Thoughts on Ho Chi Minh?

[jookyle]

I've recently gotten into Ho Chi Minh and have read through most of the documents on MIA and I have to say I rather like him. Especially his commitment to always include the peasantry and his very likable goals in works like "Twelve Recommendations"(like getting food for people who live far away from markets). I don't know much about him outside of the writings by him on MIA so, I was just wondering what everyone else's thoughts are of him.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think that he was a genuine revolutionary who was more committed to national liberation than communist revolution in Vietnam and who, due to the material conditions of Vietnam (including the aggressive U.S. bombing campaign, intervention, etc.) and the decisions Minh made within those material conditions did not rule over a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and his decisions had their logical conclusions in the free-market reforms the country is now undergoing.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So critical but somewhat understanding is my position I guess. The U.S. invasion had much more to do with the destruction of Vietnam and driving the country more backwards than it already was than Minh and the Vietminh could ever have hoped to.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not much different from any self-proclaimed socialist leader of the twentieth century. In 1945, 'his' declaration of independence stated:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

Sounds familiar?

[Skyhilist]

Honestly, his decisions weren't much better than those of the people who brought you "communist China" in my opinion. He focused to much on nationalism, and not enough on the success of true communism. Just my opinion though.

[Revolutionair]

Something worth reading, although I don't know how accurate it is:
http://libcom.org/library/%E2%80%98moscow-trial%E2%80%99-ho-chi-minh%E2%80%99s-guerilla-movement

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Something worth reading, although I don't know how accurate it is:
http://libcom.org/library/%E2%80%98moscow-trial%E2%80%99-ho-chi-minh%E2%80%99s-guerilla-movement

Yep, actually Ho's comrade, Vo Nguyen Giap, had more to do with the suppression of revolutionaries than Ho did, but does that even matter? Not really, I would say. I have to say though, Giap was a military genius as a matter of strategy and planning.

[Hit The North]

In the middle of the Twentieth Century one couldn't be a nationalist revolutionary without at least pretending to be a communist to the Russians or Chinese or getting labeled as a communist by the Americans and British.

I think this sums up the historical fate of nationalists like Ho Chi Minh.

Apart from that, my thoughts on him is that he has a great name for chanting.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yep, actually Ho's comrade, Vo Nguyen Giap, had more to do with the suppression of revolutionaries than Ho did, but does that even matter? Not really, I would say. I have to say though, Giap was a military genius as a matter of strategy and planning.

I don't know much about military strategy, but I doubt a "military genius" would lose 1,700,000 of his own men and women versus 300,000 enemy casualties.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I don't know much about military strategy, but I doubt a "military genius" would lose 1,700,000 of his own men and women versus 300,000 enemy casualties.

You need to look at those things in context. Giap actually hated the "human waves" attacks and tried to not use them as much as possible. Many of these strategies were forced upon Giap by the party leaders, mainly the Maoist section and Chinese advisors that claimed that it worked in North Korea so they had to use the tactic in Vietnam. Giap was focused mainly on guerrilla warfare and was opposed to the Tet Offensive because he felt it wasn't time for his troops to "come out of the jungle". The party leaders made Giap plan the Tet Offensive against his objections because they wanted a sweeping victory of the South at that time. Giap would later try to justify the Tet Offensive attacks, but I think that had more to do with him justifying his reputation.

I would suggest those interested in Giap to read this.

http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Any-Cost-Genius-Warriors/dp/1574887424/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340033079&sr=8-1&keywords=giap

[Blanquist]

He was a great bourgeois-nationalist, a hero to his people but in a historical sense he was one of many such leaders of his epoch, bourgeois nationalists such as Mao, Castro, Nehru, Gaddafi, the list goes on.

Intelligent man though, he spoke many languages.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Not much different from any self-proclaimed socialist leader of the twentieth century. In 1945, 'his' declaration of independence stated:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

Sounds familiar?


You are qouting him out of context. The declaration of independence actually stated:


All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of the French Revolution made in 1791 also states: All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.
Those are undeniable truths.
Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.
They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Viet-Nam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.
They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slaughtered our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in bloodbaths. They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.
To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.
In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people and devastated our land.
They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank notes and the export trade.
They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.
They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

He says something quite different ,from what you made it seem to be, if you quote it all.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So, I know it's been forever since this topic was discussed (I was just bored and looking back at old threads) but even quoted in context, again, Ho was more concerned about national liberation than he was with socialism. These criticisms still stand.

[Grenzer]

Well since he was a bourgeois nationalist, I'm not a huge fan. I'd still be interested in checking out his works for their historical significance at least.

I planned on heading down to the library once exams are done at the end of the week to get his selected works so I can scan those to upload on the 'net. They're public domain after all.

