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

Do you support the US invation of Vietnam?

POST REPLY

.

yes
1
3%
no
27
93%
other
1
3%
 
Total votes : 29
Soviet cogitations: 91
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2011, 09:04
Pioneer
Post 25 Jul 2012, 01:14
I think this is the worst crime of America during the 20th century
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 Jul 2012, 01:24
I don't undestand why you ask this... This is a communist discussion board. It would be criminal to discuss this. There is no point for a poll if every member agree.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 25 Jul 2012, 01:39
I suppose it's being asked as a counter-point to those Afghanistan polls.
OP-Bagration wrote:
There is no point for a poll if every member agree.
It could be interesting to see a communist trying to (seriously) argue in favour of it, but I doubt we'll see one.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 25 Jul 2012, 02:05
Quote:
It could be interesting to see a communist trying to (seriously) argue in favour of it, but I doubt we'll see one.


Given some of the rhetoric here, don't be too surprised of you do. Given some of the things I see people here saying about the DPRK, I wonder what some people here would have thought and said if they actually lived back then.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 25 Jul 2012, 04:03
I support the American war in Vietnam because a bourgeois-pupper regime would still be infinitely more progressive than the DRV "government".
In fact, it would be objectively good for Vietnam if Nguyen Van Thieu and Co. could be replaced by more loyal puppets strong enough to completely wipe out the PAVN, their Medieval savagery and backwardness. Such a force, however, does not exist in Vietnam.
Therefore the current American puppets are very weak, which guarantees that the DRV would take power in a matter of days after the withdrawal of foreign occupiers.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 Jul 2012, 20:19
What a stupid question. How can you "support" something that's been and gone? It's like me asking do you support Athens in the Peloponnesian War of 431 BC?

As for it being a crime, that is subjective and somewhat irrelevant here. We should be examining it according to how productive such an endeavour could be.

And the answer is: not very. With hindsight we can see that the invasion was a complete waste of time because Vietnam is now opening its doors to western capital and the market (it had no choice, it was always going to be too early for socialism). Vietnam is allowing its bourgeoisie a limited amount of power so as to build its industrial base and industrialise its society. Then it will (hopefully) purge this bourgeoisie and re-establish a more complete socialism once the socio-economic conditions are right. Whether this actually occurs remains to be seen.

Quote:
It could be interesting to see a communist trying to (seriously) argue in favour of it, but I doubt we'll see one.


If it helps, I think the original French occupation of Vietnam (and eventual eviction) were good things.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Jul 2012, 21:24
You are supposed to be a Communist, not a capitalist. Why do you even consider supporting your enemies?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 Jul 2012, 21:33
Quote:
You are supposed to be a Communist, not a capitalist. Why do you even consider supporting your enemies?


Did you not read my post? I said support for a past event is a stupid notion because our "support" or opposition is utterly meaningless as the event has been and gone. You can "oppose" the Vietnam War all you like but it won't erase it from history.

I also said that I think that the French EVICTION from Vietnam was a good thing.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Jul 2012, 21:38
I read that you answered NOT VERY. Do you have some doubts, hesitations?
Also the actual question is not "do you support it". but Would you have supported it. I think everybody understood the question like that. So would you have supported it? Yes, no, or "not very"?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 Jul 2012, 22:10
The answer "not very" was in response to my own rhetorical question: how productive was the endeavour to wage war in Vietnam.

It's a rather dry remark and perhaps lost on many non-native speakers of English but in this context it can generally be taken to mean "not at all".

As to would I ahve supported it, that's an unfair question as we all have the benefit of hindsight. I also don't see the point in answering it because it is irrelevant whether we would have supported it or not.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Jul 2012, 22:49
It is well-known that Englishmen have a great sense of understatement, however I feel some disturbance in your mind. According to you, we should answer this question by analyzing the productivity of this war in the eyes of the working class' interests. But you fail to understand that, no matter how productive it is, a Communist can't support any kind of injustice and aggression against a free people. Had we supported the invasion of Vietnam, there would have been no communists in Vietnam! And nobody to build a communist society. According to your way of thinking, we could have supported WWI, because it engendered the Russian Revolution. We could have supported any kind of reaction, including Nazism since, thanks to Nazism, the world was vaccinated for a few years against the worst crimes. I don't need any kind of analysis or evaluation of the consequences to say that I would have opposed the war in Vietnam, because it would have been my duty as a communist. This is a matter of principles, but I don't think you have any principles, nor that you really know what a principle is.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 26 Jul 2012, 23:27
Quote:
It is well-known that Englishmen have a great sense of understatement


Bit of a generalisation don't you think?

