Vietnam/VC type insurgencies - heroes, right?

[CubanDream]

Ho Chi Minh and his followers were heroes, IMO - fighting off foreign imperialists etc.., yet I've come across quite a few on the left who oppose this idea.

What do you think, would you have supported him (and others like it), or would you suggest another way?

[renalenin]

For what it is worth, I reckon insurgencies are pretty cool if they are undertaken by Marxist-Leninist fighters in countries where the land owning elites oppress ruthlessly the peasant masses. China, Cuba, and Vietnam are examples where insurgencies went all the way. Yay - win for us. Colombia, the Philippines, are examples where the insurgency has become blocked. Not so good for our side.

The biggest problem with the insurgency is that it can take a very long time. Cuba was an exception. In China it took 22 years which is an awful long time to be fighting. But if it works then that is the main thing.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[CubanDream]

yep too right, and how about the Donetsk People's Republic - what do you make of them, not saying they're socialist or anything but does seem they don't want to be part of the Consservative neo-lib , EU? - a good thing in my mind

[Durruti's friend]

Ho Chi Minh and his followers were heroes, IMO - fighting off foreign imperialists etc.., yet I've come across quite a few on the left who oppose this idea.

What do you think, would you have supported him (and others like it), or would you suggest another way?
And what was won by those insurgencies? The foreign bourgeoisie was replaced by the domicile bourgeoisie and the workers were, sometimes after decades of suffering, roughly in the same position as before. Of course I'd "suggest" another way.


yep too right, and how about the Donetsk People's Republic - what do you make of them, not saying they're socialist or anything but does seem they don't want to be part of the Consservative neo-lib , EU? - a good thing in my mind So they want to be part of the conservative, neo-liberal Russian Federation. Wow, such difference.

[CubanDream]

What is your other way for Vietnam then - what would you have liked to have happened?

[DOOM]

yep too right, and how about the Donetsk People's Republic - what do you make of them, not saying they're socialist or anything but does seem they don't want to be part of the Consservative neo-lib , EU? - a good thing in my mind

yeah, they want to be part of the conservative neo-lib russian republic.
Duh..
EDIT: dammit Durruti :D

[Hrafn]

yep too right, and how about the Donetsk People's Republic - what do you make of them, not saying they're socialist or anything but does seem they don't want to be part of the Consservative neo-lib , EU? - a good thing in my mind

Read this thread. http://www.revleft.com/vb/solidarity-anti-fascist-t189029/index.html

They are a Fascist paramilitary force of reaction and imperialism.

[Durruti's friend]

What is your other way for Vietnam then - what would you have liked to have happened?
Well, I'd like to see a proletarian revolution happening there and as far as I know, it was even possible in Vietnam around 1945 (the "Saigon Commune"). Of course, I don't know how that would end - with utter isolation and degeneration of the revolution, probably - but nationalist posturing with socialist symbolism a la Ho Chi Minh didn't bring about anything better, so to speak.

[CubanDream]

And what was won by those insurgencies? The foreign bourgeoisie was replaced by the domicile bourgeoisie and the workers were, sometimes after decades of suffering, roughly in the same position as before. Of course I'd "suggest" another way.

Vietnam has prospered far better than their neighbours in the region , thanks to communism.

And the VC and NVA - borgeois - wft?


So they want to be part of the conservative, neo-liberal Russian Federation. Wow, such difference.

So what's your opinion then - sit on the fence and do nothing, or what??

[CubanDream]

Well, I'd like to see a proletarian revolution happening there and as far as I know, it was even possible in Vietnam around 1945 (the "Saigon Commune"). Of course, I don't know how that would end - with utter isolation and degeneration of the revolution, probably - but nationalist posturing with socialist symbolism a la Ho Chi Minh didn't bring about anything better, so to speak.

IOW - do nothing, let the imperialists win, and wait for the magic pink unicorn to create the communist revolution for you, unreal....:confused:

HO Chi minh was a hero!

[Left Voice]

One of the issues with Ho Chi Mihn specifically is that he was a nationalist first, socialist second. This is not opinion - he said this himself. Of course, this is hardly uncommon among socialist leaders in former colonies, but it does raise valid questions in terms of internationalism. How can a leader be a revolutionary international socialist if their struggle is essentially for reaffirming a national identity rather than shedding is.
There are valid arguments to suggest that this is how 'socialist' nations such as China, Vietnam etc. embraced capitalistic reforms - because their nationalism takes precedent, as well as reforms to 'strengthen the nation'.

