Who Is Ho Chih Minh Exactly?

[feeLtheLove]

I understand Ho Chi Minh was "leader" of the Vietnam Revolution and one of the major so called "Communists" in Vietnam. But I heard that he had some Nationalist tendencies? I need the opinion of you guys.

[l'Enfermé]

If you wish, comrade, I could email you a political biography of Ho Chi Minh, published by Progress Publishers, I think in the 70s. Just PM me your email. :)

[Brutus]

He did massacre trots in the late 1940s, so you won't be a big fan

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

A more trustworthy biography is William J. Duiker's 'Ho Chi Min: A Life'.
Take anything published by Progres Publishers with a few grains of salt, or anything really since being critical is quite important but that's besides the point.

[Ostrinski]

He was a national liberation leader of the Vietnamese people against French colonial rule. Originally lobbied the United States for support against the French which was denied (for obvious reasons) and afterward did the same thing with the Soviet Union and the PRC with success. Key figure in the establishment of the Stalinist regime in North Vietnam but died before the war ended.

[feeLtheLove]

He adopted the Maoist land reform, which was pretty brutal. Ending up in the murders of land owners

[Ostrinski]

Not many tears being shed for those folks on this site.

[Brutus]

He adopted the Maoist land reform, which was pretty brutal. Ending up in the murders of land owners
The ruiling class isn't going yo say: here you go. Have it

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He adopted the Maoist land reform, which was pretty brutal. Ending up in the murders of land owners

Poor landowners.
That's probably the least bad things of what happened in Vietnam, some things can be excused due to foreign invasion. The killing of trots cannot, for one it was not during the war. I however see no need for sympathy towards landlords. The reforms itself were not "socialist" reforms though.

[feeLtheLove]

you misinterpreted me; not much sympathy for the land owners but the idea of maoists reforms doesn't sound socialist

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

you misinterpreted me; not much sympathy for the land owners but the idea of maoists reforms doesn't sound socialist

It couldn't be, it was a bourgeois-democratic movement.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It couldn't be, it was a bourgeois-democratic movement.
Forilla tho. New Democracy is naked Class Collaborationism.

[ind_com]

you misinterpreted me; not much sympathy for the land owners but the idea of maoists reforms doesn't sound socialist

I feel the love already. Have you ever thought about why your ideal socialist movements don't manage to seize power anywhere nowadays?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I feel the love already. Have you ever thought about why your ideal socialist movements don't manage to seize power anywhere nowadays?

Have you ever thought that guilt politics mixed with ad hominem is no legitimate basis for an argument?

[Geiseric]

Not many tears being shed for those folks on this site.

I believe he was talking about the poor peasantry who were oppressed pretty bad as well, just like during collectivization. Not to mention reprisals against Hmong minority groups following the war, the NVA was pretty brutal. The context though was war with a superpower, so it isn't black and white.

[Zealot]

Actually, there was a short-lived collaboration between Trotskyists and Ho Chi Minh's organisation, which was manifested primarily in the editorial board of La Lutte newspaper and a group of candidates put forward for elections in 1935. During the war the Trotskyists were attempting to launch their own "revolution" against the fledgling socialist government and was for obvious reasons quickly put down. This was the "massacre" alluded to above.

[o well this is ok I guess]

you misinterpreted me; not much sympathy for the land owners but the idea of maoists reforms doesn't sound socialist I'm no violence fetishist, but it's really not a rev if a few landlords don't get offed

I feel the love already. Have you ever thought about why your ideal socialist movements don't manage to seize power anywhere nowadays? Hey man, he's talking about *your* socialist movements, which aren't all that great.

[Geiseric]

Actually, there was a short-lived collaboration between Trotskyists and Ho Chi Minh's organisation, which was manifested primarily in the editorial board of La Lutte newspaper and a group of candidates put forward for elections in 1935. During the war the Trotskyists were attempting to launch their own "revolution" against the fledgling socialist government and was for obvious reasons quickly put down. This was the "massacre" alluded to above.

You mean a revolution over the provisional government, who the french supported? God forbid.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not many tears being shed for those folks on this site.


The ruiling class isn't going yo say: here you go. Have it

That's why you expropriate it. Your response to the execution of thousands of Vietnamese landowners is that the ruling class won't give up the means of production voluntarily. So by extension do you advocate the execution of every single capitalist in the world because you anticipate they wont give up their enterprises out of free will?


Poor landowners.
That's probably the least bad things of what happened in Vietnam, some things can be excused due to foreign invasion. The killing of trots cannot, for one it was not during the war. I however see no need for sympathy towards landlords. The reforms itself were not "socialist" reforms though.

Imagine if socialists were going around should landowners in, say, Belgium. The execution of thousands of landowners was completely unnecessary. Their deaths wasn't a response to them enacting a counter-revolution, it was due to them being exploiters--which doesn't warrant death, but rather expropriation.

The bloodlust of some revlefters is infantile. It reminds of pretentious teenagers trying to be all edgy, an non-conformist. 'Ah look at me, I disregard life because said life owned property. How edgy I am.'

I'm probably going to be called a liberal for not thinking lightly of murder, or perhaps for my "liberal ethos." But think about this, when asked "would you join the capitalist class if you were able to?" the gross of people, including here on revleft, would say yes. So how can you simultaneously insist that those people who did exactly what you would do if given the opportunity deserve death for doing exactly that? It's beyond hypocritical.

Murders are only warranted if necessary. Capitalism is a social relationship (or multiple) and murder does not change class or social relationships.


Actually, there was a short-lived collaboration between Trotskyists and Ho Chi Minh's organisation, which was manifested primarily in the editorial board of La Lutte newspaper and a group of candidates put forward for elections in 1935. During the war the Trotskyists were attempting to launch their own "revolution" against the fledgling socialist government and was for obvious reasons quickly put down. This was the "massacre" alluded to above.

'Darn Trotskyists trying to instigate a revolution against class society. Rightfully put down of course. We can't have none of that as Marxist-Leninists!'

The use of quotation marks around "massacre" apparently indicates that when you agree with a massacre it's not really a "massacre."

Remind me again what this 'socialist government' exactly was. Sweden is more socialist than Vietnam ever was, but I suppose you would not oppose an attempting revolution against Sweden because it never called itself 'Marxist-Leninist' or draped itself in a red flag.

