I don’t really see the psychological attraction you’re referring to either, tbh; it mainly strikes me as a form of self-indulgent sadism one can only engage in when the war is a highly abstracted team sport being viewed from the comfort of an armchair in another part of the world.

The average Ukrainian soldier is a prole who is drafted into the war and doesn’t want to be there. You might think they hold reactionary opinions (and many of them undoubtedly do), but that’s no basis for any ethically or politically coherent position when it comes to how to deal with the issue. It’s the obligation of communists to educate their fellow working class members in order to deal with those reactionary tendencies.

This of course doesn’t apply as much to the openly and explicity fascist and neonazi presences in the Ukrainian military and the fascist and oligarchic forces controlling the state. They don’t really deserve much time or mercy.

Yeah it’s also crazy when you realize how instinctual it is. Like I don’t think all the dolts at the Guardian pumping out ink for the ink god really reflectively think ‘we have to craft this Manichean narrative for the sake of liberalism’ given that’s not actually how ideology generally works. I have no doubt (actually, I know from personal experience) that it you push narrative which don’t conform you will sometimes get responses which straight-up make no reference to the truth of the matter but explicitly reject what you’re saying because it’s politically inconvenient. That being said, it is fascinating and disturbing how reflexive and instinctual these kinds of responses are in general liberal culture, and how little most people in liberal societies are either unwilling or incapable of critically analyzing and evaluating this kind of stuff. Like they could just read what Putin says to get a more accurate account of the Russian state’s motivations for their actions.

I don’t really think this is valid reasoning tbh. Governments can kill people at a whim, but frequently do not because they would rather they die over time through conditions such as prisons. There are other factors they consider apart from simply wanting him dead. They don’t need to have killed his directly. It could simply be the result of mental and physical health issues due to his imprisonment. Life expectancy in prisons is markedly lower for a reason.

I’ve seen takes that he was killed by the West to blame Putin, but I haven’t really seen any actual hard evidence for this

Western governments want Assange dead. So by that logic he’d be dead long before now. He’s not, but I’m not about to conclude that the US gov doesn’t want Assange in an anonymous ditch. There are plenty of revolutionaries being let to rot in US prisons from the previous decades. It’s just killing them in slow motion.

At the end of the day we don’t have objective info to allow us to conclude one way or another as to exactly why he’s dead, and both the West and Russia are obviously deeply biased sources.

No figure better encapsulates Western liberal propaganda against Russia.

Notice the complete absence of discussion of any other oppositions figures or forces (controlled or otherwise) within Russia, along with the attendant impression that he is supposed to be far more popular than he actually is.

Note the conspiracy of silence regarding his past and actual political ideology.

That being said, whatever the circumstances of his death, it’s a nationalist government killing a fascist. Oh well.

If you think this doesn’t exist then you haven’t spent enough time differentiating Marxism from liberal identity politics.

Communists and Anarchists are most certainly not the same. I’m not really sure how anyone can entertain this idea if they have actually spent times in active anarchist and Marxist circles, let alone engaged in militant activity with either where both the need for cooperation and the apparent inevitability of conflict and tension become obvious, and make obvious in turn that these difficulties do not just boil down interpersonal issues or grievances but are political in nature. There are profound conceptual, theoretical, ideological, practical and organization differences, as well as sociological.

It’s all well and good to say that they are ‘fundamentally the same’ (what does ‘fundamentally/essentially the same’ even mean here? It seems vague, ambiguous, or if you are choosing as the criterion for that that we want the same form of society at the end of the day, this amounts actually only to a very weak form of agreement in all honestly. It’s like saying that Communists are the same as Reformists Socialists because the latter also want (sometimes genuinely) a form of socialist economy and are genuinely deluded as to the means to get there (i.e. reformism). The difference is in terms of political method, and the distinction is one of revolution vs reformism. Sure, Communists share a belief in the need for revolution to get there with anarchists, but they have different different concepts, theories, practices, conceptions of organization and politics, which implies deep theoretical and practical-organizational differences.

Furthermore, Communism in this sense remains an ideal (which is fine), towards which we agree on the most general and abstract features and agree further that this is the ideal form of society which we would like, indeed must for the sake of the human species, move towards. The anarchist conception of revolution is very different from the communist conception, and what comes during the revolution, how we get there, what is necessary, how we should actually do all the actual work of organizing the working class (which marxists recognize as necessary but which anarchists have either been unwilling to do the work needed to accomplish or who they neglect as many now see focus of parties on class-based organization to be a form of class-reductionism), disagree on the fundamental questions of revolution, the state, parties, legislation, prisons, and so on.

