Fuck yeah! Love Vietnam, I’m just sad they’re communist country. Maybe one day they will kick out communism too!
I think the problem is authoritarianism rather than which coat of paint the authoritarianism uses, but eh.
Hell, they probably would have been pro-US commies if we helped instead of subscribed to Domino Theory.
Ah domino-theory. A logical fallacy given a different name in order to seem more likely.
Always has been always will be.
So what do you love about Vietnam?
Am Vietnamese American lol. I go there for the scenery and good eats!
Removed by mod
A friend of mine went to Vietnam for a few weeks on vacation (lucky bastard), said it was a gorgeous country, very welcoming.
The people there are lovely. The country is beautiful and the food is fantastic. I hope I get to go again.
Vietnam is socialist in name only at this point. The private sector employs more people and produces more of the country’s GDP than the public sector.
Ah. I guess I’m talking more about the corruption lol. My parents ran away from there and talk a lot of shit about “the fall of Vietnam”
You can’t really escape corruption but some places are worse than others and I guess Vietnam has it worse.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Dude. You might want to wake up and realize that it’s literally the communist and socialist that the ones that fight against Imperialism everywhere.
Uh, considering we’re discussing MLs here, they fought against capitalist imperialism and imposed their own state capitalist imperialist holdings.
This is what communist do my friend.
I mean…
We could look at the two most famous examples of communist countries and see that that is very much not the case. Ask how the countries on the periphery of the Soviet Union felt. Ask how Tibet and Xinjiang feel about China today.
Vietnam’s history has more to do with their own self-interest at each turn, rather than a systemic anti-imperialist ideology. Like yeah, when France, China, and America are doing imperialism on your country of course you’re going to fight against imperialism. They overturned the Khmer Rouge due to a combination of: the fact that the Khmer Rouge regime was invading their territory, the fact that Cambodia at the time was siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split while Vietnam sided with the USSR, a general desire for stability in their region, and the humanitarian concerns. Imperialism, for or anti-, didn’t factor into it. In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that that “Vietnamese territory” the Khmer Rouge was attempting to take only became Vietnamese because of how French Indochina borders were drawn (i.e., because of imperialism), and that historically it was Khmer territory. It’s not a bulletproof argument—discussions about historical borders and land claims rarely are—but it’s not unreasonable.
Removed by mod
Imperialism of today (and of recent vietnamese history) is the subjugation of a nation of people under capitalist exploitation and occupation.
If you define “imperialism” as something only capitalists can do, of course you’re going to find that imperialism is a capitalist evil.
If, instead, you use the actual accepted definition of imperialism, which is closer to “the subjugation of a nation of people under another people’s occupation” (i.e., regardless of the reason for the subjugation), then China is, and the USSR was, every bit as guilty of it as America today.
A little disappointing you ignored the thesis of my comment again and diverted to “but some socialist experiments had XYZ problem”.
Again, I’d have that conversation but thats not at all what my initial comment is talking about or what the last one was talking about. I made that very clear. I’m specifically talking about successful measures of resistance and revolution. I’d like some discourse on that but you keep trying to change the subject.
thats not at all what my initial comment is talking about
Your first comment said “This is what communist do my friend.” Referring to Vietnam kicking out imperialists. That is the core of the discussion and that’s what I want to concentrate on here, rather than get bogged down in off-topic stuff, which is what I specifically avoided replying to above.
My take is that no, anti-imperialism is not core to what actual existing communists states have been. Instead, imperialism is a trait of power incentives and that any non-anarchical society (and I use anarchy here in the sense that actual anarchists mean it, as a type of non-Marxist socialism, not in the way the general public understands it) can potentially aspire to empire. There are communist countries that do it. There are capitalist countries that do it. There were empires as far back as the bronze age in societies that could not be described with either of those labels.
Removed by mod
You forgot the part where they kicked out the French.
Twice!