[Ostrinski]

Tim I agree with you that was tongue in cheek

[feeLtheLove]

I feel the love already. Have you ever thought about why your ideal socialist movements don't manage to seize power anywhere nowadays?

They're so many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin....

[Ostrinski]

Some folk on this site haven't grasped the idea that others of us don't want to "seize power" in some kind of coup but want the working class to demolish the existing power structure and subsequently create their own mediums of class hegemony.

[ind_com]

Some folk on this site haven't grasped the idea that others of us don't want to "seize power" in some kind of coup but want the working class to demolish the existing power structure and subsequently create their own mediums of class hegemony.

The latter is what is usually meant by a socialist movement seizing power.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Some folk on this site haven't grasped the idea that others of us don't want to "seize power" in some kind of coup but want the working class to demolish the existing power structure and subsequently create their own mediums of class hegemony.

Other than the Satilite states of the USSR, this doesn't really apply to anything. Albania, Yugoslavia, China, and Vietnam were largely popularly supported revolutions. IF your going to play the whole "not real socialism" card then at least admit that these were revolutions that degerated, or at least bourgeois democratic revolutions which is some what applicable to Vietnam despite the fact that the bourgeois did not participate.

[Tim Cornelis]

Other than the Satilite states of the USSR, this doesn't really apply to anything. Albania, Yugoslavia, China, and Vietnam were largely popularly supported revolutions. IF your going to play the whole "not real socialism" card then at least admit that these were revolutions that degerated, or at least bourgeois democratic revolutions which is some what applicable to Vietnam despite the fact that the bourgeois did not participate.

(Must control my inner grammar nazi)

Popularly supported revolutions does not equal revolutions carried out by the populace at large. The Russian revolution was 'degenerated' in a sense in that it was initially carried out by large segments of the working population. Regarding China, I don't think this was ever the case, it seemed a top-down revolution from the get-go (although I'm not that informed about it). Albania and Yugoslavia seemed to have been carried out by a minority of armed leaders, while popularly supported, did not amount to a popular revolution in that sense.

[Zealot]

You mean a revolution over the provisional government, who the french supported? God forbid.

What? Obviously, you are unaware that a war took place between the Vietminh and the French.


The use of quotation marks around "massacre" apparently indicates that when you agree with a massacre it's not really a "massacre."

Correct.

If the Trotskyists had taken power in Vietnam and Marxist-Leninists had attempted to overthrow them you can damn well bet they would have done the same thing. Perhaps it was a massacre from their point of view but for a government that was engaged in continual war, with troops from several different countries, a few Trotskyists making a nuisance of themselves was obviously unwelcome.

[Ismail]

Albania and Yugoslavia seemed to have been carried out by a minority of armed leaders, while popularly supported, did not amount to a popular revolution in that sense.Only if you isolate those actively fighting the foreign occupation from everything else. I'll note Albania. These fighters came from the ranks of the workers, students and peasants and were assisted by them through provisions of housing, clothing, food, etc. In liberated areas national liberation councils were set up which managed local economics and the carrying out of justice, having in them the participation of civilian elements. In addition, during the struggle provisional governments were set up, deriving their authority from those councils erected during the war. The armed struggle, which began through basic guerrilla bands and political agitation in the cities, evolved over time into partisan units and then an organized army with its own brigades and divisions. Giving leadership to all this was the Communist Party of Albania, with its cells in the councils and in the army, through its use of political commissars and ideological direction of the war effort.

The war's social aspect lay in the fact that the bourgeoisie, landowners and most petty-bourgeois elements joined or sympathized with the Balli Kombëtar (anti-communist "resistance" group à la the Četniks) or the capital's quisling administrations. Their properties were confiscated by the aforementioned councils. There was never a coalition government in postwar Albania between the Communists and other elements, nor did the National Liberation Front (and postwar Democratic Front) have any other parties but the Communist Party.

To quote one anti-communist observer, "It is very likely that the men and women of Albania became deeply disillusioned with the brave new society from 1945 onwards, but there can be no doubt about the popular enthusiasm for it for several months in the middle of 1944 throughout south Albania and in all the areas to which the Partisan units penetrated." (Hibbert, Albania's National Liberation Struggle: The Bitter Victory, p. 239.)

This is quite different from, say, Cuba where it was literally a bunch of guys in the mountains whose cause, the ousting of Batista, was popular and in turn made them popular. There was no party, no form of administration in "liberated" areas (since they basically just moved from one end of the island to another to reach the capital), and no other form of struggle besides "we hate Batista and want him gone." This is because Castro and Co. were not Marxist-Leninists but liberals and left-wing populists, and conducted their struggle accordingly.

As for the original topic, Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary. He did, however, vacillate on the issue of revisionism: he called for "unity" within the "international communist movement," which meant among other things sending telegrams to Hoxha telling him to reconcile with the Soviet leadership, urging the Soviets and Chinese to cease their polemics against each other, etc. There was a material reason for taking this stand, of course, since the Vietnamese were fighting US imperialism and wanted to make sure that armaments and other support from the USSR and China wouldn't be cut off because of the North being "too pro-Soviet" or "too pro-Chinese," but in practice this led to things like Ho simultaneously supporting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia while getting rid of those members of the Party leadership who took the Soviet line of "negotiations" (capitulation) with US imperialism and its Southern puppets.

"[The] Vietnamese took the same position as the Chinese on the issues.... they did not participate in the World Communist Party Congress in Moscow in 1965 or the International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow in 1969. They did not attend either of these two conferences because Brezhnev's foreign policy [still] included such ideas as 'peaceful coexistence', 'peaceful transition to socialism' and approaches toward the Third World on which the SRV differed in principle from the Soviets. Vietnam criticized the policy of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev administrations toward the Third World, particularly their economic assistance policy, as 'economism divorced from a class viewpoint.' This kind of criticism continued to appear in official publications up to 1967.

The Vietnamese did not join in the criticism of Stalin taking place in the Soviet Union and would not go along with the denunciation of Albania. In fact, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam maintains party and state relations with Albania to this day. Vietnamese translations of Stalin's writings are still published in Vietnam. The Vietnamese often used the occasion of Stalin's birthday (December 21) for their attacks on the non-Leninist policy lines of China and the Soviet Union, referring to Stalin as 'the great disciple of Lenin.'"
(Mio Tadashi (ed). Indochina in Transition: Confrontation or Co-prosperity. Tokyo: Japan Institute of International Affairs. 1989. pp. 82-83.)

