I apologize comrades about Vietnam

[The Vegan Marxist]

After reading up on the article below, I've tried defending what I once thought was still-Socialist Vietnam, but this draws the line. Vietnam are betrayers to the Proletarian struggle. Fuck Vietnam, Long Live the CPI (Maoist)!


A betrayal by Vietnam – Vietnam enlists their help with the US against Indian Maoists
SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, Oct. 13: The Indian Army has decided to learn from the masters of the bush war — Vietnam — in the middle of an intensive study of Maoist military tactics.

The irony is hard to miss. When the Naxalites emerged in India in the late-1960s, a popular slogan that reverberated in Bengal was “Tomar naam, amar naam, Vietnam, Vietnam”.

Translated it means “Your name, my name, Vietnam, Vietnam”, but the English does not have quite the same ring as the passionate Bengali in which the slogan was chorused.

That was in solidarity with the Communist-led resistance war against the Americans and their puppet South Vietnamese government. The struggle that drove the Americans out in 1975 was probably the most successful guerrilla war in modern history.
Today, nearly 35 years later, defence minister A.K. Antony and his Vietnamese counterpart General Phung Quang Thanh — a hero of that guerrilla war — agreed that the armies of the two countries will begin joint exercises from next year.

In 1968, a year after the Naxalbari uprising in India, Company Commander Phung, then a 19-year-old, was running the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” — a complex network of jungle routes that wove and tunnelled through forests to supply logistics to Viet Cong guerrillas. As a squad commander, he is personally reputed to have killed eight assaulting airborne troops while defending a guerrilla position atop a hill.

India’s Maoists, who have killed over 200 police troops this year, have drawn many of their lessons from Vietnam’s resistance war that serves as a model to them along with the tactics enunciated by Mao Zedong and Che Guevara.

The first exercise between the Indian and Vietnamese armies in mountain and jungle warfare will be held in India.

The Indian Army has limited its current role in the counter-Maoist offensive to training the police and logistics. But its Allahabad-headquartered Central Command is specifically tasked with mapping the Maoist militancy, analysing their tactics and equipping the army with the right resources.

None of this has figured in the agreement reached by A.K. Antony and General Phung Quang Thanh yesterday. The Indian Army believes it is among the very best in jungle warfare — given its counter-insurgency experience in the Northeast and in Jammu and Kashmir.

US troops have also been in training at the Indian Army’s Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School in Vairangte, Mizoram, where the first drill with the Vietnamese is likely to be conducted.

Defence ministry sources said as part of India’s Look East Policy, New Delhi has offered to Hanoi its skills to “enhance and upgrade the capabilities of its (Vietnam’s) three services in general and its navy in particular”.

Antony announced India’s help at bilateral meetings with the top Vietnamese leadership, including President Nguyen Minh Triet, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and defence minister General Phung Quang Thanh.

“India will help Vietnam in its capacity building for repair and maintenance of its platforms. The armies of the two countries will also co-operate in areas like IT and English training of Vietnamese Army personnel,” Antony said yesterday.

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/a-betrayal-by-vietnam-vietnam-enlists-their-help-with-the-us-against-indian-maoists/

[mosfeld]

Good post aside from the "fuck Vietnam" part. Next up: China, North Korea and Cuba.

EDIT: Maybe Laos? I don't know.

[Rafiq]

I always held the belief that Vietnam sold out their nation.

[Saorsa]

This thread is unnecessary.

[Antifa94]

@the Vegan Marxist
where HAVE you been since 1986?
1986= China's 1978.

[Soviet dude]

*shrugs*

Military exercises don't mean the Vietnamese Communists want the Naxalites crushed. The Vietnamese language news seems to suggest this was nothing more than standard routine co-operations agreements.

http://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/National/2010/10/86425/

[Obs]

*shrugs*

Military exercises don't mean the Vietnamese Communists want the Naxalites crushed. The Vietnamese language news seems to suggest this was nothing more than standard routine co-operations agreements.

http://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/National/2010/10/86425/
Then again, the Vietnamese Communists aren't in power.

EDIT: Maybe this thread should be renamed "The Vietnam Thread - Now Without Flame Blitzkrieg On TVM"?

[KC]

How has this change of heart gone down with your FRSO comrades?

[Lolshevik]

He says Vietnam is socialist and you tell him to fuck off.
He says, okay, I see now that they're not... and you tell him to fuck off.

there's humor in this, somewhere...

[KC]

Who said "fuck off"?

[pranabjyoti]

*shrugs*

Military exercises don't mean the Vietnamese Communists want the Naxalites crushed. The Vietnamese language news seems to suggest this was nothing more than standard routine co-operations agreements.

http://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/National/2010/10/86425/
But in the essay, it has been specifically mentioned that the co-operation is about jungle warfare and at present India, whom do you think the Indian state has to counter with Jungle warfare? How strong Vietnam militarily is to have a joint co-operations agreements? I haven't heard about existence of any such agreement before.

[Lolshevik]

Who said "fuck off"?


figuratively, you know? everyone rode him pretty hard in the vietnam thread, with good reason. now he says he was wrong and everyone's still pissed. there's no pleading you people. :P

[Devrim]

I apologize comrades about Vietnam
After reading up on the article below, I've tried defending what I once thought was still-Socialist Vietnam, but this draws the line. Vietnam are betrayers to the Proletarian struggle. Fuck Vietnam, Long Live the CPI (Maoist)!

I would try revising the rest of your politics now. There are two ways to do it. The best is to serious look at and analyse the class nature of the political positions you hold. The other would be to just change every position you hold to its diametrical opposite. It won't be perfect, but would have the advantage of being non-time consuming, and on balance lead you to being closer to working class politics.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

The other would be to just change every position you hold to its diametrical opposite. It won't be perfect, but would have the advantage of being non-time consuming, and on balance lead you to being closer to working class politics.

:lol:

Oh wow.

[EvilRedGuy]

figuratively, you know? everyone rode him pretty hard in the vietnam thread, with good reason. now he says he was wrong and everyone's still pissed. there's no pleading you people. :P

He deserves it.