My brother's fiancée is Vietnamese and I also have about 3 Vietnamese colleagues and he is regarded today as a national hero by people of all political persuasions, even those who oppose the government. He is praised as a nationalist liberator rather than a communist leader. He has been purged of his socialist ideology.

[Durruti's friend]

Vietnam has prospered far better than their neighbours in the region , thanks to communism.
Do you even know what communism is?


And the VC and NVA - borgeois - wft?
Oh my, they have "people's army" in their name. They can't possibly be anti-working class then.


IOW - do nothing, let the imperialists win, and wait for the magic pink unicorn to create the communist revolution for you, unreal....
What's the qualitative difference between Russian and Western imperialism? How are ultra-nationalist armed gangs going to bring about a revolution? That's some cognitive dissonance.

[DOOM]

IOW - do nothing, let the imperialists win, and wait for the magic pink unicorn to create the communist revolution for you, unreal....:confused:

HO Chi minh was a hero!

I don't see how adhering to the other cold-war power-house is anti-imperialist and generates a communist revolution.
I smell soviet romanticism

[CubanDream]

How can a leader be a revolutionary international socialist if their struggle is essentially for reaffirming a national identity rather than shedding is.Who cares unless you are a Trotskyist.

Lenin and Stalin were the masters, not the other guy.

[CubanDream]

What's the qualitative difference between Russian and Western imperialism? How are ultra-nationalist armed gangs going to bring about a revolution? That's some cognitive dissonance.

The Vietnamese kicked out the French and US imperialists - that in itself is a major step forwards.

[CubanDream]

I don't see how adhering to the other cold-war power-house is anti-imperialist and generates a communist revolution.
I smell soviet romanticism

I smell 'Liberal-in disguise-ism'.

[Left Voice]

Who cares unless you are a Trotskyist.

Lenin and Stalin were the masters, not the other guy.
Really? Who cares about revolutionary international socialism? All revolutionary socialists should, it's the whole point.

Aside from crazy 'Socialism in One Country' nationalists.

[CubanDream]

well, that's a silly comment isn't it - because Socialism in one country has, of course, produced success.

eg: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela etc.. all to some degree at least.

What have the Trotskyists ever done other than push international Politically Correct Liberalism?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

well, that's a silly comment isn't it - because Socialism in one country has, of course, produced success.

eg: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela etc.. all to some degree at least.
Let's whoop it up for bureaucratic state capitalism!

[CubanDream]

Better to whoop it up for that, than idealistic non-entity.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Better to whoop it up for that, than idealistic non-entity.
Better to whoop it up for a form of capitalism?

[CubanDream]

Saying the SU was a form of captialism is a matter of opinion - just because it did not turn out perfectly.

In fact, the golden years of the SU were quite reasonable.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Saying the SU was a form of captialism is a matter of opinion - just because it did not turn out perfectly.
Actually, it's based on a materialist analysis resulting in an understanding that the USSR operated via capitalist relations.

[CubanDream]

IOW: Reality.

One must separate reality from pure idealism, which is what the Soviets actually did.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

IOW: Reality.

One must separate reality from pure idealism, which is what the Soviets actually did.
Communists fight to abolish capitalism, not to uphold capitalism in the name of communism. Your Great Man Theory expressed in another thread is actually pure idealism.

[Left Voice]

Better to whoop it up for that, than idealistic non-entity.
But that leaves a very basic question - what exactly do you think that socialists should be fighting for, if not international socialism?

If you're suggesting that socialists should fight to maintain social and economic systems (capitalist or otherwise) that maintain the class antagonisms of capitalism, justified as being 'realistic', then I would disagree. This fails to acknowledge the fact that the fight for socialism was discarded for the sake of Cold War geopolitics. The debate about whether or not the Soviet Union is long, varied and with valid views on all sides, but few deny the geopolitical context and the nationalism that this resulted in.

What you describe is a form of left wing nationalism revolving around a state-planned economy. Not a communistic dictatorship of the proletariat.

[CubanDream]

But that leaves a very basic question - what exactly do you think that socialists should be fighting for, if not international socialism?

Socialism in one country, then spread the revolution.


This fails to acknowledge the fact that the fight for socialism was discarded for the sake of Cold War geopolitics.