"As the Brezhnev administration was launched, the Soviets adopted a policy different from that of Khrushchev and increased economic and military aid to Vietnam. Since Soviet aid to the Vietnamese national liberation war became more active in general under Brezhnev, Vietnam quit criticizing the Soviets as 'modern revisionist,' but still viewed his detente with the U.S. no different from Khrushchev's peaceful co-existence policy. Therefore, Vietnam never praised the detente policy, although grateful for the aid it sought and obtained from the Soviets."
(Ibid. p. 134.)

[Geiseric]

What? Obviously, you are unaware that a war took place between the Vietminh and the French.



Correct.

If the Trotskyists had taken power in Vietnam and Marxist-Leninists had attempted to overthrow them you can damn well bet they would have done the same thing. Perhaps it was a massacre from their point of view but for a government that was engaged in continual war, with troops from several different countries, a few Trotskyists making a nuisance of themselves was obviously unwelcome.

Ho Chi Mihn was supported by the OSS, the American secret service during WW2. At the time he, like Mao, put aside the idea of social revolution because they recieved arms from, or in other words were bribed by imperialists. The democratic republic of vietnam was at first basically a provisional government, which the Viet Minh supported.

Ho Chi Mihn was basically the Michael Collins of Vietnam. He wasn't a communist, he was a bourgeois nationalist. The country he set up later adopted a semi planned economy.

[Ismail]

Ho Chi Mihn was supported by the OSS, the American secret service during WW2.And? The British helped the anti-fascist resistance in Eastern Europe (while trying to subvert it from within) as well. Many British reports praised Hoxha's partisans for actually fighting the enemy, whereas the anti-communist "resistance" was too busy collaborating with the occupiers against the Communists to be of any use to British interests at the time.

The Viet Minh were not "bribed by the imperialists," they understood that the main task was to liberate Vietnam from fascist occupation. Their propaganda and aims were based around that goal. The line they took was the same as the line of all the "Stalinist" parties during the war.

Give concrete examples of Ho being a "bourgeois nationalist."

[feeLtheLove]

Give concrete examples of Ho being a "bourgeois nationalist."

I figure one can't deny that Ho Chih Minh didn't have some sense of Nationalism in him.
He even said himself that he was Inspired by Vietnam and not Communism. While I do respect him for standing up to France and the U.S. he seemed more bent on Vietnam bent than Communist way. After Vietnam won its freedom from France, Minh chose the path of "Socialism in one Country" instead of the Dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is counter-world revolution, which, in that sense, in counter-communist. He chose a path that would appease the USSR (Stalin) and China so he could get support from them in order to kick out the french.

[Ismail]

I figure one can't deny that Ho Chih Minh didn't have some sense of Nationalism in him.There's a different between that and bourgeois nationalism. Juche, for example, is a bourgeois-nationalist doctrine which preaches "the nation" above classes and the interests of socialism. Titoism was another bourgeois-nationalist ideology, as is Maoism.


After Vietnam won its freedom from France, Minh chose the path of "Socialism in one Country" instead of the Dictatorship of the proletariat.Vietnam's struggle against US imperialism inspired millions the world over. The Vietnamese also provided moral and strategic support to other communist and democratic movements. It was also the Vietnamese who kicked out Pol Pot whereas China, the DPRK, Romania and Yugoslavia stood in defense of him and his regime.

Of course the Vietnamese did not build a socialist society, and for decades have been more or less a miniature China as far as economics go, but that does not change the character of Ho as a revolutionary or the fact that in foreign affairs Vietnam played a basically positive role.

[feeLtheLove]

There's a different between that and bourgeois nationalism.
Right, but I never called him a bourgeois nationalist. Just a nationalist. And one cannot be both a Communist and Nationalist at the same time.


Of course the Vietnamese did not build a socialist society, and for decades have been more or less a miniature China as far as economics go, but that does not change the character of Ho as a revolutionary or the fact that in foreign affairs Vietnam played a basically positive role.

Which is what Ho should have tried to do. It is what any true Marxist would do. But, as I said, he was to bent on pleasing Stalin and Mao. Which does change the character of Ho as a revolutionary. One does not start a communist revolution and then not do all the things they were suppose to do afterwards. Which plays a negative role for people who admire Ho. And I'm not saying that standing up against the U.S. wasn't inspiring nor brave. But Ho Chih Minh was a nationalist not a Communist

[Geiseric]

Ho was basically a bureaucrat just like Khruschev, Stalin, Brezhnev, Mao, etc. His interests were in strengthening and making independent Vietnam, not world revolution. He started the process that led to Vietnam today, namely a haven for child labor.

[Ismail]

He started the process that led to Vietnam today, namely a haven for child labor.I don't see how. That's like saying Lenin and Stalin "started the process" that led to the post-1991 market policies which crippled Russia. There's a pretty obvious disconnect between Ho Chi Minh's economic policies and those pursued from the 80's onwards.

Also you just compared Ho Chi Minh to Michael Collins, now you're saying he was interested in "strengthening and making independent Vietnam," which is it?


Right, but I never called him a bourgeois nationalist. Just a nationalist. And one cannot be both a Communist and Nationalist at the same time.There's no difference in terms when applying it to Communists. In either case it means the subordination of proletarian internationalism to nationalism and Marxism-Leninism to "national" revisionism. Ho never invented his own ideology and his country's foreign policy was as open as it could be towards influencing and supporting other movements.

[feeLtheLove]

There's no difference in terms when applying it to Communists. In either case it means the subordination of proletarian internationalism to nationalism and Marxism-Leninism to "national" revisionism. Ho never invented his own ideology and his country's foreign policy was as open as it could be towards influencing and supporting other movements.

