The counter-revolutionary nature of Ho Chi Minh

[Grenzer]

I have recently been conducting some studies on the history of the international Trotskyist movement and came across the history of the Vietnamese Trotskyists. Unfortunately the information I have found is not very substantial, but what I have found so far has been interesting. Apparently Ho Chi Minh and his organization conspired to assassinate all the prominent Vietnamese Trotskyists. After the Viet Minh took power shortly after World War 2, it seems they embarked on a systematic campaign to effect the liquidation of all Trotskyists, in which they succeeded to a large degree. What was justification for this action? There seems to be none. The Trotskyists and Stalinists even participated in some limited united front action in the 1930's, which seems to indicate revolutionary integrity on the part of the Trotskyists. As such, the systematic murder of Trotskyists on the part of the Viet Minh regime led by Ho Chi Minh seems to be nothing more than counter-revolutionary opportunism of the worst sort. I was hoping people who are more well versed in the matter could provide me with some historical material to reference. So far I have only found limited amount of resources, as I mentioned earlier:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/viet.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/vietnam/pirani/index.htm

In addition, perhaps there could be a discussion on the matter. For those of you who would uphold Ho Chi Minh as a genuine revolutionary, how can these actions possibly be justified? Please provide some specific examples, if you can, rather than simply deriding Trotskyists as "wreckers".

Let's try to keep it civil.

[Omsk]

There is little space for debate here,but if you are interested in getting more information,i could explain the situation a bit better,or at least,try to.

Ho Chi Minh was,from the Marxist-Leninist perspective,a revisionist,and the revolution in Vietnam never happened,to the fullest,there was no movement which would ensure the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat established,and there were many non ortodox ML figures and positions,like Le Duan, (General/First Secretary of the Vietnamese Workers Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party) - which were in their political thought and their actions,Maoists.
There are many example where this figure followed and had some pretty non-ML principles.
"The national bourgeoisie.. are willing to accept socialist transformation, therefore our Party's policy is peacefully to transform capitalist trade and industry, gradually to transform capitalist ownership into socialist ownership, through State capitalism, and to transform the bourgeois from exploiters into genuine workers through ideological education and participation in productive labour".
Le Duan.: ibid., Volume 2; p. 39

There are many such examples,where the ideologies of the communists from Vietnam and the ideas of Ho Chi Minh were in fact,quite far away from Marxism-Leninism.

With that done,we could look on the events during the which there was open hostility and violence between the Trotskyists and the communists,it can be said that the Trotskyists were regarded as the enemies of the 'people' and on objectively on the same 'side' as the outside enemies of the party and the people.

Now,this dicussion could advance further if you are interested in specific questions.

[Искра]

He was a nationalist - he said that himself, and the only thing that someone can assicate with "communism", when it comes to him, are stars on flags and support from some Eastern Bloc countries...

Anyhow, his existance and struggle have nothing to do with communism. It was a national liberation struggle, anti-colonial struggle...

After all ML's see him as big hero of anti-imperialism... Who cares.

[Omsk]

Grenzer obviously does,so stop it with this passive attitude.

[Искра]

Omsk who do you think you here are: polite discussion police? I mean you come in every thread correcting people how should they discuss? That's not your job, so drop it.

I don't have "passive attitude" and I'm interested in Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam stuff, so I apreciate topic he created. I just don't care about ML's excuses for supporting every national liberation struggle and all that populist counter-revolutionary bollocks.

[Grenzer]

I was wondering if there were any specific actions taken by the Trotskyists that warranted such brutal extermination. From my research, I can't find any specific reason produced by the Viet Minh regime or Ho Chi Minh himself. In the USSR of course there were the trials, and reasons for the exile of Trotsky and the purges were produced(regardless of one thinks they were a sham or not)yet for the systematic destruction of the Vietnamese Trotskyists, there seems to be little reason. On the subject, Ho only had this to say:

"When Ho Chi Minh was in Paris at the end of 1945 Prager was among those who asked him about how and why the Vietnamese Trotskyist leader had been killed. He replied that Ta Thu Thau and the other Trotskyist leaders were really revolutionaries and that it was a great shame that they had been killed, but that it had been done by local Viet Minh officials under conditions in which it was impossible for those in Hanoi to control what all of the local leaders were doing."

-Interview with Rodolphe Prager, Paris, July 28, 1982

And this:

"However, during this same trip Ho Chi Minh gave a different reply to Daniel Guerin, a French Socialist leader, who also asked about the fate of Ta Thu Thau and other Trotskyists. According to Guerin, “ ‘Thau was a great partriot and we mourn him.’ Ho Chi Minh told me with unfeigned emotion. But a moment later he added in a steady voice ‘All those who do not follow the line which I have laid down will be broken.’”"

-Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam, Spartacist Publishing Co., New York, 1976, page 26

[Zealot]

Well number one, Ho Chi Minh never co-operated with Trotskyists as far as I know, if they even existed in 1930s Vietnam. Two, he spent a lot of time trying to fight nationalist tendencies and, IIRC, going so far as to leave his own party he had created which became infiltrated with nationalists. The Viet Minh forces later spent a great deal of effort to wipe out the nationalist parties and their armies.

As for the Trotskyists, I'll post what I posted once before:


As soon as the Viet Minh overthrew the government, the Trotskyists were trying to start their own "revolution" in Vietnam. Keeping in mind that the Communist party had only recently been united (it had split into about 3 factions), the Viet Minh were still trying to fully overthrow the imperial government and were fighting soldiers from Japan, France, China and reactionary Nationalist Vietnamese forces basically all at once. And in this fragile situation the Trotskyists could think of nothing better to do than sabotage the efforts of Comrade Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people.

[Grenzer]

Trotskyists had been operating in Vietnam since 1932, and they were working together with Marxist-Leninists in a united front beginning in 1933.


The first tentative steps towards collaboration between the Struggle Group of Trotskyists, led by Ta Thu Thau, and the Stalinists were taken in connection with municipal elections in Saigon on April 30 and May 7, 1933. The two groups named Nguyen Van Tao and Tran Van Thach as their nominees for these elections. They also brought out the first issue of the French-language newspaper La Lutte on April 24. The two left candidates were elected, along with four conservative “constitutionalists,” but the leftists nominees’ election was annulled in August by the authorities.

Although the publication of the newspaper had been suspended soon after the election, the independent Marxist Nguyen An Ninh acted as intermediary to bring about the reestablishment of the newspaper and the forging of a more durable alliance between the Trotskyists and Stalinists. His efforts were crowned with success about a year and a half after the election when an agreement was reached and signed by representatives of the two groups.

This agreement called for the joint publication of La Lutte and “specified the rules of its functioning: struggle oriented against the colonial power and its constitutionalist allies, support of the demands of workers and peasants without regard to which of the two groups they were affiliated with, diffusion of classic Marxist thought, rejection of all attacks against the USSR and against either current, collective editing of articles, which would be signed only in case of disagreement.” On this basis, La Lutte began regular publication on October 4, 1934.

The editorial board of the newspaper consisted of three elements: left-wing nationalists, Communists, and Trotskyists. Representing the first of these groups were Nguyen An Ninh, Le Van Thu, and Tran Van Thach; for the Communists there were four people, Nguyen Van Tao, Duong Bach Mai, Nguyen Van Nguyen, and Nguyen Thi Luu~ and there were five Trotskyists: Ta Thu Thau, Phan Van Huu, Ho Huu Tuong, Phan Van Chang, and Huynh Van Phuong. The manager was a Frenchman, Edgar Ganofsky.

Communist influence predominated in La Lutte until late in 1936. The French police reported a statement by Tran Van Guau, a Communist leader, to the effect that “ La Lutte, which takes, in spite of certain faults, a Communist position, is more than under our influence; it is practically directed by the party.

[l'Enfermé]

Stalinists killing Trotskyists? HOW SURPRISING! It's almost as surprising as White Guards killing pro-Bolsheviks!

Anyways I searched this forum and found this thread by Comrade Majakovskij, Vietnamese Trotskyism. Good thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnamese-trotskyism-t161807/index.html?t=161807)

[Grenzer]

Stalinists killing Trotskyists? HOW SURPRISING! It's almost as surprising as White Guards killing pro-Bolsheviks!

Anyways I searched this forum and found this thread by Comrade Majakovskij, Vietnamese Trotskyism. Good thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnamese-trotskyism-t161807/index.html?t=161807)

Thanks for the suggestion, that looks like an excellent, detailed analysis. From what I gathered, it looks like the Viet Minh were slightly concerned that the Trotskyists' ideas might be more appealing to the people than their own; something they obviously couldn't allow.

[Geiseric]

I was wondering if there were any specific actions taken by the Trotskyists that warranted such brutal extermination. From my research, I can't find any specific reason produced by the Viet Minh regime or Ho Chi Minh himself. In the USSR of course there were the trials, and reasons for the exile of Trotsky and the purges were produced(regardless of one thinks they were a sham or not)yet for the systematic destruction of the Vietnamese Trotskyists, there seems to be little reason. On the subject, Ho only had this to say:

"When Ho Chi Minh was in Paris at the end of 1945 Prager was among those who asked him about how and why the Vietnamese Trotskyist leader had been killed. He replied that Ta Thu Thau and the other Trotskyist leaders were really revolutionaries and that it was a great shame that they had been killed, but that it had been done by local Viet Minh officials under conditions in which it was impossible for those in Hanoi to control what all of the local leaders were doing."

-Interview with Rodolphe Prager, Paris, July 28, 1982

And this:

"However, during this same trip Ho Chi Minh gave a different reply to Daniel Guerin, a French Socialist leader, who also asked about the fate of Ta Thu Thau and other Trotskyists. According to Guerin, “ ‘Thau was a great partriot and we mourn him.’ Ho Chi Minh told me with unfeigned emotion. But a moment later he added in a steady voice ‘All those who do not follow the line which I have laid down will be broken.’”"

-Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam, Spartacist Publishing Co., New York, 1976, page 26

Dude there were no reasons for Trotskyists anywhere, or honestly most people in the purges, to be killed in the first place. They opposed the populist anti imperialist bullshit that the Stalinists and Comintern told the Communist parties to do worldwide. This ruined the CP USA in specific, it was a joke during Roosevelt.

[Grenzer]

Dude there were no reasons for Trotskyists anywhere, or honestly most people in the purges, to be killed in the first place. They opposed the populist anti imperialist bullshit that the Stalinists and Comintern told the Communist parties to do worldwide. This ruined the CP USA in specific, it was a joke during Roosevelt.

You're talking about the Soviet purges, right? I agree, there was no Trotskyist conspiracy; it was just a bunch of bullshit Stalin and his cronies came up with to justify killing a bunch of people to consolidate their power. The point of my statement is that at least in the Soviet Union they came up with a reason(even if it was a load of shit) whereas the Viet Minh just murdered these guys outright without even making the pretense of sabotage or a conspiracy.

On the subject of the CPUSA, I don't know too much. I seem to recall the whole issue over Trotsky being exiled causing a big split in it though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the petit-bourgeois Viet Cong hadn't massacred Trotskyists and reconciled with landlords (against even peasant populism), they might have had the potential to bring about Third World Caesarean Socialism.

[Grenzer]

If the petit-bourgeois Viet Cong hadn't massacred Trotskyists and reconciled with landlords (against even peasant populism), they might have had the potential to bring about Third World Caesarean Socialism.

How so?

And still, they probably would have called it socialism anyway. I think that is damaging to the morale of the proletariat to claim premature victory(i.e. claim that socialism has been established when it, in fact, has not). Not that is what you are saying, but this is far before the concept of a kind of transitional phase like TWCS. It seems like the concept could only work if they had a clear understanding of the conditions, what they were trying to accomplish, and that socialism under the present conditions was impossible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How so?

1) A anti-bourgeois, economically "patriotic" petit-bourgeois comes to power via People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coup, etc.

2) The economic "patriotism" comes in the form of nationalizations and cooperativizations, and indeed full-blown state capitalism.

3) Petit-bourgeois democratisms like equal (if not universal) suffrage, local governance, etc. are the norm.

4) Peasant patrimonialism exists, via personality cults ("Uncle Ho"), militarized culture, executive power, etc.

[The latter two points in particular are the basis for "Caesarean" in Third World Caesarean Socialism, derived from Michael Parenti's "people's history" account of Julius Caesar (not Augustus).]


Not that is what you are saying, but this is far before the concept of a kind of transitional phase like TWCS. It seems like the concept could only work if they had a clear understanding of the conditions, what they were trying to accomplish, and that socialism under the present conditions was impossible.

TWCS comes before the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not "transitional" in the sense to transitioning to the communist mode of production. It is its own Stage (two-stagism).

[Grenzer]

TWCS comes before the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not "transitional" in the sense to transitioning to the communist mode of production. It is its own Stage (two-stagism).

So basically you conceive of it as a substitute for a stage of bourgeois-democratic development?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Indeed. Just look at the "authoritarians" in the TWCS album (http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=845). :D

[Grenzer]

The only reason I was confused is that you have spoken about TWCS in the context of not only countries with a sizable peasant population; but industrialized countries in which the proletariat is no longer a majority. It would have to take a somewhat different form by necessity(i.e. peasant patrimonialism in an industrialized country?).

[Die Neue Zeit]

TWCS should be the modern line for all countries where the proletariat is not a demographic majority, from India (sorry, comrade Miles) to sub-Saharan Africa to much of Latin America.

"Peasant patrimonialism" is a catch-all for "authoritarian" stuff that workers should have thick skins for, but the origins are indeed within the peasantry: http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html?p=2026731


It's all about protection from shepherds and their flocks gone astray, marauders, etc. They want to be left alone, but since the shepherds and marauders may be more heavily armed, they need to resort to some central authority for protection. In exchange, there's absolutism and a cult of personality regarding the central authority.

[Omsk]

Omsk who do you think you here are: polite discussion police? I mean you come in every thread correcting people how should they discuss? That's not your job, so drop it.



This thread had potential to turn into a mess.It seems self-controll is at the highest of levels,i am impressed.


I don't have "passive attitude" and I'm interested in Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam stuff, so I apreciate topic he created. I just don't care about ML's excuses for supporting every national liberation struggle and all that populist counter-revolutionary bollocks.


Classical demagogy that one could expect,there were no 'ML excuses' no matter how much you want them to be here,too bad,in fact,if you were talking about me,and i think you were,(As the ML who is trying to make excuses) i thought you would see that i am quite critical of Ho Chi Minh,who was in my eyes,a great fighter against colonialism and imperialism,but also a revisionist and an 'ideological traitor' to the ortodox ML principles and ideas.His National-Liberation war,was one of the most successful,much like the Yugoslav and Albanian one,but the problem is,is that the Yugoslav and Vietnamese degenerated after the initial victory,and in the case of the Yugoslav one,the victories made by the communists were sold out by the leadership and Yugoslavia became an country with a wild mix of revisionist ideas,while Vietnam,as we can see,is fully capitalists.

[Искра]

I fail to see what do nationalist movements, which commint crimes based on nationality or ethnicity (aka. genocides), have to do with communism and class struggle, except that their troops have red stars on their hats. Of course, I'm talking about all national liberation movements.

I don't give a fuck about "orthodox ML principles" since they have nothing to do with Marxism in the first place. ML is ideology of capitalism. And of course, capitalism isn't coca-cola and McDonalds but a system in which there's commodity production, value and wendge labour which, of course, creates class society.

But it's easier to cry about "revisionism", to accuse people with counter-arguments for some pety discussion police shit and to support nationalist butchers of proletariat, just because they have red star on their hats because some Cold War imperialist power (USSR or China) gave them guns.

[Bostana]

He was a nationalist - he said that himself, and the only thing that someone can assicate with "communism", when it comes to him, are stars on flags and support from some Eastern Bloc countries...

Okay,

Why don't you give us a quote from Ho Chi Minh where he openly sates that he is a nationalist. And then give us a link that proves your quote is true.




After all ML's see him as big hero of anti-imperialism... Who cares.

Right,
Just like Ultra-Left Revisionist fetish

[Искра]

His well know quote is: It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me.

You can search the net or read his book: http://www.amazon.com/Down-Colonialism-Revolutions-Chi-Minh/dp/1844671771/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332544619&sr=8-2

Also, it is not my problem that ML's have no actual politics but repeating every shit Stalin said...

[Zealot]

Trotskyists had been operating in Vietnam since 1932, and they were working together with Marxist-Leninists in a united front beginning in 1933.

The ICP's leadership had been seized by the French police and the ICP wanted to publicize the Nghe-Tinh revolt. Vietnamese students arriving from Moscow were supposed to provide support for the new central committee and almost all of them were either arrested en route or deserted to the French. Trying to rebuild the party they took advantage of the relaxing of political restrictions, temporarily co-operating with the Trots on the newspaper La Lutte. Most of this was the work of Tran Van Giau, not Ho Chi Minh, who had relatively little control on party activities as I've stated elsewhere before.


Thanks for the suggestion, that looks like an excellent, detailed analysis. From what I gathered, it looks like the Viet Minh were slightly concerned that the Trotskyists' ideas might be more appealing to the people than their own; something they obviously couldn't allow.

They weren't concerned that their ideas were appealing but simply that, because of their pathetic attempts at revolution, Vietnam was at risk of falling back into the hands of China, Japan, France... or Nationalists à la the Spanish civil war.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It is my understanding that the Trotskyists in Vietnam actually were something of a mass party, in large part because the CP had not been able to establish itself earlier. So the Stalinists in Vietnam behaved as Stalinsts were behaving toward Trotskyists all over the world at that time, murderously. Not too hard to figure.

But I think it is absolutely wrongheaded to simply dismiss Ho as a nationalist. Like Mao and Castro, his hand was forced and he and the Viet Minh, overthrew capitalism. Mao and Castro also were quite clear that they did not intend to overthrow capitalism. Gee, the bourgeoisie and imperialism just would not play with them and they were left with no choices other than the overthrow of capitalism or ceding power. What followed was not socialism, of course.

[Geiseric]

What is Vietnam now if not for capitalist? The sweatshops from U.S. companies make all their shit there! Vietnam has never come even close to socialism, the closest it's gotten was basically Stalin pre WW2, encouraging industry to invest for the lowest costing labor. Ford motor factories were in the U.S.S.R. and most of the oil was shipped elsewhere, however since it is a beurecratic state, it has no reason to expand socialism. Thus from its founding with Ho Chi Mihn, who wasn't an internationalist, it was doomed to be what it is today from the point where the CP took power.

[A Marxist Historian]

If the petit-bourgeois Viet Cong hadn't massacred Trotskyists and reconciled with landlords (against even peasant populism), they might have had the potential to bring about Third World Caesarean Socialism.

Even in the Third World, natural childbirth is preferable to Caesarian section, if possible. Especially if anesthesia is lacking...

Caesarism is definitely not the way to bring in the new socialist world! As a supporter of the Spartacists, I naturally agree with Karl Marx's comment that Spartacus was "the noblest Roman of them all."

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

What is Vietnam now if not for capitalist? The sweatshops from U.S. companies make all their shit there! Vietnam has never come even close to socialism, the closest it's gotten was basically Stalin pre WW2, encouraging industry to invest for the lowest costing labor. Ford motor factories were in the U.S.S.R. and most of the oil was shipped elsewhere, however since it is a beurecratic state, it has no reason to expand socialism. Thus from its founding with Ho Chi Mihn, who wasn't an internationalist, it was doomed to be what it is today from the point where the CP took power.
Right, a deformed workers' state. That's what often happens when peasant based, Stalinist lead guerilla groups take state power.

[Geiseric]

Believe me, I know. That fact has haunted me for the past few months. It's really isolating, knowing that even modern day "socialist" states would probably kill me if I stirred up any trouble in them.

[rednordman]

I fail to see what do nationalist movements, which commint crimes based on nationality or ethnicity (aka. genocides), have to do with communism and class struggle, except that their troops have red stars on their hats. Of course, I'm talking about all national liberation movements.I suppose you would have been happier to have seen the USA get victory and actively support the purges by the nationalist regime of both Trotskyist and Stalinist (or any other) leftwing factions then?

[Zealot]

It is my understanding that the Trotskyists in Vietnam actually were something of a mass party

That's your understanding and that's where it stops. If it was the mass party of the people you claim it to be history would have been different.


the Stalinists in Vietnam behaved as Stalinsts were behaving toward Trotskyists all over the world at that time, murderously. Not too hard to figure.

The Trotskyists tried to ride in on the coat-tails of Marxist-Leninist revolutions, as they do every time, and were thrown off.


His well know quote is: It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me.

Apart from there being no source to this quote, it means nothing. True, he was a patriot that set out on a ship to find help for his country but he discovered Communism and the works of Lenin on the way. What's your point?

[Geiseric]

That's your understanding and that's where it stops. If it was the mass party of the people you claim it to be history would have been different.



The Trotskyists tried to ride in on the coat-tails of Marxist-Leninist revolutions, as they do every time, and were thrown off.



Apart from there being no source to this quote, it means nothing. True, he was a patriot that set out on a ship to find help for his country but he discovered Communism and the works of Lenin on the way. What's your point?

Well historically the bolsheviks at the time of the revolution were shaped around Lenin's and Trotsky's theories, so the U.S.S.R. was formed by leninism and trotskyism if you want to look at it like that, which is not a very materialistic analyses of what truly causes revolutions.

The 2nd thing is sociopathic logic, I don't know why you think Stalinists are so entitled to these revolutions that they usually tried to prevent for a while.

He discovered that he can use red rhetoric not communism.

[Zealot]

He discovered that he can use red rhetoric not communism.

Ho Chi Minh certainly went to a lot of trouble to learn "red rhetoric", what with studying in Moscow, being a Comintern agent and all...

[Grenzer]

I don't really see how there was a Marxist-Leninist revolution there during World War 2. Like I mentioned earlier, the Vietnamese Trotskyists were nominally more popular than the Marxist-Leninists, which is probably why they were executed to begin with.