Reality had to over-ride the dream - such is life.

If it weren't for WW2 and the Cold War, then the SU may well have resulted in a far purer workers' democracy. But what do you suggest - sell out to the capitalists? I think not.


What you describe is a form of left wing nationalism revolving around a state-planned economy. Not a communistic dictatorship of the proletariat.

That is a large step in the correct direction.

[Left Voice]

The problem is, history doesn't support such an analysis. Every single ruling communist party in the 20th century that embraced the 'socialism in one country' idea (which is not something that Lenin supported, by the way. It's not just Trotskyists who opposed it) descended into nationalism because of the contradictions that such a policy entails.

The real world result was the communist parties of those specific nations using the policy as a basis for consolidating their power on a national level, using the idea of 'socialist patriotism' as the basis and justification for their rule due to their abandonment of international socialism.

People can debate the pros and cons of such policies, and whether or not such policies were necessary or unavoidable at the time, but it is something that socialist today should not strive to replicate.

[CubanDream]

People can debate the pros and cons of such policies, and whether or not such policies were necessary or unavoidable at the time, but it is something that socialist today should not strive to replicate.

Coming from a Trotskyist viewpoint perhaps, but that is where I must agree to disagree - because I don't buy the whole 'international' approach -I actually believe that this:

1. plays into the hands of the bosses
2. Signifies the insidious power of liberal democracy. (ie: Capitalism in a Marxist coat)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Coming from a Trotskyist viewpoint perhaps, but that is where I must agree to disagree - because I don't buy the whole 'international' approach -I actually believe that this:

1. plays into the hands of the bosses
2. Signifies the insidious power of liberal democracy. (ie: Capitalism in a Marxist coat)
Capital is global. So must be the fight against it.

[DOOM]

well, that's a silly comment isn't it - because Socialism in one country has, of course, produced success.

eg: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela etc.. all to some degree at least.

What have the Trotskyists ever done other than push international Politically Correct Liberalism?

Producing success is rather the effect of capital than the alleged socialism in those countries.
To imply that socialism is the reason for success is a false assumption.

[Brutus]

Okay CubanDream, let's run through this. Wage labour?: check, currency?: check, a state?: check, generalised commodity production?: check. All your "socialist countries" were nothing more than very inefficient capitalist countries.

[Brutus]

Capital is global. So must be the fight against it.

This. The emancipation of the working-class is a social task, not a national or continental one. Socialism/communism cannot exist whilst there is still capitalism as socialism is the state if affairs that results from the destruction of capitalism.

[Durruti's friend]

The Vietnamese kicked out the French and US imperialists - that in itself is a major step forwards.
Major step forward towards what exactly?


well, that's a silly comment isn't it - because Socialism in one country has, of course, produced success.

eg: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela etc.. all to some degree at least.Success? I agree, let's go live in the glorious Soviet Union. Oh wait, it collapsed. Well, that's a definition of success I've never heard before.

And really, Venezuela and Nicaragua socialist? You know that populist social-democratic regimes =/= socialism, right?


What have the Trotskyists ever done other than push international Politically Correct Liberalism?Wow you really have a hard-on on trots. It's like some born-in-a-wrong-time stalinist complex.

[CubanDream]

Okay CubanDream, let's run through this. Wage labour?: check, currency?: check, a state?: check, generalised commodity production?: check. All your "socialist countries" were nothing more than very inefficient capitalist countries.

State - irrelevant - Socialism can still exist with a state.

[CubanDream]

Success? I agree, let's go live in the glorious Soviet Union. Oh wait, it collapsed. Well, that's a definition of success I've never heard before.


That's quite the irony, because you sound like a Conservative now.

Yes, the SU collapsed, but that is because it was surrounded by hostile capitalist states, re: WW2 and The Cold War.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

State - irrelevant - Socialism can still exist with a state.
As Engels pointed out, the modern state is a capitalist state.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, the SU collapsed, but that is because it was surrounded by hostile capitalist states, re: WW2 and The Cold War.
The USSR collapsed because state capitalism proved to be less dynamic than its free-market sibling.

[Sinister Intents]

State - irrelevant - Socialism can still exist with a state.

Doesn't socialist state come across as an oxymoron to you? I can elaborate why.

[CubanDream]

The USSR collapsed because state capitalism proved to be less dynamic than its free-market sibling.

