History of the Viet Cong

[Mute Fox]

Hello comrades. This is probably only going to be the first of a series of questions I'm going to ask which have been triggered by discussions with a friend of mine and his...unusual view of history.

So anyway...we were watching Spike TV's "Deadliest Warrior" (for shits and giggles, of course) and it was a battle between the Waffen SS and the Viet Cong. I expressed my misgivings over the fact that the Viet Cong were being depicted as sadistic villains, and my friend and I got into an argument over it. He made the assertion that in the "12 years" after the French colonialists left Vietnam, the Viet Cong killed their own people and extorted money from them like some criminal gang, and did the same during the Vietnam War.

My question is, what is the real history of the Viet Cong, from the time the French left Indochina? Were they bloodthirsty, indiscriminate killers? Heroic peasant revolutionaries? Something in-between? What is the truth, so I can shut up my friend? XD

Thanks in advance.

[Kléber]

The funny thing is that SS troops actually did fight the Viet Minh. France re-invaded its colony of Indochina, which had been occupied by Japanese forces, in 1945. Some German POW's from WWII, who had been part of elite SS units, were forgiven by the French gov't if they agreed to join the French Foreign Legion and fight to defend European colonies against Africans and Asians.

The National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) were indeed mostly a poor peasant army fighting for national liberation. Yes, they committed atrocities; but so did troops loyal to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Many of the nasty atrocities committed by the Viet Minh/NLF were actually against communists, in the purges of the 40's and 50's. Vietnam today is a capitalist society despite the political dictatorship of the "Communist Party." The Vietnamese government protects capitalists' private property over the means of production.

[Killer Enigma]

The funny thing is that SS troops actually did fight the Viet Minh. France re-invaded its colony of Indochina, which had been occupied by Japanese forces, in 1945. Some German POW's from WWII, who had been part of elite SS units, were forgiven by the French gov't if they agreed to join the French Foreign Legion and fight to defend European colonies against Africans and Asians.

The National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) were indeed mostly a poor peasant army fighting for national liberation. Yes, they committed atrocities; but so did troops loyal to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Many of the nasty atrocities committed by the Viet Minh/NLF were actually against communists, in the purges of the 40's and 50's. Vietnam today is a capitalist society despite the political dictatorship of the "Communist Party." The Vietnamese government protects capitalists' private property over the means of production.
This is key to getting Americans to understand the concept of "revolutionary violence". Point out that during the American Civil War--an unquestionably revolutionary struggle that expropriated the property of an entire ruling class of Southern slaveowners--President Lincoln ordered General Sherman to burn key cities and regions of the South to the ground. Confederate soldiers were detained by the North in brutal prison work camps and many were executed for treason. Most people have a positive view of Lincoln, so work with that. The Viet Minh were involved in an even more difficult struggle because unlike the North in the US, they neither held state power nor were they victim to massive imperialist intervention.

[gorillafuck]

The funny thing is that SS troops actually did fight the Viet Minh. France re-invaded its colony of Indochina, which had been occupied by Japanese forces, in 1945. Some German POW's from WWII, who had been part of elite SS units, were forgiven by the French gov't if they agreed to join the French Foreign Legion and fight to defend European colonies against Africans and Asians.
I'm not really surprised but that sort of shit still has kind of a shock effect. Link?

[Robocommie]

I saw that particular episode. I was gobsmacked. Deadliest Warrior is a pretty goofy show at the best of times, but of course this show took on an ideological edge, and I think there was way too much glorification of the Waffen SS. I kept commenting to my friends while watching the show, "Of course, they don't talk about which of these weapons are the best at killing Jewish civilians."


Vietnam today is a capitalist society despite the political dictatorship of the "Communist Party." The Vietnamese government protects capitalists' private property over the means of production.

Kleber buddy, I have to argue that you're wrong on this one. The Vietnamese government does not have a capitalist system of property rights - the lack of this has been a major reason why western investors see Vietnam as a gamble for investment purposes.

You are of course, spot on about the French and their buddying up with former Axis forces.

[Ocean Seal]

Hello comrades. This is probably only going to be the first of a series of questions I'm going to ask which have been triggered by discussions with a friend of mine and his...unusual view of history.

So anyway...we were watching Spike TV's "Deadliest Warrior" (for shits and giggles, of course) and it was a battle between the Waffen SS and the Viet Cong. I expressed my misgivings over the fact that the Viet Cong were being depicted as sadistic villains, and my friend and I got into an argument over it. He made the assertion that in the "12 years" after the French colonialists left Vietnam, the Viet Cong killed their own people and extorted money from them like some criminal gang, and did the same during the Vietnam War.