So either way he is still a Nationalist. Which leads to Capitalism. Whether he stood up to world powers or not he was, in the end, fighting for a capitalist nation. This is why Nike has sweatshops there because of Ho Chih Minh. As Broody Guthrie said his interests lied with making an independent Vietnam, not a world Revolution. He wasn't a Communist he was a Nationalist and an Opportunist that called himself a Commie so he could get support from the USSR and China to kick out the french and establish Vietnam

[Geiseric]

I don't see how. That's like saying Lenin and Stalin "started the process" that led to the post-1991 market policies which crippled Russia. There's a pretty obvious disconnect between Ho Chi Minh's economic policies and those pursued from the 80's onwards.

Also you just compared Ho Chi Minh to Michael Collins, now you're saying he was interested in "strengthening and making independent Vietnam," which is it?

There's no difference in terms when applying it to Communists. In either case it means the subordination of proletarian internationalism to nationalism and Marxism-Leninism to "national" revisionism. Ho never invented his own ideology and his country's foreign policy was as open as it could be towards influencing and supporting other movements.

Well Lenin died while the bureaucracy was taking control of the fSU, however Stalin was debatably key to that process, in the same way Trotsky was important for the Red Army and early Comintern. Ho Chi Mihn did the industrialization, at huge cost to the poor peasantry, just like how China and Russia did it, with "Primitave Accumulation," resulting in several hundred thousand deaths. But did Ho ever talk with or form, say, workers councils? Not to my knowledge, I could be wrong though. Did he do anything at all that had anything to do with soviet democracy? Please let me know if he did.

My point about Michael Collins was that Michael Collins was fighting for an independent Ireland, not socialism, although he was part of James Connolly's bunch during Easter. What ended up being created was Southern Ireland, where the land barons and capitalists are more or less in charge. The only real difference is that the CP and Viet Mihn are in charge of Vietnam instead of foreign capitalists.

[Ismail]

So either way he is still a Nationalist.I don't see how. Because he didn't recognize Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" views? After all, Nepal's present Prime Minister said in 2009 that (http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm), "In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat."

I doubt anyone would seriously consider the Nepali Maoists to not be nationalists and right-wingers.


He wasn't a Communist he was a Nationalist and an Opportunist that called himself a Commie so he could get support from the USSR and China to kick out the french and establish VietnamNo evidence of nationalism and even less of opportunism. He did vacillate on the issue of revisionism, of course, but you wouldn't recognize that anyway.

[Ostrinski]

Well Lenin died while the bureaucracy was taking control This happened long before Lenin died.

[Prometeo liberado]

I liked the fact that he was a commis in a Paris kitchen and still had the balls to shower after his shift and show up at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference demanding a Vietnamese state. That's like working overtime, right?:grin:

[feeLtheLove]

No evidence of nationalism and even less of opportunism.
Yes evidence of Nationalism! He only cared about establishing Vietnam as a country. He never cared about Communism, the world revolution, or anything Marxist. Ho went a long with Stalin's game because they would provide support so he could establish Vietnam, but only if he promised to do whatever the totalitarian Soviet Government said.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So either way he is still a Nationalist. Which leads to Capitalism. Whether he stood up to world powers or not he was, in the end, fighting for a capitalist nation. This is why Nike has sweatshops there because of Ho Chih Minh. As Broody Guthrie said his interests lied with making an independent Vietnam, not a world Revolution. He wasn't a Communist he was a Nationalist and an Opportunist that called himself a Commie so he could get support from the USSR and China to kick out the french and establish Vietnam

First of all, I'd like to note that it's a sign of privilege to dismiss "Nationalism" if you have a country of your own. Do you think colonialism really is preferable to revisionism? And secondly, do you have any evidence to back up your claims he wasn't an internationalist other than that he wanted to gain Independence? Because that is an incredibly silly argument to make

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yes evidence of Nationalism! He only cared about establishing Vietnam as a country. He never cared about Communism, the world revolution, or anything Marxist. Ho went a long with Stalin's game because they would provide support so he could establish Vietnam, but only if he promised to do whatever the totalitarian Soviet Government said.

And do you know why he wanted an indepedant Vietnam so bad? See this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4VbBvAcMJw0/TSC01phSb6I/AAAAAAAAABg/oLatqq6tLN8/s1600/4a18065d_maidan01.jpg

This is a photo of a mass grave. Do you know what this picture is of? The Vietnamese Famine of 1945. Do you know what caused this famine? A combintion of Japanese and French Imperialism.

I've done some research on Vietnam under imperial rule, and I'll tell you, you know how Trotsky said that Communists ought to seek a united front against fascism? Well let's face it, fascism is nothing more than imperialism when imperialism is done to white people. The Vietnamese endured one of the harshest colonial regimes in history, and ending it was far more important than anything else. The fact that uncle Ho was a communist just makes it better. The only nationalism that Uncle Ho had was the fact that he wanted to end things like the picture above from happening in his country again, and if you think ideological purity is more important than that then well frankly your disregard for the well being of the Vietnamese people is concerning. Also Uncle Ho died before the Vietnam war ended so he really didn't have any role in the restoration of Capitalism in Vietnam, so that's a moot point.

I will simply end by saying that I am all for him doing what ever he could to gain Independence, because the world doesn't revolve around our ideology my friends.

[feeLtheLove]

First of all, I'd like to note that it's a sign of privilege to dismiss "Nationalism" if you have a country of your own. Do you think colonialism really is preferable to revisionism? And secondly, do you have any evidence to back up your claims he wasn't an internationalist other than that he wanted to gain Independence? Because that is an incredibly silly argument to make

No he was a nationalist because he was only concern was of establishing a state of Vietnam. Who could care less of Marxism or the world revolution. He even said it himself! He was inspired by Nationalism and used it to create an independent Vietnam!! He was no Communist!!


We have a secret weapon...it is called Nationalism”
It was patriotism[Nationalism], not communism, that inspired me. "
~Ho Chih Minh

So whose word should I take about Ho Chih Minh being a Nationalist?? Hmmm yours or his own?

And about the picture;
Do you hear me saying that the conditions in Vietnam weren't bad? Did you hear me say that french colonialism in French Indo-China was good? No you didn't. And there is a fine line between having a revolution that is communist to install the DotP and will help proletariats around the world when their revolution comes so they can be liberated from Bourgeoisie oppression. And there is a difference in having a revolution out of nationalism.
Do you understand what I mean?