Negative Creep, the problem with invoking the Declaration of Independence, even when seen in its whole context of Ho Chi Minh's statement, is that he is considering his struggle to be a reaffirmation of bourgeois ideals; that somehow the ideal bourgeois society has never been achieved or has been corrupted, and that the task of the Communist Party of Vietnam is to uphold and restore these bourgeois values, which he mentions.

[l'Enfermé]

A fucking scumbag and an anti-Marxist. Just look at how his thugs butchered the considerable Vietnamese Trot movement.

[AmericanMarxist]

Brought Vietnam to the 20th century and led his country to national liberation. Certainly a help to the communist cause, if not necessarily a communist. He fought for equality, socialism, etc. Pretty much what small, un developed countries need in order to make the next steps to communism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In the middle of the Twentieth Century one couldn't be a nationalist revolutionary without at least pretending to be a communist to the Russians or Chinese or getting labeled as a communist by the Americans and British.

I think this sums up the historical fate of nationalists like Ho Chi Minh.

Apart from that, my thoughts on him is that he has a great name for chanting.

Actually, Uncle ho was well versed in Marxist Dialectics and had read the economics treatises of Lenin when he was a waiter in France, working part time as a journalist for the French Communist party, after leaving the French Socialist party because he felt it was too reformist. Although he had not read capital at that point, the French Communist party sent him to study Marxist economics and historical materialism in the Soviet Union, where he would have most likely have read capital amougnst other important works he had missed. Once he was there, he was transferred into military college because he was thought to be the most intelligent of the Vietnamese attending. At Vietnam he purged the revisionist and pro-soviet element of his party because he felt that the Soviet Union had betrayed socialism, however he maintained a centerist stance on the sino-soviet split because he was fighting a life or death struggle (and don't you forget it) against imperalism and he couldn't afford the lose in aid, and because he wasn't too fond of either country since Mao forced Vietnam to adapt a land reform program that was disastrous for the Vietnamese economy. (I cite Brocheux's biography on him)

So no, he wasn't a "bourgeois revolutionary" who didn't know as much about Marxism as all of the enlightened first world minds of Rev-Left. I think it would do you all good to remember the famous maxim of Mao:


Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

It won' t do!

It won't do!

You must investigate!

You must not talk nonsense!


But yea, what he did to the Trotskyite movement was despicable.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Ho was more concerned about national liberation than he was with socialism. These criticisms still stand.
Because it's totally possible to establish socialism while under colonial rule. I mean there is such a great history of colonies adapting planned economies while being ruled by a foreign capitalist power. Heck, wasn't Russia a colony of Britain when Lenin came to power?

[Let's Get Free]

He was just one of the many bourgeois nationalist third world leaders calling themselves socialist, along with Ahmed Sukarno, Julius Nyrere, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, ect.

[blake 3:17]

Not much different from any self-proclaimed socialist leader of the twentieth century. In 1945, 'his' declaration of independence stated:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

Sounds familiar?

Despite being a Communist, Ho Chi Minh continually used the language of the American Revolution to defend the Vietnamese. One can see this as a terrible compromise or far sighted pragmatism. When the US was attacking, it was very easy for him to challenge them on their morality. Why shouldn't the Vietnamese have the same national rights as the Americans?

He spent a fair bit of time in France as a Communist and in Communist milieus and the national oppression of the Vietnamese was often ignored and degraded by the French comrades.

I'd highly recommend William Duiker's biography of Ho Chi Minh.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Despite being a Communist, Ho Chi Minh continually used the language of the American Revolution to defend the Vietnamese. One can see this as a terrible compromise or far sighted pragmatism. When the US was attacking, it was very easy for him to challenge them on their morality. Why shouldn't the Vietnamese have the same national rights as the Americans?

He spent a fair bit of time in France as a Communist and in Communist milieus and the national oppression of the Vietnamese was often ignored and degraded by the French comrades.

I'd highly recommend William Duiker's biography of Ho Chi Minh.

I've read the Pierre Brocheux biography of Ho Chi Minh, do you think it is worth reading Duiker's biography of him or do you think I am good?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Because it's totally possible to establish socialism while under colonial rule. I mean there is such a great history of colonies adapting planned economies while being ruled by a foreign capitalist power. Heck, wasn't Russia a colony of Britain when Lenin came to power?

1. I am the last person that would argue socialism could be established under colonial rule.

2. None of what you said changes the fact that Ho, as Ghost said, wanted bourgeois values to continue after the revolution.

3. Ho Chi Minh had a history of teaming up with bourgeois nationalist movements in Vietnam to fight French and Japanese occupation (to be fair, he would eventually have many nationalists slaughtered with the help of Giap).

4. Whether Ho read Marx is irrelevant (this is from your other post). The Vietnamese revolution was a bourgeois revolution, focused more on nationalism and ending feudalism than establishing socialism. Ho completed the task of the bourgeois revolution in Vietnam. This isn't some narcissistic look at Ho, but an understanding of the material conditions that existed in Vietnam and what the Vietnamese revolutionaries did.

