About North Vietnam [Archive]

Skammunist

4th August 2011, 22:19

First of all, I'm Vietnamese as well as a Marxist. Vietnam in its current state is definately not even close to socialist. Even after the war ended shortly after the fall of Saigon in 75', things didn't get that much better for the working class, be it North or South.

My parents tell me stories all the time of their escape from the Communists after the fall. They've lived under the regime, so it's not like I get this from "imperialist" propaganda or some shit. I'm always amazed when leftists tell me they admire Ho Chi Minh for liberating the country. Sure, I appreciate what he did to kick out the French, but he purged other socialists too.

As much as I love my home country, Vietnam is way too freaking corrupt, at almost all sectors of the state hierarcy, from government officials down to the individual police men. In fact when I visited Vietnam a while back during my childhood, we had to bribe the police to cross a bridge. :confused:

Binh

5th August 2011, 03:34

Ismail

5th August 2011, 07:07

Here's an overview of the history and economy: http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/ALLIANCE27HOCHIMINH.htm

It was not under a dictatorship of the proletariat; it was state-capitalist, but it was still a progressive state against French colonialism and then US imperialism.

I don't know what you mean by "dictatorship." Obviously elections followed other "socialist" countries, meaning that their results were foregone conclusions. I don't know why it would be "reactionary" under such conditions just because the government isn't to your liking.

As an aside, Ho Chi Minh was the only foreign leader Enver Hoxha seemed to like (besides Stalin), probably because both got their education in France and North Vietnam wanted good relations with Albania, although Hoxha disagreed with Ho's calls for "unity" between Soviet revisionism and anti-revisionist trends.

CHE with an AK

6th August 2011, 08:58

My parents tell me stories all the time of their escape from the Communists
They should feel lucky that they didn't try to escape from the occupying CAPITALIST U$A ...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/Vet03.gif

RED DAVE

6th August 2011, 12:08

They should feel lucky that they didn't try to escape from the occupying CAPITALIST U$A ...

You need to get a grip on yourself. No one here questions the brutality of the imperialist war against the people of Vietnam. What we are discussing is Vietnam after the war, which is a full-fledged capitalist nation.

One more time, we see Stalinism/Maoism leading to capitalism.

RED DAVE

Skammunist

6th August 2011, 15:23

They should feel lucky that they didn't try to escape from the occupying CAPITALIST U$A ...

Seriously? Come on. How many times have you told a conservative that you're a leftist and they respond with, "WELL WHY DON'T YOU GO TO NORTH KOREA WITH THE COMMIES??!?" That argument is baseless and idiotic on both sides, be it left or right, and you should know better. Whether you like it or not, America IS more free than Vietnam. You can hate it all you want, but you cannot deny that.

Don't think however that I am defending the U.S., I am very well aware of its atrocities in Vietnam and elsewhere. I just don't see millions of American refugees crossing the ocean at the risk of being lost at sea or murdered...

CHE with an AK

6th August 2011, 19:45

I just don't see millions of American refugees crossing the ocean at the risk of being lost at sea or murdered...
This is like applauding the plantation owner because his slaves long to sleep inside the mansion instead of out in the barn.

Of course most people would rather live IN one of the imperialist(ees) than in one of the imperialist(ers).

The condition of Vietnam also might have a little to do to the fact that the U.$. killed 4,000,000 Vietnamese and dropped more bombs on the country than in all wars in human history combined.

QJ2_YmvzBBo

... but let's all instead bash Vietnam for now putting in a Baskin Robbins.

RED DAVE

6th August 2011, 19:56

... but let's all instead bash Vietnam for now putting in a Baskin Robbins. We are bashing the stalinists and or maoists of Vietnam for putting in a capitalist economy.

Same as in China, the fSU, Eastern Europe, and, currently, Nepal. And, soon, the DPRK and Cuba.

RED DAVE

Skammunist

6th August 2011, 20:38

This is like applauding the plantation owner because his slaves long to sleep inside the mansion instead of out in the barn.