[synthesis]

After reading up on the article below, I've tried defending what I once thought was still-Socialist Vietnam, but this draws the line. Vietnam are betrayers to the Proletarian struggle. Fuck Vietnam, Long Live the CPI (Maoist)!

Dude, you are just habitually drawing the wrong conclusions from everything you come across. The point is not that Vietnam "betrayed the proletarian struggle," the point is that socialism can't exist in a vacuum. The sooner you realize this, the better.

[t.shonku]

I am not surprised by this.During early 2000s then India’s PM Bajpayee went to Vietnam and signed a number of deals which included teaching Indian troops jungle warfare.To tell you the truth if their tactics were so superior then why the hell is Maoist’s still kicking the Indian Govt’s a** .I personally think the once mysterious Vietnamese jungle war tactics has been deciphered,anyone can buy books and manuals on this subject from Amazon.com,to learn this you don’t need to go to Vietnam,so India govt’s decession to learn from this Vietnamese backstabbers is “dumb”.
Besides if we look at history once it was thought that Japanese were masters of Jungle warfare,but that myth was broken by the Filipino guerrillas,I personally think that only real natives of the jungle own the jungle and Maoist have support of native Adivasis so there is noting to worry,victory will be for the Maoists,besides the Vietnamese tactics are of 60s,todays battlefield is different,guerrillas today deploy sophisticated IEDs that were almost unimaginable then.
Last but not the least,guerrilla war is a people’s war and a people’s war can’t be defeated by any weapons or military strategy.

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

except nuclear warheads

[RED DAVE]

After reading up on the article below, I've tried defending what I once thought was still-Socialist Vietnam, but this draws the line. Vietnam are betrayers to the Proletarian struggle. Fuck Vietnam, Long Live the CPI (Maoist)!Now, if you analyze the economy of Vietnam, which is state capitalism headed towards private capitalism, and the economy of China, you will see the same thing: no workers power, which accounts for this and any other betrayal.

And you will understand why, during the Vietnam War, Mao made kissy-nice with the leader of world imperialism, Richard Nixon. State capitalism is not and never will be socialism. And if the Nepalese Maoists don't change their class orientation (which is not likely), they will be headed down the same highway.

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would try revising the rest of your politics now. There are two ways to do it. The best is to serious look at and analyse the class nature of the political positions you hold. The other would be to just change every position you hold to its diametrical opposite. It won't be perfect, but would have the advantage of being non-time consuming, and on balance lead you to being closer to working class politics.

Devrim

Is this how you try to draw comrades to Socialism?

I see now why our movement is made up of so few numbers.

[Devrim]

Is this how you try to draw comrades to Socialism?

I see now why our movement is made up of so few numbers.

I don't see him in any way as a socialist. He is a supporter of capitalist states and anti-working class nationalists. He is not, in any way, my comrade.

Devrim

[Bright Banana Beard]

I don't see him in any way as a socialist. He is a supporter of capitalist states and anti-working class nationalists. He is not, in any way, my comrade.

Devrim

This is why we can't have nice thing.

[Imposter Marxist]

I don't see him in any way as a socialist. He is a supporter of capitalist states and anti-working class nationalists. He is not, in any way, my comrade.

Devrim


Devrim is known as the "Village asshole" Its best just to :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't see him in any way as a socialist. He is a supporter of capitalist states and anti-working class nationalists. He is not, in any way, my comrade.

Devrim

Why don't you give him a chance to alter some of his views instead of giving him a hard time and telling him he should believe the exact opposite to what he currently believes?

Are you trying to turn him to Socialism or do you just not give a fuck?

[EvilRedGuy]

I don't see him in any way as a socialist. He is a supporter of capitalist states and anti-working class nationalists. He is not, in any way, my comrade.

Devrim

This.

[Lolshevik]

I don't see him in any way as a socialist. He is a supporter of capitalist states and anti-working class nationalists. He is not, in any way, my comrade.

Devrim


so are many proletarians who do not at all consider themselves communists. I suppose you don't want to change any of their minds, either? i know how it is, it's hard to learn the names of new people in your party, better to just have the same ones forever...

[ZeroNowhere]

Is this how you try to draw comrades to Socialism?

I see now why our movement is made up of so few numbers.This is quite blatantly ludicrous. How Devrim happens to treat some bloke on an internet forum indicates nothing about the cause of the currently low number of socialists, or even about how Devrim, an individual communist, treats most other people whom he knows. A high horse is of no use when one has no ground to stand on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not saying Devrim treats everyone like that. Clearly my last sentence was just a frustrated pot-shot.

My point was that his post seemed to suggest that he didn't care whether TVMs views are/become aligned with 'Socialism' or not, and I believe this to be wrong.

[Devrim]

My point was that his post seemed to suggest that he didn't care whether TVMs views are/become aligned with 'Socialism' or not, and I believe this to be wrong.

To be quite honest I don't. Are the views of one specific individual that important?

I think the defence of socialism as an idea is more important that one individual adhering to socialist comments. I also think that many more people are put of the idea of socialism by the sort of defence of states such as North Korea, and the support of nationalist gangs than one individual that I may alienate with an off the cuff comment.

This process works in two ways. First it confuses people as to what socialism is and so while many reject it, others who are genuinely committed to the ideas of socialist politics get pulled into a defence of utterly anti-working class politics.


Why don't you give him a chance to alter some of his views instead of giving him a hard time and telling him he should believe the exact opposite to what he currently believes?

It was only half in jest though. I think his support of anti-working class capitalist states is the exact opposite of socialist politics, and a line has to be drawn between an idea that aims at the liberation of the working class, and ideas that back any capitalist state tat finds itself in opposition to the US. It is a class line.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fair enough.

I am not a fan of his politics, you'll have seen me attacking him from an intellectual point of view at various times i'm sure.

I am not saying we should try to amalgamate our views with those who support anti-working class politics, but we must become a more open sort of grouping than we currently are. And when I say we, I am referring to the entire Socialist left.

[Ke Pauk]

Vietnam has been socially and militarily imperialist since the 80's when they had began to betray their allies in Cambodia and force their own countries rule on them. Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all that Vietnam is attempting to spread its own influence into Asia yet again, all they'll get back in the end though will be a punishment for their crimes.