[Grenzer]

Russia a colony of Britain? Careful there, you're getting into Lyndon LaRouche territory.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

1. I am the last person that would argue socialism could be established under colonial rule.


Good


None of what you said changes the fact that Ho, as Ghost said, wanted bourgeois values to continue after the revolution.


Erm. What? I just showed that he was clearly a Marxist. So he made reference to some bourgeois values, I don't see the problem with this. Marx had read Ben Franklin and gave a shout out to him in his Capital volume II, in addition to having read Voltaire. Goethe. and Shakesphere. Leftism doesn't live in a vacuum, and leftist values aren't the only ones in the world. So why shouldn't he add a poetic element to his nation's declaration of Independence. He was using bourgeois values against the bourgeois, why shouldn't we communists uses the contradictory cultural logic of capitalism against it in argument? And more importantly, what does this prove about Uncle Ho other than the fact that he thought the founding fathers were cool guys, just like Karl Marx did.


Ho Chi Minh had a history of teaming up with bourgeois nationalist movements in Vietnam to fight French and Japanese occupation (to be fair, he would eventually have many nationalists slaughtered with the help of Giap).


So you mean he won? I don't know what you're objecting to here. He did what he needed to do and he purged the nationalist when they began collaborating with the Chinese nationalists to undermine indepedance. I don't see what he did wrong here. Should he had made an enemy of the nationalists and fought them as well as the french just because this would make him "pure" in the eyes of left communists? No. He did what corresponded to the concrete realities that faced Vietnam and was successful in both driving out the Imperialists and the nationalists. Only a dogmatic fool would tell someone to make a war more bloody and prolonged for the sake of ideological purity.



Whether Ho read Marx is irrelevant (this is from your other post). The Vietnamese revolution was a bourgeois revolution, focused more on nationalism and ending feudalism than establishing socialism. Ho completed the task of the bourgeois revolution in Vietnam. This isn't some narcissistic look at Ho, but an understanding of the material conditions that existed in Vietnam and what the Vietnamese revolutionaries did.



Actually the fact that Ho was well versed in Marx, better so than both you and I combined I might add, shows that he clearly knew what he was doing. Uncle Ho died before the Vietnamese war was won so we don't know what post-revolutionary Vietnam under Ho would have looked like. However we do know that North Vietnam carried out many socialist land reform programs despite the fact that it was foolish to do so, thus proving that he was a bit too leftist at times rather than too rightist.

[blake 3:17]

I've read the Pierre Brocheux biography of Ho Chi Minh, do you think it is worth reading Duiker's biography of him or do you think I am good?


I don't know Brocheux's book -- from a quick search it appears to be a good source.

The Dukier biography is very long and detailed. Unless you're trying to be an expert on Ho Chi Minh or Vietnam you're probably good for now.

[ind_com]

He was just one of the many bourgeois nationalist third world leaders calling themselves socialist, along with Ahmed Sukarno, Julius Nyrere, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, ect.

In case you haven't noticed, there was a slight difference between the activities of the movements that Ho Chi Minh and Nehru led.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Erm. What? I just showed that he was clearly a Marxist. So he made reference to some bourgeois values, I don't see the problem with this. Marx had read Ben Franklin and gave a shout out to him in his Capital volume II, in addition to having read Voltaire. Goethe. and Shakesphere. Leftism doesn't live in a vacuum, and leftist values aren't the only ones in the world.

Oh god, no that is not what I meant at all! I'll explain below what I meant better (I can understand the misunderstanding).


So why shouldn't he add a poetic element to his nation's declaration of Independence. He was using bourgeois values against the bourgeois

I disagree, what he was doing was using bourgeois values against an imperialist bourgeois power. The difference was that, as Ghost said, Ho used bourgeois values as a framework for the revolution. He wanted these values to continue after the revolution and achieve an "uncorrupted" bourgeois society.


why shouldn't we communists uses the contradictory cultural logic of capitalism against it in argument? And more importantly, what does this prove about Uncle Ho other than the fact that he thought the founding fathers were cool guys, just like Karl Marx did.

There is nothing wrong with that. I never stated that, but that isn't what Ho was doing.



So you mean he won? I don't know what you're objecting to here.

Um...i'm objecting to allowing the proletariat to collaborate with alien class elements.....like most Marxists would argue against....



Should he had made an enemy of the nationalists and fought them as well as the french just because this would make him "pure" in the eyes of left communists? No. He did what corresponded to the concrete realities that faced Vietnam and was successful in both driving out the Imperialists and the nationalists. Only a dogmatic fool would tell someone to make a war more bloody and prolonged for the sake of ideological purity.