No, this is like millions of people fleeing an oppressive country at the risk of persecution or re-education camps to be brainwashed. Why? Because they were branded as "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary" just for the fact that they might have been Catholic, supportive of Ngo Dinh Diem, lived in the South, or had family members that fought with the US.

Of course most people would rather live IN one of the imperialist(ees) than in one of the imperialist(ers).

No, one would rather live in a country that has better standards of living and freedom of speech. I know I certainly do, and am happy I have the opportunity to change things where many in the world do not.

Ismail

6th August 2011, 22:51

No, this is like millions of people fleeing an oppressive country at the risk of persecution or re-education camps to be brainwashed. Why? Because they were branded as "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary" just for the fact that they might have been Catholic, supportive of Ngo Dinh Diem, lived in the South, or had family members that fought with the US.Do you deny that these persons were reactionary? Obviously merely living in the South or being a Catholic doesn't make you a reactionary, but siding with an incredibly reactionary leader like Diem is certainly not a good thing. Keep in mind also that, like the communists who returned to Germany right after the defeat of Nazism, there were many who felt "betrayed," that the Vietnamese people in the South didn't do enough to fight the puppet government and such things.

Also I don't know what you mean by "brainwashed." What "brainwashing" was there? Yay "communism"? Capitalism sucks? It isn't like Vietnam is led by a cult.

No, one would rather live in a country that has better standards of living and freedom of speech. I know I certainly do, and am happy I have the opportunity to change things where many in the world do not.You don't have the opportunity to "change things" except by revolution. This is true in all countries.

Reforms are neither lasting nor challenging to capitalism.

ComradeAV

6th August 2011, 22:58

I think this article will be helpful in regards to the "freedom of speech" we supposedly have in America: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/05/13/what-free-speech-really-means/

Skammunist

7th August 2011, 00:15

Do you deny that these persons were reactionary? Obviously merely living in the South or being a Catholic doesn't make you a reactionary, but siding with an incredibly reactionary leader like Diem is certainly not a good thing.

No, these people were working class people. South Vietnamese WERE sent off to reeducation camps for being Catholic, living in the South, and having family in the military. As for supporting Diem, most of the South supported him. Should they all have been sent to be reeducated? That is not criteria enough for me to send people away from their families. If you're wondering, I consider the Tea Party pretty reactionary, not impoverished third world country people who supported Diem.

Also I don't know what you mean by "brainwashed." What "brainwashing" was there? Yay "communism"? Capitalism sucks? It isn't like Vietnam is led by a cult.

Is forced indoctrination at the threat of physical violence not brainwashing? As far as I'm concerned, it was. Actual political theory by Karl Marx was discussed very little. What they enforced into the prisoners was obedience to the Communist Party mainly, as well as obedience to the state and Ho Chi Minh, or in Vietnamese, "Bac Ho" (Uncle Ho). They didn't actually reeducate them in the sense that they understood socialism, because trust me, they didn't. What it did to them was strike fear into them, so that they would be a mindless drone of the state. So yes, in a sense, prisoners learned to love the Commmunist Party. But that's not what we're driving for, right?

You don't have the opportunity to "change things" except by revolution. This is true in all countries.

Reforms are neither lasting nor challenging to capitalism.

Realistically, none of us living right now will EVER see socialism. It might not even happen in our grandchildren's times. We can both agree to that. That being said, there are certain things in the meantime that we can do to improve the conditions of the working class, at least a little. What I meant was that living in capitalist bourgeois liberal countries allows us the freedom to advocate for the working class of other countries.

Wanted Man

7th August 2011, 01:48

Well, surely it's pretty obvious that people who fled a country are not going to have a very rosy view of it? Obviously their experiences are important, especially when they are your parents, but this does allow for all kinds of distortions.

