Plus they keep making me verify my account and log back in. Such a hassel.

You obviously have not read Kropotkin's Mutual aid.

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]

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

Yes.

And also they wanted to protect thier trade and their borders from other imperialsts.

Why cant it be both?

Why are you unable to recognize that USSR could invade Afghanistan to protect socialst and to protect trade and secure thier borders?

Why cant you just admit that the USSR did some unsavory things? Do you think they are a perfect embodiment of communism?

They assassinated the communist president of Afghanistan before they invaded!

All othet arguments aside i dont support governments who use assassination that way.

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.

God I hate that term.

Yeah the racist Republicans in the US use whataboutism all the time to skirt around actual critiques. They really hate it when you call them out on it

Did anarchist attack and kill communists during that time period? Yes. Does that make thier critiques about soviet authoritarianism invalid or make emma Goldman letters false. No. It just means there is nuance in history.

I dont categorically support emma goldman. And Im not surprised they said some racist things. Thats why I am able to separate the good things they did while critizing the bad.

You should try it!

It is a known fact that the USSR consolidated power within russia after the october revolution. They killed and jailed anarchists and many other opossing groups.

And when lenin died and stalin took over, he did it too. This is what large goverments must do to maintain power.

The fact that you can't admit that means you a defintiately a tankie.

By merely mentioning an informal fallacy I have torn your argument asunder! You are the one who has proven nothing.

You sound like a jackass when you write this way. imo.

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.

Tankie nonsense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

The USSR invaded aganistan. Dont worry the USA did too but it tootally isnt imerpialism when the USSR does it right?

to the false narrative of Bolshevik betrayal and anarchist victimhood which she is attempting to create.

Do you have any evidence that this is false or do you just not like it?

Alls I hear is a lot of what aboutism.

"Emma goldman is writing about anarchist being murdered but whatabout the the bad things anarchists did? "

Emma goldman was a russia born anarchist critiquing The USSR.

Are you going to respond the to claims they are making or are you going to cherry pick out the racist stuff?

We can stop honeslty. if you believe that anarchism is eurofacism we have very little to talk about.

if you are referring to the method and work (aka. Marxism/ML), is something that you have asserted but not proven.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-alexander-berkman-bolsheviks-shooting-anarchists

"But of all the revolutionary elements in Russia it is the Anarchists who now suffer the most ruthless and systematic persecution. Their suppression by the Bolsheviki began already in 1918, when — in the month of April of that year — the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow and by the use of machine guns and artillery “liquidated” the whole organisation."

Emma goldman

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.

Sankara isn't a non-tankie just because he didn't live to the tankie phase, he was always acting as an ML.

I believe there is a difference in being ML and having police state aspirations/trending authoritarian. Which is when I use the term tankie.

Maybe I'm wrong tho you tell me. I liked what sankara did and I dont want to negate the cool things he did simply becuase he got murdered and we dont know what he was going to become.

There is nuance in his life that I can accept. But what I cannot accept is modern day MLs who look fondly on the actions of the USSR, russian federation and the modern day CPC. they are large authoritarian states that I cannot support as an anarchist.

Everytime I bring this up tho. I get called a lib.

Rosa Luxemburg was a marxist who criticized Lenin.

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

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

Ok cool

By all measures, you should hate Sankara as well. Be consistent.

i dont think. so sankara did some really cool things.

The USSR did some cool things too , AT FIRST: then they started murdering anarchist and consolidating power and becoming a police state. As an anarchist I oppose this.

Maybe Sankara would have done the same if he lived. But he didn't. He was murdered in a US back coup. He was murdered for being an anti imperialist.

The USSR is not anti imperialst. Neither is the CPC. These communists experiments became police states. Sankara didnt.

Sankara fought for nitrution, literacy anticorruption anti imperialism. He put more women in government snd fought against female genital mutilation. Anarchist support all of these things.

What we dont support is police states. Among other things.

I mean as I stated in other comments i went to hexbear a few months ago and saw a bunch of people doing this very thing. So if you want yo say that experiance was a fluke ok. But stop trying to paint me as a liar.

Also tankie has real meaning to anarchist. So I dont feel it is meaningless.

I don't care if you call me tankie !

You seem pretty movtivated in the conversation about me using the term tankie so I think this is bs.

Stop calling me a lib and we can have a conversation.

Are you interested in that?

but stating that “communism isn’t the solution long term” makes no sense. Do you understand the distinction?

I feel this is like syamtics. Anarchist are socialists as well. but if some told me "I dont think anarchy is the way foward"

I dont think it would be fair for me to say to " no you mean socialism, Anarchy is the Goal! not the current situation"

It doesnt make sense to think that communism isnt the solution? This makes me feel like communists are unable to have real discussion with anarchists about the flaws within communism.

I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated. I think that any real hierarchical system will enventually turn back into a police state. We saw this in the USSR. And we see in in the CPC too.

They once had revolutionary components which I support. But those begin to dwindle the minute they took power and likey before.

From the origins of revolutionary communism came a police state. How do MLs deal with the flaws shown in The USSR? By saying that it wasn't communist?

This is what I mean when I say i dont think communism is the solution long term. That communists governments have a tendency to turn toward police states. Call it what you want but lenin was a marxist from my understanding and marxist are considered communists. Right?

Do you have any arguments besides calling me a lib? You've done this like 15 times.

If you have such a problem with being called a tankie, its kinda hypocritical to call me a lib. Imo.

Im not a liberal. Im an anarchist. anarchist also use this term to describe the way the USSR acted toward the Anarchists of the spainish civil war.