My question is, what is the real history of the Viet Cong, from the time the French left Indochina? Were they bloodthirsty, indiscriminate killers? Heroic peasant revolutionaries? Something in-between? What is the truth, so I can shut up my friend? XD

Thanks in advance.

Well I saw the episode too and I was very disgusted with the fact that they compared the Vietcong to the Waffen SS in terms of how evil each one was. The Vietcong were just protecting what was theirs they were defending their homeland and the peasants they were not evil terrorists like the SS. Ho Chi Minh, regardless of how you stand politically, was a great man.
Read the People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and you'll realize who we were fighting against.

[Kléber]

Kleber buddy, I have to argue that you're wrong on this one. The Vietnamese government does not have a capitalist system of property rights - the lack of this has been a major reason why western investors see Vietnam as a gamble for investment purposes.
Hanoi is more cautious about privatization than Beijing, but the process is steadily underway. The continued predominance of the state sector doesn't make Vietnam of today any more socialist than Taiwan years ago. CPV members can own private enterprises of any size.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/viet-j16.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Vietnam#1986-2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%95i_M%E1%BB%9Bi

[Robocommie]

Hanoi is more cautious about privatization than Beijing, but the process is steadily underway. The continued predominance of the state sector doesn't make Vietnam of today any more socialist than Taiwan years ago. CPV members can own private enterprises of any size.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/viet-j16.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Vietnam#1986-2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%95i_M%E1%BB%9Bi

Oh, absolutely, the Vietnamese have been playing more and more with capitalist ventures and foreign investment, to a degree that strains their socialist credentials. However, I feel Doi Moi occured due primarily to circumstances beyond Vietnam's control - namely they didn't have much to work with at all and needed help - mostly from the Soviets, but of course with the collapse of the USSR even that went away.

What I meant is that Vietnam does not have private property rights enshrined in it's constitution in the same way that liberal constitutions do. The Vietnamese state is still supreme, and could still theoretically nationalize everything. I'm therefore somewhat cautiously optimistic that Vietnam is basically trying to institute a rapid capitalist development before instituting genuine state socialism - that's their stated intention at least, and I don't see any particular reason to disbelieve.

[Kléber]

Oh, absolutely, the Vietnamese have been playing more and more with capitalist ventures and foreign investment, to a degree that strains their socialist credentials. However, I feel Doi Moi occured due primarily to circumstances beyond Vietnam's control - namely they didn't have much to work with at all and needed help - mostly from the Soviets, but of course with the collapse of the USSR even that went away.

What I meant is that Vietnam does not have private property rights enshrined in it's constitution in the same way that liberal constitutions do. The Vietnamese state is still supreme, and could still theoretically nationalize everything. I'm therefore somewhat cautiously optimistic that Vietnam is basically trying to institute a rapid capitalist development before instituting genuine state socialism - that's their stated intention at least, and I don't see any particular reason to disbelieve.
The same argument could be made about China, another WTO member nation where "Communist" leaders are worth billions of dollars. CCP and CPV members are allowed to own private enterprises of any size; a real workers' party would not allow capitalists within its ranks and leadership. There was no reason to disbelieve in the credentials of the many "socialist" countries that once existed, their leaders didn't come out and say "hey, we are restoring outright capitalism here." There were warning signs, suppression of dissent, gradual accumulation of wealth by the ruling layers. The reason the ruling elites of China, Vietnam, the DPRK and Cuba have kept their Stalinist state structure intact even past the capitulation of USSR is not that they care more about the workers, it's because they saw what an absolute mess instant and across-the-board rollback caused for Russia.

If you want to get technical though, private property is not enshrined in the United States either. It's not "life, liberty, and property" it's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson was afraid the industrial bourgeoisie could grow to an extent where it was harmful to the petty bourgeois democratic body politic, just as the Chinese/Vietnamese bureaucrats are afraid that the growth of capitalism will unseat their hold on power, and thus seek to contain it with palliative measures. Under the law of eminent domain, the US government could theoretically nationalize everything too. There are some people who believe eminent domain makes the US a socialist country, but nationalizations don't equal workers' control, otherwise ancient Egyptian pharaohs would be the founders of socialism.

Regardless of bickering over definitions, I do agree that public industry is a step in the right direction. It should be defended by all class-conscious workers, and an end put to the market reforms. The progressive gains of the revolution can only be defended and extended by a workers' political revolution, suppression of bureaucratic privileges, and expropriation of the nascent Vietnamese bourgeoisie.