For starters, the suggestion that most South Vietnamese supported the Diem regime. Which, by the way, was deposed a full eleven years before the fall of Saigon, so what the hell are you even talking about? Plenty of stuff happened in-between, like the full-scale escalation of this little conflict called the Vietnam War that you might have seen in films at some point. That leaves scars. You're basically comparing the US, which hasn't been seriously threatened on its home ground, to a country that was artificially divided into north and south (otherwise, Ho would have taken 80% of the vote or so), went through a devastating civil war and insurgency, with massive terror inflicted including the deliberate firebombing of civilians. I would also rather live in the Netherlands than in Somalia right now. Durrrrrrr.

Now, before the worst part of the Vietnam War even began, Diem did once have "elections" where he managed to get 133% of the votes, but I doubt even the most hardened anti-communist refugee from Vietnam would believe that for a minute. You make it sound as if the vast majority of regular working-class people were happily toiling under Diem until Ho Chi Minh suddenly came in and stuffed them all into labour camps just because of their opinions.

Speaking of which, another chronological oddity is just how they managed to make people obey Ho six years after his death.

I'm sorry if all this sounds patronising, but you don't need to be a big fan of stuffing people into reeducation camps to realise that most of what you're saying is just plain old bullshit propaganda about Vietnam that the US itself wouldn't even dare to put out any more. Doesn't matter if the person saying it is a westerner or someone whose every single relative spent time in the camps. That fact alone doesn't magically turn bullshit into truth.

Nox

7th August 2011, 01:50

Vietnam undefeated! :thumbup1:

(Reference from a Family Guy episode)

Skammunist

7th August 2011, 02:53

So what did I say that was imperialist propaganda, and where did I say Ngo Dinh Diem was fucking Jesus?

Reading your post makes it sound like I had a fucking hard-on for US imperialism.

CynicalIdealist

7th August 2011, 03:01

"As for supporting Diem, most of the South supported him."

I'm pretty sure this is false.

Skammunist

7th August 2011, 03:17

It wasn't really support as much as it was choosing the best of the two worst options. During Operation Passage to Freedom in 1954, Vietnam was partitioned into the Communist backed north and Diem in the south where people on both sides were allowed a 300 day grace period to migrate freely between both countries. Granted, there was most likely propaganda on both sides to influence people's decisions. Also, I know that at least in the north, some people were held back from migrating. This was probably also true for southerners, but I'm not sure.

Anyways, my point is that somewhere from 700,000 to 1,000,000 civilians fled from the north to south, while only about 15,000 to 45,000 civilians fled northward. Does this mean that all of those people supported Diem? Of course not necessarily, but it does show that people in the south were more likely to stay in the south than people in the north staying in the north.

Skammunist

7th August 2011, 03:41

What they enforced into the prisoners was obedience to the Communist Party mainly, as well as obedience to the state and Ho Chi Minh

Speaking of which, another chronological oddity is just how they managed to make people obey Ho six years after his death.

Why do the North Koreans today still worship Kim Il-Sung as the "Great Leader" even though he is dead? Or what about uncle Stalin, why did people still idolize him as a leader after '53?

All of these Communist leaders were cults of personality after their deaths. Their images were captured and utilized by the Parties for indoctrination. In the same way, prisoners of these reeducation camps were taught to admire Ho, just as I'm sure prisoners of the Gulags were taught to admire Stalin.

My point is that we should stop be feeling so compelled to defend these authoritarian states. No one denies that the US is evil and is the poster boy for capitalism. But all of these Communist leaders just paved the way for state capitalism, which is just as worse.

caramelpence

7th August 2011, 12:54

It wasn't really support as much as it was choosing the best of the two worst options...

