The Angolan Civil War is a very strange period of history for me. By all logic it doesn’t make sense that there are not only two large, powerful communist parties but that they were fighting each other - with one even being backed by the West of all people. I’ve heard the division was caused primarily by an ethnic dispute with the two parties representing two different ethnicities.
Is this accurate or was there more to it than that? I’d appreciate any insight anyone has - or at least resources if available - in order to better understand why this war happened.
After ingesting a ton of theory, my new and improved instincts say that the “communist” party the west backed was a deviationist movement specifically designed to counter the actual communists and probably the other one was the real one.
That is a fair assumption to make but I don’t think it’s a helpful means of analysis.
Are they deviationist because they’re actually engaging in deviationism or are we simply calling them deviationist because it’s a convenient way of brushing aside something embarrassing or controversial and because we’re already biased toward the alternative? Is it “deviationism” to accept support from our ideological enemies - to use their money, their resources, their manpower, etc. to further our own goals that are in opposition to our enemies’ interests in the long run?
I don’t really like the argument of “X is bad because they’re working for Y” as it’s one of the most common arguments liberals use to shut down discussion around groups they want to oppose, like the Palestinian Resistance. It also erodes the agency of the people in question by reducing them to mere ‘puppets’ that apparently can’t act on their own. This especially becomes problematic when the groups in question aren’t white and the person accusing them of being puppets is.
Capitalists and communists fought the Second World War together against other capitalists. Politics - including warfare - can be complex and can lead to unusual alliances and strange rivalries. I think it’s best to look at what the people in question are actually doing, what they actually believe, and whether or not their actions mesh with their alleged beliefs.
I don’t remember which one but if I recall correctly there was a conflict (in Africa, I think) during the Cold War where the USA and the USSR were supporting the same side.
I see your point but i dont think we always need to use the hardest path, especially when the tendency is made a hundredfold clear.
Additionally, just because I give my opinion does not mean you have to take it and run with it. Feel free to research it yourself if you are so inclined.
Concerning the ussr, that is not correct. The ussr and the west were never on the same side. Read imperialism by lenin or black shirts and reds by parenti to make that abundandly clear. Fascism was a capitalist idea and still is. The west fought it because it got out of control and because they didnt want everyone to see that the red army can kill the nazi beast by itself.
The ussr was the enemy before, during and after. The west used the situation to paint itself in a righteous color.
An actually revolutionary communist or socialist cause has never and will never be - knowingly - supported by the west.
Feel free to correct me if you have different facts of course.