Another Liberal pops out of the woodwork.:rolleyes:

So, you never heard of the Arms Race then, you know, the one that bankrupted the SU, never mind Hitler

[CubanDream]

Doesn't socialist state come across as an oxymoron to you? I can elaborate why.

A Socialist State is a necessary stage on the road to Communism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Another Liberal pops out of the woodwork.:rolleyes:

So, you never heard of the Arms Race then, you know, the one that bankrupted the SU, never mind Hitler
Why did it bankrupt the USSR? Because state capitalism was less dynamic than free-market capitalism. How does using a materialist analysis, like Marxists should, make me a liberal? You're the one using bourgeois definitions of class in other threads and defending a form of capitalism.

[Sinister Intents]

A Socialist State is a necessary stage on the road to Communism.

Yes, if you're some form of Leninist that believes in the DotP and the revolutionary vanguard. I believe in smashing the state, utterly destroying it for what it is in favor of anarchist federation. The state is an organ of class rule, it's organized oppression and organized suppression. The proletarian state is still a state, but it's a state of the majority, it's still a state no matter how you cut it. This state historically has fallen into bureaucracy and turned what could have been something socialistic into the tools of the state and the organs of class rule.

[M-L-C-F]

Yes, they're heroes. I support them historically, and those that are like them. To say anything else is not only treason, but is chauvinism as well. The same thing goes for other similar groups too.

[CubanDream]

good post, and find it hard to swallow that many leftists seem to oppose the VC and the like,

some guy mentioned that the 'Saigon Commune' was what should be emulated, but hang on a minute, because that was just a 50 man operation of anarchists - can't see how they could have defeated the French or Nixon stooges

[Geiseric]

They themselves did pretty messed up things to other socialists.

[blake 3:17]

Actually, it's based on a materialist analysis resulting in an understanding that the USSR operated via capitalist relations.

And the Vietnamese weren't part of that. They defeated the French, the Americans and Cambodians, while getting fucked over by China and Russia.

The fact that they've been made into a fucking ghetto export free trade zone speaks nothing against their will and all to the garbage of capitalism.

[Brutus]

Ugh, CubanDream, maybe you'll listen to Lenin. "Socialism means the abolition of classes." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm) Now, I'd like to think you at least have the Marxian understanding of the state as a tool of the ruling class to secure it's position and oppress other classes (simplified, but it's early). Classes mean there's the need for a state, no classes means the state serves no purpose, so doesn't exist as it is a social relation between classes. So socialism is stateless! Going to call me a liberal? Call Marx a Trotskyite? Call Lenin a conservative?

[CubanDream]

Lenin was a great man, the best probably - but even so, the Nationalist/Communist army of Vietnam did the right thing - what were they to do otherwise?

No one has given a satisfactory answer yet, and only one person has attempted to, being the 'Saigon commune' red-herring.

Can you?

[blake 3:17]

Who cares unless you are a Trotskyist.

Lenin and Stalin were the masters, not the other guy.

Quit the Trot bashing. In the West, Trotskyists were the best supporters of the Vietnamese revolution.

[Left Voice]

good post, and find it hard to swallow that many leftists seem to oppose the VC and the like,
People are merely suggesting that a proper analysis of Vietnam and the Viet Cong requires a slightly more nuanced approach than the one you are proposing. I would actually expect that the majority of people on this board would have supported the Viet Cong against the South in context, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism or retrospective analysis. Indeed, this should be encouraged in order to prevent a repeat of past mistakes.

You seem to perceive nationalism as acceptable as long as it is in the name of anti-imperialism. Many people understandably take issue with this due to nationalism's inherent incompatibility with revolutionary socialism. People are well aware of the importance of anti-imperialism, but this should be viewed within the wider context of revolutionary socialism (which necessarily is international in character). Hindsight allows us to examine the path which nationalism leads to, as so many ruling Communist parties utilised nationalism to justify their position. In other words, emancipation of the working class was not achieved, nor were any meaningful efforts towards a dictatorship of the proletariat. This applies to basically every ruling Communist party that neglected socialism's international character.

You cite the need to be 'realistic'. This is not unreasonable, but is irrelevant in a retrospective critical analysis of communism in Vietnam, examining it's achievements but also the mistakes that need to be understood if they are to be not repeated.

[Tim Cornelis]

Vietnam has prospered far better than their neighbours in the region , thanks to communism.