It's pretty much universally acknowledged across the historical scholarship that the elections that were supposed to take place throughout Vietnam under the conditions of the 1954 Geneva Agreement were not allowed to take place by the US and Diem because Ho Chi Minh would have achieved a landslide victory and pursued peaceful reunification. If Diem was actually popular, there would have been no such rationale for not allowing elections. His refusal to permit the elections and thus abide by the Geneva Agreement is itself considerable evidence of his unpopularity - and the fact that he was so unpopular is not surprising when you consider that his entire regime was highly nepotistic and involved a complete failure to implement anything resembling a program of land reform. As for why there was a vast wave of migration in one direction, part of this was to do with the fact that there was an intense program of land reform in the DRV immediately after 1954, which meant that large numbers of landowners had reason to leave for the South, whereas before that the Communists had concentrated on rent and interest rate reduction. The same was somewhat true of the exodus of 1975, in that a large proportion of the initial wave of refugees was comprised of ethnically Chinese merchants from the Cholon area of Saigon who were faced with the expropriation of their assets. When non-landowners fled that was partly to do with the fact that the CIA deliberately spread propaganda, through airdrops, for example, that was designed to undermine confidence in the DRV, including rumors that the DRV was going to imprison all Catholics in the North, and that Catholics who made it to the South would receive gifts of land. This is, again, commonly acknowledged in the historical scholarship.

It's also worth emphasizing that the Vietnam War was not simply a conflict between the DRV and the South, and nor was it simply a prolonged clash of conventional forces across the DMZ, rather, throughout the War substantial areas of the South were under the control of the NLF, whose formation was itself a response to Diem's attacks on southern cadre. If Diem and subsequent Presidents had genuine popular support then you need to explain how the NLF was able to maintain a base in the villages over such a long period of time, including in the direct vicinity of Saigon, and how it was able to prepare the Tet Offensive in cooperation with the NVA, for example, without being exposed through peasant resistance and informants.

Wanted Man

7th August 2011, 13:36

So what did I say that was imperialist propaganda, and where did I say Ngo Dinh Diem was fucking Jesus?

Reading your post makes it sound like I had a fucking hard-on for US imperialism.

You don't have to read my post to get that impression, you only need to read back your own words. I don't have to do anything, your own words elaborate your politics plainly for all to see. Everything you have offered on this subject so far is demonstrably false. You then go on to excuse all the lies you've spouted so far by saying that we should not defend authoritarian states. Which is pretty funny because you've been apologising for Ngo Dinh Diem on the basis of absolute falsehoods throughout this thread. Nobody else is defending any other "authoritarian states"!

Your claim that the Diem dictatorship was popular and enjoyed majority support, for instance, is one that can only be made if you deliberately choose to close your mind from the facts. As caramelpence noted above, it is broadly accepted that Ho Chi Minh would have made enormous electoral gains if unified elections had been allowed. Instead, we all know what happened.

All you have to offer as a counter is a comparison of the number of refugees. How useful is that? In both cases the refugees are still only a fraction of the population, and in both cases the decision to flee was impacted by many more factors than just an expression of dissatisfaction with leadership. It's not electoral dissatisfaction that causes mass emigration. Things like land reform, decolonisation, the end of privilege for landowners and Catholics alike, now that's the kind of social upheaval that causes instability and refugees in every single country. The fact that X amount of people fled from north to south, while only Y amount went the other way, doesn't prove in any way that Diem had popular support. Apparently, in the south, hundreds of thousands of people didn't flee, but they took up arms against their own government and joined the Vietcong. How many popular leaders are there in this world who also have an organised insurgency of half a million peasants against them? But you probably believe that the NLF was just a North Vietnamese puppet organisation or something...

What happened in the South was that Diem massively rigged polls (why would you do that if you have majority support?) and instituted mass terror against the population, based on Catholic fanaticism. It's funny that you mentioned Operation Passage to Freedom. Did you even read up on it? It was a CIA- and Diem-directed propaganda operation from A to Z! (Skammunist version: "Oh sure, there was some CIA involvement, but it was generally an expression of the will of the people" :rolleyes:) Another one of its purposes was to bring in more people who would be guaranteed to support Diem. It was a fiasco of an operation that brought a lot of economic strain and social strife to a South Vietnamese society that was neither willing nor able to accomodate hundreds of thousands of people, the majority of whom didn't work, lived on government handouts, and were only there to prop up that popular leader of yours, Ngo Dinh Diem.

So basically, check yourself in the mirror before whining about people "supporting dictators", because you're the one who has been doing that in this thread.

Skammunist

9th August 2011, 04:56

Binh

9th August 2011, 23:56

Skammunist was incorrect when he stated that the majority of the South's population supported Diem but was right about the "re-education" camps.