Ummmmm you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. We can talk in hypotheticals all we want with historical events but I find that to be usually useless. Anyway, I will do it for the sake of argument I guess. I would have hoped that Ho would have teamed up with other vanguard elements in other advanced capitalist countries and initiated a revolution like that, hopefully defeating capitalism once and for all (destroying the foundation of imperialism, etc.). Again, this is a hypothetical and is essentially useless.


However we do know that North Vietnam carried out many socialist land reform programs despite the fact that it was foolish to do so, thus proving that he was a bit too leftist at times rather than too rightist.

Again, I wouldn't even say the land reform programs were socialist. To put it another way (since I already stated this point one way) some Stalinists claim that industrialization was a sign of "socialist" success in Russia. Industrialization is a task for the bourgeois revolution to complete, just as land reform to end feudal relations is.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I've read the Pierre Brocheux biography of Ho Chi Minh, do you think it is worth reading Duiker's biography of him or do you think I am good?

Duiker's biography ain't bad at all, but there are better one's out there.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am not going to praise someone who brutally repressed leftists who dissented from the M-L party line and whose historical legacy is a country where workers have few rights and are paid even LESS than are Chinese workers.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I am not going to praise someone who brutally repressed leftists who dissented from the M-L party line and whose historical legacy is a country where workers have few rights and are paid even LESS than are Chinese workers.

Actually, the Vietmanese have built a welfare state that goes further than Sweden. Obviously Socialism doesn't mean a welfare state, but I think it says something about the quality of the Vietnamese regime. Sure their communist party is revisionist, but not in the same way China's communist party is. I'd much rather live under Vietmanese revisionists than capitalists of my homeland

My source, http://www.davifo.dk/userfiles/file/pdf/doimoi20-welfare.pdf

[GoddessCleoLover]

Apparently the Vietnamese party is more socially conscientious than is the Chinese party. Nonetheless, its "welfare state" contains serious gaps. The Vietnamese education system charges tuition fees and additional fees for books and other supplies. Their health care delivery system is not universal and requires "side payments" to care providers in addition to insurance fees.

Most importantly, with respect to the issue of socialism, workers' not only are disempowered politically, but trade union organization is either non-existent or controlled by the Party/state and Vietnamese workers are often paid less than even Chinese workers.

It is not socialism, not a workers' state of any kind, and not a place where i would want to live.

[skitty]

Didn't Ho Chi Minh fight with the Allies during WWII; and, after the war, when Vietnam was going to be handed back to the French, didn't he appeal for help to Truman, who ignored him?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Didn't Ho Chi Minh fight with the Allies during WWII; and, after the war, when Vietnam was going to be handed back to the French, didn't he appeal for help to Truman, who ignored him?

IIRC that is basically correct.

[Sea]

His beard looks nice and fluffy, but I imagine it'd be liable perforate someone if put on a sharp metal statue.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Didn't Ho Chi Minh fight with the Allies during WWII; and, after the war, when Vietnam was going to be handed back to the French, didn't he appeal for help to Truman, who ignored him?

So? Wouldn't you do the same thing in Uncle Ho's position?

[Zealot]

I've read the Pierre Brocheux biography of Ho Chi Minh, do you think it is worth reading Duiker's biography of him or do you think I am good?

I think it is worth reading. The Vietnamese government actually offered to have it published in Vietnam if Duiker agreed to remove the parts about Ho Chi Minh's relationships but Duiker rejected their offer. It's still available in Vietnam though and I actually bought my copy when I was there.

[Sea]

Didn't Ho Chi Minh fight with the Allies during WWII; and, after the war, when Vietnam was going to be handed back to the French, didn't he appeal for help to Truman, who ignored him?What side would you rather he have fought on?

[Hiero]

Apart from that, my thoughts on him is that he has a great name for chanting.

Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong are going to win! At least that is how it goes on the Baader Meinhof Complex movie.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You need to look at those things in context. Giap actually hated the "human waves" attacks and tried to not use them as much as possible. Many of these strategies were forced upon Giap by the party leaders, mainly the Maoist section and Chinese advisors that claimed that it worked in North Korea so they had to use the tactic in Vietnam.

I would be hesitant to call the military advisers who were sent to Korea (and later advised in Vietnam) as proper models of Maoist thought as Mao disapproved of them in some detail...


Peng [Dehuai] did things in Korea which Mao disapproved of: set up his own channel of communication with the Russians; forsook Mao-type guerrilla warfare for positional warfare and "wave" assaults; luanched big offensives which led to terrible Chinese looses just after MacArthur's dismissal, when the time was ripe for negotiations... The style of armed struggle which Maoism represents is important to consider as the abandonment of such methods, while the environment was ripe for such methods, seems questionable if not suspicious of how, and what direction, Peng was ideologically educated. He Might have been a Maoist but he still, at the time, had much to learn in regards to the type of warfare needed and expected of him.