[Revy]

You're not getting it. It's not that certain fake socialist regimes like this are terrible. They all are. I guess North Korea is still cool right? Of course. Let's ignore the real issues with Vietnam and focus on something recent, when they've been selling out the working class for decades.

If the Maoists in India have the same attitudes, then to be blunt I would have no faith in them.

Didn't I read something about how Mao aligned with the US during the Vietnam War? Oops. If I were Vietnam, I'd hate Maoists too.

[The Red Next Door]

People stop being an ass to him. We have to correct people views not insult them.

[gorillafuck]

People stop being an ass to him. We have to correct people views not insult them.
You have to admit that it's weird that this is what finally convinced him, since it is so incredibly blindingly obvious that Vietnam is capitalist for reasons that are just based on their economy, not foreign relations.

Nonetheless, a good change!

I hope China is next up.

[Myrdal]

What do we know about Indian Maoist? There are many groups out there doing really bad things in the name of freedom, equality etc... Vietnam fought against the Khmer Rouge which wasn't bad.

[scarletghoul]

Didn't I read something about how Mao aligned with the US during the Vietnam War? Oops. If I were Vietnam, I'd hate Maoists too.
Thats bullshit. Mao did meet Nixon etc in order to try and strategically play what he (incorrectly) saw as the 2 capitalist imperialist powers against each other.

Meanwhile, China was fully backing the Vietnamese against the USA

So whoever told you is an opportunist arse

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Thats bullshit. Mao did meet Nixon etc in order to try and strategically play what he (incorrectly) saw as the 2 capitalist imperialist powers against each other.

Meanwhile, China was fully backing the Vietnamese against the USA

So whoever told you is an opportunist arse

Any proof?

[AnarchoMassLineDemarchist]

gods don't need proof

[Red Commissar]

For what it's worth TVM, you made a very excellent act of self-criticism. You re-evaluated your own views after debates here and further inquiry on your own.

The fact that you are able to come and say "I was wrong, I'm sorry", is a very good characteristic that more of us could and should have. In fact if many of us, myself included, could work ourselves up to admit our wrongs and take a more correct view, or at the very least apologise for it, political debate here and elsewhere would be a lot more sane and rational. If anything some of the posters here giving you advice could learn something from you too.

[Robocommie]

Frankly someone on the internet saying they were wrong is so rare it's like finding a flower growing in the desert.

[Reznov]

This thread is unnecessary.

Why is that?

Because it helps people see a "Socialist" country that is selling itself out to western imperialism?

[pranabjyoti]

Any proof?
Same question to Revy.

[Red Commissar]

Frankly someone on the internet saying they were wrong is so rare it's like finding a flower growing in the desert.

That's my point. If anything all these people giving TVM "advice" could stand to learn a thing from him as well.

[synthesis]

For what it's worth TVM, you made a very excellent act of self-criticism. You re-evaluated your own views after debates here and further inquiry on your own.

The fact that you are able to come and say "I was wrong, I'm sorry", is a very good characteristic that more of us could and should have. In fact if many of us, myself included, could work ourselves up to admit our wrongs and take a more correct view, or at the very least apologise for it, political debate here and elsewhere would be a lot more sane and rational. If anything some of the posters here giving you advice could learn something from you too.
It doesn't matter that someone admits they're wrong if they draw entirely the wrong conclusions in the process.

The point, again, was not to induce The Vegan to say "Fuck Vietnam!" That is the exact opposite of the point.

[Saorsa]

In response to Dave's latest sectarian slander towards Maoism, I'll make a brief comment.

There is a book that specifically looks at the history of Maoist China's support for the struggle in Vietnam between 1950 and 1975 (http://books.google.com/books?id=A3RGSQlasIUC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=mao+china+NLF+vietnam&source=bl&ots=-asRCm6yEU&sig=oLHlcD16XUKq5d_TZ3-rDUPGlMg&hl=en&ei=tSy6TKuQHoaucOGhuPIM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=mao%20china%20NLF%20vietnam&f=false). I'm not going to do much more than link people to it, because it clearly lays out the facts and the facts don't exactly fit that well with the sectarian agenda of some on this forum.

Disagree with Mao and Zhou inviting Kissinger and Nixon to China all you want. I think this is silly and ultra-leftist. Would we condemn Trotsky for talking with the German junkers? Would we call Lenin a German collaborator because he accepted their offer of the sealed train thru Germany?

Zhou and Mao used the talks with Kissinger and Nixon to push for complete American withdrawal from Vietnam. Even when Kissinger tried to bribe the Chinese by saying the Americans would withdraw support for Taiwan if the Chinese accepted a phased American withdrawal that left US troops in the South, the Chinese refused. They pushed for complete and immediate withdrawal and as the talks were taking place in the early to mid 1970s Chinese material aid to the NLF, including everything from weapons to oil, reached all time record high.

It simply isn't true that the Chinese betrayed the Vietnamese. They consistently provided Hanoi with a rear base, with material aid and with diplomatic support.

[The Red Next Door]

You have to admit that it's weird that this is what finally convinced him, since it is so incredibly blindingly obvious that Vietnam is capitalist for reasons that are just based on their economy, not foreign relations.

Nonetheless, a good change!

I hope China is next up.

It does not matter, he change is opinion now. People need to quiet it and save it for the reactionaries.

[Barry Lyndon]

In response to Dave's latest sectarian slander towards Maoism, I'll make a brief comment.

There is a book that specifically looks at the history of Maoist China's support for the struggle in Vietnam between 1950 and 1975 (http://books.google.com/books?id=A3RGSQlasIUC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=mao+china+NLF+vietnam&source=bl&ots=-asRCm6yEU&sig=oLHlcD16XUKq5d_TZ3-rDUPGlMg&hl=en&ei=tSy6TKuQHoaucOGhuPIM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=mao%20china%20NLF%20vietnam&f=false). I'm not going to do much more than link people to it, because it clearly lays out the facts and the facts don't exactly fit that well with the sectarian agenda of some on this forum.

