7 ms·

Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so

• thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.
  • donquichotte 5y ago
    What a beautifully deep thought. Looking at it this way, e.g. supporting ideologies as a means to an end, helps understanding a lot of idiosyncracies in the world, past and present.
  • vidarh 5y ago
    To really underline this, one should read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. Ho Chi Mihn greatly admired many things about the US and so it starts with a quote from the US Declaration of Independence, before it talks about the French revolution, and then attacks the French colonial rule.
    • refurb 5y ago
      I mean sure, but look at the country today. Apparently they didn’t admire it that much.
      • the_af 5y ago
        They had a bloody war with the US after they sided with their colonial oppressors and lost thousands of people to that war; that might have something to do with it. The US policy in Vietnam boiled down to one thing: body count. US only real measure of success was how many Vietcong/PAVN they killed; and because they had no way of telling the difference -- nor did they care much -- this effectively meant "kill as many Vietnamese as possible" (they were encouraged to consider any casualty as VC, overrepresenting their numbers). And to top it out, they engaged in massive forced resettlement, pillage, rape, destroyed foliage and the ecosystem, and poisoned the land. Think about it. Americans living in Vietnam claim the Vietnamese don't hate them. Even ex veterans visiting the country report this. That's pretty amazing all things considered.
        • refurb 5y ago
          Wait, what? Because they had a bloody war they couldn’t actually deliver what they promised? I mean we’re nearly 50 years past their victory? When are they going to “enact the American rights Ho Chi Minh showed so much admiration for”?
          • nzmsv 5y ago
            Americans lost two skyscrapers and still talk every year about how the country was scarred. Yes, it was terrible, but imagine a country literally burned by fire from the sky, and future generations continuing to suffer through birth defects. The sheer magnitude of the suffering perpetuated in the name of "freedom" and proper values is staggering. You and people like you are sickening.
          • the_af 5y ago
            > Wait, what? Because they had a bloody war they couldn’t actually deliver what they promised? They delivered on independence from colonial powers, and on gaining self determination. No small feat! I'm not sure what you believe they promised. Vietnam was devastated as a country. The land itself, and the people. Countless Vietnamese were killed, far more than whatever the US lost in the war. The US did a number on them, the effects of which are still felt. It's a wonder these days they don't hate America (which by all accounts they don't). Initial admiration for US values naturally fell once the US waged war on them, and within Vietnam leadership the hardliners gained power. Being attacked tends to give voice to the hardliners and sideline the "liberals". It's a matter of record Ho Chi Minh initially admired the US and expected their support. It's a matter of record the US feared he would win the elections and so they cancelled them. You can argue till you're blue in the face, those two facts will remain.
            • refurb 5y ago
              That’s a pretty impressive rewriting of history! Ho Chi Minh admired the US then shortly after taking power his government exacted brutal land reforms even the hardliners had to call out as “going too far”. You’re doing an awful lot of hand waving to explain why Vietnam still doesn’t enact the freedom “they admire so much”. Your claim that Ho Chi Minh’s “disappointment from lack of US support” is the reason why Vietnamese still don’t have those rights rings pretty hollow.
      • vidarh 5y ago
        If you admire someone and they turn out to be a bully, just maybe you change your mind. The US has a history of this - Castro wooed the US too. His party didn't even describe itself as socialist until years after the US slammed the door in his face and the Soviets didn't. Once the Soviets had bought him, Castro made concession after concession that he could have made to the US instead.
        • refurb 5y ago
          Or, stay with me here, they were just saying what they thought would help them get power? To claim Ho Chi Minh or Castro would have been freedom loving leaders is laughable.
          • vidarh 5y ago
            I didn't claim they'd be freedom loving leaders. You're projecting assumptions onto what I said. What is a matter of fact is that both attempted to get US support before they turned elsewhere. And that support could have come with strings that might have produced much better outcomes. Just like it did when Castro turned to the Soviets. He proved he could be bought, but the US was unwilling to buy. As for Ho, he was more concerned with self determination and anyi-imperialism than the specifics of the resulting regime. US support with strings there too could have avoided millions of dead and gotten a more moderate regime.
  • _0ffh 5y ago
    The way I heard the story is more like they mostly held back and rebuilt their numbers while the Kuomintang was left doing most of the actual kicking on it's own.
    • sofixa 5y ago
      That's unfair to the Chinese communists. They fought a different type of war against the Japanese, a guerrilla one, attacking Japanese supply, isolated locations, etc. In terms of pure numbers of men they certainly contributed less than the Kuomintang, but in terms of overall impact it's close to impossible to say.
  • elurg 5y ago
    > Self rule, just like you'd think. Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? It makes sense if you claim to fight the Americans because they're evil capitalists but Vietnam turned around to adopt chinese-style reforms and is now mostly friendly towards the US. > The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. The CCP is in power because they defeated the KMT, but decades later they adopted capitalism and today justify their rule through nationalism. What's the point of a civil war if you eventually end up adopting most of the other side's policies?
    • the_af 5y ago
      > Is Vietnam in any way "more independent" today than if the north had lost? Yes. > and is now mostly friendly towards the US. Independence works like that. When you let a country decide instead of forcing by military power, they might even choose to like you -- or at least, not hate you. The US and Britain are friends and allies in modern times, after all.
• mmarq 5y ago
  In fact all communist revolutions, bar the Russian, were nationalist/liberation revolutions or at least started like that. Then they became oppressive regimes (and that was the point since the beginning, maybe).
  • adrian_b 5y ago
    I hope that you do not count what happened in most Eastern European countries as communist or liberation revolutions. There the communists were installed to power by the invading Russian army, even if false revolutionary and liberation histories were made up after the facts. The few places where there were indeed communists fighting for liberation, i.e. Tito in Yugoslavia or Enver Hoxha in Albania, so they had some legitimacy, were precisely the places which later escaped from being under strict Russian control. For Yugoslavia and Albania, what you say seems to apply.
    • mmarq 5y ago
      What happened in Eastern Europe was Russian imperialism. I was referring to Cuba, Vietnam, several African communist regimes, etc…