There are also Christian Communists (non-Marxist) would also want a stateless, classless, moneyless society. I commend them for that, and they are definitely potential allies, but that doesn’t mean they are going to be reliable political allies in the long-term, nor does it imply that their views are fundamentally the same as mine. The fact that they are not going to be ready to do the things necessary to actually construct socialism, let alone communism, means that realistic political unity with them is limited at best. The same goes for anarchism in the minds of Marxists, most obviously MLs.

The period of transition from capitalism to communism will likely take hundreds of years. Socialism is a centuries-long project which we have only just begun. Calling the immense, profound differences of opinion between Communists and anarchists over this historical process towards Communism something which does not amount to a fundamental difference seems not only confused, but positively idealistic to me.

Saying that the difference lies simply in the means to get there is ignoring the fact that this is a massive difference with direct implications for the feasibility of long-term, substantial, deep political cooperation. It also reflects that the routes through which Marxists and Anarchists get to the conclusion of the need for revolution for the sake of a classless, stateless, moneyless society are very different.

Just to give a revealing sense of the depth of this divide: There are people in this thread who have cited Murray Bookchin, who towards the end of his life not only explicitly stated that he would rather side with liberal governments against Communists because the former believed in ‘personal freedom’, but then later when on to repudiate anarchism right at the end of his life, calling modern anarchists a form of lifestyle movement with no real political potential, and it’s worthwhile to note that he came to this conclusion during the 90s and 2000s, i.e. when Marxism and Communism were at their lowest ebb and the international leftist movements in the West were being dominated by anarchist and post-left lifestyle movementism, calling for distributed (non-existent) networks of supposedly distributed organization based on ridiculously minute identitarian difference (i.e. identity politics). The period since the 90s have done nothing but refute the idea that the predominance of anarchists on the western left would revitalize the prospects for revolution there. The opposite is the case. The potential for revolution has correlated inversely with anarchist predominance. Frankly this doesn’t surprise me, as the anarchist circles I’ve encountered have almost always been far more bourgeois, less proletarian, than Marxist circles (especially if we are talking about militant circles), though I admit that this is anecdotal.

The obvious explanation for this is just the more general observation that most anarchists in the real world despise Marxists. In anarchist circles in private the discourse than ML’s are a bunch of homophobic, transphobic, sex-worker-phobic, misogynistic red fash is very, very present, and honestly pretending otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious truth that becomes evident if you actually spend much time in read-world anarchist and Marxist circles, simply for the sake of preserving the appearance of an artificial, digital ‘left unity’ which neither has any bearing on actual organization nor does it provide a serious basis for any actual platform of organized socialist activity. We can get together for the same marches, social movements, or for forms of local mutual aid and aid for the homeless or refugees, but this does not ever really extend beyond that in my experience, and the reason is that anarchists have a fundamentally different conception of politics and organization to Marxists, and especially to MLs.

Sure. But this is, frankly, a pretty idealist take imo that ignores not only the fact that in actual practice there is frequent tension and conflict which has real basis, but real and deeper theoretical differences as well as ones of praxis and organization. We can wish for this form of left unity you are describing all we like, but it doesn’t erase the deal differences between communists and anarchists.

In my personal experience, Communists have been far more eager, happy or willing to work with anarchists when it comes to practice on the ground than vice-versa, and I think it’s important to note that these forums are not representative of the actual relations between Communists and Anarchists on the ground, which are frequently tense because Marxists will often spend months agitating and entering workplaces, doing the grunt work, only for reformists and anarchists to show up at the end at points of more intense political struggle and gain political credibility for their ‘participation’. Another related issue here is that, in practice, anarchist circles are on average more liberal, individualist and identitarian than Marxist orgs interested in forming parties. The emphasis on decentralized, distributed organization, justified by whatever post-structural idealist nonsense is currently in fashion, is not conducive to working with actual Communist (read: Leninist) orgs.