[Questionable]

Well if you're going to use one quote to damn Ho Chi Minh forever, then I think it's only fair that feeLtheLove opens up some of his works on the Marxist Internet Archive and see where he did in fact utilize Marxian analysis and condemn capitalism for its harsh treatment of workers and other oppressed peoples. I went there myself to find quotes of him expressing support for communism but there's so many that people might as well go look for themselves.

The irony is that people like feeLtheLove will probably say that Ho Chi Minh was only trying to fool us when he spoke in Marxist terminology and he was actually a Stalinist puppet all along, thus we can only trust the quotes that fit the negative Anti-Stalinist narrative as legitimate. It's a common tactic.

Also, to cast some light on that particular quote about nationalism inspiring him, Minh was referring to 1919 when he tried to make a deal with Wilson about the self-determination of Asia but was rejected, thus causing him to go join the French Communist Party. So it's much more likely that Minh was explaining his initial actions for getting involved in communism, much like how certain people are single-issue when they get involved in politics but become aware of the broader spectrum as time goes on.

[Questionable]

Oh hey, I dug around some more on the MIA and found this piece by Minh:



After World War I, I made my living in Paris, now as a retoucher at a photographer’s, now as painter of “Chinese antiquities” (made in France!). I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.
At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.
The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was that these “ladies and gentlemen” - as I called my comrades at that moment - has shown their sympathy towards me, towards the struggle of the oppressed peoples. But I understood neither what was a party, a trade-union, nor what was socialism nor communism.
Heated discussions were then taking place in the branches of the Socialist Party, about the question whether the Socialist Party should remain in the Second International, should a Second and a half International be founded or should the Socialist Party join Lenin’s Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, twice or thrice a week and attentively listened to the discussion. First, I could not understand thoroughly. Why were the discussions so heated? Either with the Second, Second and a half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. What was the use of arguing then? As for the First International, what had become of it?
What I wanted most to know - and this precisely was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sides with the peoples of colonial countries?
I raised this question - the most important in my opinion - in a meeting. Some comrades answered: It is the Third, not the Second International. And a comrade gave me Lenin’s “Thesis on the national and colonial questions” published by l'Humanite to read.
There were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear-sightedness and confidence it instilled into me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted out aloud as if addressing large crowds: “Dear martyrs compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation!”
After then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International.
Formerly, during the meetings of the Party branch, I only listened to the discussion; I had a vague belief that all were logical, and could not differentiate as to who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and discussed with fervour. Though I was still lacking French words to express all my thoughts, I smashed the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International with no less vigour. My only argument was: “If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?”
Not only did I take part in the meetings of my own Party branch, but I also went to other Party branches to lay down “my position”. Now I must tell again that Comrades Marcel Cachin, Vaillant Couturier, Monmousseau and many others helped me to broaden my knowledge. Finally, at the Tours Congress, I voted with them for our joining the Third International.
At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.
There is a legend, in our country as well as in China, on the miraculous “Book of the Wise”. When facing great difficulties, one opens it and finds a way out. Leninism is not only a miraculous “book of the wise”, a compass for us Vietnamese revolutionaries and people: it is also the radiant sun illuminating our path to final victory, to socialism and communism.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm


Pretty enlightening stuff.

[feeLtheLove]

Well if you're going to use one quote to damn Ho Chi Minh forever,
Actually, I used two ;)



Also, to cast some light on that particular quote about nationalism inspiring him, Minh was referring to 1919 when he tried to make a deal with Wilson about the self-determination of Asia but was rejected, thus causing him to go join the French Communist Party. So it's much more likely that Minh was explaining his initial actions for getting involved in communism, much like how certain people are single-issue when they get involved in politics but become aware of the broader spectrum as time goes on.

So first he was inspired by Nationalism in order to please Wilson? Now he is inspired by Communism to please the USSR? You basically proved my point! He is moving from party to party, country to country, until he finds someone who will help him fight for a Vietnam. He is saying stuff to appease world powers into helping him. He genuinely only cared about Vietnam; that's no lie. But it's the only thing he cared about. And Ho was referring to what inspired him for a revolution, Nationalism. Not Communism. He said it himself, there is no possible way you can twist his words. And you also skipped the second quote, He said his weapon was Nationalism. You can't be that ignorant, do you just defend whoever calls himself a "Marxist-Leninist?" If Ho Chih Minh says it himself are you just going to believe the opposite in order to protect your tendency?

[Questionable]

So first he was inspired by Nationalism in order to please Wilson?

That's not what happened, that's not what I said, this sentence is the furthest thing from reality I've read in years. The only way, the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that someone could derive that from ANYTHING I posted, is if they hate Ho Chi Minh already and they want to construe the evidence to support their own belief system. Which is what you are doing.


Now he is inspired by Communism to please the USSR? You basically proved my point!

No, ironically you've proved my point. Trots do this shit all the damned time and it's so old. Whenever a "Stalinist" says something that can be perceived as non-communist, it's proof that they're all great pretenders who were merely playing the political game when they spoke genuinely of Marxism and the proletariat. 99% of what they've written are just lies to appease the USSR, and the 0.1% of scattered and outdated sentences that Trots collect are irrevocable proof that they were lying all along. It's the EXACT same tactic used by conspiracy theorists to "prove" their theories. Dig through a mountain of quotations and statements, find the stuff that appears fishy or unclear, and then ignore the rest as lies.


He said his weapon was Nationalism. You can't be that ignorant, do you just defend whoever calls himself a "Marxist-Leninist?" If Ho Chih Minh says it himself are you just going to believe the opposite in order to protect your tendency?

I'd say you're the one hellbent on protecting your tendency since your main tactic is to insist that everything Minh said that about Marxism was a grand conspiracy theory all along to fool both the USSR and the proletariat, and your evidence is two quotes that don't exceed ten words, one of them which I've debunked.

And to answer your question, I don't see revolutionary nationalism as a problem as long as its directed towards socialism. Read some James Connolly.

[Art Vandelay]

What matters is not what rhetoric he espoused but what were the tangible effects of his actions. Ho Chi Minh, like Tito, Sung, Castro, etc...were all just the bastardized children of Stalinism.