Disagree with Mao and Zhou inviting Kissinger and Nixon to China all you want. I think this is silly and ultra-leftist. Would we condemn Trotsky for talking with the German junkers? Would we call Lenin a German collaborator because he accepted their offer of the sealed train thru Germany?

Zhou and Mao used the talks with Kissinger and Nixon to push for complete American withdrawal from Vietnam. Even when Kissinger tried to bribe the Chinese by saying the Americans would withdraw support for Taiwan if the Chinese accepted a phased American withdrawal that left US troops in the South, the Chinese refused. They pushed for complete and immediate withdrawal and as the talks were taking place in the early to mid 1970s Chinese material aid to the NLF, including everything from weapons to oil, reached all time record high.

It simply isn't true that the Chinese betrayed the Vietnamese. They consistently provided Hanoi with a rear base, with material aid and with diplomatic support.

To add on to CA's points:
I had a college class on the Vietnam War taught by two US Army Vietnam veterans. One of them had the job of counting the collected Viet Cong corpses after battle. A significant number of the dead, he said, were Chinese, identifiable because they were 'bigger' then the average Vietnamese.
A strong indication that in addition to weapons, supplies, and diplomatic support, China was sending large numbers of unofficial armed 'volunteers' to augment the Vietcong/North Vietnamese units.
I'll take the word of someone who was there, even if they were in the imperialist military, over a sectarian who was not there and has an axe to grind 40 years after the fact.

[black magick hustla]

Frankly someone on the internet saying they were wrong is so rare it's like finding a flower growing in the desert.
tbh ive apologized in this forums numerous times

[cb9's_unity]

You have to admit that it's weird that this is what finally convinced him, since it is so incredibly blindingly obvious that Vietnam is capitalist for reasons that are just based on their economy, not foreign relations.

Nonetheless, a good change!

I hope China is next up.

The fact that he changed his opinion based on Vietnam's foreign relations shows just how little Marxism factors into his analysis.

How is a government fighting against a different nations proletariat any different than oppressing its own proletariat? Some M-L's will give a government with a socialist name the right to do anything once their in power, the only no-no is fucking with a different revolution.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

lol at disregarding the blantant reintroduction of private property, production for exchange and oppression of the working class for at least the last 20 bloody years, but changing your mind when Vietnam says its cooperating with teaching the indian army "English and IT skills."

[Barry Lyndon]

It's not even a question of 'revisonism' IMO.
It's that Vietnam was totally wrecked after 30 years of war, first against the French, then the Americans, and then against the treacherous backstabbing by the revisionist Chinese. The only thing that was keeping them alive was aid from the Soviet Union. When Gorbachev cut that off, the choice was privatize or starve.

[Rafiq]

Wow, there are a lot of assholes on revleft.

Why don't you leave him alone, especially you, Devrim, we aren't the only people who have had problems with you.

At least he had the guts to admit he was wrong and apologize!

This thread is an indication he has an open mind and is willing to change views!

Perhaps maybe his views aren't so bad, since if they were, he wouldn't hold them.

I'd like to see Devrim make a thread apologizing and saying he was wrong about something..

Oh wait, I forgot "He's never wrong!"

[Barry Lyndon]

I'd like to see Devrim make a thread apologizing and saying he was wrong about something..

Oh wait, I forgot "He's never wrong!"

Devrim is never wrong-he has a direct line to Karl Marx in communist heaven, and always knows what is best for the global working class!

[Rafiq]

Devrim is never wrong-he has a direct line to Karl Marx in communist heaven, and always knows what is best for the global working class!

Of course! The world would be so much better if everyone did what he said!

[Queercommie Girl]

Devrim is never wrong-he has a direct line to Karl Marx in communist heaven, and always knows what is best for the global working class!

The common problem with dogmatists is that they refuse to truly integrate with the masses and consider themselves to be pretty much infallible.

[Reznov]

Oh calm down people.

I suppose we should get a campfire started and begin smoking large amounts of marijuna and singing hakuna matata now.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think Devrim is just old school and is expecting that people to come here in order to furiously and ruthlessly debate to improve themselves as their practise as revolutionaries, rather than an opportunity to trolll/shitpost/grow your epeen. :)

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't care how people view me. My stance on Vietnam is a bit different. My views on China are not, on Cuba are not, on various other views are not different. And that's fine if people like Devrim feel they need to release a sense of superiority over others. I don't care. It doesn't effect me, nor does it alter my views. I'm willing to change my views when presented with enough to convince me. I'm semi-convinced that Vietnam has betrayed socialism. Of course, I could be wrong on that as well, maybe correct. I'll remain open minded.

Besides, it doesn't matter what my views are, especially what Devrim's views are. The struggle is what matters, & I'll embrace that struggle on my own grounds by protesting & striking with other comrades around me. If Devrim doesn't think I'm a socialist, fine. Again, I don't care what he thinks. I'll take honor of being hated by a dogmatist.

[Uppercut]

I suppose we should get a campfire started and begin smoking large amounts of marijuna and singing hakuna matata now.

Sounds like a plan. Let's blaze.

[synthesis]

I don't think anyone is claiming to be superior to you individually, or that you're deviating from some "dogma," or whatever. The point is that your political positions leave something to be desired in terms of class analysis. Devrim just tends to find the most entertaining way of letting you know.

[Barry Lyndon]

If Devrim doesn't think I'm a socialist, fine. Again, I don't care what he thinks. I'll take honor of being hated by a dogmatist.

Devrim also doesn't think Chavez, Morales, Cuba, the FARC, the Nepalese Maoists, or the Naxalites are socialist either.
So you are in good company.

[synthesis]

Devrim also doesn't think Chavez, Morales, Cuba, the FARC, the Nepalese Maoists, or the Naxalites are socialist either.
So you are in good company.

I don't think the point is really that they aren't socialists, but rather that they will never create socialism.

[Sam_b]

I'll take honor of being hated by a dogmatist

Pretty ironic.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't think the point is really that they aren't socialists, but rather that they will never create socialism.

That only implies to the Maoists to him. He doesn't think Chavez is a Socialist at all, nor Morales. All because they're currently leaders of a bourgeois state. He also doesn't see Cuba as being Socialist at all.