During this time, and indeed during his rule it seems, Mao constantly had this tug-of-war type conflict with the PLA over leadership, direction, and manner of warfare applied. Which were honest revolutionaries and which were members of the bourgeois headquarters is up to debate.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I would be hesitant to call the military advisers who were sent to Korea (and later advised in Vietnam) as proper models of Maoist thought as Mao disapproved of them in some detail...

The style of armed struggle which Maoism represents is important to consider as the abandonment of such methods, while the environment was ripe for such methods, seems questionable if not suspicious of how, and what direction, Peng was ideologically educated. He Might have been a Maoist but he still, at the time, had much to learn in regards to the type of warfare needed and expected of him.

During this time, and indeed during his rule it seems, Mao constantly had this tug-of-war type conflict with the PLA over leadership, direction, and manner of warfare applied. Which were honest revolutionaries and which were members of the bourgeois headquarters is up to debate.

Oh, thanks!

Also would you recommend that biography of Mao? I've read alot on the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution but I feel like there is more about Mao's China that I'd like to learn

[barbelo]

I think of Ho Chi Minh only as the imperialistic agent of the Asiatic bloc, an imperialism as bad or worse as the imperialism of the European or North-american blocs.

I remember a certain psychotic guy from my university, who besides lacking shower, was always reading red books about Ho Chi Minh with black and white pictures bought in specialized bookstores. Maybe this is the kind of person who feels attracted to stalinism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think of Ho Chi Minh only as the imperialistic agent of the Asiatic bloc, an imperialism as bad or worse as the imperialism of the European or North-american blocs.

I remember a certain psychotic guy from my university, who besides lacking shower, was always reading red books about Ho Chi Minh with black and white pictures bought in specialized bookstores. Maybe this is the kind of person who feels attracted to stalinism.

1)Baseless accusation

2)Ad Hominen

I see what you did there.

[barbelo]

1)Baseless accusation

2)Ad Hominen

I see what you did there.

Please Sylvia Plath, don't threat me bad.

1) You don't think that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Kim and others were agents of an Asiatic imperialism? Seriously, how can someone doesn't think this after seeing the Chinese influence on african countries or even in the pacific ocean, draining resources, feeding oligarchies and contributing to poverty?

2) I wasn't implying any relation between him and revleft posters (where it's normal to discuss state capitalism, ops, communism history). I only felt like telling this wonderful anecdote because it was the first time I met someone irl seriously interested in him; besides my friend who love everything russian and always choose the red army in battlefield 1942. It left quite an impression on me.

[Ostrinski]

Why the need for the use of the term "Asiatic"? It reeks of that very 19th century view of certain regions, ethnicities, or cultures being attributed their own economic character.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

1) You don't think that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Kim and others were agents of an Asiatic imperialism? Seriously, how can someone doesn't think this after seeing the Chinese influence on african countries or even in the pacific ocean, draining resources, feeding oligarchies and contributing to poverty?

Modern Chinese imperialism didn't exist in it's current state back then. Under Mao, China wasn't a Imperialist country and I don't think anyone can argue that they were social imperialists (except for a few of his blunders). It just appears that you've come to the conclusion that you don't like socialism as it existed in the 20th century and you really don't see a need to understand what these countries were really like before you accuse them of being "imperialist". If you are going to make this assumption about the USSR, well then that might make some more sense. China, no. They were surrounded by the USSR and it's allies and any opportunism in it's foreign policy was just an attempt at survival. The USSR asked Nixon for permission to Nuke them in 1968, and if you can honestly tell me that you'd take that risk for the sake of ultra-leftism then I have to say that I really don't want to live under a regime that cares so little for the well being of it's people that it is willing to risk a nuclear Apocalypse for a "pure" foreign policy. And please, I implore you, show me a foreign policy choice under Mao's rule that you object to.



2) I wasn't implying any relation between him and revleft posters (where it's normal to discuss state capitalism, ops, communism history). I only felt like telling this wonderful anecdote because it was the first time I met someone irl seriously interested in him; besides my friend who love everything russian and always choose the red army in battlefield 1942. It left quite an impression on me.


Actually, you were implying a relation between him and revleft posters. The meaning of language doesn't change base on your intentions. Even if you didn't intend an Ad Hominen attack, that doesn't prevent it from being an Ad Hominen attack

[GoddessCleoLover]

1) You don't think that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Kim and others were agents of an Asiatic imperialism? Seriously, how can someone doesn't think this after seeing the Chinese influence on african countries or even in the pacific ocean, draining resources, feeding oligarchies and contributing to poverty?

2) I wasn't implying any relation between him and revleft posters (where it's normal to discuss state capitalism, ops, communism history). I only felt like telling this wonderful anecdote because it was the first time I met someone irl seriously interested in him; besides my friend who love everything russian and always choose the red army in battlefield 1942. It left quite an impression on me.


Not a particular fan of Chairman Mao, Uncle Ho or the Kim dynasty but this theory of "Asiatic imperialism" doesn't strike me as a sensible explanation. China may be emerging as a secondary imperial power but what does that have to do with Vietnam? Vietnam clearly does not act in concert with China, to the contrary they are bitter rivals.

Your second point about tankies is more apropos and I sympathize with your view, but we ought not assume that everyone who is interested in Ho Chi Minh is a tankie. That would be an overgeneralization.

[barbelo]

Probably my replies will go out in a very poor english, I should be sleeping already.


Why the need for the use of the term "Asiatic"?

Because of geography; I meant Asia as encompassing Russia, China, Iran, etc.
This system of 3 global forces/blocs- the Asiatic, the European and the North american- is often used in geopolitics and exchange market. Of course they cooperate, compete, change, yada yada.


It just appears that you've come to the conclusion that you don't like socialism as it existed in the 20th century

Maybe. The ambiguity inherent to 21th century socialism, "do we consider ourselves a continuation of these genocidal failed regimes or a denial of them?", certainly troubles me, and I remember reading a Trotsky quote saying how human life should not be considered sacred and scratching my head, disagreeing profoundly.
And I don't idealize them only because they are anti-american.


you really don't see a need to understand what these countries were really like before you accuse them of being "imperialist".

I accused them of being imperialists in the way of... Empires, with proxy states, client states, agents, ever expanding economy, class divides, in spite of their own words stating the opposite.
And unfortunately I'm ignorant about Mao foreign policy. Was he a Stalin puppet until Stalin died? Was he dealing first with internal problems, in an isolated phase of China, with people, I mean, enemies of the revolution starving, and the country only had a foreign presence after that?


Even if you didn't intend an Ad Hominen attack, that doesn't prevent it from being an Ad Hominen attack

I see this now sorry, was an inappropriate comment.

[Ostrinski]

Vietnam was one of the more independent Stalinist states of the 20th century actually, China withdrew militarily support in 68 as a result of the Sino-Soviet split and Vietnam's refusal to stop receiving Soviet aid. However, to my knowledge they never formally sided with the Soviet Union.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maybe. The ambiguity inherent to 21th century socialism, "do we consider ourselves a continuation of these genocidal failed regimes or a denial of them?", certainly troubles me, and I remember reading a Trotsky quote saying how human life should not be considered sacred and scratching my head, disagreeing profoundly.
And I don't idealize them only because they are anti-american.

I can sympathize with this line of reasoning to an extent, but It's important to realize that these regimes didn't start off as revisionist hell holes. Most revolutionaries, from Lenin to Mao to Uncle Ho, were just regular folk like you and me who wanted to change the world. Yes they did some messed up stuff, but they also built some of the finest states in the world. During Mao's rule for example, life expectancy went up from 35 years in 1948 to 69 years in 1976. The population doubled under his rule and industry boomed during the cultural revolution, with the industrial proletariat being composed of only 3 million people in the beginning of Mao's rule and later reaching the heights of 25 million people. The point of studying and defending these countries is not because we want to "defend" them against honest criticizism, because yea, the anti-rightist campaign was pretty fucked up, but because we can learn so much from the successes and the mistakes of these countries for next time. Because if we learn nothing from these countries, then we are bound to repeat their mistakes and inevitability their fall.


I accused them of being imperialists in the way of... Empires, with proxy states, client states, agents, ever expanding economy, class divides, in spite of their own words stating the opposite.
And unfortunately I'm ignorant about Mao foreign policy. Was he a Stalin puppet until Stalin died? Was he dealing first with internal problems, in an isolated phase of China, with people, I mean, enemies of the revolution starving, and the country only had a foreign presence after that?

Actually, during the Chinese Revolution Stalin tried to bribe a few warlords to set up a Stalinist state in China and purge Mao, this failed. He also advised Mao to remain in the nationalist party, knowing that they would try to betray him. To quote Mao on Stalin:


Stalin felt that he had made mistakes in dealing with Chinese problems, and they were no small mistakes. We are a great country of several hundred millions, and he opposed our revolution, and our seizure of power

After the death of Stalin the USSR implemented a series of capitalist reforms and Mao broke off all relations with them.


Mao also disagreed with Stalin on a number of theoretical and practical issues, and wrote various critiques of him which I'll link here.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_66.htm


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_65.htm

I know he once wrote a crique of "The Foundations of Leninism" but I can't find it right now.

Here is an article that shows why Mao split with the Soviet Union

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm

Mao also opposed the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.


I see this now sorry, was an inappropriate comment.
No problem, "Self criticism is the life blood of the revolution"~Rosa Luxembourg



Feel free to message me if you want more reading material

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Oh, thanks!

