Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

the NeXT new commy/socialist states?(besideVietnam,China,etc

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 634
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Aug 2004, 22:40
Komsomol
Post 29 Nov 2004, 14:21
Potemkin wrote:
I don't deny that under certain historical circumstances, nationalism can be a progressive force. This was the case in Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries and it was true in South-East Asia in the 1950s and 1960s. However, it remains true that it must ultimately be superceded by internationalism, which is the true ideology of mature Socialism. Nationalism became a reactionary force in Europe in the 20th century, and I think it is also becoming a reactionary force in South-East Asia now. The true loyalty of a worker is not to his nation, but to the international proletariat.


Why do nationalism becomes negative in Vietnam today? Do you have any example?

"The true loyalty of a worker is not to his nation, but to the international proletariat."
The person which write that may be wise, but he have not experianced the oppression.

We do not follow leaders which have bad effect on our nation = our people. You know, the millions of people which died in Vietnam against French, Japanese and Americans, they gave everything for peace, independence and freedom. Don't you understand we feel much closer to them than others? Our generation must show our appreciation. The people who survived the wars, would you like to tell them they have no country?
When westerners will show understanding, when westerners stop being prejudice (just look at this forum for example, you will see prejudice westerners), when westerners end the oppression, then, we will not need nationalism anymore. But right now this is not the case, today we must unite in other ways.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 29 Nov 2004, 18:24
Thien_Thai wrote:
Potemkin wrote:
I don't deny that under certain historical circumstances, nationalism can be a progressive force. This was the case in Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries and it was true in South-East Asia in the 1950s and 1960s. However, it remains true that it must ultimately be superceded by internationalism, which is the true ideology of mature Socialism. Nationalism became a reactionary force in Europe in the 20th century, and I think it is also becoming a reactionary force in South-East Asia now. The true loyalty of a worker is not to his nation, but to the international proletariat.


Why do nationalism becomes negative in Vietnam today? Do you have any example?

The rivalry between the different nations of South-East Asia is a severe problem for the region, just as it was for Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Vietnam struggles against Cambodia, China struggles against Vietnam, and so on and so forth. The imperialists are able to exploit this to divide and rule the region, playing off one nation against another. It is in this sense that I regard nationalism in the region as a reaftionary rather than progressive force.

Quote:
"The true loyalty of a worker is not to his nation, but to the international proletariat."
The person which write that may be wise, but he have not experianced the oppression.

It is an ideal, and ideals must never be lost sight of, even though implementing them may be impossible in the short term. They must always remain a long term goal.

Quote:
We do not follow leaders which have bad effect on our nation = our people. You know, the millions of people which died in Vietnam against French, Japanese and Americans, they gave everything for peace, independence and freedom. Don't you understand we feel much closer to them than others? Our generation must show our appreciation. The people who survived the wars, would you like to tell them they have no country?

That's a good point, and in that sense nationalism can sometimes be a progressive force in helping to unify and motivate the masses to resist imperialism. However, what the Vietnamese were really fighting for was the international proletariat of the entire world. Otherwise, Vietnam could have just adopted capitalism and the Americans would have stopped fighting you. Vietnam was fighting both for Communism and for its independence as a nation, which at that time were the same thing. Whether they are still the same thing is an open question.

Quote:
When westerners will show understanding, when westerners stop being prejudice (just look at this forum for example, you will see prejudice westerners), when westerners end the oppression, then, we will not need nationalism anymore. But right now this is not the case, today we must unite in other ways.

I agree with you about some of the prejudiced Westerners in these forums, though there are other internet forums which are much, much worse than this one. But to a worker who takes an Communist, internationalist viewpoint, there is no prejudice - he understands that all peoples are one, and that the workers of the world must unite if Communism is to succeed even in one country.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 19 Dec 2004, 13:56
Thien_Thai wrote:
You know, the millions of people which died in Vietnam against French, Japanese and Americans, they gave everything for peace, independence and freedom.

What do you think about Chinese Invasion of Vietnam
at February 1979 ?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 May 2004, 20:11
Pioneer
Post 29 Dec 2004, 01:03
China would not support a revolution in Nepal. They refer to the CPN as 'terrorrists', and support the Nepalese army's war against them. They have supported the US's posistion on Nepal.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 29 Dec 2004, 01:18
CheLives wrote:
China would not support a revolution in Nepal. They refer to the CPN as 'terrorrists', and support the Nepalese army's war against them. They have supported the US's posistion on Nepal.

The current Chinese leadership are Revisionists and capitalist roaders. But I don't think they really care who happens to be in charge in Nepal - like any other bourgeois class, they're only interested in trade deals and making money. If the CPN capture Kathmandu and form a government (as seems likely), then China will simply cut a deal with them.

And let's face it, China supported General Pinochet when he overthrew the democratically elected Marxist government of Allende. Helping foreign bourgeois reactionaries to suppress Marxist revolution is nothing new for the Chinese government.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 May 2004, 20:11
Pioneer
Post 30 Dec 2004, 19:54
I am not aware of their deals with Pinochet, however, was not Mao still the head of the CCP at this point? Mao also invited Nixon to China, and was very friendly with him, right at the peak of Nixons terrorist attacks against IndoChina. I believe he was also behind incursions into Viet Nam to fight he Vietnamese revolution, and he also backed the reactionaries in Angola, and Pakistan.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 30 Dec 2004, 20:19
CheLives wrote:
I am not aware of their deals with Pinochet, however, was not Mao still the head of the CCP at this point? Mao also invited Nixon to China, and was very friendly with him, right at the peak of Nixons terrorist attacks against IndoChina. I believe he was also behind incursions into Viet Nam to fight he Vietnamese revolution, and he also backed the reactionaries in Angola, and Pakistan.

Yes, this was because of China's break with the Soviet Union. Mao began to regard the Soviet Union as the main imperialist power in the world, even more dangerous than America. This explains his often extraordinary foreign policy decisions in the late 60s and early 70s. However, his anti-Soviet foreign policy was accompanied by a radical domestic agenda; he was certainly not a Revisionist or capitalist-roader; in fact, he specifically accused the Soviet leadership of Revisionism.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron