Re: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems ofint'l.strategyfortoday's China

[bar@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I dont see how a reply to a request by the Afghans to the USSR to help
support their regime in the face of an assault by the US proxies can be
construed as "imperialism." The evidence is clear the Afghan war drained
the USSR and it did not benefit one whit from that war. Are you saying
that any time a socialist country comes to aid of another and sends troops
there that it is engaging in imperialism? Then what was the Chinese war
agaisnt Vietnam in the mid 70's all about?

Chris

>
> What was the "imperialism" involved in Afghanistan?
>
> The Soviets neither exploited nor plundered resources. Nor did they
> attempt
> to control the government.
>
> On the other hand, take a look at what the United States is after there!
>
>>From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: The A-List <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: The A-List <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems
>>ofint'l.	strategyfortoday's China
>>Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:11:14 -0500
>>
>>
>>
>>Charles Brown wrote:
>>
>>>Henry:
>>>The US was also less exploitative during the Cold War with its allies.
>>>
>>>^^^^
>>>CB: Well, yes, they were in a creative _destructive_ phase in their
>>>relationship to their colonies.
>>>
>>>Soviets didn't seem to have to carry out big imperialist wars as the
>>> U.S.
>>>did. This is an indirect indicator of less exploitation.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, Charles.  That is because the Soviet imperilaist phase started late
>>and came into full bloom in Afghanistan, which eventually brought down
>> the
>>USSR.
>>
>>
>>Henry
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>