[feeLtheLove]

That's not what happened, that's not what I said, this sentence is the furthest thing from reality I've read in years. The only way, the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that someone could derive that from ANYTHING I posted, is if they hate Ho Chi Minh already and they want to construe the evidence to support their own belief system. Which is what you are doing.
Or they can just read

Minh was referring to 1919 when he tried to make a deal with Wilson
~Questionable




No, ironically you've proved my point. Trots do this shit all the damned time and it's so old. Whenever a "Stalinist" says something that can be perceived as non-communist, it's proof that they're all great pretenders
Or because Stalinists who claim to be Communist and do the exact opposite of Marx's teachings. Say like, I don't know....Stalin himself. Whom claimed to be a marxist yet proved to be a murderous tyrant.


it's proof that they're all great pretenders who were merely playing the political game
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
That's ironic Comrade! Because everyone views "Marxist-Leninists" as kids who have played to much Red alert! Or played Call of Duty and have been on the Spetsnaz too often! And now they feel like they're true to the core commies who honor Uncle Joe and the Soviets!


I'd say you're the one hellbent on protecting your tendency
How am I protecting my tendency? Trotsky isn't even part of our subject!!:laugh:


since your main tactic is to insist that everything Minh said that about Marxism was a grand conspiracy theory all along to fool both the USSR and the proletariat,
Well kinda-sort-of. I said that Ho Chih Minh was being opportunistic, and went to the Soviet Union and China and asked for support to free Vietnam. USSR and China viewed this as a way to weaken the Western Powers and obliged. Ho Chih Minh never cared about Communism, only Vietnam.


and your evidence is two quotes that don't exceed ten words, one of them which I've debunked.
No you haven't you've only claimed that he wasn't a Nationalist and showed a passage of his writings that he said now he is a Leninist.



And to answer your question, I don't see revolutionary nationalism as a problem as long as its directed towards socialism. Read some James Connolly.
Well you should. Considering that the only revolution should be a proletarian one.

And now you have completely diverted from the topic at hand, so I will try I get through to you as much as I can. First) Ho was looking for a Vietnam; not A Communist world. You even said it yourself. Ho went to the U.S. first, and after he was denied, switched up and asked the other team. Which makes sense, considering he was only looking for an independent Vietnam. Second) That passage you gave me. It was after the Indo-china war. He was never interested in Communism

[Questionable]

Or they can just read

I don't need to debate this point with you. Anybody with a decent amount of sense can see that Minh was not trying to gain favor with Wilson. I'm not going to waste time arguing against Stalinist-under-the-bed conspiracy plots that exist only in your mind.

I said no such thing about Minh being in bed with Wilson or US imperialism. Anybody who looks at my post or Minh's own writings will see it's simply not true, you just made it up to justify yourself. I don't have to argue this anymore than I have to argue against someone who says aliens and ghosts were controlling the Stalinists. There's simply no evidence to support your position.


That's ironic Comrade! Because everyone views "Marxist-Leninists" as kids who have played to much Red alert! Or played Call of Duty and have been on the Spetsnaz too often! And now they feel like they're true to the core commies who honor Uncle Joe and the Soviets!

Whoa! You sure got me, man! Except, you know, you totally missed or purposely dodged the point about there being no evidence for the "great pretender" narrative of history espoused by dogmatic Trots, which is what I was trying to explain. This Red Alert nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and only exposes me opponents childishness, close-mindedness, and unwillingless to think critically. Instead of considering the evidence presented, he resorts to silly caricatures of my personality when he's never met me in real life, nor even spoken to me on Revleft before. Any discussion with FeeltheLove will go nowhere because when presented with contradictory evidence he will just insult you. He should feel privileged that I've spent as much time speaking to him as I have now.


Well kinda-sort-of. I said that Ho Chih Minh was being opportunistic, and went to the Soviet Union and China and asked for support to free Vietnam. USSR and China viewed this as a way to weaken the Western Powers and obliged. Ho Chih Minh never cared about Communism, only Vietnam.

Yet you have no proof of this, besides two quotes (One which, I'll remind everyone, was debunked).


No you haven't you've only claimed that he wasn't a Nationalist and showed a passage of his writings that he said now he is a Leninist.

And here you provem e right once again. Minh was a secret nationalist puppet master all along, despite a complete absence of evidence we're just supposed to believe this. Any writings that used Marxist or Leninist analysis were just him trying to fool us.


First) Ho was looking for a Vietnam; not A Communist world. You even said it yourself. Ho went to the U.S. first, and after he was denied, switched up and asked the other team. Which makes sense, considering he was only looking for an independent Vietnam.

No, he went to the US demanding that their claims of self-determination of nations apply to Asia as well, and also presented a list of French abuses to Wilson that he demanded justice for.

I can see how if you're a Trot hellbent on "proving" that every self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist was secretly a psychopath trying to ruin the proletariat movement, you can come up with a half-baked conspiracy theory about Minh trying to work with the US, but to anyone who looks at the evidence objectively, the answer is clear.


Well you should. Considering that the only revolution should be a proletarian one.

You clearly have no idea about revolutionary nationalism as theorized by the likes of James Connolly and thus you are not worth bringing calluses to my fingers by typing up a response. Do some reading and come back when you know what you're talking about. This uneducated tripe deserves no respect from me nor anyone else. It's the same as people who have never read a book by Marx yet claim communism is impossible because of human nature.


Second) That passage you gave me. It was after the Indo-china war. He was never interested in Communism

More faulty logic about how Minh was just secretly trying to look good to communist superpowers every time he spoke.

I'm tired of this argument. I have nothing to learn from getting into a screaming match with a Trotskyite fanatic who thinks Minh was a secret nationalist yet can't come up with a shred of proof for his claim. FeeltheIdiocy's entire argument hinges upon the notion that Minh only care about Vietnam and that any time he talked about Marxism he was actually just pretending. So far my opponent has presented no evidence for this narrative besides two out-of-context quotations.

So I will no longer respond to his posts. Let him talk all he wants about Minh being a nationalist-in-disguise until his fingers fall off from typing, there's no evidence to support him, in fact there's much more evidence to the contrary.

If one wanted to criticize Ho Chi Minh, there is a dozen things they could have chosen to do so, but FeeltheLove instead chose to focus on this victim fantasy he formulated in his own mind. Through his conduct in this debate, he has repeatedly shown that he will not by budged by any kind of logic or reasoning or contrary evidence, he will continue to insult me as a person despite never having met me, and insist that everything is part of his conspiracy. It is the equivalent of arguing with a Flat-Earther, and a waste of my time.