Confirmed for Tankie.

EDIT: Or maybe troll, or tankie troll. He reads like a parody.

[renalenin]

Hindsight allows us to examine the path which nationalism leads to, as so many ruling Communist parties utilised nationalism to justify their position. In other words, emancipation of the working class was not achieved, nor were any meaningful efforts towards a dictatorship of the proletariat. This applies to basically every ruling Communist party that neglected socialism's international character.

It is surely difficult in any post-revolutionary situation to know where to draw the line. The Marxist-Leninist state will be assailed by capitalism in both its international guise and via a proxy such as the US. National impulses are against scientific socialism which is of course internationalist. However when your country is under attack you have a problem.

Do any of us know the answer to this? The party should be avoiding nationalism and progressing socialism agreed. Khrushchev was probably wrong to go weak on supporting the global struggle against capitalism in favour of 'peaceful co-existence' and Stalin can be criticised for excessive zeal in his 'socialism in one country'. The difficulty is that in the real world the state and the power of the state has to be confronted especially by Marxists. National cohesion may be a necessary evil, and I am not at all sure where we should draw the line between sensible and dangerous views of this.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[CubanDream]

Confirmed for Tankie.



How does me, supporting Vietnam, and saying it has done better than its neighbours (ie:capitalist Cambodia), make me a Tankie?:confused:

[Durruti's friend]

some guy mentioned that the 'Saigon Commune' was what should be emulated, but hang on a minute, because that was just a 50 man operation of anarchists - can't see how they could have defeated the French or Nixon stooges
Hahah, a 50 man operation of anarchists :lol: You really have a nice imagination.

But no, the 'Saigon Commune' was a mass insurrection sparked by the Franco-British invasion of Vietnam in 1945. Its main organizer was a supposedly trotskyist (oh no) Tia Sang group which helped mobilize thousands of city workers and form barricades and Popular Committees. The stalinist Vietminh, the best equipped "leftist" force in Saigon decided to retreat to the countryside and negotiate with the French, leaving the workers of Saigon to their fate. Later, most of the organizers of the revolt were shot on orders from Ho Chi Minh.

As if that's not enough, there was a big miners' revolt in northern Vietnam, in which the region of Hoa-Gay was put under workers' control. Who suffocated that uprising? Why, Vietminh, of course.

If all this doesn't show the utterly anti-proletarian policies of the Vietminh, I don't know what does.

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2005/09/12/forgotten-massacre-vietnamese-trotskyists
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no2/mostrial.html
https://libcom.org/files/1945%20The%20Saigon%20commune.pdf


How does me, supporting Vietnam, and saying it has done better than its neighbours (ie:capitalist Cambodia), make me a Tankie?
Cambodia was also Stalinist, though.

[CubanDream]

Hahah, a 50 man operation of anarchists :lol: You really have a nice imagination.


Cambodia was also Stalinist, though.


I am talking about the 50 man, organised committe of the large factory in Saigon.


anyway, Cambo was more Maoist if anything.

[Left Voice]

Vietnam embraced capitalism much more rapidly than Cambodia did, though. Vietnam implemented PRC-style capitalist reforms almost as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.

On the other hand, Cambodia was taken over by crazy old Pol Pot and his weird Khmer nationalist agrarianism before being invaded by Vietnam and controlled by a puppet regime.

[Hrafn]

I am talking about the 50 man, organised committe of the large factory in Saigon.


anyway, Cambo was more Maoist if anything.

Cambodia was a self-proclaimed Marxist Leninist state, according to the Vietnamese pattern, after Pol Pot was ousted. Laos isn't exactly doing all that well either, is it now?

[Tim Cornelis]

How does me, supporting Vietnam, and saying it has done better than its neighbours (ie:capitalist Cambodia), make me a Tankie?:confused:

Uh well, for one thing, you believe Vietnam was communist. You also think that economic growth (a measure of capital accumulation) is a good measure of the success of this communism that supposedly existed. And you support all kinds of bourgeois-romantic dictators that draped themselves in red flags without understanding what socialism is.

Also, Vietnam is outperformed in terms of human development by all its more or less immediate neighbours (Thailand, Philippines), except Laos and Cambodia (both were Stalinist states). In all of East Asia, only Cambodia, Laos, and Burma (also sort of Stalinist) and East Timor are doing worse than Vietnam.