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.

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.

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?

Communism is the absence of the state and the withering away of class distinctions.

So is the USSR not communist by your definition?

Ok great. Honestly I'm getting tired & running out of steam arguing with people.

Truth is this. When one of the first big lemmy jumps from reddit came I heard that hexbear was cool a leftist space. so hopped on. I was honestly disgusted by the comments i saw. I saw so many people arguing blindly for CPC and DPRK. Saying they were better than the US and calling anybody critiquing the bold claims they were making libs. such as "Cpc is the future socialism." And "all the bad things people say about the CPC is american propaganda. "

Basically same thing that happend here when I defined tankie as authoritarian communist . In fact I saw this kind of thing on reddit too alot.

I dont give a fuck what you say or what other commenters post. I've seen this phenomena myself. I've been called a lib, So many times, simply for posting that I don't support Russia or the CPC in leftist spaces. I'm sick of it.

So what are we arguing about? Is hexbear not as bad as I thought it was? Ok cool. Im wrong.

I know there are people in "your" community that are actual tankies. I've argued with them myself. Are you trying to say these people don't exist? Cuz If you are, You're the one that is full shit.

There anything else you want to debate about?

Disagree.

In fact I find it is a better measure of oppressive goverment than most indicators.

What you really mean to say is most goverments are oppressive and authoritarian. Show me a country with a large prison population and I will show you an authoritarian country.

Please see the zapatistas. For non police state goverment.

MF Pickmen + X-files