[Questionable]

That's ironic Comrade! Because everyone views "Marxist-Leninists" as kids who have played to much Red alert! Or played Call of Duty and have been on the Spetsnaz too often! And now they feel like they're true to the core commies who honor Uncle Joe and the Soviets!

And quite frankly, I think this kind of talk should be met with moderator action. It is plain stereotyping. Aside from the countless Marxist-Leninist parties which hail from all over the world, we have ML users on here who are openly homosexual, female, from other countries, from other ethnicities, etc.

If I came on here and said that all feminists were cranky women or that all anarchists were spoiled teenaged brat (Both claims are stereotypes and obviously bullshit, before anyone dares to say I believe in them), I'd be met with some kind of moderator action.

[feeLtheLove]

I don't need to debate this point with you. Anybody with a decent amount of sense can see that Minh was not trying to gain favor with Wilson. I'm not going to waste time arguing against Stalinist-under-the-bed conspiracy plots that exist only in your mind..

My god this is sad. First I never said he was a secret was Nationalist! He seemed pretty open about. Obviously admitting he was inspired by Nationalism and then saying his weapon was nationalism. He just fucking said it, logic for god's sake!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

My god this is sad. First I never said he was a secret was Nationalist! He seemed pretty open about. Obviously admitting he was inspired by Nationalism and then saying his weapon was nationalism. He just fucking said it, logic for god's sake!

I don't know about you, but I didn't wake up one day and say "oh boy doesn't communism sound like a great idea". The reason why I learned about Marxism is because after having so many of my friends evicted I began to hate landlords with a burning passion. To me, landlords are inhuman scum who do not deserve to be placed in the same moral category as our fellow man. It is this contempt for landlordism that is born from my material experiences that drove me to Marxism, it was not some revelation that Communism was awesome.

Likewise, if a jew joined the Communist French resistance because he was being persecuted then is that wrong? Not at all, he is being driven to our ideology by his material circumstances. Just as well Uncle Ho's land was raped for centuries by imperialism, what is wrong with him being driven to Communism? After all if there were no material conditions to drive people to our ideology, then it really wouldn't a point to it would it now?

[feeLtheLove]

I don't need to debate this point with you. Anybody with a decent amount of sense can see that Minh was not trying to gain favor with Wilson. I'm not going to waste time arguing against Stalinist-under-the-bed conspiracy plots that exist only in your mind.

So when you said Minh was trying to make a deal with Wilson. You didn't mean it? Right, make up you're mind. And bring up reasonable sense? Haha Minh said he was inspired by Nationalism and his weapon was Nationalism!



Whoa! You sure got me, man! Except, you know, you totally missed or purposely dodged the point about there being no evidence for the "great pretender" narrative of history espoused by dogmatic Trots, which is what I was trying to explain.
Great Pretender? Who said I said he was pretending! He seemed to be pretty open about him using nationalism as his weapon and it being his inspiration. And kinda does because you accused people of being Trots because its accuse Stalinist.



Yet you have no proof of this, besides two quotes (One which, I'll remind everyone, was debunked).
You haven't rebunked because you can't, he said it was his weapon inspiration and his weapon.



No, he went to the US demanding that their claims of self-determination of nations apply to Asia as well, and also presented a list of French abuses to Wilson that he demanded justice for.


I can see how if you're a Trot hellbent on "proving" that every self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist was secretly a psychopath trying to ruin the proletariat movement, you can come up with a half-baked conspiracy theory about Minh trying to work with the US, but to anyone who looks at the evidence objectively, the answer is clear.
Ummm no I said nearly every Marxist-Leninist leader has done something against Marxism. Never called them psychopaths (Although banning bananas seems insane) You're kind of over exaggerating everything I say to make it seem unlegit.



I'm tired of this argument. I have nothing to learn from getting into a screaming match with a Trotskyite fanatic who thinks Minh was a secret nationalist yet can't come up with a shred of proof for his claim. FeeltheIdiocy's entire argument hinges upon the notion that Minh only care about Vietnam and that any time he talked about Marxism he was actually just pretending. So far my opponent has presented no evidence for this narrative besides two out-of-context quotations.


So I will no longer respond to his posts.
OK? Who are you talking to? Me or somebody else?

[feeLtheLove]

I don't know about you, but I didn't wake up one day and say "oh boy doesn't communism sound like a great idea". The reason why I learned about Marxism is because after having so many of my friends evicted I began to hate landlords with a burning passion. To me, landlords are inhuman scum who do not deserve to be placed in the same moral category as our fellow man. It is this contempt for landlordism that is born from my material experiences that drove me to Marxism, it was not some revelation that Communism was awesome.
Ok? neither have I. I read a long Marx and Engels and etc. But how is this relevant to the topic at hand? And I don't like landowners either as any Marxist shouldn't.


Likewise, if a jew joined the Communist French resistance because he was being persecuted then is that wrong? Not at all, he is being driven to our ideology by his material circumstances. Just as well Uncle Ho's land was raped for centuries by imperialism, what is wrong with him being driven to Communism? After all if there were no material conditions to drive people to our ideology, then it really wouldn't a point to it would it now?

Youre not getting it are you? I never denied that Vietnam was being tortured by the hands of French colonialism! Please tell me where I said that! I'm saying he went to Nationalism not Communism. He wanted a Vietnam, no matter Capitalist or Communist. As long as it was free.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Youre not getting it are you? I never denied that Vietnam was being tortured by the hands of French colonialism! Please tell me where I said that! I'm saying he went to Nationalism not Communism. He wanted a Vietnam, no matter Capitalist or Communist. As long as it was free.

If you read the above passage you would realize how absurd you sound right now. I will quote it again

V
aillant Couturier, Monmousseau and many others helped me to broaden my knowledge. Finally, at the Tours Congress, I voted with them for our joining the Third International.
At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.

And as I said, Communism won't bring people to Communism. The Vietnamese people have more day to day experiences suffering under imperialism, why then shouldn't nationalism be used as a recruiting tool? After all, in a land of peasantry talking about fighting the bourgeois really isn't that relevant to their day to day needs.