I don't think the execution of fellow revolutionaries outside of extremely extenuating and counter-revolutionary circumstances(which I need not mention didn't exist in this case) can be justified. I think Syd's point is that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalistic counterrevolutionary who collaborated with the French and British, and conspired to murder actual revolutionaries. Revolutions aren't "ours" to own, they belong to the working class; as such, we should have the maturity to recognize that other tendencies are just as valid and revolutionary even if we don't agree with them strategically. As a result of cases like these, which have occurred time and time again throughout history, it's not surprising that most of us would regard Marxism-Leninism as a counter-revolutionary ideology; but even then, none of us are calling for their physical extermination. It would be the height of hypocrisy to do so.

[l'Enfermé]

Why are MLs not restricted, again?

[Grenzer]

Why are MLs not restricted, again?

Probably because of their historical association with communism. In addition, they are still a sizable portion of (what calls itself, at least) the far left; even if we wouldn't acknowledge them as revolutionaries, they're too big in numbers to ignore. There are certain people that think MLs can be rehabilitated with exposure to revolutionary views as well. No one starts off with a completely revolutionary mindset, it's something one has to grow into and understand; but with that said, it is kind of sad to see that there are people who have "been on Stalin" for years.

I'd like to think that when the true international organized body of the working class emerges that they'll dump their views and join us. It may be wishful thinking, but at the end of the day when the mythical anti-revisionist parties don't rise from the ashes, how many will be so bitter that they'd choose to sit out revolution as opposed actually having to work with others? From looking on this forum, quite a few..

[Ostrinski]

Why are MLs not restricted, again?Restricting MLs is a slippery slope into restricting Trotskyists. Then what, we just have a bunch of left communists and anarchists who just realize how much they hate each other. Would be boring.

[Grenzer]

Restricting MLs is a slippery slope into restricting Trotskyists. Then what, we just have a bunch of left communists and anarchists who just realize how much they hate each other. Would be boring.

Well they seem to get along ok at Libcom, more or less; but it would be boring. Don't forget about the Kautskyans, either. There aren't many, but they are here.

[Geiseric]

I would of assumed that stalinism would stop spreading once he ended the 3rd international, but it's in my opinion a phenomena.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I have a few problems with this thread and the ultra-leftist invasion it has gone through.

First of all, it seems as if Comrade Grenzer already had his mind made up when he made this thread. Just by observing his responses, it is manifest that he made this thread already having an unconquerable bias against any Marxist-Leninist viewpoint. Comrade Grenzer, if you really want to hear opinions and learn about a subject that is inseparable from Marxism-Leninism, I would suggest not “attacking” every single Marxist-Leninist that comes and gives his/her opinion.

Secondly, it has always bothered me how bold ultra-leftists are when attacking national-liberation movements. It seems as if you guys would be willing to support France still controlling Vietnam, or even Nazi Germany still controlling most of Europe. You guys have no compassion for the oppressed peoples of the world that wish to free themselves from their foreign oppressors and, in most cases after 1917, also commence building socialism shortly thereafter.

Thirdly, I think everyone knows why “Stalinists” have killed Trotskyists in the past. Do we really need to address it for the millionth time? The reason is the same in every country. Marxist-Leninists see Trotskyists as threats to revolutions, which we believe they have proven to be correct (particularly in Vietnam). In our opinion, they try to feed off of the chaos caused by Marxist-Leninist revolutions in order to gain power for themselves and turn a Marxist-Leninist revolution into a Trotskyist revolution (Of course we are talking about all the revolutions after the Russian Revolution. No one can deny that Trotsky was a monumental figure in the Bolshevik Revolution). Yet, it is funny how they have always failed. You guys already know our opinions, because they are what you spend most of your time on RevLeft attacking. Considering that the atmosphere in this thread is not even the slightest bit welcoming to any Marxist-Leninist opinions, I would suggest that my fellow Marxist-Leninists not post here anymore. They already know our opinions and the question, “Why did Stalinists kill Trotskyists?” became cliché about 65 years ago.

[Krano]

He was a nationalist - he said that himself
Oh really? here i was thinking that he enjoyed chilling in a french colony.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Probably because of their historical association with communism. In addition, they are still a sizable portion of (what calls itself, at least) the far left; even if we wouldn't acknowledge them as revolutionaries, they're too big in numbers to ignore. There are certain people that think MLs can be rehabilitated with exposure to revolutionary views as well. No one starts off with a completely revolutionary mindset, it's something one has to grow into and understand; but with that said, it is kind of sad to see that there are people who have "been on Stalin" for years.

I'd like to think that when the true international organized body of the working class emerges that they'll dump their views and join us. It may be wishful thinking, but at the end of the day when the mythical anti-revisionist parties don't rise from the ashes, how many will be so bitter that they'd choose to sit out revolution as opposed actually having to work with others? From looking on this forum, quite a few..

See, you do not want to learn or even hear opinions. You and your army of ultra-leftists made this thread to lure Marxist-Leninists in so you can attack us and "indoctrinate" us in your ideology (or as you said, "rehabilitate"). I knew you made this thread with a bias. Are you not the same comrade who posted visitor messages praising me for my open mind? Then why do you have such a strong and ugly bias against anything Marxist-Leninist. You do not even consider us to be true revolutionaries! Then why ask for opinions concerning Marxist-Leninist historical topics?

[Grenzer]

Well first of all, many anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists don't see Ho Chi Minh as a genuine communist, as Omsk mentioned. It's true that I already concluded that Ho Chi Minh was a counter-revolutionary, I never pretended otherwise. My purpose in creating the thread was to find more information about the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement, and see if there were any specific accusations that the Viet Minh had levied against the Trotskyists. If this wasn't revleft, then I could hardly believe that I am being criticized for criticizing the murder of revolutionaries. I won't deny that I am a bit biased towards those who advocate the murder of Trotskyists or any other sort of revolutionaries for that matter. I'm not going to claim that all Marxist-Leninists advocate it, but some certainly do. I don't think I am attacking anyone, but how is promoting the physical extermination of revolutionaries productive? I thought Ho would be a fairly uncontroversial subject as neither Hoxhaists nor Maoists have a particular fondness for him, so if a revisionist was found to be counter-revolutionary in some way, then it shouldn't be a big deal for them.

Secondly, ultra-leftists oppose national liberation because they consistently oppose capitalism, imperialism, and nationalism. In our opinion, the only way national liberation can occur is through international proletarian revolution. As always, it's unsurprising that the straw man that left communists somehow support foreign invasions because they don't support the capitalist state which is being invaded has been brought up. I won't go into detail, but suffice to say they oppose capitalism wherever it exists consistently; whether it's in the United States, Syria, Iran, or Greece. I'm surprised this is being brought up though, it's not really the topic of the thread and I don't think it has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Trotskyists supported North Vietnam in the war between Vietnam and the French & Americans, which certainly speaks to some integrity on their part given how the Vietnamese regime murdered their comrades. I don't see what's so weird about opposing a virulently anti-communist nationalist.

And finally, the point of the thread was, again, to see if there was any specific reason the Viet Minh regime provided for the systematic extermination of Trotskyists. What's interesting is that the facts seem to suggest the opposite; the Trotskyists were a more politically influential force in Vietnam than the Marxist-Leninists, yet the Trotskyists cooperated with them in a comradely manner despite the perfidy of the latter. How is this acceptable? Vietnam isn't discussed much, so no, I certainly don't know the opinions of most in regards to the subject. If the subject were the Great Purges, then I would agree with you that it's been discussed to death. We do know the opinion of Marxist-Leninists on the subject, which is that seems to be that it is acceptable to exterminate anyone that disagrees with them, even communists; but isn't that a stereotype as well? I can hardly see what's so bad about me not making the initial assumption that the Viet Minh "did it for the lulz" and seeking an answer on its own terms, rather than relying on my own stereotypes. It does seem strange to talk about the failure of Trotskyism though. Remind me, where is the Soviet Union on a map again? I'm having trouble finding the birthplace of Marxism-Leninism and this shining bastion of socialism, so please feel free to point it out.

[Ostrinski]

So if ML's kill Trotskyists because they view them as a threat to the revolution does that mean when the revolution comes around again we can just kill all the ML's with worker's Cheka

Cause I mean, if the Soviet Union under Stalin is what you're fighting for, then you're fighting for something completely different than the rest of us.

[Zealot]

I don't really see how there was a Marxist-Leninist revolution there during World War 2.

If you want to deny that the August Revolution actually happened then go ahead, it changes nothing.


I don't think the execution of fellow revolutionaries outside of extremely extenuating and counter-revolutionary circumstances(which I need not mention didn't exist in this case) can be justified.

I've already pointed out that the Viet Minh were fighting French, Chinese, Japanese and Nationalist Vietnamese troops all at the same time. Instead of helping the Trotskyists were sabotaging the revolution. This is counter-revolutionary to me.


I think Syd's point is that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalistic counterrevolutionary who collaborated with the French and British, and conspired to murder actual revolutionaries. Revolutions aren't "ours" to own, they belong to the working class; as such, we should have the maturity to recognize that other tendencies are just as valid and revolutionary even if we don't agree with them strategically. As a result of cases like these, which have occurred time and time again throughout history, it's not surprising that most of us would regard Marxism-Leninism as a counter-revolutionary ideology; but even then, none of us are calling for their physical extermination. It would be the height of hypocrisy to do so.

Ho Chi Minh never collaborated with the French and British this is a lie. He tried to squeeze as much concessions from the French as possible through political means and in the end urged the people to take up arms. If this is collaboration then I'm afraid the word has lost its meaning. It's hard to agree with someone when their trying to overthrow your government in the middle of chaos. This will be my last post because as Comrade Commistar pointed out, your mind is already made up.

Oh, and just for hilarity:


we should have the maturity to recognize that other tendencies are just as valid and revolutionary


even if we wouldn't acknowledge them as revolutionaries, they're too big in numbers to ignore.

[l'Enfermé]

Restricting MLs is a slippery slope into restricting Trotskyists. Then what, we just have a bunch of left communists and anarchists who just realize how much they hate each other. Would be boring.
Not really. I haven't seen Trots do things that MLs do, like denying or make up excuses for genocides, mass-murders, ethnic cleansings, forced deportations, reactionary beliefs, etc, etc.

[Ostrinski]

Not really. I haven't seen Trots do things that MLs do, like denying or make up excuses for genocides, mass-murders, ethnic cleansings, forced deportations, reactionary beliefs, etc, etc.Indeed, but the problem is that (most) anarchists and leftcoms view ML's and Trotskyists as pretty similar (I don't subscribe to this view, just saying that many do), so if we ended up restricting ML's then we'd unfortunately end up restricting Trots as well.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well first of all, many anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists don't see Ho Chi Minh as a genuine communist, as Omsk mentioned. It's true that I already concluded that Ho Chi Minh was a counter-revolutionary, I never pretended otherwise. My purpose in creating the thread was to find more information about the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement, and see if there were any specific accusations that the Viet Minh had levied against the Trotskyists. If this wasn't revleft, then I could hardly believe that I am being criticized for criticizing the murder of revolutionaries. I won't deny that I am a bit biased towards those who advocate the murder of Trotskyists or any other sort of revolutionaries for that matter. I'm not going to claim that all Marxist-Leninists advocate it, but some certainly do. I don't think I am attacking anyone, but how is promoting the physical extermination of revolutionaries productive? I thought Ho would be a fairly uncontroversial subject as neither Hoxhaists nor Maoists have a particular fondness for him, so if a revisionist was found to be counter-revolutionary in some way, then it shouldn't be a big deal for them.

Secondly, ultra-leftists oppose national liberation because they consistently oppose capitalism, imperialism, and nationalism. In our opinion, the only way national liberation can occur is through international proletarian revolution. As always, it's unsurprising that the straw man that left communists somehow support foreign invasions because they don't support the capitalist state which is being invaded has been brought up. I won't go into detail, but suffice to say they oppose capitalism wherever it exists consistently; whether it's in the United States, Syria, Iran, or Greece. I'm surprised this is being brought up though, it's not really the topic of the thread and I don't think it has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Trotskyists supported North Vietnam in the war between Vietnam and the French & Americans, which certainly speaks to some integrity on their part given how the Vietnamese regime murdered their comrades. I don't see what's so weird about opposing a virulently anti-communist nationalist.

And finally, the point of the thread was, again, to see if there was any specific reason the Viet Minh regime provided for the systematic extermination of Trotskyists. What's interesting is that the facts seem to suggest the opposite; the Trotskyists were a more politically influential force in Vietnam than the Marxist-Leninists, yet the Trotskyists cooperated with them in a comradely manner despite the perfidy of the latter. How is this acceptable? Vietnam isn't discussed much, so no, I certainly don't know the opinions of most in regards to the subject. If the subject were the Great Purges, then I would agree with you that it's been discussed to death. We do know the opinion of Marxist-Leninists on the subject, which is that seems to be that it is acceptable to exterminate anyone that disagrees with them, even communists; but isn't that a stereotype as well? I can hardly see what's so bad about me not making the initial assumption that the Viet Minh "did it for the lulz" and seeking an answer on its own terms, rather than relying on my own stereotypes. It does seem strange to talk about the failure of Trotskyism though. Remind me, where is the Soviet Union on a map again?

I, as a "Hoxhaist" myself, am also not that fond of Ho Chi Minh, yet the topic you brought up still falls under the umbrella of Marxist-Leninist history. And the same opinion we have for the Great Purge can be used for the Vietnam issue. I am sorry if that is not the answer you wanted.

And where is the proof that Trotskyists were more popular than the Marxist-Leninists? I missed that (is the evidence that French language newspaper, "La Lutte"?)

[l'Enfermé]

Indeed, but the problem is that (most) anarchists and leftcoms view ML's and Trotskyists as pretty similar (I don't subscribe to this view, just saying that many do), so if we ended up restricting ML's then we'd unfortunately end up restricting Trots as well.
No we wouldn't, we'd restrict them for supporting various genocides, mass-murders, ethnic cleansing and forced deportations, Trots support none of those things. Revleft restricts people that support/make justifications for things like the Armenian or Assyrian genocides, the Holocaust, etc. Why should those that openly declare their support for various mass-murders of the Stalinists not be restricted? Because they proclaim themselves Marxists? What if I was running around Revleft writing about how great the Holocaust was, because Jews were mostly counter-revolutionary petite-bourgeoisie, but I remembered to add "But I say this while being a Marxist!", would that exempt me from being restricted? No, it wouldn't. Why should someone we allowed to hail and praise the murders of hundreds of thousands of Socialist in the Soviet Union or Asia, because these murders were committed by a regime that styled itself "Marxist"(the US styles itself a democracy, yet it's bombs that kill sleeping children are not particularly democratic)?

[Ostrinski]

While I agree, it would still be a slippery slope as the trots would become the new bad guy that everyone hates.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even in the Third World, natural childbirth is preferable to Caesarian section, if possible. Especially if anesthesia is lacking...

Caesarism is definitely not the way to bring in the new socialist world! As a supporter of the Spartacists, I naturally agree with Karl Marx's comment that Spartacus was "the noblest Roman of them all."

-M.H.-

Did you even read my commentary on People's Histories? Permanent revolution a la Trotsky is passe.

[Ocean Seal]

Apparently Ho Chi Minh and his organization conspired to assassinate all the prominent Vietnamese Trotskyists. After the Viet Minh took power shortly after World War 2, it seems they embarked on a systematic campaign to effect the liquidation of all Trotskyists, in which they succeeded to a large degree. What was justification for this action? There seems to be none. The Trotskyists and Stalinists even participated in some limited united front action in the 1930's, which seems to indicate revolutionary integrity on the part of the Trotskyists. As such, the systematic murder of Trotskyists on the part of the Viet Minh regime led by Ho Chi Minh seems to be nothing more than counter-revolutionary opportunism of the worst sort. I was hoping people who are more well versed in the matter could provide me with some historical material to reference. So far I have only found limited amount of resources, as I mentioned earlier:

This kind of shit isn't just limited to Ho Chi Minh, Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists have a history of dick moves against each other for some stupid reason. Mainly not realizing that they are so damn similar in theory. Also to clarify ML's have generally had the power to commit more dick moves against the Trots than vice versa.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

What if I was running around Revleft writing about how great the Holocaust was, because Jews were mostly counter-revolutionary petite-bourgeoisie, but I remembered to add "But I say this while being a Marxist!"

You should try it out.

[Geiseric]

First of all, if trotskyists had anything in common with Stalinists, we wouldn't of been purged. Honestly, the Stalinists were THE thermidor incarnate of the russian revolution. Trotsky, during the war, did nothing worse than what anybody else would have done, if you're trying to use instituting military discipline as a crime. Trotskyists were the ones originally ratted out in The Smith Act, not the stalinists. The only reason Stalin's ideas were instituted by comintern were the purges and political opportunism, not genuine proletarian democracy, which is what allowed Lenin, Trotsky, and the russian proletariat to carry out the revolution.

[Comrade Samuel]

No we wouldn't, we'd restrict them for supporting various genocides, mass-murders, ethnic cleansing and forced deportations, Trots support none of those things. Revleft restricts people that support/make justifications for things like the Armenian or Assyrian genocides, the Holocaust, etc. Why should those that openly declare their support for various mass-murders of the Stalinists not be restricted? Because they proclaim themselves Marxists? What if I was running around Revleft writing about how great the Holocaust was, because Jews were mostly counter-revolutionary petite-bourgeoisie, but I remembered to add "But I say this while being a Marxist!", would that exempt me from being restricted? No, it wouldn't. Why should someone we allowed to hail and praise the murders of hundreds of thousands of Socialist in the Soviet Union or Asia, because these murders were committed by a regime that styled itself "Marxist"(the US styles itself a democracy, yet it's bombs that kill sleeping children are not particularly democratic)?

Marx-Leninists aren't Nazis and we don't belive the holocaust was anything but a horrible genocide and if your going to make such heinous assumptions you best have facts to back it up. The fact that you actualy believe capitalist propaganda regarding Stalin and the Soviet Union is stupid and self-contradicting, your really should of just said "hey I hate capitalist bourgeois scum but I don't have a problem with using information from them to defend my idealist pipedream from actual communists."

You say we should be restricted because we condone the actions of "mass murderers" yet we still manage to make a logical argument that refutes these accusations everytime and still atleast attempt to keep every debate about the topic civil until some hot-headed dumbass has to come in and say "Sta11n R Stoop1d sT4tE cApitaList Wwho EEts baYbehz" and it always develops into an meaningless debate eventually ended when the topic is trashed or someone relises they can't win and decides to run away.

I thought this was about Ho Chi Mihn and viet-nam, not a bunch of Internet commies arguing about who's tendency is better.

[Ostrinski]

I thought this was about Ho Chi Mihn and viet-nam, not a bunch of Internet commies arguing about who's tendency is better.Nope, this is about a bunch of internet commies arguing about who's tendency is better, unfortunately.

[Zulu]

Uncle Ho was a big fan of Uncle Joe. You know, role models are a big deal for us MLs.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6286/uncleho.jpg

But a counterrevolutionary? Nope. The Trotskyists are counterrevolutionaries! (click here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyims-neoconservatism-t169419/index.html) for evidence).

[daft punk]

I have recently been conducting some studies on the history of the international Trotskyist movement and came across the history of the Vietnamese Trotskyists. Unfortunately the information I have found is not very substantial, but what I have found so far has been interesting. Apparently Ho Chi Minh and his organization conspired to assassinate all the prominent Vietnamese Trotskyists. After the Viet Minh took power shortly after World War 2, it seems they embarked on a systematic campaign to effect the liquidation of all Trotskyists, in which they succeeded to a large degree. What was justification for this action? There seems to be none. The Trotskyists and Stalinists even participated in some limited united front action in the 1930's, which seems to indicate revolutionary integrity on the part of the Trotskyists. As such, the systematic murder of Trotskyists on the part of the Viet Minh regime led by Ho Chi Minh seems to be nothing more than counter-revolutionary opportunism of the worst sort. I was hoping people who are more well versed in the matter could provide me with some historical material to reference. So far I have only found limited amount of resources, as I mentioned earlier:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/viet.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/vietnam/pirani/index.htm

In addition, perhaps there could be a discussion on the matter. For those of you who would uphold Ho Chi Minh as a genuine revolutionary, how can these actions possibly be justified? Please provide some specific examples, if you can, rather than simply deriding Trotskyists as "wreckers".

Let's try to keep it civil.

Of course he was counter-revolutionary, he was a Stalinist. He was told to keep a lid on any revolution by the French Communist Party, and they were telling him that to keep Moscow happy. Moscow's foreign policy was to crush all revolutions, as I have said many times on here.

Read here

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/vietnam/c1.html

short extract:

"The Viet Minh had called for ‘restraint’ and negotiations. But the masses of Saigon had risen, with the Trotskyists, the Buddhists and some religious sects, together with many communists who could not accept the passive party line. Above all, it was the communist workers who joined in this uprising. One hundred and fifty French civilians were killed and the rebels held the working class suburbs for a number of days. However, the Viet Minh had officially withdrawn from Saigon, which allowed the rising to be crushed. As the French army replaced the British, it slowly reasserted its power in the south. The Viet Minh, as they retreated, hunted down and killed almost all the Trotskyists. Ho Chi Minh, in a report to the Comintern in July 1939, had stated that the Indochinese Communist Party had refused all offers of co-operation with the Trotskyists: “As regards the Trotskyites – no alliances and no concessions. They must be unmasked as the stooges of the fascists, which they are.”15 Yet in extremely difficult conditions the Trotskyists survived and “in the 1953 municipal elections… the Saigon Taxi Drivers’ Union… put up a Trotskyist candidate, who won handily.”16 Earlier in September 1945, the French Communist Party cell in Saigon had warned the Viet Minh, then trying to resist the French re-occupation of Saigon, that “any premature adventures” towards independence might “not be in line with Soviet perspectives”. In other words the French Stalinists did everything to prevent ‘disturbances’ such as revolts of the masses in the colonial world, in order not to disrupt the post-1945 attempt of Russian Stalinism to arrive at an agreement with imperialism to maintain the status quo. Fall explains:
“At home, the French Communist leaders in parliament (the Party chief, Maurice Thorez, was Vice-Premier at the time) did not block the first Indochina War budget and all the emergency measures connected with the prosecution of the first phase of the war. There can be no doubt that a Communist-provoked government crisis in the winter of 1946-47 would have brought a military crisis in Indochina and might have caused the war to end in a compromise because of lack of supplies and manpower on the French side.” 17
The gratitude of the French bourgeoisie was evident when “French conservative politicians rose in the National Assembly during a crucial appropriations debate from March 14-18, 1947, to thank their own Communist colleagues and the Soviet Union for leaving France to fight its war in Indochina without outside disturbance.” "

my emphasis

[Omsk]

I explained why he wasn't a Marxist-Leninist pages ago daft punk,you could read it and leave the copy-paste deal alone.


