Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro

[ComradeJunichi]

I know basically who they are but what I don't know is were they "good" communists?

[Nateddi]

They were all good in a way, they all had problems as well.

[Michael De Panama]

I don't think any of them are good. Their problems greatly outweighed their "goodness".

[Mazdak]

All good. Dont listen to Michael De Panama. He is a lying capitalist agent trying to infiltrate the forum for the purpose of turning everyone against the communists who have to some extent succeeded.

Fidel Castro - i dont see any problems except he is beginning to relaxe certain laws which are giving the people way too many freedoms

Mao Tse Tung- tried to start a revolution using peasants.
I do not understand how you can say they are capitalistic? they are the most exploited people in history!!

Ho Chi Minh- saved his country from imperialism and saw it torn apart by US napalm for doing so.

[RedRevolutionary87]

peasents arent part of the proleteriat, and they are always demanding land, the reason most communist revolutions failed was because they relied to much on peasents, they refused collectivisation, and as a result people started starving. peasents are the third class and they are usualy unaware of their situation, and easly side with the current government when offered material wealth. they are in majority when a country is a monarchy. thats why communism cant be established if it takes out a monarchy. communism can only work if the midleclass worker is in the majority, this only happens in a developed capitalist society (by developed i dont mean rich, but developed to a point where the workers are horribly exploited, the height of capitalism is actualy a depression.) both lenin and mao made the mistake of starting a communist revolution in a country with the peasent population in majority, after both revolutions there was horrible starvation.

[RGacky3]

peasants are part of the proletariate, they are exploited. Many peasants embraced collectivism, and many factory workers wen't against communism. There is no difference, they are proletarian if they are exploited by bougiouse.

[Nateddi]

Although moraly and ideologically I don't agree with Fidels policies; realistically I am all for most of them.

If Cuba was to become free, the united states would find a way to somehow subvert them into free market glory which will end up a tyranicall reality. Until the US empire falls I will support authoritarian communism in the third world, it will be the only kind possible there.

[Mazdak]

The peasants are exploited. and Lenin saw the mistake the populists made that is why he worked mostly wiht middle class/workers.

And peasants do seem to always follow their government blindly. ironic as the most exploited are the most loyal.

[RedRevolutionary87]

actualy peasents are not considered part of the proleteriat, a proleterian is a midle class worker the "proles" as one would say in 1984, the peasents are like the slave populations around the equator, every revolution that relied heavily on the peasents failed. and yes its usualy the lowest class that follows blindly. and peasents are historicly always the ones who want land of their own, whenever they rise up its becaus they arent allowed to own land...so how could a class that is fighting for the right to private property ever be helpfull to the revolution...sure there will always be soem exceptions, but most peasents are like that.

[Nateddi]

The proletariat is no middle class!

The proletariat is anyone regardless of occupation who has no means of their own and must sell labor in order to survive.

[maoist3]

Here's a review about Ho Chi Minh. Actually, he
caused a lot of the splitting in the communist
movement within U.$. borders.

Something about leaders--we have to evaluate them
also on their international work.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q19521071