Also would you recommend that biography of Mao? I've read alot on the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution but I feel like there is more about Mao's China that I'd like to learn

Ross Terrill's biography (Mao: A Biography (http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Biography-Expanded-Ross-Terrill/dp/0804729212/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355391573&sr=1-3&keywords=mao%3A+a+biography)) is decent but it is hostile to Mao and socialism in general; nevertheless I found it to be a decent start if you cannot find anything else. For a highly praised work I would look into The Morning Deluge (http://www.amazon.com/The-Morning-Deluge-Han-Suyin/dp/0224007939) by Han Suyin (which while I haven't read yet have heard very positive things from). In addition, Edgar Snow's account of the Chinese Revolution is another must read (Red Star Over China (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Star-over-China-Communism/dp/0802150934/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355391788&sr=1-1&keywords=red+star+over+china)).

[Devrim]

Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong are going to win! At least that is how it goes on the Baader Meinhof Complex movie.

Or as others chanted at the time "Students, students, ho, ho, ho".

Devrim

[Devrim]

Why the need for the use of the term "Asiatic"? It reeks of that very 19th century view of certain regions, ethnicities, or cultures being attributed their own economic character.

You mean like Marx did?

Devrim

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You mean like Marx did?

Devrim

Marx also said Nigger.
Doesn't mean we should use it as well.

[Devrim]

Marx also said Nigger.
Doesn't mean we should use it as well.

No, it doesn't, but 'Asiatic' is not a form of abuse.

Devrim

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No, it doesn't, but 'Asiatic' is not a form of abuse.

Devrim

I don't care about terms, including 'asiatic', my point was that just because Marx used a term doesn't mean we should.

[prolcon]

Marx also said Nigger.

He only ever called Engels that, which is okay because they both knew somebody who had a Black friend.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He only ever called Engels that, which is okay because they both knew somebody who had a Black friend.

Yeah, uh, no.
He called Lasalle a Jewish Nigger in a letter to Engels. Having a black friend is not an excuse to be a racist fuck.
Marxism=/=Defending everything Marx said, like you do.

[prolcon]

Yeah, uh, no.
He called Lasalle a Jewish Nigger in a letter to Engels. Having a black friend is not an excuse to be a racist fuck.
Marxism=/=Defending everything Marx said, like you do.

I wonder if recognizing jokes is against RevLeft's terms of use. And of course Gramsci Guy yet again thanks a useless post.

[Devrim]

Yeah, uh, no.
He called Lasalle a Jewish Nigger in a letter to Engels. Having a black friend is not an excuse to be a racist fuck.
Marxism=/=Defending everything Marx said, like you do.

He referred to Paul Lafargue, his son-in-law, as a 'nigger' too. Both his wife, and Engels had some pretty dispicable things to say on the subject. I can't remember the exact phrases, but I think Engels said something like 'Being a nigger, he [Lafargue] is a degree closer to the animal kingdom than the rest of us' whilst Marx's wife wrote to Engels worrying about 'having ten little nigger grandchildren' or something of the like.

Devrim

[GoddessCleoLover]

I wonder if recognizing jokes is against RevLeft's terms of use. And of course Gramsci Guy yet again thanks a useless post.

I guess some of us don't comprehend your sense of humor. Remember that something that may go over as a joke in person may not work as well online where we can't judge each other's tone of voice, facial expressions etcetera.

[prolcon]

I guess some of us don't comprehend your sense of humor. Remember that something that may go over as a joke in person may not work as well online where we can't judge each other's tone of voice, facial expressions etcetera.

Consider, though, that, in order for someone to have taken that joke seriously, they must have decided that I really and truly believed Marx referred to Engels as his nyukka (mutatis mutandis) and that not only were these philosophers both friends with someone in high 19th century German society who was on buddy-buddy terms with a person of Black descent, but that this indeed excused Marx's use of racist language.

Taking that joke seriously required effort, and I'm beginning to think Negative Creep was just fucking with me.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Taking that joke seriously required effort, and I'm beginning to think Negative Creep was just fucking with me.

If Negative Creep was just fucking with you, then he fooled me too.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I wonder if recognizing jokes is against RevLeft's terms of use. And of course Gramsci Guy yet again thanks a useless post.

Jokes are usually meant to be funny.
If you don't actually have to say anything in the discussion but jokes, you might want to re-think who makes the useless posts here.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Seemed like a likable bourgeois revolutionary.

I could be mistaken but I've read originally he sought out aid from DC for the Vietnamese revolution before Moscow. He didn't seem to be concerned (necessarily) with genuine, Communist revolution more so just the overthrow of the French government and expulsion from French Indo-China/Vietnam. Further, if that report is true he sought out the Americans help first because he thought they would be more sympathetic due to the American revolution but he was then snubbed by the then president due to him not knowing who Minh was. All in all, pretty neat/interesting guy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I thought it was funny...... :confused:

[prolcon]

Jokes are usually meant to be funny.
If you don't actually have to say anything in the discussion but jokes, you might want to re-think who makes the useless posts here.