@Kontra:

And this of course,obliterated into your demagogy and petty infantile disorderism.


I fail to see what do nationalist movements, which commint crimes based on nationality or ethnicity (aka. genocides), have to do with communism and class struggle, except that their troops have red stars on their hats. Of course, I'm talking about all national liberation movements.



Most of the national-liberation movements were basically battles between the colonists and the colonialists,or between the enslaved and the imperialists,but sometimes,the struggles against the very home nationalist land owners can be national liberation,because every nation under capitalism is in some form,enslaved.




But it's easier to cry about "revisionism", to accuse people with counter-arguments for some pety discussion police shit and to support nationalist butchers of proletariat, just because they have red star on their hats because some Cold War imperialist power (USSR or China) gave them guns


Do you even read or you just post?I was not categoric in my view on the Viet Minh,and the nat-lib war of Vietnam,but if you expect me to 'denounce' someone because he is leading a nat-lib war,you are mad.So you are against nat-lib wars,you are against the struggles of the oppressed,than who do you 'side' with?


Oh,and to all who are asking the usual fantastic questions like,"Why cen't Marxast-Lennist bee restrikted??" - Because thats why.

[daft punk]

we could look on the events during the which there was open hostility and violence between the Trotskyists and the communists,it can be said that the Trotskyists were regarded as the enemies of the 'people' and on objectively on the same 'side' as the outside enemies of the party and the people.

Now,this dicussion could advance further if you are interested in specific questions.

lol. Support or retract.


I was wondering if there were any specific actions taken by the Trotskyists that warranted such brutal extermination.

TO PREVENT A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION


As soon as the Viet Minh overthrew the government, the Trotskyists were trying to start their own "revolution" in Vietnam. Keeping in mind that the Communist party had only recently been united (it had split into about 3 factions), the Viet Minh were still trying to fully overthrow the imperial government and were fighting soldiers from Japan, France, China and reactionary Nationalist Vietnamese forces basically all at once. And in this fragile situation the Trotskyists could think of nothing better to do than sabotage the efforts of Comrade Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people.


rubbish, see the above, read the link. The French were backed by the CP and the KMT on the rampage in the north was backed by Stalin.

[daft punk]

I explained why he wasn't a Marxist-Leninist pages ago daft punk,you could read it and leave the copy-paste deal alone.



Explain why the CP tried to prevent revolution as per my post.

[Omsk]

lol. Support or retract.
There is nothing to be 'supporter' or 'retracted' here - the communist party at times,regarded the Trotskyites as enemies.

That's basically it.



Explain why the CP tried to prevent revolution as per my post.


Since when do you dictate anything? I have no interest in answering any of your posts,plus,this one (the one above these lines) has absolutely nothing to do with my answer for you.

[Искра]

Apart from there being no source to this quote, it means nothing. True, he was a patriot that set out on a ship to find help for his country but he discovered Communism and the works of Lenin on the way. What's your point?Maybe you are little bit slow, but I gave you whole book. You know, there are actually people who read books. I know that you can find many of them among ML's... but still.

Patriotism is another word for nationalism. You love so much your ethnic group and a place where you live that you need to "clean" it from others.

[daft punk]

There is nothing to be 'supporter' or 'retracted' here - the communist party at times,regarded the Trotskyites as enemies.

That's basically it.



Since when do you dictate anything? I have no interest in answering any of your posts,plus,this one (the one above these lines) has absolutely nothing to do with my answer for you.




zero answers, not even an attempt. Good. I like people who just give up.

[Искра]

I suppose you would have been happier to have seen the USA get victory and actively support the purges by the nationalist regime of both Trotskyist and Stalinist (or any other) leftwing factions then?Classical emotional "argument".

There's not communist movement but there's this big US and everyone against US is ok. That's the logic which lead your comrades to support Slobodan Milošević, because he was against US, so he must be anti-imperialist, but who cares for genocides he's responsible for. This anti-imperialist myth that you have to take side in nationalist conflicts is total lobotomy of Marxism.

No war but a class war. That's what Marxism is about and therfore I don't support anyone - again ANYONE - but working class itself and communist movements which want to create classless society.

[daft punk]

Thanks for the suggestion, that looks like an excellent, detailed analysis. From what I gathered, it looks like the Viet Minh were slightly concerned that the Trotskyists' ideas might be more appealing to the people than their own; something they obviously couldn't allow.

The Trots idea was socialist revolution, the Stalinists' idea was to prevent that. Of course the people would prefer the Trots.



They weren't concerned that their ideas were appealing but simply that, because of their pathetic attempts at revolution, Vietnam was at risk of falling back into the hands of China, Japan, France... or Nationalists à la the Spanish civil war.

Hey, here's a new one. Stalinists crush a revolution. No kid!

Nice to see a revleft Stalinist admitting this for once. Most of them seem oblivious to this basic fact.

[daft punk]

T
The Trotskyists tried to ride in on the coat-tails of Marxist-Leninist revolutions, as they do every time, and were thrown off.


lol. see my post above and please reply to the points made in red. The Stalinists tried to sabotage the revolution.

[Grenzer]

Classical emotional "argument".

There's not communist movement but there's this big US and everyone against US is ok. That's the logic which lead your comrades to support Slobodan Milošević, because he was against US, so he must be anti-imperialist, but who cares for genocides he's responsible for. This anti-imperialist myth that you have to take side in nationalist conflicts is total lobotomy of Marxism.

No war but a class war. That's what Marxism is about and therfore I don't support anyone - again ANYONE - but working class itself and communist movements which want to create classless society.

You pretty much said it perfectly here.

Classic anti-imperialism is anti-communism because it places supporting capitalist, nationalist movements above actual working class communist organizations. By setting the United States as your specific enemy rather than the capitalist system in general, one falls into a nationalistic trap which in effect becomes anti-worker. The easiest(and I would say only) way to avoid this is to simply avoid to support all imperialist, nationalist, and capitalist movements and only directly support the working class in its struggle to achieve communism.

We are communists, we are trying to destroy the system of nations and capitalism. If one supports a movement which is about nationalism and capitalism, then it's completely contradictory and counter-productive. It's sad that being consistent with marxism and the goal of destroying capitalism is considered to be "ultra-left".

Interestingly, a Hoxhaist text(The People's Revolution in Albania and the Question of State Power) I've been going through that was published by the Albanian state seems to suggest that "national liberation" shouldn't be supported unless there is a more advanced socialist state already in existence which can give it support and radicalize it. So from their view, they were the only socialist state around at that time and more or less incapable of aiding Vietnam, so how is support of the counter-revolutionary Viet Minh(later the Viet Cong) justified; or does supporting nationalist movements take even more precedence than Hoxha's opinion? I guess it's fair to mention that there don't seem to be many Hoxhaists in this thread(just Omsk? and he's not even a fan of the Viet Cong) as opposed to Brezhnevites.

Edit: I also felt like I should clarify again, that the entire point of this thread was to find more information on the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement and the reasoning of the Viet Minh regime in liquidating it. I am honestly not interested in rehabilitating Stalinists, nor would I imagine most ultra-leftists are; I said that to throw a bone to the Kautskyans, of whom there are several on this board. They conceive of a broad party-movement in which those portions of the left which are non-revolutionary or counter-revolutionary would have their interests realigned with the interests of the working class and revolution. I do think Stalinism is a counter-revolutionary ideology, but I wouldn't go as far as to say all Stalinists are explicitly counter-revolutionary; that would be an absurd generalization. Some seem to be ok in spite of their ideology; but in general it seems like a lot of people that are part of the Stalinist ideology are confused pseudo-leftists, people that don't have a good grasp on revolutionary theory, or sociopathic social-democrats; and in the case of Revleft, high school kids who think Stalin is cool for shock value or something like that. For some people it seems like Stalinism was just a phase; their first foray into what considers itself to be revolutionary politics which they eventually grow out of, but I don't think anyone should be recommending it as a gateway ideology.

I am very sectarian when it comes to sectarians who advocate the extermination of other leftists. It's honestly hysterically comedic that such people would have a persecution complex. You can be damn sure we are going to be calling Stalinists out for their counter-revolutionary bull so long as they insist on continuing to propagate it.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

See, you do not want to learn or even hear opinions. You and your army of ultra-leftists made this thread to lure Marxist-Leninists in so you can attack us and "indoctrinate" us in your ideology (or as you said, "rehabilitate"). I knew you made this thread with a bias. Are you not the same comrade who posted visitor messages praising me for my open mind? Then why do you have such a strong and ugly bias against anything Marxist-Leninist. You do not even consider us to be true revolutionaries! Then why ask for opinions concerning Marxist-Leninist historical topics?
Gambling? Here? Shocking. Get off it Commistar. Why do you have such an ugly bias against Trotskyism? Do these criticisms hurt your feelings? Geez, if you are going to be involved in revolutionary politics I suggest you grow your skin a bit thicker.

As for banning MLers from Revleft, I am definitely against this. Why should we do that? Some of them add interesting counterpoints to discussion. And I think they are subjectively revolutionary -- just misguided. Very miguided. Of course, they would say the same about Trotskyists. I have been around the left for almost forty years. I have learned things here, from unexpected sources, including the MLs.

Are there really self-identified Kautskyists here? That is moderately bizarre.

[Grenzer]

Are there really self-identified Kautskyists here? That is moderately bizarre.

More or less, though I don't think they would label themselves as such. There's been a movement to resuscitate the theoretical foundation of the Second International and what is known as "Orthodox Marxism". They claim that it's a mistake to use Leninism as ones theoretical foundation since Lenin's theoretical foundation came from the theorists of the Second International, such as Kautsky; and the Leninists simply begin with Marx and Engels, and then skip directly over to Lenin which is ignoring some critical developments in Marxist theory. Personally I think there is some credence to this claim since the denominations of Leninism tend to be the most theoretically weak of the Marxist ideologies.

It's bee a recent development in the past few years since Lars T. Lih published his book Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be done? In Context in 2006. You could call them Kautskyans, or Orthodox-Marxists(which seems a bit anachronistic in a way); but it seems to me that the Kautsky Revival is itself a nascent tendency.. maybe it will fizzle out, maybe not. It is kind of bizarre, but then it also makes sense when you consider that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the development bubble of the far left has collapsed. I would say that it is closer to Left Communism than Leninism; but it separates itself from the former by criticizing it as strategically unsound, and from the latter as being baseless both theoretically and strategically. It conceives of itself as seeking the merge of the communist movement with the workers' movement(and only the most out of touch would claim that they are one and the same at the present point in time.) as expounded by Marx in the Communist Manifesto, something which arguably most of the other tendencies including Leninism aren't doing. It's not necessarily mutually exclusive either; I see no reason why someone who identifies themselves as a Trotskyist couldn't also have the "Kautskyan" mentality though of course it would conflict with orthodox Trotskyism.

Their political ancestors seem to be Trotskyists who realized that some parts of the old man's theories were woefully out of date, and that the strategic implication of "degenerated workers' state" is counter-revolutionary in nature. That's just my take on the whole movement of Orthodox Marxism, I'm not endorsing it or anything, simply stating what they think. I think the best way to sum up "Kautskyism" in a single sentence is: No revolutionary tendencies today have a revolutionary strategy(theory and praxis!); and without a revolutionary strategy, there can be no revolutionary movement. Lenin was only partially right when he said "There can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory" because if you only have theory, then you're basically just a bunch of petit-bourgeois intellectuals who are sitting on their ass doing nothing.

Don't mean to get too off topic, but that basically sums up the "Kautskyan" movement. I hope they won't mind that I'm speaking for them, but I think the posters that best reflect this mindset on this board are DNZ, Q, and Rafiq; though I'm sure there are others as well.

[Bostana]

His well know quote is: It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me.

You can search the net or read his book: http://www.amazon.com/Down-Colonialism-Revolutions-Chi-Minh/dp/1844671771/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332544619&sr=8-2

Also, it is not my problem that ML's have no actual politics but repeating every shit Stalin said...

What's that's it?

Because he was upset to see Veitmanese workers enslaved by America Bourgeoisie?

[Bostana]

Gambling? Here? Shocking. Get off it Commistar. Why do you have such an ugly bias against Trotskyism? Do these criticisms hurt your feelings? Geez, if you are going to be involved in revolutionary politics I suggest you grow your skin a bit thicker

You sound like such a hypocrite right now it's ridiculous.

Every time an ML tries to explain one of Hoxha's Stalin's or Mao's policies you say something stupid, then get rebuked, then yuo complain about something stupid like bunkers.

[Искра]

Because he was upset to see Veitmanese workers enslaved by America Bourgeoisie?
Yeah, Hitler was also upset to see German workers enslaved by Jewish Bourgeuisie.

[Bostana]

Yeah, Hitler was also upsed to see German workers enslaved by Jewish Bourgeuisie.

The difference what I said is an actually threat to Third World countries

[Geiseric]

Just because you see somebody as a threat to a revolution, even if they're on your side, that doesn't mean you can kill them! Get in contact with reality, that shit doesn't fly! Marxist Leninism is the biggest failure of human history, because its leaders ran the socialist movement to the ground, during the time when Capitalism should have collapsed. And you support everything they did and would do it again.

By the way, i'm not an Ultra Left. Nice strawman though.

[Caj]

he was upset to see Veitmanese workers enslaved by America Bourgeoisie?

And thanks to Uncle Ho, the Vietnamese workers are no longer exploited! Rejoice, comrades!


Marxist Leninism is the biggest failure of human history

I don't think the hyperbole is very helpful.

[Искра]

The difference what I said is an actually threat to Third World countriesThe difference is that that you, as Stalinist, find second OK just because Stalin and other "wise guys" said so.

On the other hand, I agree that working class in Vietnam is exploited, but I don't see a national liberation struggle as a "cure" for that situation. National liberation struggles do what they do - they get rid workers of one opressors so that they can put new ones in charge. You trade "imperialist" bourgeuisie with "anti-imperialist". Therefore, there's only one answer - world revolution ;)

[Geiseric]

And thanks to Uncle Ho, the Vietnamese workers are no longer exploited! Rejoice, comrades!



I don't think the hyperbole is very helpful.

Fair enough, sorry about the exaggeration.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Gambling? Here? Shocking. Get off it Commistar. Why do you have such an ugly bias against Trotskyism? Do these criticisms hurt your feelings? Geez, if you are going to be involved in revolutionary politics I suggest you grow your skin a bit thicker.

As for banning MLers from Revleft, I am definitely against this. Why should we do that? Some of them add interesting counterpoints to discussion. And I think they are subjectively revolutionary -- just misguided. Very miguided. Of course, they would say the same about Trotskyists. I have been around the left for almost forty years. I have learned things here, from unexpected sources, including the MLs.

Are there really self-identified Kautskyists here? That is moderately bizarre.
At least when I make threads to learn about different opinions or come to such threads, I do no suggest that the people with the different opinions be restricted. Shouldn't I, as the Marxist-Leninist monster you guys make me out to be, be suggesting that you ultra-leftists be sent to gulags instead of just restriction. But I do not suggest either things, but instead I listen to your arguments and respect the ones that are in line.

[Susurrus]

Book on the subject:
http://akpress.com/2010/items/inthecrossfire

[Omsk]

This thread as i expected,obliterated itself into something beyond recognition,something between the 'Hi my name is Johny and this is how i see Marxism-Leninism' and the classical sectarian nonsense.Most of the post don't have anything to do with Vietnam,or Ho Chi Minh.

[Искра]

This thread as i expected,obliterated itself into something beyond recognition,something between the 'Hi my name is Johny and this is how i see Marxism-Leninism' and the classical sectarian nonsense.Most of the post don't have anything to do with Vietnam,or Ho Chi Minh.
You can not discuss Vietnam and "left" without discussing national liberation struggle. I don't see anything tragical about this discussion.

But then again you are quite boring with your "demands" for "decent discussion". Your model of "decent discussion" means that people have no right to present their political positions (like for example, position on national liberation struggle), but they should just write about "facts", numbers etc.

Aslo, you are quite boring with this "you don't know what Marxism-Leninism" is. It doesn't matter if you are going to call it "the only truth in the World" or "lobotomy of Marxism" if you discuss its principles, like for example, its support to nationalist "anti-imperialist" butchers all over the World.

Therefore, either participate in discussion or don't, because what you are trying to pull here is same shit as Ismail tried to "depolitize" history forum.

Anyhow, enjoy:


I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.

Pretty interesting article of his "understanding" of Marxism and how his positions are nothing but patriotism/nationalism: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm

But then again: oppressed people! Anti-imperialism! Hello capitalism...

[Omsk]

I never claimed Ho Chi Minh was a saint of Marxism and a great theoretical worker,in fact,this was probably noted by Stalin himself,and the Soviet leadership,as the main ally of Vietnam was for the better part,China,or the post 1953 USSR.
For an example,Khrushchov admired Ho Chi Minh a lot,as we can see from this short little quote from his 'diary'.

Ho Chi Minh really was one of communism's "saints."
Talbott, Strobe, Trans. and Ed. Khrushchev Remembers. Boston: Little Brown, c1970, p. 481

I am not trying to 'depolitize' this dicussion,but i don't want it to turn into something completely unrelated to Vietnam or Ho Chi Minh.
While i naturally don't regard Ho Chi Minh,a 'saint' of communism,he was a leader of the fight against the French colonialists and imperialists,and as such,is an important figure in the history of the anti-imperialist circles.What should also be noted,is that he was not in the center of the war in Vietnam,during the '60 - he was quite ill,and his policies were sometimes ignored while higher party members issued all the real commands,and shaped the course of the conflict.

Aditional information: these are some of the 'goals' or 'principles' of the communists from Vietnam.

- To buckle down to production work and consolidate the national economy,


- To struggle and annihilate the enemy’s forces. To intensify guerilla warfare,

- To expose by all means the enemy’s policy of“using the Vietnamese to fight the Vietnamese, and nursing the war by means of warfare.”

- To closely link patriotism to internationalism,

- Energetically to combat bureaucracy, corruption and waste.

For anyone interested in any words of Ho Chi Minh,you could look into this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/index.htm

[Ocean Seal]

Why are MLs not restricted, again?
This forum restricts too many people as is.

[Grenzer]

This forum restricts too many people as is.

I really don't think you want Third Worldists on here. They don't even pretend that they aren't nationalists.

[Bostana]

And thanks to Uncle Ho, the Vietnamese workers are no longer exploited! Rejoice, comrades!

Okay,
Good to see you missed the point. I mean what did you want him to do? Let more American Capitalists come in enslave more Vietnamese people while he just sits back and watches it?

Is the Okay with you?

[Искра]

Okay,
Good to see you missed the point. I mean what did you want him to do? Let more American Capitalists come in enslave more Vietnamese people while he just sits back and watches it?

Is the Okay with you?
So what is a difference between American and Vietnamese capitalists? Also, I see that you use "people", so why would someone care for Vietnamese capitalists who are oppresed by American?

[Ostrinski]

Okay,
Good to see you missed the point. I mean what did you want him to do? Let more American Capitalists come in enslave more Vietnamese people while he just sits back and watches it?

Is the Okay with you?It's funny because that's exactly what's happening today

[Ostrinski]

I really don't think you want Third Worldists on here. They don't even pretend that they aren't nationalists.Not to mention the flood of libertarians that would make this an awful place if they weren't restricted.

[Grenzer]

Is there really any reason to think that Ho Chi Minh gave a shit about the international proletariat? All the pro-Ho people are talking about is how much he loved his country and wanted to free it from oppression. Who cares? If he was a communist he would have realized that the only way to free "the country" was to free the world of capitalism by means of international revolution. In addition, it's quite telling that he blathers on about "the country" instead of the workers, which should be the focal point of all communist movements. It doesn't matter whether you want to call it patriotism or even "abstract proletarian internationalism"; it's still nationalism, an artificial construct whose sole purpose is to serve the interests of capital.


Not to mention the flood of libertarians that would make this an awful place if they weren't restricted.

Except in the instances where you get to troll them and watch them squirm by expounding on the necessity of revolutionary terror; that is usually fun.

[KlassWar]

So what is a difference between American and Vietnamese capitalists?

Unlike American capitalists, which are quite damn far away and pretty much out of reach, Vietnamese capitalists are a problem that Viet proletarians can solve with bullets. They're within machete range, so to speak.

That's quite progressive and one of the best features of national liberation struggles. The only thing about national liberation struggles is that the proletariat should undertake them with full intent to backstab and destroy their national bourgeoisie immediately afterwards.

National liberation struggles are also one of the few events on which the non-comprador national bourgeoisie is willing to support and even fund the arming of the masses. That's something that the masses should use to their advantage. National liberation struggles should be supported, but workers should be made fully aware that their alliance with the national bourgeois is hollow and temporary.

[Grenzer]

Unlike American capitalists, which are quite damn far away and pretty much out of reach, Vietnamese capitalists are a problem that Viet proletarians can solve with bullets. They're within machete range, so to speak.

If it's so simple, then why haven't they done it? It's because this counter-revolutionary "national liberation" crap distracts them from what's important: proletarian revolution.



That's quite progressive and one of the best features of national liberation struggles. The only thing about national liberation struggles is that the proletariat should undertake them with full intent to backstab and destroy their national bourgeoisie immediately afterwards.

You gotta love how "progressive" national liberation struggles are. Take South Africa. The average person there is actually worse off than when the colonial regime was in power and income inequality is higher than ever. Rather than replace the colonial Dutch bourgeoisie with a multi-ethnic bourgeois ruling class, they should have been striving for proletarian revolution. All this "national liberation" business does is trade one set of oppressors for another.



