The Afghan government was initially state atheist, swiftly abandoning this at the behest of the soviet union in favor of secualrism, at the behest of the USSR adopted concessions to the religious right on secular reform which never satisfied them (Even after ending compulsory education of children, the largest complaint of the initial religious resistance) and they ended up losing to the Mujahideen who fractured and started a civil war. The Taliban arose during the subsequent civil war as a response to institutionalised pederasty.
The Afghan war is a pretty good case study in the fact that you can’t compromise your way out of a conflict with religious authorities as a left wing project.
So in other words. Anti clericalism must be pursued immediately (Or you get Iran) and must be sustained (Because letting up on it doesn’t work, as per Afghanistan).
It must be immediate, sustained, uncompromising, methodical, thorough, and strategized.
The point of the mosques and killing the clergy is a failure on the final point.
Actually, at no point should the mosques go away. I’ve seen secular places turn churches into libraries. You do not destroy heritage and cultural sites - a violation of international law that could easily be weaponized against you.
There are other ways of neutering religious institutions than physically taking them down. You are attacking the face of the beast and not the body.
It’s like going after western media reporters but not their sponsors. You are just hitting the most visible, most replaceable, and least valuable target.
Morerover, because you are hitting the most visible target, it is much much easier to rally opponents against you.
The mythically ideal solution is one that is complete and that is unreactable.
Ending compulsory education of children is a failure of one of Marx’s 10 pillars of communism.
We should have compulsory education of children everywhere, but citing a specific platform in the manifesto because Marx wrote it is not a good way to argue that.
No… part of this is true.
The Afghan government was initially state atheist, swiftly abandoning this at the behest of the soviet union in favor of secualrism, at the behest of the USSR adopted concessions to the religious right on secular reform which never satisfied them (Even after ending compulsory education of children, the largest complaint of the initial religious resistance) and they ended up losing to the Mujahideen who fractured and started a civil war. The Taliban arose during the subsequent civil war as a response to institutionalised pederasty.
The Afghan war is a pretty good case study in the fact that you can’t compromise your way out of a conflict with religious authorities as a left wing project.
Ending compulsory education of children is a failure of one of Marx’s 10 pillars of communism.
I agree. Don’t compromise with them. Deal with them intelligently and systematically.
Chuddic brains don’t respect compromise. It just means you’re weak.
So in other words. Anti clericalism must be pursued immediately (Or you get Iran) and must be sustained (Because letting up on it doesn’t work, as per Afghanistan).
It must be immediate, sustained, uncompromising, methodical, thorough, and strategized.
The point of the mosques and killing the clergy is a failure on the final point.
Actually, at no point should the mosques go away. I’ve seen secular places turn churches into libraries. You do not destroy heritage and cultural sites - a violation of international law that could easily be weaponized against you.
There are other ways of neutering religious institutions than physically taking them down. You are attacking the face of the beast and not the body.
It’s like going after western media reporters but not their sponsors. You are just hitting the most visible, most replaceable, and least valuable target.
Morerover, because you are hitting the most visible target, it is much much easier to rally opponents against you.
The mythically ideal solution is one that is complete and that is unreactable.
We should have compulsory education of children everywhere, but citing a specific platform in the manifesto because Marx wrote it is not a good way to argue that.