CynicalIdealist

10th August 2011, 03:19

Skammunist seems to have a class/national background that's unique for revleft. Seeing as he's in a family of Vietnamese ex-pats--who chose to go from Vietnam to America of all places (the country that basically committed a holocaust of Agent Orange, nonstop bombings and nearly nuclear attacks on much of the Vietnamese population)--his version of the Vietnamese situation in the mid-20th century is right-wing compared to how we typically think of it.

I think we ought to give him a pass. He's a new poster with much to learn, about his own country, about this country, and about revolutionary politics. He might have said some reactionary things about Diem but Ho Chi Minh was no saint, even if his political program would've improved the quality of life for many peasants if he didn't face endless imperialist war.

CHE with an AK

10th August 2011, 04:34

his version of the Vietnamese situation in the mid-20th century is right-wing
Agreed.

Now the question is, should right-wingers post in all the forums? If the answer is yes, then open the flood gates and I'll grab my proverbial AK. If the answer is no, then send him to be with the rest of the right-wingers at the bottom of the forum.

Skammunist

10th August 2011, 04:48

I will admit that what I said about Diem having majority support in the south was false. I have always assumed that since Vietnamese in the south preferred to stay in the south, that means that he was somewhat popular, at least more so than support for the north. For that, I apologize and retract what I have asserted.

However, I do not see why I should be singled out and labeled as reactionary, or right-wing merely for pointing out the human rights abuses of the Vietnamese government after the war. Human rights abuses which included torture and forced indoctrination. Which is according to most historical accounts, true. Looking back at the thread, it seems like I was being called out even before I mentioned Diem's popularity in the south. I feel that even without mentioning that, I would have still been called out as being a reactionary for critisizing the government, because that means that I automatically consider south Vietnam as the legitimate government.

It is true that the US used the reeducation camps as anti-communist propaganda, but that doesn't make their occurrence any less true because a socialist says it.

Josef Balin

10th August 2011, 04:57

Agreed.

Now the question is, should right-wingers post in all the forums? If the answer is yes, then open the flood gates and I'll grab my proverbial AK. If the answer is no, then send him to be with the rest of the right-wingers at the bottom of the forum.
This post sums up everything wrong with the communist movement. You are far worse for the movement than any right wing conservative, sir.

CHE with an AK

10th August 2011, 05:07

This post sums up everything wrong with the communist movement. You are far worse for the movement than any right wing conservative, sir.
Oh really, because I want some clarification on why some right-wingers get to post in the forums, while others don't? :rolleyes:

I am fine with letting everyone post - but be upfront about it if that is what we are going to do. However, I would imagine that revlefters come to this site to get away from reactionary bullshit, and thus I am not sure the mods here would want to devote all of their time to a site that gives an unadulterated voice to right-wingers of every stripe.

Coming onto a revolutionary leftist site and repeating word for word the anti-communist propaganda about Ho Chi Minh from the U.S. while supporting their puppet Diem is not within the guidelines of leftist sectarian differences.

Skammunist

10th August 2011, 05:37

Coming onto a revolutionary leftist site and repeating word for word the anti-communist propaganda about Ho Chi Minh from the U.S. while supporting their puppet Diem is not within the guidelines of leftist sectarian differences.

Again, you try to make up shit that I never said. I never pledged my support for Diem in the least. The only thing you have to support that is that I mentioned in ONE sentence that the south supported him. A statement I later even retracted. You have no basis for claiming that I support Diem, or that I even approve of any of his policies. Again, just because reeducation camps were used as anti-communist propaganda doesn't make it any less true. And Ho Chi Minh DID purge socialists from within the movement, whether you like to admit that or not. In fact, you can look back on any one of my posts for evidence that I was sympathetic to Diem. You can't because you can't acknowledge that pointing out atrocities from a Communist government would come from anyone other than a supporter of Diem. Your insistence that I critisize Ho because I sympathyze with Diem is nothing but an outright lie.