Not to mention that - and this is again to indicate that these forums like Hexbear are in no way indicative of actual relationships between Communists and Anarchists - that most anarchists despise Communists, most obviously Leninists, and would despise Lemmygrad and Hexbear types most of all. Like the view of us as ‘Red Fash’ is close to the mainstream view among most Anarchists, and it’s frankly ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

Then why are you masochistically staying here as if you do?

I’ve never heard of the ‘Manchurian communes’ and neither has wikipedia…

I think they might be referring to these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Association_in_Manchuria https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francesco-dalessandro-the-forgotten-anarchist-commune-in-manchuria

I don’t have enough intimate knowledge to be able to comment though, apart from my natural suspicion that once again, as usual, the anarchists will paint their lack of political efficacy as moral virtue and communist nefariousness, though I’m happy to be corrected.

That’s not what they said.

Yeh their post is so confused and unclear its difficult to even beging to parse and deconstruct it.

Honestly this post reminds me that there a lot of people using the revolutionary language and history of Marxism to justify their own nationalism or other views which are not those of internationalist Marxism or Communism.

Yes religion is idealistic. Idealism in the history of Marxist use can mean both ontological idealism, in which one thinks that the only or most fundamental components of what exists has the basic properties of the mental; and epistemic idealism, where the explanation of certain events or properties is based first and foremost on ideas, in which ideas are given priviledge of explanation, rather than what those ideas are ideas of. Someone can be ontologically idealist on paper while acting like an (epistemic) idealist in their reasoning, of which many liberals are perfect examples. Of course, for a genuine materialists, ideas do also in a sense reduce to matter, while also emerging out of matter, and so are types or expressions of new properties which emerge out of very complex forms of matter. You do give a good example of epistemic idealism, which is people ignoring the historical and more specifically the religious context of these countries in which national liberation movements are active. However it is equally idealist to ignore the profoundly reactionary implications of a group being Islamist (as opposed to, say, simply being a group most or all of whose members are Muslims). I don’t think anyone is implying that the political role, influence or importance of religion is to be ignored here. If anything it is the opposite. Though it seems you are implying they are in order to imply their view of what that significance is is incorrect, contrary to your own I’m guessing.

You are also introducing an unjustified exclusivity between (1) Islam being idealist (which you haven’t made clear what you mean), but is most definitely when we are talking about the ontological content of Islamic beliefs and the kind of religious reasoning that is based on it; and (2) westerners not understanding the ‘unit of opposites’, which seems to be to just be a force of relativist mysticism; if you mean that is no such thing as truth or a correct view. This is not Marxism (a modernist ideology). This is simply another expression of postmodern relativism. If here you mean that have to recognize that there are potentially progressive aspects with non-preferable components such as strong religious ideology, then sure, that is something to be recognized. Islam is a material phenomenon, like every other religion, because it exists in the social world. But the actual beliefs, the content of it, are not materialist. Materialism is not the same thing as something being material. This is just a confusion of what different words mean.

An irony is that you yourself are essentializing Islam (or maybe it only seems so due to the lack of clarity in what you saying) by claiming that it ‘is the form which the anti-imperialist struggle takes form’. Reactionary groups can oppose Imperialists. This is not a mystery. And assuming that because they do that they must be progressive is precisely the kind of ‘absolute, black and white’ mystifications you are accusing others of committing. There are plenty of non-Islamic, non-religious liberation struggles, and again there is a great difference between a movement containing religious people, and the movement being religious in character. Every Islamic or Islamist revolution has been a reactionary nightmare, for the people in general and the left in particular. The vast majority of genuinely progressive and successful revolutionary movements in recent history have been my

Marxists in many non-Western societies are often far more explicitly anti-religious in private than the sheepish left of the West, who are terrified of losing their virtue-signalling points. One example is Haiti: when I’ve spoken with Haitian comrades, they are fully conscious of the reactionary potential of religion, because they are in a society in which religion (whether in the form of Christianity of Voudou) is an immense obstacle and impediment for communist education, radicalization and organization. We are not going to bring people into the communist fold by ignoring reactionary views they hold or not attacking them. If anything, the fetishism of Islam extending into one of Islam, on a supposedly Marxist forum no-less, is an expression of the fact that these individuals actually almost certainly have no experience of organizing politically as Communists, let alone in the countries they are talking about.

Islamic socialism is certainly better than no socialism at all, and you are completely correct that white western atheists absolutely and completely condemning these movements purely on that basis is chauvinistic and ignorant, that is nevertheless completely irrelevant to any discussion of the political nature of religion, and there are certain fairly unavoidable conclusions on that front when we scientifically analysis the historical and contemporary evidence as Marxists. It’s not clear to me how anything you’d said impacts in any way any serious discussion of the political nature of religion in general and particular religions specifically. Not all religions are equal, but there are sufficient similarities (hence using the common term ‘religion’) for us to be able to start making more general theorizations and conclusions about it. This includes the how religions function politically and influence politics in different contexts.

Another issue here is that no-one is making a distinction between Islam and Islamism, which is particularly ironic in a thread with a couple self-flagellating white westerners virtue-signalling other their desire to understand the religion of the downtrodden and avoid Islamophobia.

Regarding this:

“In my eyes, the answer is simple. It is because the Western left still carries the mental burden of colonization, of cultural genocide, and they project it onto the global south - onto the ummah.”

It seems equally obvious to me that this is a giant jump in reasoning. I’m not really seeing the evidence here. This is also, again, ignoring the massive elephant in the room of Islamism. Fear of Islamism is the most rational emotional response to have towards it. Anyone who says otherwise has not lived in Islamist societies, does not understand Islamism and its both its differences with and intimate connections to Islam more broadly. This whole discussion is also again a reminder which angers me immensely that most Marxists from these parts of the world are not having their views discussed very clearly, and is ignoring that the vast majority of communists who have lived under Islamism understand that it is an extremely reactionary ideology that makes life misery. By far the most anti-theist people I have ever met are my Communist friends and comrades from and in the Islamic world, and most of all the Iranians. You seem to me to be giving a clearly idealist explanation here. The form of anti-imperialist politics is deeply influenced Islam and Islamism because these are deeply religious societies in which secularism and notably the secular left failed, and because they are responses to the correctly perceived, widespread racism and Islamophobia of the West, because many people in their suffering, misery and alienation turn to religion as a consolation that becomes essential and precious in their lives, and because modern Islamism explicitly formed itself on a conception of politics similar to the Leninist clandestine party organization, aiming for mass radicalization where they would take advantage of the radical energy of mass movements and direct them for reactionary ends, very similarly to Fascism.

On the France point, which I can speak to as having lived there, it is correct that the form of ‘secularism’ practiced as policy by the French government is not only inconsistent in its application to Muslims compared to Christians, and thus does not live up to the ideal of secularism which should be aimed for, but is deeply and structurally discriminatory in its application. Going from the fact that French secularism is racist, to the conclusion that secularism is racist, is like realizing that a square in front of you is red, then seeing a red circle, and saying that the circle is square. The French state is racist, but that does not imply in any way that we should not be secularists in our policies. Religious justifications have no place in a Communist party. Period. End of discussion.

Saying ‘people can think whatever they want on this subject’ is dodging the real substantive issue though, namely the question of how much religious ideology limits the progressive potential of any political struggle, and frankly history is as unambiguous about this question, as a general rule, as it could be about any other. We know that the religious ideology is a serious impediment to communist politics. The counterexamples normally presented are very weak, such as Liberation Theology, as none of these have had the explanatory power or political or organizational success of Marxist movements proper. Imo his has to do with the fact that how ideology functions, and what it justifies, and how it shapes how you think, reason, and justify certain positions, policies and practices, is simply not equivalent between Marxism, which is the Proletarian and therefore political stage of scientific enlightenment and of scientific revolution, and Islam, which is a fairly reactionary (at this stage in history) religious ideology which emerged in a very different context which shaped how its political dimensions could develop.

Materialism is certainly not just a tool. Even as a tool, it’s successful use is intimately linked to truth. If it is, then I’d have to suppose that every ideology is just a tool which is obviously an absurdly reductionistic instrumentalist view. It is a system of concepts, ideas, beliefs, propositions, theories and methods used to describe, understand, explain, predict and control the properties and events of the natural and social world. Marxism, as the Proletarian stage of Science, applied to society, is intellectually and therefore practically revolutionary precisely because it gives a form of understanding which was not previously available to human societies about themselves, and finally allows us to truly move towards social freedom, namely where societies, as socialist and eventually communist, are no longer condemned to society seeming like some impersonal force before which we’re passive, weak and helpless, but is something of which we are not only a part but also something which we can collectively, consciously, control and shape. That is precisely the reason why socialism is more advanced as a form of society than capitalism, other things being equal.