Quote:
however I feel some disturbance in your mind.


I sense a disturbance in the force...

Quote:
According to you, we should answer this question by analyzing the productivity of this war in the eyes of the working class' interests. But you fail to understand that, no matter how productive it is, a Communist can't support any kind of injustice and aggression against a free people.


That's why I said it was a rhetorical question and the answer was none (expressed as "not very"). There was no way this war could ever be considered productive to either the Vietnamese or the American working classes.

Quote:
Had we supported the invasion of Vietnam, there would have been no communists in Vietnam! And nobody to build a communist society. According to your way of thinking, we could have supported WWI, because it engendered the Russian Revolution.


No, I never said these wars engendered revolution and thus should be supported (even though WW1 did help engender the Russian Revolution). This is the problem with asking all these stupid "do you support?" questions about events that have long since passed.

Quote:
I don't need any kind of analysis or evaluation of the consequences to say that I would have opposed the war in Vietnam, because it would have been my duty as a communist. This is a matter of principles, but I don't think you have any principles, nor that you really know what a principle is.


No I don't have principles because they run counter to dialectics. This is the problem with 'manifesto Marxists' (as I like to dub them) such as yourself. You "convert" to communism at the drop of a hat and then realise you are unfamiliar with the bulk of what Marx wrote. As such, you adopt certain principles (often based around views and stances held by Marx, Lenin etc at certain points in time) and take them as some sort of Marxist gospel that must be rigorously upheld throughout all eternity.

For example, Engels talks about the uprising by the democratically inclined Swiss Peasants in the 14th century against the absolutism of the Hapsburg monarchy. These Swiss peasants were merely trying to defend their land (nation?) against Hapsburg imperialism and maintained a democratic construct within the canton system in direct contrast to the Hapbsurgs. All sounds nice and good within your principle of 'always oppose all imperialism all the time,' yes?

No. Engels wrote on this subject:
Quote:
The struggle of the early Swiss against Austria, the famous oath at Rytli, the heroic shot of Tell, the immortal victory at Morgarten – all this represented the struggle of restless shepherds against the thrust of historical development, a struggle of hidebound, conservative, local interests against the interests of the entire nation, a struggle of primitivism against enlightenment, barbarism against civilization. They won their victory over the civilization of that period, but as punishment they were cut off from the whole later progress of civilization.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembu ... n/ch01.htm

That is because at the time and under those specific material conditions, Hapsburg absolutism was more progressive than independent Swiss peasant democracy. Rather than apply a blanket principle of anti-imperialism, Engels analysed the situation according to the material conditions of Switzerland and the Hapsburg Empire in the 14th century, and concluded that a Hapsburg victory woud have been the more progressive option. Obviously the world has changed a great deal now and Hapbsurg rule can in no way be considered progressive anymore. However, this does not mean we shouldn't still analyse things critically and materially, rather than apply all-encompassing principles like you do.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 27 Jul 2012, 10:52
Quote:
Bit of a generalisation don't you think?

Of course, I was teasing you.

Quote:
I sense a disturbance in the force...

Jedi philosophy often inspires me.

Quote:
No I don't have principles because they run counter to dialectics.

I was sure that you would answer that. Lenin had a very good word for people like you: philistines. If you don't understand what a principle is, and why we must protect the principles, then you can't understand the difference between tactics and strategy. Strategic firmness, tactical flexibility. Firmness in strategy because, without strategy, you don't know where you are going and you will become the objective ally of the bourgeoisie.

I took the example of WWI. Some traitors, who used to be great socialists, such as Jules Guesde, said: "La guerre est mère de révolutions". War is the mother of revolutions. And they supported the national union, they entered in the imperialist war with the bourgeoisie. The assessement was true, but Guesde didn't understood dialectics. He betrayed the principles.


Quote:
No. Engels wrote on this subject:

Your example is interesting. However, do you take into consideration the fact that:
- According to Lenin, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and appeared only at the end of XIXth century?
- Engels never said that a Communist should be an apologist for the Hapsburg.
- This article from Engels is full of hegelianism.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.