[pranabjyoti]

I don't think the point is really that they aren't socialists, but rather that they will never create socialism.
Then who can or who will?

[synthesis]

That only implies to the Maoists to him. He doesn't think Chavez is a Socialist at all, nor Morales. All because they're currently leaders of a bourgeois state. He also doesn't see Cuba as being Socialist at all.

They aren't socialists in the sense that they govern capitalist countries - give him that, at least.

[synthesis]

Then who can or who will?

The obvious disagreement here is whether or not the working class needs to be "led" (shepherded) to socialism. You think they do, others do not.

[Barry Lyndon]

The obvious disagreement here is whether or not the working class needs to be "led" (shepherded) to socialism. You think they do, others do not.

What's your evidence that they are being shepherded? Why is it presumed that the people who support such leaders have no agency of their own, but are always being manipulated by evil, cunning Marxist-Leninist tyrants?

[Charles Xavier]

Stupid thread. It won't let me give neg rep to the original poster.

[synthesis]

What's your evidence that they are being shepherded? Why is it presumed that the people who support such leaders have no agency of their own, but are always being manipulated by evil, cunning Marxist-Leninist tyrants?

What's your evidence that these "revolutions" ever produce anything but capitalism - thinly veiled, at best?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Then who can or who will?

The proletariat?

Nic.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The proletariat?

Nic.

:confused:

And Cuban socialism isn't being upheld by the Proletariat, how?

[Barry Lyndon]

What's your evidence that these "revolutions" ever produce anything but capitalism - thinly veiled, at best?

What's your evidence that these revolutions produced capitalism? Why are you always willing to excuse the relentless military and economic siege that the capitalist powers placed on these revolutions, but instead blame the revolutionaries themselves for every failure?

[pranabjyoti]

What's your evidence that these "revolutions" ever produce anything but capitalism - thinly veiled, at best?
Ultra-leftists like you are just unable to understand that at least they have replaced feudalism and its remains, which were nurtured by imperialism. And before saying "they couldn't", kindly also try to prove that "you can".

[synthesis]

What's your evidence that these revolutions produced capitalism? Why are you always willing to excuse the relentless military and economic siege that the capitalist powers placed on these revolutions, but instead blame the revolutionaries themselves for every failure?

When people fail, I acknowledge it. I'm sorry vanguardists can't do the same.

[synthesis]

Ultra-leftists like you are just unable to understand that at least they have replaced feudalism and its remains, which were nurtured by imperialism.

I don't deny that - I never have. The point is, the most they can do is replace feudalism with capitalism. They can't create socialism.


And before saying "they couldn't", kindly also try to prove that "you can".

Why would I?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I think people need to take this less personally. Well done for apologising, but TVM, your anlysis of nearly everything political leaves so much to be desired, and to be frank, I feel quite nervous at the thought of any potential communist sympathesiers coming to this site to learn more and reading your posts.

[Obs]

The proletariat?

Nic.
Yes, the proletariat will rise as one giant, faceless, leaderless mass - a veritable blob of class consciousness - and crush the bourgeoisie in complete unity. We know this because We are the Proletarian Hivemind.

[pranabjyoti]

I don't deny that - I never have. The point is, the most they can do is replace feudalism with capitalism. They can't create socialism.
At least that too is a blow to capitalist-imperialism because the world can not sustain more capitalism and the presence of feudalism in third world countries, specifically Asia, is very much important for imperialism to survive.

Why would I?
Then who? You criticize them and say "they haven't succeeded", but do you have the right to say so if you yourself haven't done anything more than them. At least they have tried and some achievements were gained, what you and other critics like you have done for advancement. At least I personally don't care about them who just criticize others but yet have to do anything better in real world.

[Barry Lyndon]

When people fail, I acknowledge it. I'm sorry vanguardists can't do the same.

Then you should adknowledge yourself and fellow ultra-lefts as the greatest failures of all, spending decades sniping on the sidelines at revolutions that are under relentless attack by the capitalist class while utterly failing to produce any gains for the working class yourself.

I personally can't think of a single child fed, a single person taught how to read, a single women emancipated from prostitution and domestic abuse, a single peasant who has won his land back, a single worker who has won control of his factory due to the activities of ultra-left Cliffites, Left-Coms, and lifestyle anarchists. There are plenty of non-communist organizations who have done far more to alleviate the suffering of the poor then all of those blabbermouths put together.

But who gives a fuck about fighting for the rights of the poor, women, non-whites, and indigenous people? It's so much better to write long polemical pamphlets about which ultra-left talking shop has the more 'correct' interpretation of Marx!

Better to try and fail then fail to try.

[RedMaterialist]

There are plenty of non-communist organizations who have done far more to alleviate the suffering of the poor then all of those blabbermouths put together.



The government of the U.S. provides food stamps for about 15% of the population, provides a rudimentary medical care for the poor, provides an old-age supplement pension and medical care for people over 62.

This must be what you mean by non-communist organizations alleviating the suffering of the poor.

[Dimentio]

Vietnam has been socially and militarily imperialist since the 80's when they had began to betray their allies in Cambodia and force their own countries rule on them. Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all that Vietnam is attempting to spread its own influence into Asia yet again, all they'll get back in the end though will be a punishment for their crimes.

Alright, so Vietnam should just have lied down flat when the Cambodian armies where invading it and your uncle Pol called for the annihilation of the entire Vietnamese population?

[RedSonRising]

Can someone tell me why so many revolutionaries need to either discredit every attempted proletarian society as a lumped group of irredeemable homogeneous failures or frantically defend any State or group that waves a red flag no matter how repressively hierarchical?

[scarletghoul]

The proletariat?

Nic.
And the award for most predictable, vague, useless cliche of a post goes to...

[scarletghoul]

Also, I kinda agree that this thread is unnecessary and the reasoning behind it somewhat simplistic. However self-criticism is good and the attitude of some posters is awful, arrogant, and uncomradely.

[Barry Lyndon]

The government of the U.S. provides food stamps for about 15% of the population, provides a rudimentary medical care for the poor, provides an old-age supplement pension and medical care for people over 62.

This must be what you mean by non-communist organizations alleviating the suffering of the poor.

Yes, actually that's exactly what I mean. And those programs are a direct result of labor fightback in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I certainly don't see that as the ultimate solution(for as long as the capitalist class holds power such gains can be rolled back), but I also don't dismiss such gains as 'economistic' or unimportant. In fact, there a demonstration that protracted class struggle, even without a revolution, can result in real gains for the working class. To discount that as nothing means that you don't give a shit about the poor and have no real idea of what being homeless, hungry, and cold is like. And that attitude will only get you well-earned disgust from people who see you as an out-of-touch intellectual.

[RedMaterialist]

And that attitude will only get you well-earned disgust from people who see you as an out-of-touch intellectual.

You are what they used to call a social-democrat. Always concerned about social justice, but willing to compromise with reactionaries at the first sign of a revolution. Also willing to murder Rosa Luxembourg and surrender to Hitler. Or send planes to bomb the Vietnamese, as Johnson did. Nixon and Kissinger were at least cynical in their murdering rampage.

[Barry Lyndon]

You are what they used to call a social-democrat. Always concerned about social justice, but willing to compromise with reactionaries at the first sign of a revolution. Also willing to murder Rosa Luxembourg and surrender to Hitler. Or send planes to bomb the Vietnamese, as Johnson did. Nixon and Kissinger were at least cynical in their murdering rampage.

Because I think feeding, housing, and providing medical care for the poor are good things, I support the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and want to bomb the Vietnamese?

Troll on, partner.

[synthesis]

Yes, the proletariat will rise as one giant, faceless, leaderless mass - a veritable blob of class consciousness - and crush the bourgeoisie in complete unity. We know this because We are the Proletarian Hivemind.

I see this as far more likely to create socialism than anything proposed here.

[synthesis]

Then you should adknowledge yourself and fellow ultra-lefts as the greatest failures of all, spending decades sniping on the sidelines at revolutions that are under relentless attack by the capitalist class while utterly failing to produce any gains for the working class yourself.

I personally can't think of a single child fed, a single person taught how to read, a single women emancipated from prostitution and domestic abuse, a single peasant who has won his land back, a single worker who has won control of his factory due to the activities of ultra-left Cliffites, Left-Coms, and lifestyle anarchists. There are plenty of non-communist organizations who have done far more to alleviate the suffering of the poor then all of those blabbermouths put together.

But who gives a fuck about fighting for the rights of the poor, women, non-whites, and indigenous people? It's so much better to write long polemical pamphlets about which ultra-left talking shop has the more 'correct' interpretation of Marx!

Better to try and fail then fail to try.

I'm all in favor of feeding children, teaching people to read, emancipating women from prostitution, et cetera. I also think that this is essentially a reformist perspective.

[RedMaterialist]

Because I think feeding, housing, and providing medical care for the poor are good things, I support the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and want to bomb the Vietnamese?

Troll on, partner.

Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy were social-democrats; they both fought for social justice. They both, however, were willing to murder Vietnamese in order to fight communism. It was the social democrats who supported German involvement in World War I.

This is not to say that you personally would support murdering socialists or communists. There is, however, a mindset which supports social justice but opposes political revolution.

[synthesis]

At least that too is a blow to capitalist-imperialism because the world can not sustain more capitalism and the presence of feudalism in third world countries, specifically Asia, is very much important for imperialism to survive.

Sure, but it won't create socialism.


Then who? You criticize them and say "they haven't succeeded", but do you have the right to say so if you yourself haven't done anything more than them. At least they have tried and some achievements were gained, what you and other critics like you have done for advancement.

I'm not "just criticizing them." I think they do have a valuable role - as bourgeois revolutionaries.


At least I personally don't care about them who just criticize others but yet have to do anything better in real world.

http://i44.tinypic.com/x1imfc.jpg

[Obs]

I see this as far more likely to create socialism than anything proposed here.
How about likely to happen?

[Barry Lyndon]

Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy were social-democrats; they both fought for social justice. They both, however, were willing to murder Vietnamese in order to fight communism. It was the social democrats who supported German involvement in World War I.

This is not to say that you personally would support murdering socialists or communists. There is, however, a mindset which supports social justice but opposes political revolution.

'Fighting for social justice' is not what defines a social democrat.

Your also confusing things- JFK and LBJ supported welfare programs and Civil Rights legislation because they were under pressure from popular anti-racist forces at home and abroad.
JFK cynically admitted, I can't remember the exact source, that Jim Crow had be gotten rid of not for justice's sake but because the Soviet Union was using the issue to ruin the international image of the United States, especially among newly independent countries in Africa and Asia.
None of this stemmed from any genuine commitment to 'social justice'.

I don't oppose political revolution and I support social justice. You making this illogical connection in your mind that one must support one or the other.
Political revolution is the highest form of social justice, hence the word socialism.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm not "just criticizing them." I think they do have a valuable role - as bourgeois revolutionaries.

If that's what you call 'respect' I'd hate to see disrespect from you.

I guess people who are fighting and bleeding and dying under a red flag need your seal of approval before they can be considered 'real' socialist revolutionaries.

[bricolage]

I personally can't think of a single child fed, a single person taught how to read, a single women emancipated from prostitution and domestic abuse, a single peasant who has won his land back, a single worker who has won control of his factory due to the activities of ultra-left Cliffites, Left-Coms, and lifestyle anarchists.
And I can't think of anything that has fed more children, taught more people to read, emancipated more women from prostitution and domestic abuse... etc etc... than capitalism.
Your point being?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yes, the proletariat will rise as one giant, faceless, leaderless mass - a veritable blob of class consciousness - and crush the bourgeoisie in complete unity. We know this because We are the Proletarian Hivemind.

Don't be an idiot.

Nic.

[Obs]

Don't be an idiot.

Nic.
You got it. Now please explain why a revolution automatically becomes bourgeois if it has leadership.

[Devrim]

Besides, it doesn't matter what my views are, especially what Devrim's views are. The struggle is what matters, & I'll embrace that struggle on my own grounds by protesting & striking with other comrades around me. If Devrim doesn't think I'm a socialist, fine. Again, I don't care what he thinks. I'll take honor of being hated by a dogmatist.

I am really, really surprised that you think I hate you. I think it is something about the way a lot of people relate to the internet. I don`t even dislike you let alone hate you.


Devrim also doesn't think Chavez, Morales, Cuba, the FARC, the Nepalese Maoists, or the Naxalites are socialist either.
So you are in good company.

That is right. I also think a lot of people on here agree with me.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

You got it. Now please explain why a revolution automatically becomes bourgeois if it has leadership.

I never said that. Maybe you should read the post and the post I was replying to again.

Nic.

[Obs]

I never said that. Maybe you should read the post and the post I was replying to again.

Nic.
Okay, so what, exactly, is the reason that these groups can't possibly build socialism?

[Dimentio]

Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy were social-democrats; they both fought for social justice. They both, however, were willing to murder Vietnamese in order to fight communism. It was the social democrats who supported German involvement in World War I.

This is not to say that you personally would support murdering socialists or communists. There is, however, a mindset which supports social justice but opposes political revolution.

No, they weren't social democrats. They were social liberals.

A genuine social democrat is a socialist who wants to reach a socialistic society through parliamentarian means. A social liberal is a do-gooder politician who wants social safety nets.

It's like saying that the dolphin is a fish. The reason why the social democrats (when they existed) made welfare programmes was because they saw that as something which strengthened the working class. The reason why Johnson did it was to get votes and of some kind of humanitarianism.

Palme for example was always expressingly clear that he was a socialist.

[synthesis]

If that's what you call 'respect' I'd hate to see disrespect from you.

I guess people who are fighting and bleeding and dying under a red flag need your seal of approval before they can be considered 'real' socialist revolutionaries.

You are completely missing the point, although that goes for most people in this thread. I don't think it's productive or meaningful to play the game of "who is a real socialist revolutionary" and who isn't. I'll always support people trying to improve their conditions, but not under the illusion that socialism will result from it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Okay, so what, exactly, is the reason that these groups can't possibly build socialism?

Well for one, I don't think any of these groups or individuals have anything to do with socialism. Secondly, and more to the point of my original post, socialism can only be created by the proletariat, not by individual politicians or by bands of militants fighting guerilla warfare in the countryside.

My original post was only intended to be a jab in passing. Treat it like that. It's not worth the trouble.

Nic.

[Barry Lyndon]

Well for one, I don't think any of these groups or individuals have anything to do with socialism. Secondly, and more to the point of my original post, socialism can only be created by the proletariat, not by individual politicians or by bands of militants fighting guerilla warfare in the countryside.

That's a gross over-simplification and an arrogant dismissal of those political forces.

[Obs]

Well for one, I don't think any of these groups or individuals have anything to do with socialism. Secondly, and more to the point of my original post, socialism can only be created by the proletariat, not by individual politicians or by bands of militants fighting guerilla warfare in the countryside.

My original post was only intended to be a jab in passing. Treat it like that. It's not worth the trouble.

Nic.
What if said militants are proletarians?

[Niccolò Rossi]

That's a gross over-simplification and an arrogant dismissal of those political forces.

Didn't you say you were leaving Revleft? What happend to that?


What if said militants are proletarians?

The class composition of a political movement is not the decisive measure of it's character. The reality is, most political movements can't succeed without support from the masses, and if they do they don't last long. Leftists who support these kind of movements and revolutions (notably in the third world) love to talk about workers being 'mobilised'. What they seem to forget is that workers can either be mobilised in defense of their own class interested or they can be dragooned by the ruling class and mobilised in support of one or another faction of capital.

Nic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, they weren't social democrats. They were social liberals.

A genuine social democrat is a socialist who wants to reach a socialistic society through parliamentarian means. A social liberal is a do-gooder politician who wants social safety nets.

So what's the difference between a social-democrat and a "democratic socialist" in your outlook, then?

[Obs]

The class composition of a political movement is not the decisive measure of it's character. The reality is, most political movements can't succeed without support from the masses, and if they do they don't last long. Leftists who support these kind of movements and revolutions (notably in the third world) love to talk about workers being 'mobilised'. What they seem to forget is that workers can either be mobilised in defense of their own class interested or they can be dragooned by the ruling class and mobilised in support of one or another faction of capital.

Nic.
Okay, and why have you decided that these movements in South Asia are necessarily just a faction of capital, given that their stated goal is to abolish capital? And why do you think they lack support from the masses, when their election results and their ability to involve the masses seem to show otherwise?

[Devrim]

What if said militants are proletarians?

They are not, by definition. Even when some of these militants come from thwe working class, what these sort of groups do is to take them out of it. Being a guerrila is a full time role. They don`t go to their jobs in the day and fight guerril warfare in the countryside in the evening and at weekends.

Devrim

[Obs]

They are not, by definition. Even when some of these militants come from thwe working class, what these sort of groups do is to take them out of it. Being a guerrila is a full time role. They don`t go to their jobs in the day and fight guerril warfare in the countryside in the evening and at weekends.

Devrim
Ah, so the moment you take up arms to bring the working class to power, you remove yourself from the working class, and as such can not bring the working class to power.

Quite the catch-22 you people have devised.

[Barry Lyndon]

Ah, so the moment you take up arms to bring the working class to power, you remove yourself from the working class, and as such can not bring the working class to power.

Quite the catch-22 you people have devised.

When social programs are introduced, its buying off the working class because theres no 'workers control'. When workers take control of the factories, it doesn't count because its workers "management".

When workers create militias to defend their gains, its 'maneuvering' to 'contain' the workers movement by 'populist' Third World demagogues because it is still under the control of the 'capitalist state'.

If said workers split from the 'capitalist state' and become guerrillas, they are not part of the working class anymore.

Did I mention that if workers defend themselves against economic and military imperialism, it's reactionary because all countries, regardless as to whether their actually economically exploiting other countries or not, are imperialist? At least under a totally new definition of imperialism that was made up to justify apologizing for imperialism.

But intellectuals who sit on the sidelines, take a piss on whatever movement said workers build and condescend for sport are the voice of the working class. Go figure.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Okay, and why have you decided that these movements in South Asia are necessarily just a faction of capital, given that their stated goal is to abolish capital? And why do you think they lack support from the masses, when their election results and their ability to involve the masses seem to show otherwise?