Not every last post has to be a thorough dialectic analysis. I feel like I contribute enough to discussion on RevLeft that I'm entitled to an occasional bad joke. Seriously, though, who did your humorectomy?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Getting back to Ho Chi Minh I did some reading today on the details of the extermination of the Vietnamese Trotskyists and the details are shocking. Not only were Vietnamese Trotskyists either shot or "disappeared" but the mass workers' organizations they helped to establish were crushed by the Viet Minh armed forces. The posters who listed Ho Chi Minh as a "bourgeois revolutionary" seem to be even more correct than they supposed. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh went to great lengths to murder working class leaders and crush working class organizations. Shades of Pinochet tbh.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Getting back to Ho Chi Minh I did some reading today on the details of the extermination of the Vietnamese Trotskyists and the details are shocking. Not only were Vietnamese Trotskyists either shot or "disappeared" but the mass workers' organizations they helped to establish were crushed by the Viet Minh armed forces. The posters who listed Ho Chi Minh as a "bourgeois revolutionary" seem to be even more correct than they supposed. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh went to great lengths to murder working class leaders and crush working class organizations. Shades of Pinochet tbh.

Every revolutionary movement is bound to sully it's self in blood, any revolutionary movement that has not has only failed to do so due to a lack of time or ability

It's right to condemn this sort of action, but we can't use it as a yardstick to measure this man's worth, which is about the value of 100 revleft's combined.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Every revolutionary movement is bound to sully it's self in blood, any revolutionary movement that has not has only failed to do so due to a lack of time or ability

It's right to condemn this sort of action, but we can't use it as a yardstick to measure this man's worth, which is about the value of 100 revleft's combined.

I would say that Vietnamese soldiers who fought and bled and died for their cause are worth more than a hundred RevLefts, perhaps thousands. OTOH RevLeft is certainly better than pre-internet days when we didn't have this technology that allow us to voice our ideas.

Ho Chi Minh was certainly a dedicated activist for his cause. Upon ascending to power, though, his actions were frankly tyrannical. In addition, Ho Chi Minh did not undergo the privations and dangers of the soldier fighting in the trenches. He was The Great Leader and afforded all of the privileges that Great Leaders enjoy.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Actually, he was imprisioned by both the British and the Nationalists and tortured twice.

Also, during the famine of 1945 he refused to eat more than two bowls of rice a week. I remember seeing a powerful picture of him in the biography I read where he looks just as near death as Ghandi during his hunger strike. That's why he looks so malnourished in most of the pictures you see of him.

So comparing him to "great leaders" like Kim Il Sung is simply incorrect.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thanks for the 411. Nonetheless, Ho Chi Minh by the 50s and 60s was given Great Leader treatment. BTW I am old enough to remember the proper wording of the SDS chant mentioned by another poster. It went "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF will surely win". Suffice to say that didn't help build any bridges with the working class. Truth be told, the Trots were politically smarter to go with Out Now as their slogan even though this put them to the right of SDS leading to the infamous Icepick the Trots chants. As bad as internet sectarianism is on RevLeft it was even worse back in the day.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, the Viet Minh worked alongside Trotskyists in the 30's but sought out to liquidate them after WWII. A thread that might be of interest:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnamese-trotskyism-t161807/index.html?t=161807

[GoddessCleoLover]

Yes, the Viet Minh worked alongside Trotskyists in the 30's but sought out to liquidate them after WWII. A thread that might be of interest:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnamese-trotskyism-t161807/index.html?t=161807

Nice job Ostrinski.:thumbup1:

[ind_com]

Yes, the Viet Minh worked alongside Trotskyists in the 30's but sought out to liquidate them after WWII. A thread that might be of interest:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnamese-trotskyism-t161807/index.html?t=161807

This was a great blunder, as Vietnamese Trotskyites did not have any terrorist intentions and were somewhat popular. And it's always better to leave Trots alone and watch them self-liquidate anyways.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks for the 411. Nonetheless, Ho Chi Minh by the 50s and 60s was given Great Leader treatment. BTW I am old enough to remember the proper wording of the SDS chant mentioned by another poster. It went "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF will surely win". Suffice to say that didn't help build any bridges with the working class. Truth be told, the Trots were politically smarter to go with Out Now as their slogan even though this put them to the right of SDS leading to the infamous Icepick the Trots chants. As bad as internet sectarianism is on RevLeft it was even worse back in the day.

Fucking icepicks...


The American SWP line on Troops Out, Bring Our Boys Home was fine, but a bunch of the European FI (and portions of the American anti-war movement) did actually meet with the NLF leadership.

Apparently the SWP practice regarding the Vietnam draft was to meet it, but with a raucous delegation of fellow Trotskyists. The draft offices generally found the draftees unsuitable.

A fair portion of the older Left leadership in Canada is made up of draft dodgers. It's kind of interesting to think what would've happened if they'd stayed in the US...