National liberation struggles are also one of the few events on which the non-comprador national bourgeoisie is willing to support and even fund the arming of the masses. That's something that the masses should use to their advantage. National liberation struggles should be supported, but workers should be made fully aware that their alliance with the national bourgeois is hollow and temporary.

Funny considering that the leninist strategy on national liberation has failed time and time again. Lenin was wrong when he formulated the position, and he's still wrong today. Your logic borders perilously close to reformism and class collaboration; in fact that's actually what it is. There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about this kind of thinking. The workers are on their own, and we should support the workers. It's not materialist at all to come up with this absurd idea that the workers are somehow helped when the bourgeois act in their class interest. This is the same exact reasoning left-wing nationalists and other third-positionists use. The strategy has failed over and over; there is absolutely no reason to support national "liberation" unless you are a nationalist and a capitalist. "It'll only be temporary" they say....

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

After reading all this ideological shit, I decided to keep my signature (I was going to change it). I am not waiting for the entire world to revolt with me. I will encourage the rest of the world to revolt after I am done setting up socialism in my nation. Also, patriotic rhetoric appeals greatly to the masses. Do you think any regular American worker will want to revolt if they do not think it will be for the betterment of their own nation. Everyone on this thread is an internationalist, but some of us are just too idealist and less practical.

[Ostrinski]

I am not waiting for the entire world to revolt with me. I will encourage the rest of the world to revolt after I am done setting up socialism in my nation.Your wish is our command, your royal highness.

[l'Enfermé]

Abandoning internationalism in favor of social-patriotism=More practical and appropriate for Socialists, according to MLs.

I see.

[Ostrinski]

All MLs secretly seek the throne.

[A Marxist Historian]

If it's so simple, then why haven't they done it? It's because this counter-revolutionary "national liberation" crap distracts them from what's important: proletarian revolution.



You gotta love how "progressive" national liberation struggles are. Take South Africa. The average person there is actually worse off than when the colonial regime was in power and income inequality is higher than ever. Rather than replace the colonial Dutch bourgeoisie with a multi-ethnic bourgeois ruling class, they should have been striving for proletarian revolution. All this "national liberation" business does is trade one set of oppressors for another.



Funny considering that the leninist strategy on national liberation has failed time and time again. Lenin was wrong when he formulated the position, and he's still wrong today. Your logic borders perilously close to reformism and class collaboration; in fact that's actually what it is. There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about this kind of thinking. The workers are on their own, and we should support the workers. It's not materialist at all to come up with this absurd idea that the workers are somehow helped when the bourgeois act in their class interest. This is the same exact reasoning left-wing nationalists and other third-positionists use. The strategy has failed over and over; there is absolutely no reason to support national "liberation" unless you are a nationalist and a capitalist. "It'll only be temporary" they say....

Here we have the all too common Revleft screaming match of the deaf between Stalinists (pardon me, "Marxist-Leninists") who want to turn the Fearless Leaders of Stalinist regimes into icons, and downright counterrevolutionary ultralefts like Grenzer, who apparently would find it perfectly OK if apartheid were reimposed on the black people of South Africa.

Yes, there was a Vietnamese Revolution. Yes, the Vietnamese people are vastly better off under the current regime than under the direct thumb of US imperialism like under US puppets like Ngo Dinh Diem. And yes, the Vietnamese regime has opened the country wide to foreign capitalist exploitation and imprisons dissidents.

Those are the complexities of the real world. If you want to be a revolutionary, you have to deal with them, not scab on all revolutionary movements that don't have revolutionary leaderships.

Even if you have an outright bourgeois leadership, like in so many colonial countries that were freed from direct colonial domination but now are neo-colonies, if you do not support the struggle of the masses for national liberation, you are a scab and a traitor.

And if you support the treacherous sellout leaders of just about all national liberation struggles, you are a worthless opportunist.

Enough said.

-M.H.-

[Искра]

Revolutionary movement? Wow. I can't wait to read how Croatia had revolutionary movement in 1991.

[Caj]

downright counterrevolutionary ultralefts like Grenzer, who apparently would find it perfectly OK if apartheid were reimposed on the black people of South Africa.

Apartheid still exists in South Africa and is worse than ever. It seems the national liberation movement there wasn't too successful.


Yes, there was a Vietnamese Revolution. Yes, the Vietnamese people are vastly better off under the current regime than under the direct thumb of US imperialism like under US puppets like Ngo Dinh Diem. And yes, the Vietnamese regime has opened the country wide to foreign capitalist exploitation and imprisons dissidents.

Those are the complexities of the real world. If you want to be a revolutionary, you have to deal with them, not scab on all revolutionary movements that don't have revolutionary leaderships.

What do you mean "deal with them"? If you want to be a revolutionary, you have to oppose capitalism in all of its manifestations. You can't "pick and choose" which bourgeoisie to support because one is "imperialist" and another is "anti-imperialist". Imperialism is a system inherent to modern capitalism. To combat imperialism, the bourgeois, regardless of which nation, must be combated.


Even if you have an outright bourgeois leadership, like in so many colonial countries that were freed from direct colonial domination but now are neo-colonies, if you do not support the struggle of the masses for national liberation, you are a scab and a traitor.

Oh, no! Looks like I'm a scab and a traitor! :laugh:


And if you support the treacherous sellout leaders of just about all national liberation struggles, you are a worthless opportunist.

If you support any national liberation struggles, you are not just a worthless opportunist, but a supporter of capitalism.

Enough said.

[Susurrus]

As James Connolly said of Ireland:


If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.

England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.

England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed.

Now Vietnam is still ruled by America, with a government that is a puppet of the international bourgeoisie ruling over the people of Vietnam.

[Искра]

To be honest, that Connolly's quote doesn't replay to point I believe you wanted to make. Capitalism is mode of production (and exploatation) on Worlds level which is why proletariat can free itself only trough world revolution. Because of all that neither do Capital or proletariat have nation state. So, it's not about English Capital (as Connolly writes) nor is it about American Capital (as it is case with Vietnam here) it's about Capital itself. There are no shortcuts and I believe that most of Marxist tendencies after 1914 are nothing but ideas for shortcuts... which is why they'll be annihilated in revolution ;)

[Susurrus]

To be honest, that Connolly's quote doesn't replay to point I believe you wanted to make. Capitalism is mode of production (and exploatation) on Worlds level which is why proletariat can free itself only trough world revolution. Because of all that neither do Capital or proletariat have nation state. So, it's not about English Capital (as Connolly writes) nor is it about American Capital (as it is case with Vietnam here) it's about Capital itself. There are no shortcuts and I believe that most of Marxist tendencies after 1914 are nothing but ideas for shortcuts... which is why they'll be annihilated in revolution ;)

Indeed so, but as they say, it has to start somewhere.

[Искра]

Of course, but it's not about national prefix.

[Ostrinski]

It is a shame that with the gifts of hindsight and retrospect vision, some still choose to support historically proven fallacious ideas that have shown to completely contradict the goals that they're related to. The 20th century wave of communist revolution was centered around national liberation movements. Do you see socialism or even dictatorship of the proletariat anywhere in the world today? No, you don't. This means that national liberation has failed the international proletariat. It would seem to me that those that support a failed method of successful proletarian revolution are the real traitors here.

Also, whoever is mocking us by saying things like "I'm not gonna wait around blah blah blah" is using a strawman of the most disgusting sort. No one believes in waiting around, obviously this shit isn't going to start everywhere simultaneously. All we say is that national consciousness is a false consciousness and an ideological weapon of the class foe and that a revolution isolated is a revolution failed. History is on our side.

[Geiseric]

Would you still support national liberation if it went by a socialist program?

[Caj]

Would you still support national liberation if it went by a socialist program?

Socialism is inherently internationalist, so that question is meaningless.

[Ostrinski]

Just because revolution starts out in one nation does not make it a national liberation.

[Geiseric]

Indeed it is internationalist, however if we look at say ireland or poland when they are under control or occupation from an invading force, should they not organize, at least initially, under the banner of "Let's get the invaders out," in order to obtain what is more or less a revolution? I mean James Connolly was a good example, he wanted to liberate Ireland from england, while having communist goals at the same time, because the national struggle is a struggle against the bad things that capitalism has done? So it doesn't make any sense to promote national capitalism unless your supporters have national capitalism in mind. Which Mao, Ho Chi Mihn and many other 3rd world maoist/stalinist movements had. They were representatives of national bourgeois revolutions, not proletarian revolutions.

[Ostrinski]

The problem with that is that the nature of oppression is still characterized by class and not nationhood. The foreign occupants are usually there to strengthen the bourgeoisie there, not weaken it (thus there is no national oppression). By strengthening a loyal bourgeois state they make markets more secure for exploitation and so on.

[Geiseric]

Sometimes it is directed more at Nationhood though, for example most people in Britain at most points supported, or at least accepted colonialism and imperialism in Ireland and India, so what are the Irish and Indians to do?

And isn't the nature of imperialism to have profits going to corporations who have invested capital from another country? The point of a national revolution is to take away that property and have it used in the interests of the proletariat in that country, not to take the property and use it for Capitalism or Stalinism, like what we are familiar with.

However, the idea of a national liberation for blacks in the U.S. is something I am very fond of. Same goes for Chicanos, and most other oppressed minorities.

[l'Enfermé]

National liberation paves the way for the development of economic forces in a country, and that paves the way for socialism. Without it, development in oppressed countries is strangled, and this strangles international socialism also. Decolonization, achieved through national-liberation, is necessary for the development of Capitalism, and it only Capitalism that gives working classes the hope of emancipation, for only Capitalism opens up the way to Socialism.

The notion that "national-liberation" struggles, however, are proletarian struggles, is nonsense. How can a struggle conducted mostly by peasants in colonial, undeveloped countries be proletarian? But did they benefit the proletariat and the socialist cause? The answer is definitely yes.

[Geiseric]

That's what I meant, it isn't fully proletarian communist at the moment but it has socialist goals, relative to their status as an imperialised country, if it is in the 3rd world. Also most of those countries, like Russia was ante revolution, have hugely growing proletarian populations, which are capible of leading a socialist revolution.

[Grenzer]

Caj is right. As I mentioned before, the South African workers are objectively worse off than they were before Apartheid. It feels sad that I have to mention this, but to head off any potential straw men I feel like I have to say that it should be obvious that I am not endorsing the former colonial Dutch regime. What I am saying though, is that the national liberation movement failed miserably, despite actually achieving it's stated goal of ending the colonial regime. The African National Congress(ANC) was the chief organization that fought for the "liberation" of South Africa from the Dutch colonists. After the arrest of several of the senior leaders of the ANC and the Rivonia trial, the ANC became very radicalized. Many of it's members began flirting with communism because of the ANC's association and partnership with the SACP(which, like the CPUSA, was characterized by rightist degeneration), and later several ANC officers received aid and training from places such as Maoist China. The ANC began to take on a more radical, pseudo-socialist character. Their goal wasn't simply to eliminate the institutionalized social inequality, but also to eliminate the economic equality between the African workers and the workers of European descent. In addition, it's fair to mention that Europeans for the most part were the sole component of the South African bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie.

In the late 1980's, the ANC had succeeded in putting enough pressure on the colonial regime through international efforts and the efforts of its militant wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, and the colonial regime entered into negotiations with the ANC leadership. What essentially happened was that the leadership of the "national liberation" movement was entirely co-opted by the bourgeoisie. In return for allowing the entry of the ANC leadership, their relatives, and other prominent Africans entry into the ranks of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie, the ANC would completely abandon its goal of achieving economic justice for the African workers. There was also the elimination of racist legislation, which is not to say that behavior changed much in practice in many cases. Today South Africa continues on much as the old colonial South Africa, but instead of the workers being able to be fucked over by European capitalists, they can also be fucked over by African ones too. Sorry, M.H., but your premise that Nelson Mandela gave a happy ending to the plight of injustice in South Africa is completely delusional. Not only were there few to no superficial and illusory gains(i.e. reformist) for the workers of South Africa, there was objectively zero progress made towards the goal of proletarian revolution. Hard to see what you're doing here other than arbitrarily supporting nationalism like a reactionary.

The only way that the question of economic and social inequality in South Africa, and the world for that matter, can truly be solved is through international proletarian revolution.


National liberation paves the way for the development of economic forces in a country, and that paves the way for socialism. Without it, development in oppressed countries is strangled, and this strangles international socialism also. Decolonization, achieved through national-liberation, is necessary for the development of Capitalism, and it only Capitalism that gives working classes the hope of emancipation, for only Capitalism opens up the way to Socialism.

The notion that "national-liberation" struggles, however, are proletarian struggles, is nonsense. How can a struggle conducted mostly by peasants in colonial, undeveloped countries be proletarian? But did they benefit the proletariat and the socialist cause? The answer is definitely yes.

This seems like a more thoughtful take on the subject. It's good to see that our Trotskyist comrades have a more cautious, measured approach on the issue of national liberation. Though I still disagree with it, I think I can respect it. The Stalinists, on the other hand, approach nationalist movements with such exuberance that they actually subordinate class struggle to nationalism, which is something I find unacceptable.

Today, there aren't any countries I can think of that have not made the transition to capitalism; and as you said, the development of capitalism is an absolute prerequisite for the basis of socialism. Of course, the question must be asked if there is some alternative, whether we really have to content ourselves with letting Capitalism run its course so to speak. Mao attempted to answer this question with "New Democracy" though it was a terrible, half hearted attempt since it incorporated the bourgeoisie. It's a complicated issue, since on the one hand we can let capitalism run its course in certain countries; or we can try to do something about it. The question is, what?

We can all agree that Socialism in One Country was merely the counter-revolutionary nature of Stalinism institutionalized, and that it is not really a serious attempt to answer this. The only serious approach I have seen taken towards the matter is DNZ's so called "Caesarean" Socialism, even if it is very bizarre. It's also worth mentioning Trotsky's Permanent Revolution as well, since under-industrialized countries could probably be aided in the construction of socialism in the absence of capitalist development by the more industrialized socialist polities. Of course, this requires ongoing socialist revolution, and for the purposes of this question we are presuming the absence of it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This seems like a more thoughtful take on the subject. It's good to see that our Trotskyist comrades have a more cautious, measured approach on the issue of national liberation. Though I still disagree with it, I think I can respect it. The Stalinists, on the other hand, approach nationalist movements with such exuberance that they actually subordinate class struggle to nationalism, which is something I find unacceptable.

We live in a post-colonial world, but Lenin called opposition to anti-colonial struggles "imperialist economism." The Marxist take on national liberation and even imperialism was pioneered by Kautsky, before even the likes of Hobson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Theories_of_New_Imperialism#Kautsky_and_imper ialism

Really, it's an extension of the Erfurt Program's "Self-determination and self-government of the people in Reich, state, province, and municipality." This, despite any assertions of objectively-worse-off-than-during-colonialism, was the basis of the "imperialist economism" argument.


Of course, the question must be asked if there is some alternative, whether we really have to content ourselves with letting Capitalism run its course so to speak. Mao attempted to answer this question with "New Democracy" though it was a terrible, half hearted attempt since it incorporated the bourgeoisie. It's a complicated issue, since on the one hand we can let capitalism run its course in certain countries; or we can try to do something about it. The question is, what?

Aside from what I said, comrade, the only other alternative worth considering is the Menshevik-Internationalist line, since they at least were into organizing instead of mere agitating or propagating.


The only serious approach I have seen taken towards the matter is DNZ's so called "Caesarean" Socialism, even if it is very bizarre. It's also worth mentioning Trotsky's Permanent Revolution as well, since under-industrialized countries could probably be aided in the construction of socialism in the absence of capitalist development by the more industrialized socialist polities. Of course, this requires ongoing socialist revolution, and for the purposes of this question we are presuming the absence of it.

The "Late Marx" theory of Permanent Revolution was more advanced than even Trotsky's, because it asserted that all the non-bourgeois and non-comprador classes and strata, respectively, were collectively capable of transitioning into the (lower phase of the) communist mode of production without internal strife. It is, in fact, the practice to the mere rhetoric of the mixed-bag Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Lenin's Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry had a best-case and worst-case scenario re. the global situation. The worst-case scenario was that, while isolated, the Revolutionary Provisional Government would still speedily enact broad democratic and social measures before its proletarian component would go into opposition. Trotsky failed to appreciate this last part.

As for "very bizarre" re. TWCS, it's only because the proletariat needs to develop thick-skin tolerance for the peasant patrimonialism aspects of TWCS that will crop up.

[Grenzer]

We live in a post-colonial world, but Lenin called opposition to anti-colonial struggles "imperialist economism." The Marxist take on national liberation and even imperialism was pioneered by Kautsky, before even the likes of Hobson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Theories_of_New_Imperialism#Kautsky_and_imper ialism

Thanks for the reply. I think the key think to ask is whether it's really relevant though? Things have changed dramatically since The National Question was written, and now virtually all colonial states have their independence. I fail to see how supporting Gaddafi, and more importantly, Russian and Chinese imperialism by extension, is progressive. By the national liberation ethos, shouldn't they be supporting the rebels anyway? It is true they were co-opted by Western interests, but the fact is that they were an organic rebel movement given rise by the so called "Arab Spring". It's worth mentioning that the rebels also seemed to have a deep anti-semitic impetus(I recall reading that approximately 1/5 to 1/4 of rebel fighters were fighting because they believed Gaddafi to be Jewish) and racist elements. Supporting either side was not going to lead to a quantifiable advance towards socialism, or even away from imperialism for that matter.

As I pointed out in my example with South Africa, the national liberation struggle did not lead to one iota of advancement in terms of socialism, or even reformist gains. I am not sure what Lenin's stance was, but I have heard some say that in the presence of socialist states that national liberation movements can be essentially co-opted by revolutionaries. There may be some credence to this, but naturally such conditions did not exist. As such, historical support for such a movement borders dangerously close to a principled position.



Really, it's an extension of the Erfurt Program's "Self-determination and self-government of the people in Reich, state, province, and municipality."

I have not read the Erfurt Program.



Aside from what I said, comrade, the only other alternative worth considering is the Menshevik-Internationalist line, since they at least were into organizing instead of mere agitating or propagating.

Indeed, this ties into our conversation from the other day. So far I do not believe the Leninist or Left Communist line on the issue to be satisfactory; the strategy of simply sitting around waiting for Capitalism to develop seems overly defeatist to me. It's ironic that the Leninists would style themselves as the more pragmatic option over Left Communism, but from my observation they content themselves to the same strategically inept agitation of ideals, as you mentioned.



The "Late Marx" theory of Permanent Revolution was more advanced than even Trotsky's, because it asserted that all the non-bourgeois and non-comprador classes and strata, respectively, were collectively capable of transitioning into the (lower phase of the) communist mode of production without internal strife.

Lenin's Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry had a best-case and worst-case scenario re. the global situation. The worst-case scenario was that, while isolated, the Revolutionary Provisional Government would still speedily enact broad democratic and social measures before its proletarian component would go into opposition. Trotsky failed to appreciate this last part.

As for "very bizarre," it's only because the proletariat needs to develop thick-skin tolerance for the peasant patrimonialism aspects of TWCS that will crop up.

I checked out the spreadsheet you sent me and read the differing ideas. I wasn't really aware of the "Late Marx" conception of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. In which works does he write about this?

As for Lenin, one of my criticisms of the proto-Soviet government is that they seem to have completely eliminated democracy with the dissolution of the Soviets; is this true, or did they implement some other form of democracy after the end of the civil war? I have a hard time accepting the notion that there was a proletarian or peasant based dictatorship in the absence of organs for them to express their interests. What there seemed to be instead was the nascent form of the infamous Stalinist bureaucracy, which formed under Lenin, not Stalin; though it did not become irreversible until the late 20's imo. I will stand by my assertion that the Russia Revolution was bourgeois-democratic in content, but had the potential to spark of genuine socialist revolution elsewhere which could then push the Russian government into Socialism.

As for TWCS, I don't see any reason why it should not at least be attempted in the absence of a better altnerative if the only other recourse is to let the bourgeoisie have their way.

It's interesting that you and some of the Trotskyists on here would provide a more persuasive, theoretically sound argument for national liberation; but I will also stand by my assertion that the Stalinist support for such stems from their inherently bourgeois character and obsession with nationalism(or "Patriotism" :laugh: as they'd call it), as we've repeatedly seen both historically and at the present time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for the reply. I think the key think to ask is whether it's really relevant though? Things have changed dramatically since The National Question was written, and now virtually all colonial states have their independence.

Indeed.


I have not read the Erfurt Program.

Damn, here: http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm


I checked out the spreadsheet you sent me and read the differing ideas. I wasn't really aware of the "Late Marx" conception of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. In which works does he write about this?

"Late Marx" wrote this briefly in 1881: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm

And reiterated this in the second Russian Preface of the Communist Manifesto: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

I recommend reading Teodor Shanin's Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and 'the Peripheries of Capitalism'. It's not available on Google Books, though (as opposed to going to the library).


As for Lenin, one of my criticisms of the proto-Soviet government is that they seem to have completely eliminated democracy with the dissolution of the Soviets; is this true, or did they implement some other form of democracy after the end of the civil war?

I'll be blunt on the 1918 subject: http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolshevik-coups-detat-t134819/index.html


I will stand by my assertion that the Russia Revolution was bourgeois-democratic in content, but had the potential to spark of genuine socialist revolution elsewhere which could then push the Russian government into Socialism.

I'll agree with you except for one word: petit-bourgeois-democratic. ;)


As for TWCS, I don't see any reason why it should not at least be attempted in the absence of a better altnerative if the only other recourse is to let the bourgeoisie have their way.

Perhaps there's a better word to call TWCS than "bizarre." :p

Provocative? At least that word is neutral, especially when one says that "why it should not at least be attempted."


It's interesting that you and some of the Trotskyists on here would provide a more persuasive, theoretically sound argument for national liberation; but I will also stand by my assertion that the Stalinist support for such stems from their inherently bourgeois character and obsession with nationalism(or "Patriotism" :laugh: as they'd call it), as we've repeatedly seen both historically and at the present time.