[feeLtheLove]

why then shouldn't nationalism be used as a recruiting tool? After all, in a land of peasantry talking about fighting the bourgeois really isn't that relevant to their day to day needs.

Because it will mislead people. How can you claim Communism isn't going to attract people? And if it does fail you use Nationalism? Does that sound right to you?

[Questionable]

Okay, I will respond to one last thing in case anybody is confused.


So when you said Minh was trying to make a deal with Wilson. You didn't mean it? Right, make up you're mind. And bring up reasonable sense? Haha Minh said he was inspired by Nationalism and his weapon was Nationalism!

When I said "make a deal," I meant that in the sense of "Stop the imperialist oppression of Asia and live up to your promises," not "Hey I'll be an imperialist lackey if you do this for me!" It does appear to be a poor choice of words on my part, so forgive me anyone who is confused (Except feelthelove, I don't give a damned about him). For the article that discusses this, check this out:


In 1919, Woodrow Wilson arrived in France to sign the treaty ending World War I, and Ho, supposing that the President's doctrine of self-determination applied to Asia, donned a cutaway coat and tried to present Wilson with a lengthy list of French abuses in Vietnam. Rebuffed, Ho joined the newly created French Communist Party. "It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me," he later explained.

So as you can see, Minh was not making a "deal" with Wilson anymore than Lenin or Trotsky were making a "deal" when they asked for peace negotiations with the capitalist nations during WWI. He demanded fair treatment of Asia and Vietnam, he was denied, he went to communism without knowing much about it other than that it was one of the few ideologies supporting national liberation at the time, and then he learned more and become a full Marxist, as the text "The Path Which Lead Me To Leninism" which I quoted in its entirety above explained (Naturally feelthelove dismissed this as the grand puppet master Ho Chi Minh trying to make us think he was a real Marxist).

No doubt feelthelove will try to misconstrue it once again to fit his fucked up views of history, but I'm posting for the rational-minded people reading this who may be confused.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988162,00.html, although I would take caution when reading this as it attempts to downplay the Marxist element of Minh's life, much like bourgeois newspapers do.

Also, I find it remarkably cute that Feelthelove's answer to my post is STILL BASED ENTIRELY AROUND A SINGLE QUOTE WHERE HO CHI MINH SAID NATIONALISM WAS HIS WEAPON. THAT IS FEELTHELOVE'S ONLY LEG TO STAND ON, HE LITERALLY HAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS VIEWS EXCEPT ONE. SINGLE. QUOTE. Seriously people, look at Minh's MIA entries and see all the other times he expressed support for the international proletariat. This whole thing is just ridiculous, and I hope that even the intelligent Anti-Stalinists will understand how absurd this is.

[Ismail]

But how is this relevant to the topic at hand?Because, as Marx noted, theory "becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." Lenin didn't write about how the Vietnamese were the master race or how he wished he could dump his wife for a Vietnamese woman, but he did write about the relationship between imperialism and colonialism, the interconnected struggle and interests of the proletariat of the imperialist countries with those of the subjugated peoples in the colonial and dependent countries, etc. At a time when the Second International was justifying the supposedly "civilizing" nature of colonialism, Lenin was noting its reactionary nature not only as something which retarded the economic development of the colonies, but which was also used by the bourgeoisie to create a labor aristocracy in the imperialist countries.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So much argument!
And I only clicked on to this thread to say, "Ho Chi Minh - pretty decent poet."

What could be more natural? After sorrow comes joy.

[feeLtheLove]

Okay, I will respond to one last thing in case anybody is confused.
Right. And then another after this?



When I said "make a deal," I meant that in the sense of "Stop the imperialist oppression of Asia and live up to your promises," not "Hey I'll be an imperialist lackey if you do this for me!"
Just like all the other countries who "just made a deal with America" they weren't America's lackeys for sure!
And it's also ironic because Ho became the Soviet Union's lackey afterwards.


(Except feelthelove, I don't give a damned about him)
I don't give a *damn about him.



So as you can see, Minh was not making a "deal" with Wilson anymore than Lenin or Trotsky were making a "deal" when they asked for peace negotiations with the capitalist nations during WWI.
You can't really compare the two.
Ho Chih Minh was willing to follow the United States in order to create a Vietnam. Lenin and Trotsky were looking to keep from entering a war the will surely misguide it from it Socialist goals.


he went to communism without knowing much about it other than that it was one of the few ideologies supporting national liberation at the time
Exactly. He was only focused on creating a Vietnam. When he failed to gain support from the U.S. he went to the next best the and asked the Soviet Union and China. He mixed Communism with Nationalism in order to win his war. And when he did tried his attempts at so called "socialist program" It ended up murdering a bunch of people. And you even said it yourself, he used Nationalism to start his revolution. He went in for Nationalism, it wasn't until his war was over that he actually started taking an interest in Communism, and when he did he mixed Stalinism and Nationalism

[Ostrinski]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
That's ironic Comrade! Because everyone views "Marxist-Leninists" as kids who have played to much Red alert! Or played Call of Duty and have been on the Spetsnaz too often! And now they feel like they're true to the core commies who honor Uncle Joe and the Soviets!Yes, well, if you make comments such as this again you can expect to be met with a verbal warning. This kind of thing isn't tolerated in our discussion forums because it encourages off-topic discussion and flaming. I'd advise you not to do it again.

[MP5]

He was little more then a bourgeois nationalist who participated in massacres of both the bourgeois and the peasant population. Not to mention that the VC used war lords to help their so called revolution along. The CIA also helped fund the whole thing through the opium trade. So it was a bourgeois movement right from the get go. I believe in national liberation but the so called Communists in Vietnam didn't have the popular support of the working class and indeed slaughtered many of the peasants which completely defeats the purpose of national liberation in the first place.

But i guess it was all the fault of them damn Trotskyists :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

A source for any of that would be nice. "The CIA financed the revolution" sounds like a conspiracy theory akin to "Wall-Street financed the Bolsheviks" and "Soviet agents in British intelligence achieved a Communist victory in Albania." Most any mainstream account of Vietnam will note the popular character of the revolution.

It also seems a bit odd that a "bourgeois nationalist" "massacred" the bourgeoisie.


But i guess it was all the fault of them damn TrotskyistsWell, the Trotskyists did call for exploiting the peasantry in the 20's... :D