Materialism’s most basic theoretical foundation is that there is independently existing, objective reality, which conforms most fundamentally in its properties to what we understand as or call the ‘physical’, and out of which emerges a type of entity capable of subjective, conscious thought, which is in turn not only ontologically dependent on the matter (or whatever you what to call it, as the conception of the physical in modern science goes far beyond the pretty crude idea of matter of intellectually bankrupt 19th century of modern ‘vulgar materialism’). I’m not sure how much time you’ve actually spent with seriously militant Marxists if you think that Materialism is not a key part of their beliefs and identity. Dialectical and historical materialism are then further theoretical developments of this idea. Materialism is ancient, whereas the latter are modern developments that were not possible before modern science and the industrial revolution. If you wanted to reduce Historical Materialism to tool, then I guess the best candidate for its purpose would be ‘ruthless critique of all that exists’.

We can say we need to be understanding as much as we like, and it’s not false, but it remains a limited, abstract point if it doesn’t then ask the question of what our understanding of religion as Marxists implies about the political status and potential of religion. This doesn’t imply you are wrong when you say that there have to be political alliances with religious non-Marxists, but it does imply that as Marxists we never let out of sight the knowledge that those movements are held back in their possible development by those religious dimensions, though of course the latter are also partially but still significantly expressions of how the material conditions and historical context have seriously undermined the potential for socialist politics. Religious movements can serve historically progressive purposes, but they are fundamentally limited, and there is immense danger of hyper-reactionary theocratic backlash which is as effective at crushing communist movements as fascists are (not a coincidence, given there are A LOT of similarities between Islamism and Fascism).

Im not sure what you mean by ‘impose atheism’. We are not in a position to materially impose atheism on anyone. Whether that should be done once we have a state is another question, and people on here seem to often approve of it in the case of, say, China or the USSR, but immediately get sheepish when its discussed in relation to Islam, whereas it seems to me like the recent political history of Islam should make us less so. If you mean ‘imposing’ in the sense of stating clearly that those are our views, when then you are basically saying that Marxists have to sacrifice a view that is pretty key to our conception of the world and make a concession to false (if you think anyone flew on a winged horse one night to see God then you believe an absurdity) and often reactionary views in order to not alienate certain potential allies. Which is a very problematic position to hold in all honesty and i’m not sure how anyone who is actually a Marxist can think that.

You are definitely correct that there is not much communication going on, let alone productive. But another reason for that this is an awkward and difficult conversation to be had as Marxism and Islam are ideologically contradictory is a very strong, formal sense. Obviously this is most immediately an abstract, theoretical point, though that is not irrelevant, as moving through differences and formal contradictions towards consistency is necessary for moving towards truth, and truth is not irrelevant to politics, especially Marxist politics. There is also the issue of the political history of Islam, which is not very progressive and has become less so in the modern era imo. The contradiction between them is also not only something perceived by Marxists, but is very much clear to Muslims as well. An issue that Marxist militants ALWAYS have in my experience in situations like this is that if you are talking politics, or trying to agitate or organize, and you are doing so with religious individuals, especially if they are radicalizing and becoming interested in Marxism, is the contradiction they clearly perceive between their religious convictions and their developing Marxist/Communist political beliefs. At a point if you are in a party you do have to have the conversation with potential militants or members that Marxism is not compatible with the liberal position on religion of pretending like it is politically irrelevant, simply to appeal to the insecurity or narcissism of particular individuals who want to have their cake and eat it too. It is completely incompatible with the Leninist conception of the party.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Marxists are not, in general, going to be attracted to a religion which not only explicitly states that they deserve to be and will be burned and unimaginably tortured in hell for eternity, whose metaphysics is clearly incompatible, but more importantly from it’s inception to the current day has proscribed very different political structures and relations than Marxism (again, not a surprise, given that it emerged in Arabia in the 7th century CE, and that it’s founder was not only a political and religious leader but a warlord who seems to have committed war crimes and whose values were profoundly different to those of modern socialism).

It’s not a coincidence that the modern radical and dynamic expressions of political energy in the Islamic world of the modern era have been Islamist, and that Islamists immediately crush any progressive forces when they come confidently into power. Every place they have come to power they have enacted absolutely depraved social policies. The success of Islamism in the modern era is not only an expression of the religiosity of these societies and the effects of Imperialism and Colonialism, but also an expression of the failures of progressive forces, i.e. communists and socialists in these societies.