TWCS's lower form is nationalistic with inter-national solidarity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bankruptcy-internationalismi-t144285/index.html), but its higher form is pan-nationalistic with that same solidarity (examples: a TWCS state from Nepal to Sri Lanka and from Pakistan to Bangladesh, ditto for Pan-Bolivarianism).

[Grenzer]

"Late Marx" wrote this briefly in 1881: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm

And reiterated this in the second Russian Preface of the Communist Manifesto: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

I recommend reading Teodor Shanin's Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and 'the Peripheries of Capitalism'. It's not available on Google Books, though (as opposed to going to the library).

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll add that to my ever growing reading list. I'm sure it will be worth it when I get around to it.



I'll be blunt on the 1918 subject: http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolshevik-coups-detat-t134819/index.html

You seem to have a similar take on the situation as I do. I have to say I'm very disappointed with Artesian, his argument is insanely weak. So the dissolution of the Soviets is justified by the decimation of the working class? I don't see how it's "Justified" when in fact that means the end of any pretense of proletarian rule. Was it required given the material circumstances? Absolutely. Does that make it "good", "justified", or "socialist"? Not in the slightest. So you would characterize the late Lenin as a renegade? That's how I see him, increasingly as time passed. Most people have a ridiculously idealized conception of Lenin; if he had lived another twenty years he would have played the same exact role as Stalin and you can see this in his ideological degeneration, particularly near the last year or two of his writing. Of course to say that this was because Lenin was "good" or "bad" is idealistic; as always, it was a result of the material conditions.




I'll agree with you except for one word: petit-bourgeois-democratic. ;)

Fair enough.



Perhaps there's a better word to call TWCS than "bizarre." :p

Provocative? At least that word is neutral, especially when one says that "why it should not at least be attempted."

I say bizarre because it's total out of line with most communists' expectations(and this isn't necessarily bad). It's not socialism and doesn't make and pretension of being so(which is a good thing in my opinion). What it is a substitution for the necessary bourgeois-democratic phase of development in which the ideological independence of the proletariat is fostered and creates a favorable condition for socialist revolution when the phase of industrialization and development approaches its end; this is what most of the people who freak out whenever you bring up TWCS fail to understand. Of course it will be denounced as counter-revolutionary because it's not directly seeking to go into socialism, and they'll return to the mere agitation of ideals. We'll see how well that does in building socialism..

[Bostana]

So what is a difference between American and Vietnamese capitalists? Also, I see that you use "people", so why would someone care for Vietnamese capitalists who are oppresed by American?

What American is oppressed by Vietnamese C.E.O's?

[Grenzer]

What American is oppressed by Vietnamese C.E.O's?

Totally missing the point here. Marxists don't give a shit about "people"(whatever the hell THAT means), the only thing a Marxist should be concerned about are the workers because it is only through the workers that socialism, and thus the liberation of all humanity from the confines of class and the state can be achieved. "People" is a problematic term because it can(and in practice, does) include anyone, including not just workers; but peasants, petty-bourgeois, and bourgeois as well. Caring about "people" is liberal idealism; ironic, but perhaps a bit appropriate for a Stalinist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Caring about "people" is liberal idealism; ironic, but perhaps a bit appropriate for a Stalinist.

That's a bunch of bullshit. If Stalinists care about the people more than the workers, then why did the 1936 Soviet Constitution (or Stalin Constitution) say that the Soviet Union was a "a socialist state of workers and peasants," but the 1977 Constitution (or Brezhnev Consitution/non-Stalinist Constitution) said that the Soviet Union was an "all peoples' union"? Stalinists are the ones who fight for a workers' nation instead of a people's nation.

Yeah, and shitting out of your mouth is more appropriate for ultra-leftists.

[Искра]

I hope that with the time you'll realise what a huge amount of bollocks did you just wrote. First of all, Marxists don't care about papers, Constitutions and "tags", but about material conditions in production. Because of that we consider USSR capitalist and capitalist society has nothing to do with workers but to expoit them. When ti comes to "wokrers nation" I hope you realise how stupid this is. Wokrers are class and nations have nothing to do with class but with "blood".

[Caj]

why did the 1936 Soviet Constitution (or Stalin Constitution) say that the Soviet Union was a "a socialist state of workers and peasants,"

I love when Leninists quote Soviet constitutions as if it's a valid argument.


Yeah, and shitting out of your mouth is more appropriate for ultra-leftists.

Wow, that was clever. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Also, courtesy of Bostana's sig: "Leaders Come and go, but the people remain; Only the People are Immortal"
-Joseph Stalin -- notice "people" not "workers"

[Grenzer]

That's a bunch of bullshit. If Stalinists care about the people more than the workers, then why did the 1936 Soviet Constitution (or Stalin Constitution) say that the Soviet Union was a "a socialist state of workers and peasants," but the 1977 Constitution (or Brezhnev Consitution/non-Stalinist Constitution) said that the Soviet Union was an "all peoples' union"? Stalinists are the ones who fight for a workers' nation instead of a people's nation.

You seem to be missing the point. I'm saying that you are idealists who don't understand Marxism. The workers were never in charge of the Soviet Union as there were no democratic organs for them to express their interests. If you think the Soviet Union was a democratic workers' state, then you're entirely delusional. Not even Ismail claims that it was, but that Stalin was "trying to implement more democratic measures". So what you're saying here is that you define the nature of the Soviet Union based on what the leadership of said country says it is? That's not a materialist analysis at all. It doesn't matter what the constitution said since on a material level it was still a bureaucratic dictatorship; kind of like how the US constitution is just there to look good, the government ignores it entirely. Completely utopian and idealist to think otherwise.




Yeah, and shitting out of your mouth is more appropriate for ultra-leftists.

A childish tantrum is an acceptable substitute for debate on revleft these days it seems.

As the Stalinists in the thread have shown, they don't even deny it. They support historical instances of the extermination of proletarian revolutionaries, just like the one here; and state that they'd do it again. Stalinists do not have one iota of credibility among the revolutionary community, nor among the workers of the world. If you think that workers are seriously going to accept an ideology based around the cult of a mass murdering sociopath, then you are very out of touch with reality and entirely delusional. Repeatedly, the ideology of Stalinism has shown itself to be theoretically and intellectually bankrupt, and a complete and utter failure. It's an embarrassment that Marxism even has to be associated with it and the people that worship dictators like Stalin.

The arrogance and pretensiousness the Stalinists have shown in having the gall to act like they are a persecuted, misunderstood minority when it is in fact they that are advocating the execution of everyone that disagrees with them is quite astounding. If you are going to make the incredible claim that murdering revolutionaries is justified simply because they don't believe the exact same thing you do without having someone contest it, then wake up and face the real world. We're going to continue criticizing and exposing Stalinism for the sham it is until it has been reduced to a mere historical curiosity on the level of esoteric Nazism.

If you're going to make an incredible claim, then defend it. So far there hasn't been anything remotely close to an adequate, rational defense of the Viet Minh's actions. I'm sorry, but I don't think "Trotskyists are bad, therefore they should DIE!" is an acceptable defense.

[Geiseric]

I agree with everybody's feelings about the purges and the obvious control of the beureaucracy in the fSU. However, it was not capitalist in the way the England or France are, because the property was owned publicly and the economy was planned according to the state, which started as a Workers State, however The Purges were the sole reason any of this was allowed. It wasn't even Trotsky, but the entire old guard which was left from the Revolution, who although disheartened and dissillusioned at times, still were the ones who had the power, and they were put into power and accepted, at the threat of death if you speak against it, by the soviet people, after the purges. So it remained a workers state, and socialist productive methods like collective farming and central planning instead of using a market system made it still a workers state, although with a parasite on it.

[Искра]

If means of production are owned publicaly does that mean that "public" is new social class? :confused: You know that this doesn't make much sense, because Marxs concept of private property is not just about property of individual (capitalist), but of capitalist class as whole. If you don't have one class which owns means of production then you have communism... so I'm interested to hear more about this "public" class...

[Zealot]

What ML's say:

As soon as the Viet Minh overthrew the government, the Trotskyists were trying to start their own "revolution" in Vietnam. Keeping in mind that the Communist party had only recently been united (it had split into about 3 factions), the Viet Minh were still trying to fully overthrow the imperial government and were fighting soldiers from Japan, France, China and reactionary Nationalist Vietnamese forces basically all at once. And in this fragile situation the Trotskyists could think of nothing better to do than sabotage the efforts of Comrade Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people.

What you think we said:

"Trotskyists are bad, therefore they should DIE!"

What we actually said:

As soon as the Viet Minh overthrew the government, the Trotskyists were trying to start their own "revolution" in Vietnam. Keeping in mind that the Communist party had only recently been united (it had split into about 3 factions), the Viet Minh were still trying to fully overthrow the imperial government and were fighting soldiers from Japan, France, China and reactionary Nationalist Vietnamese forces basically all at once. And in this fragile situation the Trotskyists could think of nothing better to do than sabotage the efforts of Comrade Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people.


They support historical instances of the extermination of proletarian revolutionaries

When "Stalinists" get "exterminated" trying to overthrow a Trotskyist revolution hopefully we get to use Revleft as a Rehab facility as well. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. Nevertheless, I doubt the Trots, left coms and Anarchists would let us sabotage their revolutions either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You seem to have a similar take on the situation as I do. I have to say I'm very disappointed with Artesian, his argument is insanely weak.

Weak? I thought it wasn't relevant at all, to be honest.


So the dissolution of the Soviets is justified by the decimation of the working class?

Despite the coups d'etat, Russia at that time, with its proletarian demographic minority, didn't need soviets. What was needed was something like "More immediately, the party fights for a Revolutionary Provisional Government and a constitution that will ensure..." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html) (thus predating Mao's pre-1954 Central People's Government and Castro's pre-1976 Council of Ministers).


So you would characterize the late Lenin as a renegade?

My labelling of him as a "lesser renegade" has more to do with his later suggestion of allowing peasants into the Bolshevik party, since even the renegade Kautsky stuck to the workers-only voting membership policy.


I say bizarre because it's total out of line with most communists' expectations(and this isn't necessarily bad). It's not socialism and doesn't make and pretension of being so(which is a good thing in my opinion).

Except for the label, though. :p

There are lots of nationalizations, plus there's also what Marx and Engels termed Petit-Bourgeois Socialism.


What it is a substitution for the necessary bourgeois-democratic phase of development in which the ideological independence of the proletariat is fostered and creates a favorable condition for socialist revolution when the phase of industrialization and development approaches its end; this is what most of the people who freak out whenever you bring up TWCS fail to understand. Of course it will be denounced as counter-revolutionary because it's not directly seeking to go into socialism, and they'll return to the mere agitation of ideals. We'll see how well that does in building socialism..

Well, others have called TWCS "petty-bourgeois horse on manback junk populist neo-Stalinism" for the economically very left-wing but politically patrimonial combination. Economically, in addition to what I wrote as commentary, also consider Hungary's populist "Goulash Communism" with regards to open markets for cookie-cutter consumer goods (cue more "Stalinism!" screams (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-private-capitalism-t146042/index.html?p=1959495) just because I mentioned Eastern Europe). Indeed, as you implied, though, with the possible exception of Third Periodism, most Stalinist tendencies historically have gone against the politico-ideological independence.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

What ML's say:


What you think we said:


What we actually said:




When "Stalinists" get "exterminated" trying to overthrow a Trotskyist revolution hopefully we get to use Revleft as a Rehab facility as well. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. Nevertheless, I doubt the Trots, left coms and Anarchists would let us sabotage their revolutions either.

I could not have said it better myself, comrade. Non-Marxist-Leninists would not think twice about killing us ML's when they have their own revolution (which I doubt they ever will considering they do not have a realistic post-revolutionary plan).

[Caj]

I could not have said it better myself, comrade. Non-Marxist-Leninists would not think twice about killing us ML's when they have their own revolution

Nah, I don't think we'd kill you. I mean, first off, by the time of the next proletarian revolution, Marxism-Leninism will be recognized by nearly everyone for the failure that it is.


(which I doubt they ever will considering they do not have a realistic post-revolutionary plan).

Since when is instituting state capitalism a "realistic post-revolutionary plan"?

[Grenzer]

Despite the coups d'etat, Russia at that time, with its proletarian demographic minority, didn't need soviets. What was needed was something like "More immediately, the party fights for a Revolutionary Provisional Government and a constitution that will ensure..." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html) (thus predating Mao's pre-1954 Central People's Government and Castro's pre-1976 Council of Ministers).

That's true, but does this allow for a mechanism to change to genuine proletarian control as the the proletariat grows into a majority through industrialization? It seems that without such a mechanism, the inevitable result is Stalinism.

That thread is also a bit humorous. I vaguely remember reading that discussion when it was new. It seems like most in there were ignoring the fact that the proletariat were a small minority, which precluded genuine workers' democracy in my opinion. In the context of a place like Russia, it seems that going solely in the interests of the proletariat would backfire as the peasants would push the proletarian party into opposition through sheer numbers. Isn't this kind of what happened with the NEP?




My labelling of him as a "lesser renegade" has more to do with his later suggestion of allowing peasants into the Bolshevik party, since even the renegade Kautsky stuck to the workers-only voting membership policy.

That's fair enough. Isn't one of the differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism is that the latter regards the peasantry's interests as being inherently hostile to the interests of the proletariat? I would agree with that statement, and that the influence of peasants should be minimized to the greatest degree possible.




Except for the label, though. :p

There are lots of nationalizations, plus there's also what Marx and Engels termed Petit-Bourgeois Socialism.

I'm not familiar with that I'm afraid.



Well, others have called TWCS "petty-bourgeois horse on manback junk populist neo-Stalinism" for the economically very left-wing but politically patrimonial combination. Economically, in addition to what I wrote as commentary, also consider Hungary's populist "Goulash Communism" with regards to open markets for cookie-cutter consumer goods (cue more "Stalinism!" screams (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-private-capitalism-t146042/index.html?p=1959495) just because I mentioned Eastern Europe). Indeed, as you implied, though, with the possible exception of Third Periodism, most Stalinist tendencies historically have gone against the politico-ideological independence.

It seems incorrect to equate it with Bonapartism. I'm not really that well informed on the subject, but I seem to recall Marx or Engels talking about Napoleon III mobilizing the "lumpenproletariat"(another term that I don't think I know enough about to use correctly). I don't really think it's comparable to Stalinism either as it doesn't make the pretense of being genuine socialism. It seems like it's the patrimonial aspect that causes people to freak out; but I don't see what the huge deal is as it's not a substitute for socialism, only the bourgeois-democratic stage of development.

[Grenzer]

Nah, I don't think we'd kill you. I mean, first off, by the time of the next proletarian revolution, Marxism-Leninism will be recognized by nearly everyone for the failure that it is.

I don't think anyone is advocating the execution of Stalinists, even though some of them are objectively counter-revolutionary. I think we'd be satisfied with it being completely discredited in the revolutionary community, which arguably it is already; but so long as there are people who are Stalinists, obviously it's not been discredited enough. Stalinism has been such an epic fail that it's probably the most commonly cited fact to use against why socialism should be avoided. It is already more or less completely discredited in the world as a whole. I don't think there is a crowd on Earth uninformed enough to buy into the argument that Stalin and Soviet Union were good models that should be emulated.



Since when is instituting state capitalism a "realistic post-revolutionary plan"?

Hey, don't be too hard on state capitalism. It's plenty realistic, just not if you're trying to achieve socialism.

[Geiseric]

If means of production are owned publicaly does that mean that "public" is new social class? :confused: You know that this doesn't make much sense, because Marxs concept of private property is not just about property of individual (capitalist), but of capitalist class as whole. If you don't have one class which owns means of production then you have communism... so I'm interested to hear more about this "public" class...

I mean that things in the U.S.S.R. weren't run with of the same mechanism as capitalist countries, however the motivation wasn't profit. It is just a different form of oppression, however there wasn't a privately owned bank in the U.S.S.R. that invested its profits with the hope of receiving more profits. What happened was a caste of "intellectual labor" taking political control away from the actual workers, and leeching off of it. It is different than capitalism where the profits go to a banker.

[Искра]

In capitalism profits doesn't go to banker. That's populist leftist rethorics. In capitalism sure plus value goes to owner of means of production. Owner can own a bank, but also he/she can own a factory, field etc.

[Bostana]

Totally missing the point here. Marxists don't give a shit about "people"(whatever the hell THAT means), the only thing a Marxist should be concerned about are the workers

So wait I guess the workers being enslaved by American Capitalistic suffering starvation and disease begging for a change because the very essence of the people are being driven into shame and slavery.
But I guess those workers just don't count for you because they were under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh?


"People" is a problematic term because it can(and in practice, does) include anyone, including not just workers; but peasants, petty-bourgeois, and bourgeois as well. Caring about "people" is liberal idealism; ironic, but perhaps a bit appropriate for a Stalinist.

What do you think I mean by enslaved people? Rich people? It's obvious who I was referring to?
I thought I made it pretty obvious when I said American Bourgeois were enslaving Vietnamese workers.

[Geiseric]

Banks = Capitalists, I was just trying to be less vague. Don't banks own everything though? Like isn't that our entire problem?

Well companies are owned by banks, who control the finances. That's all that matters, because all of the profits go to the banks and it's re-invested. That didn't happen in the fSU, because the state controlled the production. Capitalists =/= the state, the state works for the capitalist, however the economy wasn't controlled by private banks who operated with the state, it was controlled by the state itself. The party who ruled the state were members of not a different class, because they didn't "own" anything, they did however dictate the decisions.

[Ostrinski]

So wait I guess the workers being enslaved by American Capitalistic suffering starvation and disease begging for a change because the very essence of the people are being driven into shame and slavery.
But I guess those workers just don't count for you because they were under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh?Don't get all emotional for fucks sake.

[Bostana]

Don't get all emotional for fucks sake.

All emotional?

Obviously you don't understand the suffering and torture of the Vietnamese Worker

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I mean that things in the U.S.S.R. weren't run with of the same mechanism as capitalist countries, however the motivation wasn't profit. It is just a different form of oppression, however there wasn't a privately owned bank in the U.S.S.R. that invested its profits with the hope of receiving more profits. What happened was a caste of "intellectual labor" taking political control away from the actual workers, and leeching off of it. It is different than capitalism where the profits go to a banker.

Exactly. Plus the bureaucrats were only in a privileged position so long as they have the job -- as soon as they are demoted or fired, they own bupkis. What many of the comrades can't seem to wrap their brains around is that you can have a dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat wielding political power. Just as you can have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, without the bourgeoisie in political power (e.g., Nazi Germany). Determining the class nature of the state is primarily about the relationships to the means of production. Ruling classes OWN it. In the USSR a political revolution, getting rid of the bureaucracy and restoring worker's democracy would have started things moving forward nicely, yes. But you would not have had to fundamentally alter the social relationships to the means of production. That's the difference.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

What ML's say:



When "Stalinists" get "exterminated" trying to overthrow a Trotskyist revolution hopefully we get to use Revleft as a Rehab facility as well. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. Nevertheless, I doubt the Trots, left coms and Anarchists would let us sabotage their revolutions either.



What you said:
Quote:
As soon as the Viet Minh overthrew the government, the Trotskyists were trying to start their own "revolution" in Vietnam. Keeping in mind that the Communist party had only recently been united (it had split into about 3 factions), the Viet Minh were still trying to fully overthrow the imperial government and were fighting soldiers from Japan, France, China and reactionary Nationalist Vietnamese forces basically all at once. And in this fragile situation the Trotskyists could think of nothing better to do than sabotage the efforts of Comrade Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people.

What you meant:
When Trotskyists oppose our reformist, Menshevist, nationalist, politics it is okay for us to murder them.



Don't worry comrade. When Trotskyists lead the next wave of proletarian revolutions, they won't kill you. They will be happy that your ideology has not held sway and prevented the revolutions. And frankly, Stalinism was a matter of time and place. If the German revolution had happened in 1919, 21 or 23, Stalinism would not have come into existence. It was a product of a backward, peasant country having the first, (okay second if you count the Paris Commune) proletarian revolution and remaining isolated for too long. In the next period of proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist countries, it will have no place.

[Grenzer]

Exactly. Plus the bureaucrats were only in a privileged position so long as they have the job -- as soon as they are demoted or fired, they own bupkis. What many of the comrades can't seem to wrap their brains around is that you can have a dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat wielding political power. Just as you can have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, without the bourgeoisie in political power (e.g., Nazi Germany). Determining the class nature of the state is primarily about the relationships to the means of production. Ruling classes OWN it. In the USSR a political revolution, getting rid of the bureaucracy and restoring worker's democracy would have started things moving forward nicely, yes. But you would not have had to fundamentally alter the social relationships to the means of production. That's the difference.

Honestly, this statement makes no fucking sense at all. You can have a proletarian dictatorship(which is defined by the proletariat having a monopoly on political power) without the proletariat having political power? That's news to me. This is just a really poor example of opportunism to justify your political position. The workers had no power in the Soviet Union in any sense. Even if one follows the line of thinking that it was a bureaucratic dictatorship as opposed to a bourgeois state, it still by definition could not be a proletarian dictatorship.

Hitler's germany wasn't a bourgeois dictatorship? That's also news to me. I guess all these time we've been working under the assumption that there's never been a socialist revolution; who knew that secretly this entire time that Hitler was actually a socialist? I guess Fox News was right. The corporations that backed Hitler weren't owned by the bourgeoisie, it was actually all a conspiracy; they were controlled secretly by the proletariat!

I mean seriously? Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time trolling the ICC's comment section you wouldn't come to absurd conclusions like this.

[A Marxist Historian]

Apartheid still exists in South Africa and is worse than ever. It seems the national liberation movement there wasn't too successful.

No, it wasn't. The ANC sold out the struggle and established a neo-apartheid system, and in economic terms black people in South Africa are worse off than under apartheid. Just like in the USA, where black people are worse off economically now, with Obama as president, than they were back in the 1950s when segregation and Jim Crow was still the law of the land in the South.

