[Militant No. 608, 2nd July 1982, p. 10]
By Lynn Walsh
Second of two-part article
The Russian intervention had enormously reactionary consequences internationally, allowing the US government, Thatcher, and other Western leaders to justify a new spurt in the arms race.
The confusion caused among workers throughout the world by Russia’s bureaucratic military invasion in defence of a bureaucratic military regime more than outweighed, in any international calculation of the effects, the gain of securing the abolition of landlordism and capitalism in Afghanistan.
The people of this remote, poverty-stricken country cannot but gain from the development of a planned economy. This is the only possible escape ladder from centuries of backwardness and domination by the imperialist powers, who, when it suited them never hesitated to invade the country and establish puppet rulers. However, the existence or non-existence of a deformed workers’ state in Afghanistan can hardly be said to have more than a negligible effect on the international balance of class forces.
The US and other Western capitalist leaders raised a storm because it was a very timely propaganda gift, providing an opportunity to step up their ‘Cold War’ propaganda against the Russian bureaucracy. When Daoud’s landlord regime, rotten through and through, was overthrown in April 1978, Western imperialism quietly accepted the formation of a proletarian Bonapartist regime.
Yet when the Russian bureaucracy intervened to prop up its unexpected client when it faced collapse in 1979, the Western leaders raised an enormous hue and cry. In their inner councils, they accepted that the Russian bureaucracy had invaded for defensive reasons, to protect its southern flank, and not as a first step of a push into the Middle East or the Indian sub-continent. Nevertheless, the outcry was a warning from imperialism that Russia should not attempt to meddle in Iran. And the first direct Russian intervention in a state outside the Eastern bloc gave the West the opportunity to whip up fears about the danger of Russian ‘imperialism’ and aggressiveness.
For these reasons Marxists could not support the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. But once the invasion had taken place, there was a new situation. There could be no question then of calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops. Withdrawal would not undo the damage. The suspicions aroused among workers internationally about the motives of the Russian bureaucracy would not be wiped out. On the other hand, withdrawal could undoubtedly have led to the collapse of the proletarian Bonapartist regime and the restoration of the rule of the landlords and capitalists in Afghanistan.
Slowly but surely, the regime’s forces, with the massive backing of the Russian army, are gaining the upper hand. In March, for instance, reports came out of a battle which resulted in the death of 1,000 of the opposition forces, including at least 200 experienced Mujahidin fighters. The Russian commanders have developed more flexible tactics in combating the guerrillas, concentrating on gaining control of the towns and key communications and attacking guerrilla forces only when provoked.
While using the big stick when necessary, moreover, the regime has also dangled the carrot in front of the rural population. This is possible because of the relatively progressive role of the planned economy, especially compared to Afghan’s previous feudal backwardness, even under the direction of a bureaucracy based on a privileged elite.
The Karmal leadership has modified and toned down the reforms which the previous Amin leadership attempted to implement at breakneck speed. Together with ruthless repression, the implementation of land reform, compulsory literacy classes (including women), and other radical changes threw the country into turmoil and threatened the very existence of the proletarian Bonapartist regime.
Babrak Karmal, no doubt with the Russian bureaucracy’s advisors guiding him, has attempted to conciliate the mullahs, sections of the landlords and other potential opponents, inviting their leaders to participate in a ‘National Fatherland Front.’ The land reform is going ahead but more cautiously, with concessions being made to the mosque and also to the landlords who agree to mechanise and sell their food products to the state. Literacy classes are no longer compulsory for women.
Earlier this year, The Economist (27 February) grudgingly conceded that the regime was gradually consolidating a basis of support: “Villagers who keep the guerrillas out of their own areas can chose their own leaders, administrators, even governors. They can ask for money to build mosques and seek advice on their crops. There have been hints from the Ministry of Tribes that the Pathans may soon be given a degree of autonomy. Health centres are being built; so are kindergartens, libraries and schools. Consumer goods are subsidised. The Russians are buying themselves relative peace in some areas.”
In time, when the regime is consolidated, the Russian forces will be withdrawn. But the question of democracy will remain. Against the control of the planned economy by a bureaucracy based on a privileged elite, Marxists would raise the need in Afghanistan for workers’ and peasants’ councils to take control of the economy and the state into their own hands.
However, it has to be recognised that the extreme weakness of the working class in this still primitive land inevitably means that the future of the peoples of Afghanistan will be linked to the development of the class struggle in the country’s much more powerful neighbours. India, in particular, has a powerful working class, and society is rotten ripe for change. In Russia, the development of the planned economy has created an enormously powerful, highly cultured working class, increasingly pushing against the bars of Stalinist bureaucracy.
Under a national bureaucracy in Afghanistan, economic progress will be at a snail’s pace, even with Russian backing. But who can doubt that the situation would be totally transformed by the formation of a workers’ state in India or Pakistan, or by the overthrow of the bureaucracy and the restoration of workers’ democracy in the Soviet Union?
Schreibe einen Kommentar