostered revolution? The only way to make an indigenous revolution in Afghanistan, as far as I’m concerned, is to ensure they aren’t killed in another civil war (which is my humanist thrust in this argument I guess) and also ensure there is no possibility of a fundamentalist Islamic resurgence. We know, as communists, the drug-like power of religion.
Whatever Islamic fundamentalism is “responding” to, I don’t think we should sit back and say “well, they’re doing this for a reason..” We should counter oppression in whatever form it may take, Islamic, Christian, Capitalist, etc.
comment by Mercuda — October 22, 2005 @ 2:15 am
Negligence is quite an ambiguous term here.
Even though the women in Afghanistan were under the pressure of the fundamentalists they are far way better than the people dying from hunger or lack of water I think. It may be a bit naive to say, but why not rater assure and secure lives first rather than a greater freedom ?
What I said earlier is not contradictory. I think it was not clear.
There are two scenarios that I see (more or less):
The first one would be to let those people decide and have their own revolution, which is always more efficient I think compared to a fast paced change of culture and customs.
The other one would be that IF we were living in a mainly communist society with a few black sheep such as afghanistan, then I think that International force would make sense.
The two points are totally two different scenarios.
People always find a way around to their freedom I think. That is what is happening in Iran, where there is a two level society. What happens really in your house, and what happens in your street.
I think that the International force is good idea initially, but I am suspicious about its effectiveness in the long term. Yes you may get rid of the warlord or fundamentalist in the short term, but what keeps them from coming back ?
You can’t take away ideas (ie religion) from people. They have to progress on their own.
Your last sentence was my whole point.
You said “We should counter oppression [...] capitalist”.
I think it is a mistake to think that international forces are of communist inspiration, or will lead to communism.
That is why to me a scenario where the world would be mainly communist an international force would highly make sense, and I would fully support it.
But I see your point and to be honest with you had I to make a decision I would not know which one to take…
Official comment by Zoroxstar — October 22, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
To foster their “own revolution” would obviously be the most ideal scenario, but first they have to be given stability. I think the question is pretty simple for the immediate future of Afghanistan.
a) Do you want international forces in the mean time bringing whatever ’stability” they could bring, regardless of their obvious capitalist influences
or
b) Do we want withdrawal of all forces which would obviously lead to the resurgence of fundamentalist entities over running the country again.
Sure, we can look at it as, choosing the best of two evils, but, the choice has to be made.
Also, as Zoro says, religion obviously cannot be forcefully abolished, nor do I believe it has to be abolished. However, fundamentalism of any sort must be kept away. How we do that? Well, I think the answer can be found if we analyse the root of its development. The elimination of substandard living conditions and the ability access education will be the natural cure for fundamentalism.
comment by Purplehaze — October 22, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
Sorry, to correct a misunderstanding there. I think that religion should be abolished as it is now Purplehaze (ie the practice of religion in communities). Religion should be something personal, and not a “which group do I belong to”.
There is nothing wrong praying on your own and believing your own way, but there is a problem when you start creating communities and trying to convert/convince people about your religion.
I think the most respectable people are the one who do not brag or talk about their religion or the way they show their gratitude to what they don’t understand, God for some, something/someone else for others.
Official comment by Zoroxstar — October 22, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
Yeah, I dont’ see how you can just abolish the teaching of religion in the same way that you can’t just legislate banning the teaching of say philosophy as a subject. There’s no reason why people can’t be taught religion. Its a matter of finding the line between teaching it as a quest for knowledge, as apposed to making a religion the guide for our rules of law. If you had said that maybe religion and politics/rules of law should not coincide, then I could agree.
comment by Purplehaze — October 22, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
Religion is the total opposite of Philosophy.
Religion is a purely subjective matter. Rather than being taught you are more often forced about a religion.
To clarifiy, I am not about banning the teaching of religion as purely for historical/educative purposes. I am talking about the whole community aspect.
Why would you need to be taught religion?
Any person should be able to find his/her spirituality on his/her own without the need of having a community.
There is no need of religious communities, the million of different interepretation that the major religion have lead to is a proof that each person should keep it private and only for his/her own spiritual developpement.
Official comment by Zoroxstar — October 23, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
Right, but why can’t people be taught religion purely from an information basis? Historically, communal practice of religion has obviously lead to divide and rule mentality, but that shouldn’t prevent religion from existing as a collective of information for people. I think that the use of religion to further an agenda of any particular group, should not be confused with the existence of religion from a pure subject stand point.
comment by Purplehaze — October 23, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
I don’t think that I ever that religion should not be thaught purely for historical purposes.
What I have a problem with is the teaching of religion in order to practice it afterwise.
The reason why religion should be kept private is that otherwise it creates communities with different ethical values and concept about life.
Official comment by Zoroxstar — October 23, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
I had got a desire to make my own company, however I didn’t earn enough amount of cash to do this. Thank God my friend advised to use the business loans. So I used the collateral loan and made real my old dream.
comment by ANNMARIEChavez22 — July 8, 2010 @ 11:32 pm