So I suppose you think anybody who supported the Civil Rights movement was a supporter of capitalism too?

This is the whole point, support the struggle even if the leaders are sellouts. Just exactly like when unions go on strike, with sellout leaders. Anybody who crosses the picket line is a scab. You want to scab on national liberation struggles. Exactly the same thing.



What do you mean "deal with them"? If you want to be a revolutionary, you have to oppose capitalism in all of its manifestations. You can't "pick and choose" which bourgeoisie to support because one is "imperialist" and another is "anti-imperialist". Imperialism is a system inherent to modern capitalism. To combat imperialism, the bourgeois, regardless of which nation, must be combated.

Oh, no! Looks like I'm a scab and a traitor! :laugh:

If you support any national liberation struggles, you are not just a worthless opportunist, but a supporter of capitalism.

Enough said.

When you support a nation's struggle for independence, or the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, or the civil rights movement in the South in the USA, or a union going on strike, that is not supporting capitalism, that is supporting the struggle of the masses.

The bourgeoisie in the Third World will invariably sell out the struggle for national liberation, just as the trade union bureaucrats will invariably sell out union struggles.

That doesn't justify scabbing, which is basically what you advocate.

-M.H.-

[Bostana]

What you meant:
When Trotskyists oppose our reformist, Menshevist, nationalist, politics it is okay for us to murder them.
Reformist?
Nationalist?
:laugh::laugh::laugh:



Don't worry comrade. When Trotskyists lead the next wave of proletarian revolutions, they won't kill you..
Really?

Do tell how many revolutions have Trots had? How many were successful? How many still exist today?

[A Marxist Historian]

It is a shame that with the gifts of hindsight and retrospect vision, some still choose to support historically proven fallacious ideas that have shown to completely contradict the goals that they're related to. The 20th century wave of communist revolution was centered around national liberation movements. Do you see socialism or even dictatorship of the proletariat anywhere in the world today? No, you don't. This means that national liberation has failed the international proletariat. It would seem to me that those that support a failed method of successful proletarian revolution are the real traitors here.

Also, whoever is mocking us by saying things like "I'm not gonna wait around blah blah blah" is using a strawman of the most disgusting sort. No one believes in waiting around, obviously this shit isn't going to start everywhere simultaneously. All we say is that national consciousness is a false consciousness and an ideological weapon of the class foe and that a revolution isolated is a revolution failed. History is on our side.

Actually that's all perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant.

There is a very real thing in the world called national oppression. National liberation doesn't mean what bourgeois nationalists or maybe Maoists or whatnot want to impute to it, it means the liberation of those that are nationally oppressed from their oppression.

So if you oppose national liberation, you support national oppression. End of story.

The only real way to obtain national liberation of the oppressed nations is through worldwide socialist revolution and rule of the world working class. Other pathways toward national liberation have indeed been shown to be false by the history of the twentieth century.

This is also true about the oppression of women, as womens liberation can only be obtained through socialist revolution. And all other forms of oppression too. That is the true lesson of the twentieth century, it all gets back to imperialist capitalism one way or another.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

If the USSR was capitalist why was there a revolution to restore capitalism? Why did the soviet union collapse?

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's true, but does this allow for a mechanism to change to genuine proletarian control as the the proletariat grows into a majority through industrialization? It seems that without such a mechanism, the inevitable result is Stalinism.

As I said elsewhere, said mechanism is the party-movement itself, not ad hoc councils.

[First World aside: Despite what comrade Miles stated in the one-party thread re. the RPG, I do think that the dual tandem of the party-movement and the RPG is a one-two punch against bourgeois and petit-bourgeois bureaucratism, as opposed to plain bureaucracy-as-process. The party-movement provides the new policymaking and administrative structures, while the RPG has the, ahem, rei gerendae causa mandate to deal ministerially with the winding-down old ones.]


That thread is also a bit humorous. I vaguely remember reading that discussion when it was new. It seems like most in there were ignoring the fact that the proletariat were a small minority, which precluded genuine workers' democracy in my opinion. In the context of a place like Russia, it seems that going solely in the interests of the proletariat would backfire as the peasants would push the proletarian party into opposition through sheer numbers. Isn't this kind of what happened with the NEP?

Pretty much, comrade. "Class struggle in the countryside" turned out to a big dud. One of the more sensible things the Stalin regime did in 1936 was to restore equal suffrage (that one worker vote should on paper and in practice be no more or less than one peasant vote).


That's fair enough. Isn't one of the differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism is that the latter regards the peasantry's interests as being inherently hostile to the interests of the proletariat? I would agree with that statement, and that the influence of peasants should be minimized to the greatest degree possible.

A crude, economistic example would be child labour: the peasant father needs his kids' labour, but a social-democratic regime would outlaw child labour. Another example would be hired hands in the countryside: some peasant may need hired hands at his disposal, but a social-democratic regime would impose workday limits.

The best way to minimize peasant influence is to appease them on the cultural front and intertwine this with politics to the extent that worker-class independence isn't compromised, as I've noted before.


It seems incorrect to equate it with Bonapartism. I'm not really that well informed on the subject, but I seem to recall Marx or Engels talking about Napoleon III mobilizing the "lumpenproletariat"(another term that I don't think I know enough about to use correctly). I don't really think it's comparable to Stalinism either as it doesn't make the pretense of being genuine socialism. It seems like it's the patrimonial aspect that causes people to freak out; but I don't see what the huge deal is as it's not a substitute for socialism, only the bourgeois-democratic stage of development.

Gramsci was the first Marxist to slowly grasp the difference between Julius Caesar and Napoleon III. However, he was still stuck in the middle by lumping that great progressive figure with the latter's predecessor. Napoleon Bonaparte wasn't really that progressive (http://www.revleft.com/vb/napoleon-t166247/index.html?p=2336887).

As for Stalinism, you should distinguish between Stalinism re. the USSR and Stalinism re. most of the satellite states, which officially recognized state capitalism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-capitalism-ddr-t156747/index.html?t=156747

TWCS is economically much closer to the latter.

[I'm not surprised this board's Stalinists had not a word to say about the DDR, Hungary, Poland, and Romania economically before the "revisionist takeover" or whatever.]

[Ostrinski]

There is a very real thing in the world called national oppression. National liberation doesn't mean what bourgeois nationalists or maybe Maoists or whatnot want to impute to it, it means the liberation of those that are nationally oppressed from their oppression.

So if you oppose national liberation, you support national oppression. End of story.There is no national oppression.

If you support national liberation, you support capitalism. End of story.

[Ostrinski]

The workers will be storming the winter palace while the MLs and Trots are arguing about who has the bigger dick

[Geiseric]

ML's didn't exist at the time of the storming of the winter palace, so I don't see your point. However, I think trotsky helped organize the storming of the winter palace, or at least he organised how to defend the U.S.S.R. from an invasion. Organisation, something Left Coms and Anarchists are against...

[Ostrinski]

Pedantry. I used it figuratively

[Geiseric]

Fair enough. However, the arguements are about much more than personality.

[Bostana]

If the USSR was capitalist why was there a revolution to restore capitalism? Why did the soviet union collapse?

The Soviet Union fell because Khrushchev was instituting rightist economic policies inspired by Bukharin's later years, and replacing the idea of the multinational Soviet Motherland with Russian Nationalism and treating allied nations like colonies. And of course his demonetization of Stalin also included with it a demonetization of Marxism-Leninsim.

Khrushchev went a lot further than merely being critical of his mistakes. He routinely attacked Stalin as a person and some of the most disgusting suggestions about Stalin came from Khrushchev.
And within this narrative, he also attacked many of Stalin's positive Socialist policies, and justified his reversal away from Marxism-Leninism as getting away from the Stalin "Nightmare."

The day they started separating from the Marxism-Leninism s the day it started going down.

His policies reintroduced an emphasis on markets and steered the USSR towards state capitalism. He was a disciple of what is called the Right Opposition Group. These were people who believed in market Capitalism.
Khrushchev also allowed the illegal private economy o flourish. This became the main problem during the Brezhnev years, which saw basically total stagnation to flourish, and a huge growth in corruption. Meanwhile the party itself did nothing to combat this. Brezhnev himself was an open Russian Nationalist and led the USSR into and imperialistic was in Afghanistan and other Imperialistic meddling in trying to assert influence in non-socialist countries.
But obviously there is more to it than "Stalin did this, and Khrushchev did that" History is a story of materialist conditions, not of Great Men.
Things became so bad in the Brezhnev years because of the '77 recession, the illegal private sector controlled a huge part of the economy, especially in places like Kazakhstan. These mobsters and other Capitalists bribed Party officials to look the other way, and corruption reached to the very top.

It was an inability to accurtley respond to both internal and external problems and threats.

Post-1956 Party policies only aggravated these threats

[Art Vandelay]

The Soviet Union fell because Khrushchev was instituting rightist economic policies inspired by Bukharin's later years, and replacing the idea of the multinational Soviet Motherland with Russian Nationalism and treating allied nations like colonies. And of course his demonetization of Stalin also included with it a demonetization of Marxism-Leninsim.

Khrushchev went a lot further than merely being critical of his mistakes. He routinely attacked Stalin as a person and some of the most disgusting suggestions about Stalin came from Khrushchev.
And within this narrative, he also attacked many of Stalin's positive Socialist policies, and justified his reversal away from Marxism-Leninism as getting away from the Stalin "Nightmare."

The day they started separating from the Marxism-Leninism s the day it started going down.

His policies reintroduced an emphasis on markets and steered the USSR towards state capitalism. He was a disciple of what is called the Right Opposition Group. These were people who believed in market Capitalism.
Khrushchev also allowed the illegal private economy o flourish. This became the main problem during the Brezhnev years, which saw basically total stagnation to flourish, and a huge growth in corruption. Meanwhile the party itself did nothing to combat this. Brezhnev himself was an open Russian Nationalist and led the USSR into and imperialistic was in Afghanistan and other Imperialistic meddling in trying to assert influence in non-socialist countries.
But obviously there is more to it than "Stalin did this, and Khrushchev did that" History is a story of materialist conditions, not of Great Men.
Things became so bad in the Brezhnev years because of the '77 recession, the illegal private sector controlled a huge part of the economy, especially in places like Kazakhstan. These mobsters and other Capitalists bribed Party officials to look the other way, and corruption reached to the very top.

It was an inability to accurtley respond to both internal and external problems and threats.

Post-1956 Party policies only aggravated these threats

So what exactly were these material conditions if you do not mind me asking?

Because what I see above is a bunch of idealist bollocks and it appears as if the sentence which is in bold was only used in an attempt to cover up the fact that you have no materialist analysis. I mean read your first sentence, the soviet union fell because Khrushchev did this and that.

[Bostana]

I mean read your first sentence, the soviet union fell because Khrushchev did this and that.

Basically what Khrushchev did was dangerously revisionist which caused great harm to the USSR and her future Leaders only added on to this.
i.e. Brezhnev was an open Russian nationalist. and Gorbachev was and Imperialist.

[Art Vandelay]

Basically what Khrushchev did was dangerously revisionist which caused great harm to the USSR and her future Leaders only added on to this.
i.e. Brezhnev was an open Russian nationalist. and Gorbachev was and Imperialist.

You just responded with more idealism and are kind of proving my point. The situation was not as simple as saying the "revisionists" did this and that. They would have been, after all, simply responding to the material conditions of the time. I would assume that someone who is a marxist-leninist would be able to at least accurately describe the downfall of the USSR, after all if they cannot why would anyone think it would not happen again. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.

I do not claim to be an expert on the situation, but when looking over the debates on revleft and seeing many of the same people in many of the debates it would appear as if there are only one or two posters who even have an understanding of what materialism it ie: rafiq and grezner. So I am not even sure why I continue to bother with all this idealist bollocks. I am new to this site, but I can already tell that most of the people here are not actually revolutionary leftists. Its a shame.

[Tifosi]

Bostana, I don't mean to be rude but is English your first language? Because something is clearly being lost in translation here. What '9mm' said just went right over your head.

[Geiseric]

The rest of the party was fine with what he did, they were the logical follow-ups to winning WW2. Stalin's period had different problems than Krushchev's, so trying to compare what they did and naming one "revisionist" is bollocks. What makes you think Stalin would have done anything else?

[Bostana]

Bostana, I don't mean to be rude but is English your first language? Because something is clearly being lost in translation here. What '9mm' said just went right over your head.

And what might that be?

[Bostana]

The rest of the party was fine with what he did, they were the logical follow-ups to winning WW2. Stalin's period had different problems than Krushchev's, so trying to compare what they did and naming one "revisionist" is bollocks. What makes you think Stalin would have done anything else?

Well you see the fact that Khrushchev was one of the first to be anti-Stalin their views were completely different .

I mean just look at one of Khrushchev's policies
The Khrushchev Thaw.

This is completely anti-Stalin

[l'Enfermé]

The Soviet Union fell because Khrushchev was instituting rightist economic policies inspired by Bukharin's later years, and replacing the idea of the multinational Soviet Motherland with Russian Nationalism and treating allied nations like colonies. And of course his demonetization of Stalin also included with it a demonetization of Marxism-Leninsim.
Stalin's ended the Bolshevik policy of Korenizatsiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya)(called Ukrainisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainisation)in the Ukraine), and replaced it with Great Russian Chauvinism and Russification, so don't give us that bullshit. It was Khrushchev that actually reversed this policy of Russification and Russian Chauvinism. Regarding Bukharin and Khrushchev, there's hardly a connection. Bukharin wasn't even rehabilitated until 1988.

So Stalin's personality=Marxism-Leninism? Right. Khruschev



Khrushchev went a lot further than merely being critical of his mistakes. He routinely attacked Stalin as a person and some of the most disgusting suggestions about Stalin came from Khrushchev.
And within this narrative, he also attacked many of Stalin's positive Socialist policies, and justified his reversal away from Marxism-Leninism as getting away from the Stalin "Nightmare."
That might have something to do with Stalin being one of the most disgusting personages in human history, akin to Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame. Glory to Khrushchev for spitting at the memory of the scoundrel Stalin!



The day they started separating from the Marxism-Leninism s the day it started going down.
Krushchev and his successors helped spread "Marxist-Leninism" to Indochina, Africa, South America, Central America and the Caribbean. They didn't seperate from Marxist-Leninism, they only separated Stalin's cult of personality from Marxism-Leninism.


His policies reintroduced an emphasis on markets and steered the USSR towards state capitalism. He was a disciple of what is called the Right Opposition Group. These were people who believed in market Capitalism.

Disciple of the Right Opposition? He was a disciple of Kaganovich, one of the biggest opponents of both the Right and the Left oppositions.

[l'Enfermé]

Well you see the fact that Khrushchev was one of the first to be anti-Stalin their views were completely different .

I mean just look at one of Khrushchev's policies
The Khrushchev Thaw.

This is completely anti-Stalin
Appeasing the West is anti-Stalin? Anyone remember Greece?

[A Marxist Historian]

There is no national oppression.

If you support national liberation, you support capitalism. End of story.

Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as national oppression is either an ignorant fool or a national chauvinist happy about national oppression, as he (usually he not she) likes having his nation on top and others on the bottom.

Reminds me of the old Zionist defense of Palestinian oppression, which was there are no Palestinians, so how could they be oppressed?

-M.H.-

[Caj]

So I suppose you think anybody who supported the Civil Rights movement was a supporter of capitalism too?

Terrible analogy. One could support the civil rights movement without supporting the bourgeoisie. One cannot support national liberation struggles without supporting the bourgeoisie of said nation, i.e., without supporting capitalism.


This is the whole point, support the struggle even if the leaders are sellouts. Just exactly like when unions go on strike, with sellout leaders. Anybody who crosses the picket line is a scab. You want to scab on national liberation struggles. Exactly the same thing.

I don't support the bourgeoisie. If that makes me a scab, then so be it.

In reality, however, the only scabs are you and the other so-called "socialists" that betray the international proletariat by supporting the bourgeoisie of "anti-imperialist" nations.


When you support a nation's struggle for independence, or the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, or the civil rights movement in the South in the USA, or a union going on strike, that is not supporting capitalism, that is supporting the struggle of the masses.

Supporting the bourgeoisie is supporting capitalism. It's not a difficult concept.


The bourgeoisie in the Third World will invariably sell out the struggle for national liberation, just as the trade union bureaucrats will invariably sell out union struggles.

Yeah, so let's support the proletariat of such nations instead of supporting the bourgeoisie, which, you admit, "will invariably sell out the struggle".


That doesn't justify scabbing, which is basically what you advocate.

Again, you're the only one advocating scabbing by supporting capitalism and thus betraying the proletariat.

[Ostrinski]

Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as national oppression is either an ignorant fool or a national chauvinist happy about national oppression, as he (usually he not she) likes having his nation on top and others on the bottom.There is no oppression on a national basis. Sure some places are shittier places to live, but to say that there exists oppression on a national basis is to say that the bourgeoisie of other nations are oppressed or exploited. Is that your position?

Capital has no borders, and thus imperialism is not an issue of nationhood but an issue of class.

[Geiseric]

There is no oppression on a national basis. Sure some places are shittier places to live, but to say that there exists oppression on a national basis is to say that the bourgeoisie of other nations are oppressed or exploited. Is that your position?

Capital has no borders, and thus imperialism is not an issue of nationhood but an issue of class.

Classes at this moment are divided by nation though, and we have to deal with questions regarding racial struggles if we are to further the class struggle altogather. If the Black or Chincano communities are at a lower point in consciousness, we as socialists should support raising consciousness in their communities. Sometimes national consciousness and class consciousness intertwine, I'm thinking namely of Ireland and the situation with African Americans in the U.S. Obviously the Nation of Islam is the worst example of "black nationalism," however even it, a cult around elijah muhammad, provided the structure needed for a whole generation of Black revolutionaries. The Black Panther party should have been supported by Socialists in the 1960s, because it was a class and a racial struggle.

[Ostrinski]

Classes at this moment are divided by nation thoughClasses at this moment are divided by relationship to means of production just like they have been since the dawn of producing things in a structural manner.


and we have to deal with questions regarding racial struggles if we are to further the class struggle altogather. If the Black or Chincano communities are at a lower point in consciousness, we as socialists should support raising consciousness in their communities.And this doesn't inherently have anything to do with national liberation as long as it isn't characterized by national consciousness. Many black and chicano people don't even recognize themselves as a nation.


Sometimes national consciousness and class consciousness intertwineIf this were the 1700's, maybe.


I'm thinking namely of Ireland and the situation with African Americans in the U.S. Obviously the Nation of Islam is the worst example of "black nationalism," however even it, a cult around elijah muhammad, provided the structure needed for a whole generation of Black revolutionaries. The Black Panther party should have been supported by Socialists in the 1960s, because it was a class and a racial struggle.I completely disagree with you on the NoI, they were bourgeois in nature and should never be associated with black liberation by leftists.

The Black Panther Party, its leadership at least, disassociated itself with black nationalism.

[Geiseric]

I need a source for that, the Black Power movement was very much black nationalist, albeit a new evolution in the Black nation's class consciousness, in which they recognized that white america is not going to help them and they need to take things into their own hands. That attitude was the prevailing belief in the black power movement, correct me if i'm wrong. Unless you think the Black Power movement was bourgeois, it means that national and class struggles intertwine.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Honestly, this statement makes no fucking sense at all. You can have a proletarian dictatorship(which is defined by the proletariat having a monopoly on political power) without the proletariat having political power? That's news to me. This is just a really poor example of opportunism to justify your political position. The workers had no power in the Soviet Union in any sense. Even if one follows the line of thinking that it was a bureaucratic dictatorship as opposed to a bourgeois state, it still by definition could not be a proletarian dictatorship.

Hitler's germany wasn't a bourgeois dictatorship? That's also news to me. I guess all these time we've been working under the assumption that there's never been a socialist revolution; who knew that secretly this entire time that Hitler was actually a socialist? I guess Fox News was right. The corporations that backed Hitler weren't owned by the bourgeoisie, it was actually all a conspiracy; they were controlled secretly by the proletariat!

I mean seriously? Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time trolling the ICC's comment section you wouldn't come to absurd conclusions like this.

I mean seriously? Maybe if you read my fucking post and understood it, or spent more time reading Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, you wouldn't write such inane responses.

I said that Germany under Hitler was a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Is that clear. Okay. My main point is that you can have bourgeois property forms and have the bourgeoisie disenfranchised. So it is with proletarian property forms. In the USSR the bourgeoisie were vanquished and capitalism was too. The bureaucrats that slowly strangled the revolution were not capitalists. They are like labor bureaucrats, they are parasites on the working class, not a new class. Now, my underlying point was that the thing that determines the class nature of the state is primarily what are the property forms, who owns the means of production.

I know that many wings of the German bourgeoisie did extremely well during Hitler's reign, but they had little or no say in most of Germany's policies. Still, it was CAPITALIST.

When Napolean crowned himself Emperor, did that mean a return to the ancienne regime in France? No.

So, although the proletariat did not have direct power, yes, what happened after the Russian Revolution was indeed the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Grenzer, you requested civility and then go off saying that I'm calling the Nazis socialist. As for being an opportunist, you don't even use the term correctly -- Defending the USSR during my political lifetime, was a really great way to make friends in the USA -- yup, crass opportunism defending Lenin and Trotsky and the USSR and the deformed workers states. That will most certainly lead to opportunities to work in the Democratic Party. What a crock. . .

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://a31.idata.over-blog.com/2/84/53/29/lecler10.jpg

Ho Chi Minh and French General Leclerc de Hauteclocque toast agreement to reintroduce French troops in north Vietnam in 1946.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"...the Party cannot put forth too high a demand (national independence, parliament, etc.)... It should only claim for democratic rights...." - Ho Chi Minh, The Party's Line in the Period of the Democratic Front. 1939.

"We are convinced that the Allies, which at the Teheran and San Francisco Conferences upheld the principle of equality among the nations, cannot fail to recognize the right of the Vietnamese people to independence." - Ho Chi Minh. 1945.