Zealot

10th August 2011, 18:59

Again, you try to make up shit that I never said. I never pledged my support for Diem in the least. The only thing you have to support that is that I mentioned in ONE sentence that the south supported him. A statement I later even retracted. You have no basis for claiming that I support Diem, or that I even approve of any of his policies. Again, just because reeducation camps were used as anti-communist propaganda doesn't make it any less true. And Ho Chi Minh DID purge socialists from within the movement, whether you like to admit that or not. In fact, you can look back on any one of my posts for evidence that I was sympathetic to Diem. You can't because you can't acknowledge that pointing out atrocities from a Communist government would come from anyone other than a supporter of Diem. Your insistence that I critisize Ho because I sympathyze with Diem is nothing but an outright lie.
Unfortunately when one person tells a lie they are likely to tell more lies. In this case I don't believe you were lieing but rather you didn't know that Ho Chi Minh would have unanimously won the elections had they ever taken place. You must also realize the fact that this is now common knowledge so when you defended him it sounded quite suspicious. As for re-education camps, it is really nothing to do with Ho Chi Minh since he had already passed by that time. To my knowledge reeducation camps ranged from a few days to a few months to several years depending on the crime and the status they had in the former regime which was setup in preference to having them executed or serving life sentences.

Skammunist

10th August 2011, 19:58

For the prisons, it was probably very rare that sentences were light enough to last only a couple days. In fact, 3 years was supposed to be the norm but this regulation was repeatedly broken in many of the cases. Often, prisoners were held indefinately after their release date.

As for the elections, you're right, I accept Ho Chi Minh would have won the elections if they had ever taken place. I can accept when I am proven false and will correct my beliefs according to the facts. There's nothing wrong with that, and I am willing to do so. However, repeatedly *****ing and calling me a right-winger as AK is doing, is just beyond fucking stupid. His refusal to accept the prisons as anything other than propaganda just shows his blatant ignorance, which is unfortunate for him. Maybe he should go back to shooting his "proverbial AK", as he puts it.

danyboy27

10th August 2011, 20:20

ho chi mihn died in 69 and the war ended around 74, wich mean, for those who worship the guy, that he didnt actually invaded the south, his former buddies did, the same guys who invaded cambodia a fews year after.

CynicalIdealist

10th August 2011, 21:07

This post sums up everything wrong with the communist movement. You are far worse for the movement than any right wing conservative, sir.

I agree with the first sentence but the second is a little too big of a platitude. You're right that the left has a problem with any kind of "open arms" approach though.

That said, my arms are open. Skammunist seems to have an open mind and principles, unlike some of you who are being far too fucking sectarian for your own good. He's willing to learn, so he should be given that right by posting here and engaging with others. Invoking slippery-slope bullshit about "flood gates" doesn't convince me, especially seeing as he's retracting certain statements in light of facts that he didn't previously know.

If CHE's behavior in this topic is a microcosm of the left then we're all doomed. Period. You can't expect everyone to have the right beliefs as soon as they come into contact with revolutionary politics.

Zealot

10th August 2011, 21:48

I agree with the first sentence but the second is a little too big of a platitude. You're right that the left has a problem with any kind of "open arms" approach though.

That said, my arms are open. Skammunist seems to have an open mind and principles, unlike some of you who are being far too fucking sectarian for your own good. He's willing to learn, so he should be given that right by posting here and engaging with others. Invoking slippery-slope bullshit about "flood gates" doesn't convince me, especially seeing as he's retracting certain statements in light of facts that he didn't previously know.

If CHE's/Exoprism's behavior in this topic is a microcosm of the left then we're all doomed. Period. You can't expect everyone to have the right beliefs as soon as they come into contact with revolutionary politics.
Where did I say anything bad towards Skammunist? I applaud him for conceding his point about Diem which not a lot of people are willing to do when they're wrong. In fact, I was defending him if anything, I never called him reactionary since I realize he was just ignorant of the facts.

DaringMehring

10th August 2011, 22:00

Skammunist is right that the market economy, bureaucratic leadership, corruption, and "re-education" to blind obedience to the Party are anti-socialist.

