I cannot remember ever having read anything about the Korean War, however just having a quick think about it this is my conclusion below.
Fisher_Gate said:
It's not imperialism though. It's a bit like saying it's imperialism if the government send troops in to break a strike - it's a bad thing, but it isn't imperialism in the way Lenin used the term.
no Fishergate, with respect you are honestly quite wrong. When the British state sent troops into Glasgow in 1919 it was not imperialism, but if the British state sent troops into one of the statelets, for instance India, to break up a strike then it was imperialism.edited some time after to add, imperialism is not just a militarily phenomena, it is economic too. America after Second World War carried out an imperialist agenda much of the time using economic weapons rather than military.it is only in recent times we have gone back to good old-fashioned imperialism.
As has already been pointed out, Afghanistan already had a pro-Soviet government who invited the troops in. They went in to prop up a client regime, not to export and exploit capital.
And what about Korea - if you're consistent don't you think the same thing applied there? But the Cliff group refused to take sides.
sorry Fishergate, again I think you're quite wrong, the differences the nature of the players involved and what victory would mean, for example;
In the Iran the Iraq war the swp could see two SUB-imperialist state powers vying with each other far greater hegemony of their region, and rightly in my opinion we did not support either side. When the American state came in the side of the Iraqis, we then supported victory for Iran as a defeat for American imperialism. A defeat for the Americans would have strengthened the "Vietnam syndrome" and would have made it much harder for the US state to deploys troops abroad because of pressure from American citizens. So the players involved here were states, and the victory for any would have increased the imperialist interest of one of those states.
In the Korean War North Korea under Russian imperialism, and South Korea under American imperialism. A victory to South Korea over North Korea was not seen liberation from imperialist domination, and neither would have victories that North Korea over South Korea. The Korean War was merely a proxy war between Russian and American imperialism. Again the players here at states, and the victory would have increased the imperialist influence for one of the superpowers.
The Afghanistan war was different. The Afghan state was under Russian imperialism, as North Korea was in the Korean War. But the Mujahideen and in many other groups who were ranged against Russian imperialism were not to state. They were citizens from various countries, and most importantly from into Afghanistan. Even though they were funded by the American state they were not under imperialist domination. And victory over Russian imperialism did see liberation for the Afghanistan people from imperialism. After the war the Afghanistan people if under any kind of imperialism, it would be Islamic imperialism, however I don't think that is valid as the Islam does not recognise countries or races. If you are a Moslem you are not black, white, British, or Afghan, you are just a Moslem. So here one of the players was not a state, even though it was financed by American imperialism, and victory did not lead to an influence in imperialist interest of one of the superpowers Russian or American.
That is just off the top of my head, so if any SWP members can illuminate the real reasoning please feel free to do so.
Fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3