"...in order to complete the Party's task in this immense movement of the Vietnamese people's emancipation, a national union conceived without distinction of class and parties is an indispensable factor.... the Communists, in so far as they are advance guard militants of the Vietnamese people, are always ready to make the greatest sacrifices for national liberation, are always disposed to put the interest of the country above that of classes...." - Communique of Central Committee Indochina Communist Party, November 11, 1945. Appears in: Trager, Frank N. Marxism in Southest Asia: A study of four countries. pp 158. Original source: La Republique, October 25, 1945.

"The present South Vietnamese regime is a camouflaged colonial regime dominated by the Yankees.... Therefore, this regime must be overthrown and a government of national and democratic union put in its place composed of representatives of all social classes, of all nationalities, of the various political parties, of all religions .... Support the national bourgeoisie in the reconstruction and development of crafts and industry." - Program of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (1960). Fall, Bernard and Raskin, Marcus. The Viet-Nam Reader. pp. 216-218.

"Our program reflects the broad nature of the Front and the forces represented in it. We are in favor of land to the peasants for instance, but not systematic confiscation: we are for reduction of rents but for the maintenance of present property rights except in the case of traitors. Landlords who have not supported the U.S. puppets have nothing to fear." - Nguyen Huu Tho, Chairman, National Liberation Front. Burchett, Wilfred. Vietnam: Inside Story of the Guerilla War. pp. 187.

"Those who incite the people to arm themselves will be considered saboteurs and provocateurs, enemies of national independence. Our democratic liberties will be granted and guaranteed by the democratic allies [i.e. U.S., British, etc., imperialism]." - Tran Van Giau, Executive Committee Member of the ICP, chairman of the Viet Minh Committee of the South,1945.

After the Japanese were defeated, Giau and co. welcomed the "democratic allies" with banners, rallies, flags and more. They responded by proclaiming martial law, banning demonstrations and outlawing all Vietnamese newspapers and leaflets, and the possession of arms.

[Geiseric]

Dude ho chi mihn used shit from the Decleration of the Independence and the Constitution in his north vietnmese constitution, he was inspired by the bourgeois genociders who ran the American revolution. Ho Chi Mihn was a patriotic socialist, a bourgeois ideology.

[Zealot]

http://a31.idata.over-blog.com/2/84/53/29/lecler10.jpg

Ho Chi Minh and French General Leclerc de Hauteclocque toast agreement to reintroduce French troops in north Vietnam in 1945.

It was actually 1946, not that I'd expect you to know that. Viet Minh forces were weak. Vietnam had a history of being occupied by the Chinese and he used this "agreement" to have French troops push out Chinese nationalist troops and have Vietnam internationally recognized as a "free state". Ho Chi Minh once put it this way to French historian, Paul Mus, "It is better to sniff French shit for a while than to eat China's for the rest of our lives."

After the signing Ho said to Sainteny "...I am sorry, because fundamentally you have won the contest. You were well aware that I wanted more than this. But I realize well that we cannot have everything at once."

It was more of a political move out of necessity, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, than a "come on in French troops because we love being colonised so much."

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

http://a31.idata.over-blog.com/2/84/53/29/lecler10.jpg

Ho Chi Minh and French General Leclerc de Hauteclocque toast agreement to reintroduce French troops in north Vietnam in 1945.

Is that even a real picture? Ho Chi Minh looks so creepy.


Dude ho chi mihn used shit from the Decleration of the Independence and the Constitution in his north vietnmese constitution, he was inspired by the bourgeois genociders who ran the American revolution. Ho Chi Mihn was a patriotic socialist, a bourgeois ideology.

Yeah, I would use quotes from anti-colonial heroes if I was colonized too.

And it was also meant to demonstrate the irony of the situation. Ho Chi Minh knew that eventually the United States would become an issue in the Vietnamese struggle for socialist liberation.

[Zealot]

Is that even a real picture? Ho Chi Minh looks so creepy.
lol, I think it's a retouch from a black & white photograph.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

lol, I think it's a retouch from a black & white photograph.

That's racist because it is like they made him the most humanly possible yellow.

[the last donut of the night]

If the petit-bourgeois Viet Cong hadn't massacred Trotskyists and reconciled with landlords (against even peasant populism), they might have had the potential to bring about Third World Caesarean Socialism.

how the fuck do you use caesar as a theoretical model for social changes in 20th century capitalism? does this seem consistent to you?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It was actually 1946March 1, 1946 to be exact. I'm aware of this. I just mistyped.

Leclerc entered what was then Saigon to retake stewardship of the city in November of 45.

Now perhaps instead of squabbling about something as petty as this you'd care to address the issue of "communists" saying things like:

"...the Communists, in so far as they are advance guard militants of the Vietnamese people, are always ready to make the greatest sacrifices for national liberation, are always disposed to put the interest of the country above that of classes..."

"...this regime must be overthrown and a government of national and democratic union put in its place composed of representatives of all social classes, of all nationalities, of the various political parties, of all religions .... Support the national bourgeoisie in the reconstruction and development of crafts and industry."

"We are in favor of land to the peasants for instance, but not systematic confiscation: we are for reduction of rents but for the maintenance of present property rights except in the case of traitors. Landlords who have not supported the U.S. puppets have nothing to fear."

"Those who incite the people to arm themselves will be considered saboteurs and provocateurs, enemies of national independence. Our democratic liberties will be granted and guaranteed by the democratic allies."


It was more of a political move out of necessity, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, than a "come on in French troops because we love being colonised so much." It was a direct result of Moscow's narrow nationalism and partnership with "democratic" imperialism, i.e. the same kind of thing that sunk any chance of revolution in Spain or Greece and lead the Chinese party into a disastrous coalition with the Kuomintang.

Moscow's foot soldiers in the French CP went as far as "theorizing" why the 'Leninist principle of self-determination' didn't apply in Indochina while simultaneously voting for military/war funding in parliament. Meanwhile, Ho Chi Minh was busy dissolving his party and pleading to Washington.

According to Harold Isaacs's No Peace for Asia, in 1945, the French Communists warned the Vietnamese Communists "that any ‘premature adventures’ in Annamite independence might ‘not be in line with Soviet perspectives.'"

As Uncle Ho said, "We are convinced that the Allies, which at the Teheran and San Francisco Conferences upheld the principle of equality among the nations, cannot fail to recognize the right of the Vietnamese people to independence."

That's why at the end of WW2 British troops arrived in Saigon to cheering crowds organized by the Viet Minh.

Everything went along with that, despite all of the actions of these esteemed allies that followed.

In fact the main people Ho Chi Minh and his followers took up arms against were Trotskyists, rebellious workers and peasants. It wasn't until the "democratic allies" absolutely forced them into battle that these freedom fighters began to rise up against them.

Worth a read - In the Crossfire: Memoirs of a Vietnamese Revolutionary (http://www.amazon.com/In-Crossfire-Adventures-Vietnamese-Revolutionary/dp/1849350132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332908285&sr=8-1)

[Zealot]

^It's funny how I can't find any other source for those quotations except Trotskyist articles and Revleft. Even if it was true there's no reason for me to believe that you've provided the right context since you've already been caught lying. I'm assuming you read a Trotskyist article and now consider yourself an expert on the thinking of Ho Chi Minh.

[black magick hustla]

go teach em uncle hoxha

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No big surprises from Uncle Ho, here. But comrades, Stalinism is a contradictory phenomenon. As much as Ho wanted to just have a nice national liberation and rule with some coalition of bourgeois nationalists, he could not. The imperialists would not play nicely and the native bourgeoisie was far to weak to establish itself without massive imperialist involvement. It is one of the many proofs of the validity of the Permanent Revolution, that even elementary tasks of the bourgeois revolution require the overthrow of capitalism to occur (e.g., land reform, social security). So, Ho was pushed into throwing out the capitalists and waging a war against the imperialists. Of course, he was brutal with Trotskyists in Vietnam. But the defeat of the US at the hands of the Vietnamese was an extremely hard won victory for the world proletariat -- it really slowed down US military ambitions for a couple of decades, a gift to the world. So I think it is best to treat Ho as a contradictory figure -- not to excuse his crimes against the world revolution, but not to forget his contributions.

[Искра]

Isn't it kind of same with Trotskyites? You are all denouncing Stalinism and then one of your "international" supports soviet union and their guru builds up "socialism" on Cuba... then your other "international" (or at least its leading member) suports US in Korean War and works with crazy Jihadists... not to mention some of your groups which support stuff like: "legal privatisation" :)

[Geiseric]

The views expressed in reformist or revisionist marxists don't match my own, which I would think is closest to orthodox trotskyism. however the trot movement has always been suppressed, by commies and non commies alike, so it isn't surprising that some people have cracked under the pressure.

Trotskyists oppose imperialist wars in all shapes and sizes (if they adhere to marxism), and there is more to a movement than personalities which may be a part of the movement but express deeply reactionary or counter revolutionary view points,which may result of revisionism of marxism or a revision on reality. "Supporting" cuba as a socialist state is something that the majority of the U.S. population thinks, so it's only becoming that a few socialists buy the propaganda.

It probably won't matter, but I joined a Trot group that actually has pretty good politics. Nothing about the mega, we-are-the-vanguard personality cult that alot of parties go by.

[Искра]

Supporting national liberation movements =/= opposing imperialist wars.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's funny how I can't find any other source for those quotations except Trotskyist articles and Revleft.

Some of it is online and requires all of a 1 second search on Google to find.

For example, the Program of the National Liberation Front of South Viet Nam is right here: http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview/docnlf.html

Ho Chi Minh's 1945 speech in Ba Dinh Square in which he proclaims a touching faith in democratic imperialism is right here: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week15/Minh1945.html

The Party's Line in the Period of the Democratic Front is here: http://www.cpv.org.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=150921&CO_ID=30035 (Includes a lot of great gems about being "flexible" with the bourgeoisie and bringing it into a coalition, but having "no compromise" with the "Trotskyites" -- instead "annihilating them.")

The rest would require reading books. Half the work has already been done for you. You've got the titles. All you have to do now is crack them open.

I don't expect that to happen though as the remaining Stalinoid weirdos like yourself are almost always restricted to the realms of the interwebs.

But maybe, just maybe, if you find time to take a break from playing Red Alert, you can head to your local library and check a few of them out.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But the defeat of the US at the hands of the Vietnamese was an extremely hard won victory for the world proletariat -- it really slowed down US military ambitions for a couple of decades, a gift to the world. So I think it is best to treat Ho as a contradictory figure -- not to excuse his crimes against the world revolution, but not to forget his contributions.

Leaving aside that is wasn't him but a broad coalition of millions of people that defeated U.S. forces, let's look at what came of it.

Viet Nam is now a national sweatshop for world imperialism -- one of the newest members of the WTO. The number one market for Vietnamese exports? The U.S. Source of more foreign investment than any other country? The U.S.

Workers toil under the boot of the state that ushered in this great "freedom" for half of what Chinese workers make(!), leading to the outbreak of 336 strikes in the first four months of 2011 alone.

And surely Uncle Ho must have smiled down from the sky in 2010 when the nuclear supercarrier USS George Washington was welcomed into Vietnamese waters (in between visits of a warship and the destroyer USS John McCain).

Forgive me if I don't view all of this as much of a "proletarian victory" worthy of the deaths of over 3 million people and the ruination of so many more.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Leaving aside that is wasn't him but a broad coalition of millions of people that defeated U.S. forces, let's look at what came of it.

Viet Nam is now a national sweatshop for world imperialism -- one of the newest members of the WTO. The number one market for Vietnamese exports? The U.S. Source of more foreign investment than any other country? The U.S.

Workers toil under the boot of the state that ushered in this great "freedom" for half of what Chinese workers make(!), leading to the outbreak of 336 strikes in the first four months of 2011 alone.

And surely Uncle Ho must have smiled down from the sky in 2010 when the nuclear supercarrier USS George Washington was welcomed into Vietnamese waters (in between visits of a warship and the destroyer USS John McCain).

Forgive me if I don't view all of this as much of a "proletarian victory" worthy of the deaths of over 3 million people and the ruination of so many more.

Yes, a victory due primarily to the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people against French and US imperialism. But militarily lead and organized by Ho and the VCP.

And I forgive you. Your points are well taken. It was won at an enormous cost, and by now, the "fruits" of the victory are small at best. And Ho was a Stalinist. However, when I ponder about what would have occurred had the US won the Vietnam War, it isn't pretty.

A question: during the war, did you or would you have not supported the North Vietnamese?

[Grenzer]

Yes, a victory due primarily to the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people against French and US imperialism. But militarily lead and organized by Ho and the VCP.


Was it really organized by Ho? From my understanding, he ended playing an active role in politics and stepped down from the post of Prime Minister in 1955 because of poor health. From then to his death he played the largely ceremonial role of President. I'm not sure the exact month, but the Vietnam War started in 1955; which would mean that Ho may never have played any sort of active role during the entirety of the Vietnam War.

[Zealot]

Some of it is online and requires all of a 1 second search on Google to find.

For example, the Program of the National Liberation Front of South Viet Nam is right here: http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview/docnlf.html

Ho Chi Minh's 1945 speech in Ba Dinh Square in which he proclaims a touching faith in democratic imperialism is right here: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week15/Minh1945.html (http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week15/Minh1945.html)

The Party's Line in the Period of the Democratic Front is here: http://www.cpv.org.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=150921&CO_ID=30035 (Includes a lot of great gems about being "flexible" with the bourgeoisie and bringing it into a coalition, but having "no compromise" with the "Trotskyites" -- instead "annihilating them.")

Well that's three, there was quite a list of quotes back up there. But again, you've been completely dishonest. For example, it says to annihilate the Trotskyists politically. Another example, you quoted:

"...the Party cannot put forth too high a demand (national independence, parliament, etc.)... It should only claim for democratic rights...."

When the whole context is:

For the time being the Party should not put forward too exacting demands (national independence, parliament, etc.). To do so is to play into the Japanese fascists’ hands. It should only claim democratic rights, freedom of organization, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, general amnesty for all political detainees, and freedom for the Party to engage in legal activity.

You've been completely discredited twice now and there's no reason why I should believe your imperialist apologism.


The rest would require reading books. Half the work has already been done for you. You've got the titles. All you have to do now is crack them open.

So basically the only sources for every other quote are some obscure Trotskyist books. I'm not going to a library to bust my ass looking for books recommended by some unheard of Revleft professor who has continuously lied.

[Geiseric]

Wait, the Japanese Fascists that lost WW2 in 1945? He's afraid of them, who have by then, lost almost every ex colony. This is opportunism at its worst, Ho Chi Mihn was a fucking bourgeois puppet. Admit it, he worked against workers movements physically, with massive oppression, and he put the interests of the Vietnamese bourgeois in front of the Vietnamese proletariat. So did his state, once he died, but THAT'S REVISIONISM RIGHT?

[Zealot]

Wait, the Japanese Fascists that lost WW2 in 1945? He's afraid of them, who have by then, lost almost every ex colony. This is opportunism at its worst, Ho Chi Mihn was a fucking bourgeois puppet. Admit it, he worked against workers movements physically, with massive oppression, and he put the interests of the Vietnamese bourgeois in front of the Vietnamese proletariat. So did his state, once he died, but THAT'S REVISIONISM RIGHT?

It was written in 1939... The historical knowledge on Revleft gets closer to nil.

[Искра]

Japanese were not fascists.

[black magick hustla]

However, when I ponder about what would have occurred had the US won the Vietnam War, it isn't pretty.


vietnam would prolly look about the same today

[Rafiq]

Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as national oppression is either an ignorant fool or a national chauvinist happy about national oppression, as he (usually he not she) likes having his nation on top and others on the bottom.

Reminds me of the old Zionist defense of Palestinian oppression, which was there are no Palestinians, so how could they be oppressed?

-M.H.-

Don't be a fool. National oppression does not exist. Class oppression does. Know the difference.

[Geiseric]

My bad about the date, shoulda double checked. The points still stand though, would Lenin play sides in the international capitalist political arena, other than testifying for it's destruction? No, he wouldn't of and didn't chose between the Russian Bourgeoisie, nor the the French Bourgeoisie who were most openly and actively acting against the People's republic. Ho Chi Mihn didn't need the Bourgeoisie for a Proletarian Revolution, the Vietnamese working class was definately proletarianised, thus negating the need to act with the Petit and National Bourgeois like was needed in the French Revolution, this is Marxism 101. The Bourgeois are incapible in 3rd world countries of achieving what their brethren in the Imperialising countries, thus a proletarian revolution is necessary.

[Grenzer]

It is worth saying that the Japanese weren't fascists. Their government was simply very reactionary, that's all. I don't think class struggle and the devastation of the Great Depression ever reached the level in Japan where Capital's reaction of fascism was required.


Don't be a fool. National oppression does not exist. Class oppression does. Know the difference.

Wasting your breath on this one, comrade. He'll say anything to justify his reactionary nationalist politics.

From what I've gathered, MH is just a Stalinist who happens to personally dislike Stalin. It's kind of weird, since he says he is a Spartacist sympathizer. I mean their politics are terrible, but not this terrible.

[Искра]

Japanese were not fascist nor was their government really reactionary. Tbh, what kind of capitalist government (and there were no other kinds of governments in modern time but capitalist) isn't reactionary? Government protects capital... that's its only function and it will create welfere state or start an imperialist war if capital needs it.

But in the eyes of some people here everything "bad" (from moral point of view) = fascism while all capitalists = bankers... so it looks like some people have politics of 15 years old kid listening to Rage Against The Machine.

[black magick hustla]

u just say that cuz ur a weaaboo

[Grenzer]

I don't think that most of the other industrialized, non-fascist countries could be said to be reactionary so much as just plain liberal in comparison with Japan.

[Os Cangaceiros]

TBH the Japanese state prior to WW2 was pretty damn reactionary...they were involved in the judicial and extra-judicial/vigilante lynchings of Japanese communists and anarchists. Not to mention what happened in China. Yeah all capitalist state are bad, but the violence metted out by Japan against it's enemies was vicious.

[Искра]

u just say that cuz ur a weaaboo

Yeah... but what can I do.

One photo for you cause you like tought guys.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg848/scaled.php?server=848&filename=sss2w.jpg&res=medium

[Искра]

TBH the Japanese state prior to WW2 was pretty damn reactionary...they were involved in the judicial and extra-judicial/vigilante lynchings of Japanese communists and anarchists. Not to mention what happened in China. Yeah all capitalist state are bad, but the violence metted out by Japan against it's enemies was vicious.
Yes, I agree with you, but my point was that there's no use in making differences between "more" or "less" reactionary capitalist states. They are all the same because they serve the same purpose. As I've mentioned, state can create welfere state or it can start an imperialist war but decisions are made to protect capital. And I have no intention to say that Japan wasn't vicious against its enemies... but I have problem with saying that it is "fascism", because when people say something like that they say that they should support lesser evil, which is probably US and "little boy".

[Geiseric]

Can't we call imperial japan fascist, in the sense that state and capitalist goals were intertwined completely as a reaction to social instability?

It doesn't make a difference to me, fascists and capitalists are just as bad as each other when it comes down to it.

[A Marxist Historian]

Can't we call imperial japan fascist, in the sense that state and capitalist goals were intertwined completely as a reaction to social instability?

It doesn't make a difference to me, fascists and capitalists are just as bad as each other when it comes down to it.

Well, we can't, read what Trotsky wrote about fascism.

Fascims is a (wannabe at least) mass movement of the enraged petty bourgeoisie vs. working class mass movements, seeking to extirpate them. Hirohito was just a thin parliamentary front for a typical military dictator. There wasn't any fascist movement in Imperial Japan worth mentioning really, no need for one.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Was it really organized by Ho? From my understanding, he ended playing an active role in politics and stepped down from the post of Prime Minister in 1955 because of poor health. From then to his death he played the largely ceremonial role of President. I'm not sure the exact month, but the Vietnam War started in 1955; which would mean that Ho may never have played any sort of active role during the entirety of the Vietnam War.

Vietnam War started in 1946 or '47 or thereabouts, vs. the French.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Leaving aside that is wasn't him but a broad coalition of millions of people that defeated U.S. forces, let's look at what came of it.

Viet Nam is now a national sweatshop for world imperialism -- one of the newest members of the WTO. The number one market for Vietnamese exports? The U.S. Source of more foreign investment than any other country? The U.S.

Workers toil under the boot of the state that ushered in this great "freedom" for half of what Chinese workers make(!), leading to the outbreak of 336 strikes in the first four months of 2011 alone.

And surely Uncle Ho must have smiled down from the sky in 2010 when the nuclear supercarrier USS George Washington was welcomed into Vietnamese waters (in between visits of a warship and the destroyer USS John McCain).

Forgive me if I don't view all of this as much of a "proletarian victory" worthy of the deaths of over 3 million people and the ruination of so many more.

So you'd rather Vietnam be some hideous nightmare like Burma or Thailand or Indonesia, with the massacre of damn near a million people by the CIA in 1965 there?

With all the problems and all the open door to foreign imperialists, the people of Vietnam are vastly better off now than they were under the heel of the French, or they would have been under the heel of the USA.

That's the thing about fighting US imperialism, a lot of people are going to get killed as the USA, in case you hadn't noticed, is very well armed and has no compunctions about killing people by the millions.

So you I guess think surrender is the best course?

Or do you think the US government would treat the Vietnamese or any other rebels any nicer if they followed your political views?

-M.H.-

[black magick hustla]

With all the problems and all the open door to foreign imperialists, the people of Vietnam are vastly better off now than they were under the heel of the French, or they would have been under the heel of the USA.

Well, this is 2012 so probably a lot of people are better off than in, 1940, especially in the third world.

The rest is really navelgazing and postulating silly counterfactuals. I doubt it would be better or worse than it would be now though, judging that that whole area is the sweatshop of the world.



That's the thing about fighting US imperialism, a lot of people are going to get killed as the USA, in case you hadn't noticed, is very well armed and has no compunctions about killing people by the millions.
:shrugs: that is in any war really, the question is if it was worth it.

This questions sometimes are a bit academic but I do think they elucidate something about people's politics in general.