Your second question has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Your first question is much bigger than the scope of this thread. You can find plenty of discussions in recent history on this board by using the search function.

Nic.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I would try revising the rest of your politics now. There are two ways to do it. The best is to serious look at and analyse the class nature of the political positions you hold. The other would be to just change every position you hold to its diametrical opposite. It won't be perfect, but would have the advantage of being non-time consuming, and on balance lead you to being closer to working class politics.

Devrim

And i also call you to revide your political positions , and figure out the idealism of your ideology. Very sincerely


Didn't you say you were leaving Revleft? What happend to that?



The class composition of a political movement is not the decisive measure of it's character. The reality is, most political movements can't succeed without support from the masses, and if they do they don't last long. Leftists who support these kind of movements and revolutions (notably in the third world) love to talk about workers being 'mobilised'. What they seem to forget is that workers can either be mobilised in defense of their own class interested or they can be dragooned by the ruling class and mobilised in support of one or another faction of capital.

Nic.
Cuban Guerilla was massively supported by urban and rural working class. And they Succeeded


They are not, by definition. Even when some of these militants come from thwe working class, what these sort of groups do is to take them out of it. Being a guerrila is a full time role. They don`t go to their jobs in the day and fight guerril warfare in the countryside in the evening and at weekends.

Devrim

According to this , revolution cannot happen at all , or it must happen in one day so workers wouldn't be late for work tomorrow

what an understanding of class struggle :rolleyes:http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

[Devrim]

Ah, so the moment you take up arms to bring the working class to power, you remove yourself from the working class, and as such can not bring the working class to power.

Quite the catch-22 you people have devised.

First Maoist guerilla armies are not on the whole made up of people from working class backgrounds anyway.

The question about taking up arms to bring the working class to power though really obscures the point. Only the working class, as a class can bring the working class to power. It can't be done by setting up armies of peasants led by 'middle class' intellectuals.

Devrim

[4 Leaf Clover]

First Maoist guerilla armies are not on the whole made up of people from working class backgrounds anyway.

The question about taking up arms to bring the working class to power though really obscures the point. Only the working class, as a class can bring the working class to power. It can't be done by setting up armies of peasants led by 'middle class' intellectuals.

Devrim

too many contradicitons and very bad reasoning

Marx and Engels were middle class intellectuals. As far as i know , they are creators of Marxist revolutionary theory. They never excluded the possibility that petit-borugeoisie will join the revolutionary movement. Second , i don't know what army of peasants was lead by middle class intellectuals. Revolutionary struggle in Nepal is a process under very specific conditions (or was). Nepal like many countries on far east , is dominated by rural population , and had some forms of feudalism left. Same with India , millions of indian population live in feudal conditions , and there is strong regionalism.

Explain me how is class as a class supposed to bring revolution, but by taking arms and fighting ? Telepathically ?

[Devrim]

Marx and Engels were middle class intellectuals. As far as i know , they are creators of Marxist revolutionary theory. They never excluded the possibility that petit-borugeoisie will join the revolutionary movement.,

You seem to look at it as a matter of there being a 'revolutionary movement' and individuals joining it. I think there is a problem with this. A revolutionary movement must be a movement of the working class. When the working class moves, it can pull sections of other classes, particularly the small petit bourgeoisie and peasantry behind it, and of course individuals from those classes can join revolutionary organisations. However, leftists setting up so-called 'revolutionary movements' can't substitute itself for the mass activity of the working class.


Second , i don't know what army of peasants was lead by middle class intellectuals. Revolutionary struggle in Nepal is a process under very specific conditions (or was). Nepal like many countries on far east , is dominated by rural population , and had some forms of feudalism left. Same with India , millions of indian population live in feudal conditions , and there is strong regionalism.

That there are still remnants of feudalism in India doesn't alter the fact that it is a capitalist economy, and that the Indian cities are massive concentrations of workers. Its support comes from the poor peasantry and other poor and marginalised sectors of society.

Devrim

[4 Leaf Clover]

You seem to look at it as a matter of there being a 'revolutionary movement' and individuals joining it. I think there is a problem with this. A revolutionary movement must be a movement of the working class. When the working class moves, it can pull sections of other classes, particularly the small petit bourgeoisie and peasantry behind it, and of course individuals from those classes can join revolutionary organisations. However, leftists setting up so-called 'revolutionary movements' can't substitute itself for the mass activity of the working class.



That there are still remnants of feudalism in India doesn't alter the fact that it is a capitalist economy, and that the Indian cities are massive concentrations of workers. Its support comes from the poor peasantry and other poor and marginalised sectors of society.

Devrim

But i still don't get your point. Why are militias fighting against government non-revolutionary ? How do you see a class war going on ? As a street brawl , and urban chaos ? I would understand if you said "those militias will fail". Even Mao said "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea". And in fact , Nepalese have a support among people of working class.

But my opinion is that Nepalese Maoists are a bit impotent , and compromising if you ask me

[The Vegan Marxist]

But i still don't get your point. Why are militias fighting against government non-revolutionary ? How do you see a class war going on ? As a street brawl , and urban chaos ? I would understand if you said "those militias will fail". Even Mao said "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea". And in fact , Nepalese have a support among people of working class.

But my opinion is that Nepalese Maoists are a bit impotent , and compromising if you ask me

Though compromise isn't exactly "un-marxist" if used for specific reasons:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm

http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm

[4 Leaf Clover]

already read them VM :)
edit : nevermind , i need reading on Nepal

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is why I never allowed the nuclear energy compromise between the US & Vietnam as being a reason of judgement on whether Vietnam was socialist or not.

[Barry Lyndon]

And I can't think of anything that has fed more children, taught more people to read, emancipated more women from prostitution and domestic abuse... etc etc... than capitalism.
Your point being?

That is not true that capitalism, on its own, has led to those things-any humane improvement in the lot of workers has been due to struggles from below. Your claim is categorically false, and in anti-socialist fashion denies the working class any agency.

As for the emancipation of women, the Chinese revolution alone proves you wrong.