Let's not forget, the Diem point, was being made by people, who wanted to excuse repressing the population (or rather re-educating them) based on who they supported politically. So I guess their vision for America, is tens of millions who voted for Bush being sent to gulags...

I never saw Skammunist apologize for the US Imperial war and slaughter. If he did, he'd be shamefully wrong. But analyzing how Vietnam became what it is today, does not equal justifying the US carnage.

CynicalIdealist

10th August 2011, 22:06

Where did I say anything bad towards Skammunist? I applaud him for conceding his point about Diem which not a lot of people are willing to do when they're wrong. In fact, I was defending him if anything, I never called him reactionary since I realize he was just ignorant of the facts.

Ah, you're right. My bad. I'll edit my post.

Wanted Man

11th August 2011, 11:40

So everything I have offered is false? You deny that torture ocurred in reeducation camps? Innocent people were not thrown in mass numbers into these camps for petty offenses without trial? I don't have to defend Diem to realize that the government was and continues to be just another corrupt as fuck state capitalist country.

I'm not denying anything. If you don't have to defend Diem, then don't do it!

Skammunist is right that the market economy, bureaucratic leadership, corruption, and "re-education" to blind obedience to the Party are anti-socialist.

Let's not forget, the Diem point, was being made by people, who wanted to excuse repressing the population (or rather re-educating them) based on who they supported politically. So I guess their vision for America, is tens of millions who voted for Bush being sent to gulags...

I never saw Skammunist apologize for the US Imperial war and slaughter. If he did, he'd be shamefully wrong. But analyzing how Vietnam became what it is today, does not equal justifying the US carnage.

Well this is pretty naive stuff. There is a major difference between voting for someone and being a privileged collaborator of an open imperialist client state, based on a fascist program. I don't think either of them, or anyone else, should be sent to gulags, but the existence of a 1-million people caste of people who directly benefited from the old regime pose a problem in any new society. We already know since the French Revolution that terror against them will always "go too far" and "spin out of control" for people who have the double benefit of both hindsight and being outside observers.

RED DAVE

11th August 2011, 11:53

Well this is pretty naive stuff. There is a major difference between voting for someone and being a privileged collaborator of an open imperialist client state, based on a fascist program. I don't think either of them, or anyone else, should be sent to gulags, but the existence of a 1-million people caste of people who directly benefited from the old regime pose a problem in any new society. We already know since the French Revolution that terror against them will always "go too far" and "spin out of control" for people who have the double benefit of both hindsight and being outside observers.Well, since Vietnam ended up as a wholly capitalist nation, trading with the US for all they can, with the same people in charge, and exploiting their own working class in a manner that would make the old-time capitalists smile, what was the point of it?

RED DAVE

Ocean Seal

11th August 2011, 13:08

One more time, we see Stalinism/Maoism leading to capitalism.
RED DAVE
I really don't see why you keep posting this. It could be said of all Leninist trends. Seriously if you're going to blame Stalin for Khrushchev and so on then start blaming Lenin for Stalin.

RED DAVE

11th August 2011, 13:56

One more time, we see Stalinism/Maoism leading to capitalism.
I really don't see why you keep posting this.I'll explain below.

It could be saidIt could be said. Anything can be said. this issue is: what is being said that's true?

of all Leninist trends.I guess you still hold to the fantasy that Stalinism and Maoism are versions of Leninism. Enjoy your fun.

Seriously if you're going to blame Stalin for Khrushchev and so onI blame Stalinism for Khruschev and so on. By the way, that "and so on" includes all of Eastern Europe.

then start blaming Lenin for Stalin.No, the opposition between Lenin and Stalin is clear. Lenin, for all his faults, struggled to bring forth a revolutionary workers state. Stalin (and Stalinism) brought forth state capitalism as did Mao (and Maoism).

And since people continue to have fantasies that Maoism and Stalinism have something to do with socialism, beyond its antithesis, I'll keep posting the above.

RED DAVE