So you I guess think surrender is the best course?

You are really talking in geopolitical terms here. As if small grouplets have the pull to order around heads of states or heads of guerrilla armies. For all that matter, I don't think communists have any buisness playing the geopolitical game, that is the game of the ruling classes. The point is not so much what should have "happened", but the fact that there was a capitalist war that liquidated millions of people says something about the weakness of the class at that time.





Or do you think the US government would treat the Vietnamese or any other rebels any nicer if they followed your political views?

-M.H.-

Well the rebels slaughtered trotskyists, so there you go.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm not really interested in measuring what's "better" or "worse." As has correctly been mentioned, a state that serves capital is a state that serves capital. The exact method in which it does this is secondary.

But if one really wanted to play that game, they could point to South Korea. The situation there was certainly comparable with Viet Nam, though there are of course major differences. The country was divided, with Communists in charge of the north and the U.S. and its unpopular puppets in charge of the south. There was a brutal war that eventually ended in a stalemate (as opposed to a loss and withdrawal in south Viet Nam).

Now, in 2012, South Korea is the 12th strongest economy in the world. It has been transformed from a land mainly of small farmers into a developed country. GDP Per Capita went from $103 in 1962 to $20,000 in 2007.

This is not to extol the virtues of U.S. imperialism but to recognize a simple reality.

It's impossible to say what "South Viet Nam" would look like today had a stalemate emerged there. Perhaps it would have been transformed into an outright colonial-style workhouse. Perhaps capital would have been pumped in and the country rapidly developed as a show piece against "Communism."

What is possible to say is that what exists in Viet Nam today certainly wasn't worth millions of lives and utter destruction that came of the war. Whatever "victory" came for the international proletariat is quite difficult to find -- Viet Nam is now a national sweatshop, the wages and conditions of workers in the U.S. and elsewhere have been decreasing steadily since the war's end, all the "national liberation" movements inspired by the struggle in Viet Nam turned to naught, and the U.S. continues to invade and intervene around the world either directly or by proxy (Nicaragua 79, El Salvador 81, Lebanon 82, Grenada 83, Panama 88, Panama 89, Iraq 91, Balkans/Yugoslavia 92, etc., etc., etc.).

Anyone in the U.S., France, Australia, etc., should have opposed the invasion of Viet Nam by "their own" rulers. That's for sure. But the communist position is and was: no war but class war / turn international war into civil war.

No dying for the "national bourgeoisie" here, there, or anywhere.

[Homo Songun]

There is no oppression on a national basis. Sure some places are shittier places to live, but to say that there exists oppression on a national basis is to say that the bourgeoisie of other nations are oppressed or exploited. Is that your position?

Capital has no borders, and thus imperialism is not an issue of nationhood but an issue of class.


Don't be a fool. National oppression does not exist. Class oppression does. Know the difference.

Dead wrong. Just because nationality is part of the superstructure in the final analysis does not mean it does not have material force. But it would be funny to see you argue this with a Palestinian though

[Geiseric]

So you'd rather Vietnam be some hideous nightmare like Burma or Thailand or Indonesia, with the massacre of damn near a million people by the CIA in 1965 there?

With all the problems and all the open door to foreign imperialists, the people of Vietnam are vastly better off now than they were under the heel of the French, or they would have been under the heel of the USA.

That's the thing about fighting US imperialism, a lot of people are going to get killed as the USA, in case you hadn't noticed, is very well armed and has no compunctions about killing people by the millions.

So you I guess think surrender is the best course?

Or do you think the US government would treat the Vietnamese or any other rebels any nicer if they followed your political views?

-M.H.-

Apparently you are the one who wants us to surrender to capitalism, since there is a notion that there is "better" capitalism with a specific nation's bourgeoisie.

Political prisoners weren't treated very well in vietnam presently, nor Ho Chi Mihn himself. It was very much capitalism at the edge of the same sword that would of been forced on you by European Bourgeois, however since he's from our nation he's okay right? Since he is a bourgeois who lives in the borders set up in order to isolate us from the world. It is a non sequitor. Why do you not oppose capitalism by vietnamese capitalists? And it's obvious that they are under the thumb of the worldwide bourgeois as well.

[Dabrowski]

What an idiotic discussion. Of course the vast majority of people in Vietnam are better off because the French and American imperialists were defeated. And moreover the victory of the Vietnamese revolution was a victory for the world proletariat!

Vietnam was a victory for our side and we need more Vietnams!

Ho Chi Minh and his co-thinkers don't want more Vietnams, the most they wanted was "socialism" in half a country, and since the imperialists wouldn't have that, they want peaceful coexistence with the genocidal butchers in Washington. And would-be Ho Chi Minhs trying the same kind of strategy today probably won't get the same revolutionary results, because of the huge defeat for socialism that was the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet Union in 1991-92.

Does that make Ho Chi Minh a "counter-revolutionary" or give him a "counter-revolutionary nature" whatever that is? No, just makes him a Stalinist.

Want to see what a counter-revolutionary looks like? Look in the mirror, you "leftists" who hide your contempt for the struggles of the oppressed behind pseudo-Marxist dogma.

[Geiseric]

We can't let capitalists or any educated bourgeois elements make the decisions when we have a DotP. We need to manipulate them, use them, and make them work for us. Ho Chi Mihn was subordinate to the worldwide Bourgeois after he choked the Vietnamese revolutionary wave. This paved the way for the sweat shop labor that we see in Vietnam today.

However this doesn't mean that the Vietnamese revolution shouldn't of happened. In all respect, a political revolution against the Thermidors was very much necessary. This doesn't mean restoring capitalism, since the economy was nationalizedthe class in charge of t. It means making sure that the DotP and its leaders remains proletarian in character.

[Grenzer]

What an idiotic discussion. Of course the vast majority of people in Vietnam are better off because the French and American imperialists were defeated. And moreover the victory of the Vietnamese revolution was a victory for the world proletariat!

Vietnam was a victory for our side and we need more Vietnams!

This statement is completely delusional.

The Vietnamese workers are under the thumb of American imperialism just as surely as if they had lost the war. You really sound like a tankie with this statement. The Vietnam war was a temporary victory for the Vietnamese bourgeoisie, that's about it. Also, you're claiming that because Ho Chi Minh was a Stalinist that he couldn't have been a counter-revolutionary. Seems really ironic that you have a 4th Int. avatar when you're blatantly upholding Stalinism and Soviet imperialism.

[Geiseric]

"Counter Revolutionary," in the sense that he co-opted a workers movement is applicable I think.

However if a regime improves the productive forces of a country or makes it possible to do so, by definition wouldn't that make them revolutionary? He was a bourgeois revolutionist though, not a proletarian.

[A Marxist Historian]

Apparently you are the one who wants us to surrender to capitalism, since there is a notion that there is "better" capitalism with a specific nation's bourgeoisie.

Political prisoners weren't treated very well in vietnam presently, nor Ho Chi Mihn himself. It was very much capitalism at the edge of the same sword that would of been forced on you by European Bourgeois, however since he's from our nation he's okay right? Since he is a bourgeois who lives in the borders set up in order to isolate us from the world. It is a non sequitor. Why do you not oppose capitalism by vietnamese capitalists? And it's obvious that they are under the thumb of the worldwide bourgeois as well.

So you think, then ,that Ho Chi Minh was the leader of the "national bourgeoisie"? You should check in with your party, as I know for a fact that is not the position of "Socialist Organizer."

It's also not the position of the Vietnamese national bourgeoisie, who clung desperately to the US helicopters escaping Saigon in 1965, with the Green Berets pondering whether to let them aboard or bayonet them so as to escape easier.

And now, of course, the Vietnamese national bourgeoisie resides in the USA, whither they escaped by boat during the late 1970s.

Or do you think that somehow some sort of magical change happened in Vietnam between when Ho was alive and now? Even though you haven't even had so much as a contested election for the Politburo? In China, at least Mao died and the "Gang of Four" got purged, allowing orthodox Maoists to claim that there had been a counterrevolution. Absolutely nothing like that ever happened in Vietnam.

No, whatever Vietnam is now, it is no different in class terms from North Vietnam under Ho.

Have the Vietnamese let the imperialists invest? Yes, of course they have, and within limits, that was an absolutely correct policy, which is why Vietnam is so much more prosperous now than in the late '70s and '80s when you had a more traditionally Stalinist economic isolationist policy.

The Bukharinist "capitalist road" policy of the Vietnamese CP is as wrong as the policies of Deng and his successors in China, or Bukharin in the USSR in the 1920s. Leads to creating a new bourgeoisie, and the government is increasingly more interested in economic progress than workers' welfare. But any notion that not the CP but the Vietnamese "NEPmen," the brand new capitalists, are running Vietnam is totally absurd, in fact rather more absurd than in the case of China. Hell, just talk to anyone from Vietnam, they'll tell you different. I have.

Just as in China, Vietnamese workers and peasants more or less support the right wing policies of their government, because they have been so successful. When they stop succeeding, then Vietnam will explode, as the Vietnamese regime ultimately rests on the belief of the Vietnamese working people that it is their regime acting in their interests, the party that led them in the Vietnamese Revolution.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

"Counter Revolutionary," in the sense that he co-opted a workers movement is applicable I think.

However if a regime improves the productive forces of a country or makes it possible to do so, by definition wouldn't that make them revolutionary? He was a bourgeois revolutionist though, not a proletarian.

HO Chi Minh was the founder of the Vietnamese workers movement, who joined the Comintern while Lenin was still alive. To be precise, he was in Paris at the time, and working in a factory as a matter of fact I think.

He wasn't a terribly good Marxist, but he was a Marxist, insofar as any Stalinist can be considered such.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

This statement is completely delusional.

The Vietnamese workers are under the thumb of American imperialism just as surely as if they had lost the war. You really sound like a tankie with this statement. The Vietnam war was a temporary victory for the Vietnamese bourgeoisie, that's about it. Also, you're claiming that because Ho Chi Minh was a Stalinist that he couldn't have been a counter-revolutionary. Seems really ironic that you have a 4th Int. avatar when you're blatantly upholding Stalinism and Soviet imperialism.

Isthe VCP under the thumb of US imperialism? Well, given the mutual hostility between the Chinese and Vietnamese Stalinists, they find it convenient to ally with the US vs. China, in exactly the same fashion as first Mao and then his successors allied with the US vs. the Soviet Union. Or Tito for that matter, who supported the US in the Korean War.

But no, that's just an opportunist policy on their part, which could change whenever the VCP finds it convenient.

In Thailand or Indonesia, the US government and the US bourgeoisie basically own the place. During the Vietnam War Thailand was one big US military base, and the coup which brought Suharto to power was stage managed by the CIA. And US capital thoroughly dominates the economy of both countries, almost as much as that of its former colony the Philippines.

Nothing like that is true of Vietnam. Sure, there's plenty of US investment, but the Vietnamese CP has total control, and could kick out every foreign capitalist next week if it felt like it.

Which would by the way be a really stupid idea. What instead they should do is what the Bolsheviks did under NEP with the capitalist sector, namely impose union organization, decent labor laws, etc. But the VCP is afraid that if they did that, the investors would pull out and go elsewhere, and they are reformists not revolutionaries, so...

-M.H.-

[Zealot]

"Counter Revolutionary," in the sense that he co-opted a workers movement is applicable I think.

He essentially founded the first worker's movement in Viet Nam.


He was a bourgeois revolutionist though, not a proletarian.

He was one of the hardest working proles I've ever read about. Your hatred of Marxism-Leninism doesn't give you the right to mangle history.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm not really interested in measuring what's "better" or "worse." As has correctly been mentioned, a state that serves capital is a state that serves capital. The exact method in which it does this is secondary.

But if one really wanted to play that game, they could point to South Korea. The situation there was certainly comparable with Viet Nam, though there are of course major differences. The country was divided, with Communists in charge of the north and the U.S. and its unpopular puppets in charge of the south. There was a brutal war that eventually ended in a stalemate (as opposed to a loss and withdrawal in south Viet Nam).

Now, in 2012, South Korea is the 12th strongest economy in the world. It has been transformed from a land mainly of small farmers into a developed country. GDP Per Capita went from $103 in 1962 to $20,000 in 2007.

This is not to extol the virtues of U.S. imperialism but to recognize a simple reality.

We're talking 60 years later. A lot happened in those 60 years.

In the intervening period, for 20 years after the Korean War North Korea had a higher standard of living, was more prosperous, and probably was even less repressive, than was South Korea under murderous military dictators like Pak Chung Hee. And this despite US bombers literally flattening most of North Korea, will literally millions of civilians killed by the US-led forces, in a war considerably bloodier and more brutal than the Vietnam War.

Why did things change after that? Well, one reason of course is that the South Korean people managed to partially get rid of the military dictatorship. And another reason is that the Sung dynasty regime is bad even by Stalinist standards.

But the main reason is that US imperialism has been systematically trying to increase South Korean prosperity so as to make it a counterweight to North Korea. In short, all the economic gains of South Korea since WWII are ultimately because of the existence of North Korea. No North Korea, no South Korean "economic miracle."

To some degree this is even true directly, as one of the central reasons South Korea has been able to advance economically is due to the radical land reforms the Kim Il Sung regime carried out during its brief occupation of almost all of South Korea.

Which the CIA controllers of the South Korean puppet regime were intelligent enough not to reverse. Indeed, why would they have needed to? The South Korean landlords who lost land were all former Japanese collaborators, whom the CIA was perfectly happy to replace in control with US puppet Syngman Rhee's people.


It's impossible to say what "South Viet Nam" would look like today had a stalemate emerged there. Perhaps it would have been transformed into an outright colonial-style workhouse. Perhaps capital would have been pumped in and the country rapidly developed as a show piece against "Communism."

So in other words, the Vietnamese might have benefitted indirectly from the Chinese Revolution, instead of directly from their own.

What happens in a US semi-colony after the US wins out with no communists next door to compete against? Well, check out Panama since the toppling of Noriega, or Honduras under the boot of the Obama administration, or Russia under Yeltsin.


What is possible to say is that what exists in Viet Nam today certainly wasn't worth millions of lives and utter destruction that came of the war. Whatever "victory" came for the international proletariat is quite difficult to find -- Viet Nam is now a national sweatshop, the wages and conditions of workers in the U.S. and elsewhere have been decreasing steadily since the war's end, all the "national liberation" movements inspired by the struggle in Viet Nam turned to naught, and the U.S. continues to invade and intervene around the world either directly or by proxy (Nicaragua 79, El Salvador 81, Lebanon 82, Grenada 83, Panama 88, Panama 89, Iraq 91, Balkans/Yugoslavia 92, etc., etc., etc.).

Yeah, they all turned to naught. Why? Because the USSR, Vietnam's ally and protector and the funding source for all those national liberation movements, collapsed, after which things abruptly turned to shit, not just in the USSR itself, where millions died because of the imposition of capitalism, with even the average lifespan of men declining by ten years, but all over the world.

Thus in Central America the Sandinistas and the FMLN abruptly surrendered, the PLO sold out the Palestinian struggle at Camp David, and all across the Third World, nationalist governments claiming to be "socialist" to get some Soviet aid promptly dropped all nationalist resistance to total domination by US imperialism, and you had the decade of "globalism."

In Europe, all those welfare state measures that the capitalists had gone along with to keep the workers from going communist abruptly started to disappear.

Even in the USA itself, Clinton abolished welfare, which is leading to huge suffering right now, now that welfare is really needed.

And the collapse of the Soviet Union got much of the working class of the world thinking that communism might be a nice idea in theory but in practice but doesn't work, and the Left has been collapsing ever since. In fact, class struggle itself was on the decline until recently, when the economic collapse of capitalism has gotten a lot of people thinking that maybe capitalism doesn't work either.

But in Vietnam, which had beaten US imperialism in war, the Vietnamese bureaucrats treat with the foreign investors on their own terms, so the country has benefitted and the standard of living is far higher now than it was under the French, or in South Vietnam under the Americans. And the peasants got the land at least, the landlords were expropriated.


Anyone in the U.S., France, Australia, etc., should have opposed the invasion of Viet Nam by "their own" rulers. That's for sure. But the communist position is and was: no war but class war / turn international war into civil war.

No dying for the "national bourgeoisie" here, there, or anywhere.

The Vietnamese national bourgeoisie followed its US masters home to the USA, which is where they live now.

The Spartacists had a great slogan during the Vietnam War. All Indochina Must Go Communist! Briefly, quite popular too, at the height of the antiwar movement in the convulsive weeks after Nixon invaded Cambodia and murdered students at Kent State.

But then McGovern came along and the whole movement got coopted into bourgeois politics. Most of the American capitalist class had had it with the war by then. It got to the point by the end that whenever a new US military disaster hit the news, the stock market would go up, as capitalists would hope that Nixon would finally get the message and get out.

And Nixon, as he trounced McGovern, was winding the war down anyway, as he knew the US had lost and he just wanted to save face, and hopefully blame the loss of the war on the anti war movement and the Democrats.

-M.H.-

[islandmilitia]

What is possible to say is that what exists in Viet Nam today certainly wasn't worth millions of lives and utter destruction that came of the war

Saying that the national liberation struggle in Vietnam was not progressive on the grounds that today Vietnam is a capitalist sweatshop (itself debatable) seems to miss a great deal of historical context. The more important point seems to be that the struggle for national liberation in Vietnam was part of a broader wave of national liberation struggles which, when and where they triumphed, created the conditions for further radicalization within the Third World and also introduced shocks and political opportunities within the main imperialist countries. For example, the revolutionary situation that arose in Portugal in mid-1970s, which was probably the closest that any European country came to a social revolution during the 1970s and possibly across the whole of the Cold War (depending on how you evaluate May 68 and the Hot Autumn in Italy) was inseparable from the military defeats that the Portuguese state suffered in Sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that, today, conditions in Vietnam are quite similar to those in countries like Indonesia in some respects is an indication that the revolutionary wave(s) of the 1960s and 70s were not carried to their successful conclusion but encountered setbacks and crises of revolutionary leadership, it is not sufficient evidence to show that the struggle in Vietnam was not progressive.

By way of comparison, you could just as easily argue that the situation you have in Russia today (rampant alcoholism, a secular decline in life expectancy, a growing fascist presence, and so on) are such that the many years the Bolsheviks spent organizing underground and the chaos and destruction that Russian workers went through during the Civil War were not, with the benefit of hindsight, worth it - and you could even make the same argument with reference to Stalinism, by saying that the sacrifices of the revolutionary period are not worth it when you consider how the gains of the revolution were distorted and betrayed under Stalin. But, as I hope you would agree, an argument along those lines ignores the fact that Russia's current situation (and/or the degeneration of the revolution during the the 1920s) was not historically inevitable, but was the outcome of certain mistakes that were made inside Russia and elsewhere, which, if they had been rectified or avoided, would have produced a very different course, and one which would have made the earlier sacrifices seem much more acceptable.

[Geiseric]

I have to admit that I don't know much about Vietnam and I should have read about its history before making assumptions.

[dodger]

I have to admit that I don't know much about Vietnam and I should have read about its history before making assumptions.

Indochina 1945 with Nationalist China occupying half the country Japanese troops armed to the teeth, French trying to get back in. Mountbatten and the US circling. Your call Syd. Let's see your fancy footwork. An ancient dynasty. Nationalists. Trotskyists, French trained civil servants. A world wide hunger for peace and end to hostilities or conflict. Ehem! Interesting times. An atomic bomb had been detonated, was that to be the end of class conflict or any chance of gaining national independence? Were the Chinese to stay another 1,000 years.What in blue blazes do yer do?
The clock is ticking.....

[Geiseric]

I support the workers movement against all of the imperialists since none of them will do anything better for us than the others. They're not going to nuke vietnam, and the nuclear bomb wouldn't end the class struggle.

The chinese, french, japanese, and americans would all fuck over Vietnam in the same way as the others. None of the bourgeois states are in the interests of any workers. Nationalist China was collapsing though, as was japan, and the U.S. and the french wouldn't and didn't have enough resources to keep it. The only thing that didn't happen in the Vietnamese national revolution was workers power, and to replace that power there was a bureaucracy not unlike the U.S.S.R. i'd assume.

Was Vietnam not a degenerated workers state?

[Binh]

the systematic murder of Trotskyists on the part of the Viet Minh regime led by Ho Chi Minh seems to be nothing more than counter-revolutionary opportunism of the worst sort. I was hoping people who are more well versed in the matter could provide me with some historical material to reference. So far I have only found limited amount of resources, as I mentioned earlier:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/viet.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/vietnam/pirani/index.htm



Trotskyist agitation to win independence from below jeapordized Ho Chi Minh's strategy of winning it from above through playing nice with the imperialist powers aligned with the U.S.S.R. so that agitation was ended by force. They didn't bother with pretexts in this case, they just went and did it.

Interesting fact: Ho Chi Minh met Trotsky.
http://lafoneric.hautetfort.com/media/02/01/2291169277.jpg
He's the one whose face is turned away from the camera.

[A Marxist Historian]

I support the workers movement against all of the imperialists since none of them will do anything better for us than the others. They're not going to nuke vietnam, and the nuclear bomb wouldn't end the class struggle.

The chinese, french, japanese, and americans would all fuck over Vietnam in the same way as the others. None of the bourgeois states are in the interests of any workers. Nationalist China was collapsing though, as was japan, and the U.S. and the french wouldn't and didn't have enough resources to keep it. The only thing that didn't happen in the Vietnamese national revolution was workers power, and to replace that power there was a bureaucracy not unlike the U.S.S.R. i'd assume.

Was Vietnam not a degenerated workers state?

'twas. And still is. Laos too. Cambodia not, never was, might have become one if the Vietnamese occupying troops hadn't pulled out, unfortunately, letting that treacherous corrupt former Khmer Rouge henchman Heng Samrin turn the place into a real giant sweatshop for US businessmen, and letting his boys steal everything not nailed down too, and some things that were.

The difference between Cambodia and Vietnam is quite remarkable, and is the best answer to those who think Vietnam is now a capitalist state. You wanna see Southeast Asian capitalism at its worst, check out Cambodia.

-M.H.-