Honestly a consequence of this is that individuals then often end up taking pretty simplistic or nationalist positions in relation to certain political struggles, because there is also a reticence among many people of the left to recognize out the self-evidently reactionary aspects of certain movements which stem directly from their religious, theocratic ideologies, as well as broader material conditions, due to the risk that that will be perceived as an attack of the downtrodden. It’s a bizarrely moralistic, un-Marxist, and frankly moronic position to take, because more fundamentally its a question of being realistic about the political possibilities available to movements which are not driven ideologically by socialist or communist ideology, which I think worsens alot of the analysis you see on these problems.

I’m interested as to what extent the influence of Neoconservatism on the Republican Party, as they’ve all been pretty unambiguously absolute in their support for Israel. Frankly they’ve been even more publically frothing at the mouth in bloodlust.

Who knows, maybe a second Trump presidency will be more eager to launch another crusade in the Middle East than Biden.

The PCF are not really considered a serious Communist party by most radicals and communists in France imo. There are several other communist groups which are basically Trotskyist in orientation. The PCF are recognized universally on the left reformist sic dems and their have long held a variety of very reactionary positions. They are a shadow of their former selves.

It’s doubly annoying because in Paris they still have a dope ass modernist building as their headquarters which literally looks like some Soviet shit. They really don’t deserve it.

Yeah I agree with that. But I think that even in the best of outcomes the situation is going to be pretty dire.

I’m not sure. At times I think so and at others I’m more sceptical. I in no way claim to have an answer. The situation is worse than a dilemma. However it’s a dilemma because two things im confident of is (1) that Hamas will (unfortunately in several key respects) remain the main armed opposition capable of opposing Israel, and so will inevitably play a key role in the struggle against Israel; and (2) that they will never be an organization who will lead to a long term solution to these issues nor will they introduce the socio-economic reforms and political revolution that Palestine needs, even in the best of scenarios. Though Palestinian comrades seem to still see cooperation with them as tactically necessary though is does make me worry for them for obvious reasons. Their opinion does have to be respected.

Hence my pessimism (which does not imply that there should be no struggle, but that it should focus on making the most of the concrete situation presented. It in fact obligates even more rigorous struggle, and the most important thing those in western countries can do is show support for Palestine and make clear that their countries are supporting a genocidal apartheid fascist state. Ideally there would be more mass demonstrations and support attempts to pupressure but hat is looking difficult. But then again who knows how things will develop as this shit continued to get worse.

But I also this that this support should not be explicitly describing Hamas in positive terms other than as the only vehicle Gazas (and Palestinians in a sense) have for militarily opposing Israel, though I also disagree with Hamas’s tactics (not that that matters of course, like who am I), and think other mass radical labor organization to economically squeez Israel would have been ideal, but I also recognize that the situation is so fucked and Israel has so brutally sabotaged any other alternative that that has become impossible for the time being. Another reason in terms of optics I think they need to be distinguished is that the one of the best weapons that Western media has is the trump-card of anti-semitism, and Yh when you see people holding signs like ‘queers for Hamas’ or ‘Jews for Hamas’ it looks insane if you know much about Hamas’s or Islamist ideology regarding Jewish people and what Hamas media and charters have said about it over the years, or when you know their social positions such as on LGBT issues (I.e that it’s an evil deviance the Jews have spread to corrupt Muslims). Of course the reality is complicated by the fact that western media is already doing its utmost to destroy the distinction between support for Palestinians and strong ideological support for a group like Hamas. Though the real ambiguity’s and problem is that Hamas is still the main force through they exert there opposition for the time being. I’m not saying I’ve figured my way out of that other than by saying that we can’t condemn Palestinians decision and we mousy stand with them while also being honest Kong ourselves regarding the progressive potential and it’s limitations for the struggle when int his framework, which again is not to say that a better one is going to present itself any time soon.

On the Taliban given how extremely reactionary they are it does make that kind of judgment very emotionally difficult. My honest opinion is that it is unclear. Honestly a liberal bourgeois government would have been more advantageous to the growth of socialist politics imo. But that was also not realistically going to be produced by the Americans, given how brutally extractive and destructive their occupation was.