Ho Chi Minh: Vietnam's Enigma
8.51
Ratings: 8.51/10 from 72
users.
North Vietnamese communist politician, prime minister 1954–55, and president 1954–69. Having trained in Moscow shortly after the Russian Revolution, he headed the communist Vietminh from 1941 and fought against the French during the Indochina War 1946–54, becoming president and prime minister of the republic at the armistice.
Aided by the communist bloc, he did much to develop industrial potential. He relinquished the premiership in 1955, but continued as president. In the years before his death, Ho successfully led his country's fight against US-aided South Vietnam in the Vietnam War 1954–75.
One of the greatest men of the twentieth century, at the very least a contender.
It is drivel to imply that the French made a lot of money in Vietnam. The colony probably consumed more French Govt money. The most profitable commodity was opium. The Rubber was barely profitable. It never was much of a rice exporter.
I wonder what would have happened, had Ho been a successful cook, waiter or bus boy? He would not have been successful without enormous aid from Russia & CHina. I've been to Vietnam several times. The retired Vietnamese Generals own many large businesses. I know expats who own businesses in Vietnam. The Highway system is terrible. Now they have found offshore oil. The Vietnamese dislike the Chinese; with whom they have been at war for 1000 years; with brief interludes from 19491975. They fought a war in 1979.
I am Vietnamese. Now I live inside Vietnam for 25 years. I am 25 years old. People are all in jailed here , the big jail called Vietnam. What the happy or victory for if we dont have human right to speaks freely in my country. No election , no demacracy, unfair laws sys. **** VIETCONG, **** MR.HO CHI MINH.
HO CHI MINH WASN'T VIETNAMESE, he was Ho Quang or Ho Tap Chuong a chines man Soilder and Spy , he killed Nguyen Ai Quoc and took the name, the parent the home town and all thing of Nguyen Ai Quoc
One wonders what would have happened in Vietnam, if HCM had been a successful waiter in New York or a pastry chef in London? The North Vietnamese captured 12,500 French Troops @ Dien Bien Phu. Four months later, only 4,500 were repatriated back the French Authorities. A true "Killing Fields" catastrophe. When you visit HCM's Mausoleum in Hanoi, check out the size of the supposed HCM's cadaver on display. It is about the size of a 6' tall man. Ridiculous! That can't be his real body. Buddhist type HCM Memorial Temples have been constructed in most large Vietnamese Cities and HCM is worshipped as a Buddhist saint. Very strange.
I almost gave it 10 stars, for the first 75% of the documentary, but I ended up giving it only 8 stars. Unfortunately, the end seemed rushed, and much was not mentioned about his role from independence through the advent of the Vietnam War. Many questions are still unanswered: once he got power, what did he do with it? A great man once said that you cannot judge a man's character by how much suffering he goes through for a cause, because many are willing to suffer and can bear it with great dignity; a man should be judged by what he does with his power. Anyway, otherwise a wonderful documentary and is definitely worth watching. I'm off to wikipedia now, to read more about French colonization of Indochina and the like. :)
My goodness History Channel, what happened? You used to be awesome like this! Now... ALIENS
Close to be non-partial.
Just a few "Jabs" at Ho Chi Minh originating from a few "Has Been".
And did Vietnam became a Chinese statellite since the end of the war?
This, same as the hidden WMD in Iraq.
What's in all those warsexacly?
US weaponnery manufacturing public funding through taxes?
Ah, Ok! It ain't my money, nor any of my family relatives.
I vote for the USA at war!
It keeps them busy at other things while busying 'round with our daily life.
And it does good documentaries.
Always a bit impregnated by a bit of endoctrinement but who cares?
Pierre.
Quite objective, good.
"We'll lose ten men for ever one of yours"
They lost perhaps 35 to 1, but in the end, they gained freedom. It's good to see Ho rediscovered and some of the misconceptions aired. He really wanted the US's help to form a democracy.
someone made a comment earlier, ho chi min sleeping w/ the devil etc etc etc...my god man this guy fought off the french, then the US. I mean two wars against world powers (French worldpower maybe lol) To fight on since 1945 all the way to mid 70s. If a person is not getting support for his cause, a person will look for help elsewhere. One of the commentators made a good point, if the US had figured it out, Ho Chi Min could been there communist. Rather than installing a tyrant in S.Vietnam.
@Vlatko: I agree 100%, that's why I chose to end it.
Fair enough. I'm done, anyway.
I don't think you can claim victory until you say something intelligible. Nor is it bullying to display amazement at some of the more absurd things you say. I'm not an angry person in general, nor do I have my "own agenda" - my agenda is the same as the anti-capitalist movement, pure and simple - but people like you could drive the Buddha to rampage through the streets with an uzi. Just look at this for example:
"i am, in your opinion, a lying, cheating, ****** Nazi."
Uhhhh...Where do I call you a Nazi, again?
There are monkeys - intellectually challenged, illiterate monkeys suffering glaucoma - who can tell the difference between a historical comparison of the Warsaw Ghetto with Socialist revolution on one hand and calling someone "a ****** Nazi", on the other....................
How could anyone not be irritated by such ineptitude? There's no excuse for it. I don't have the patience of a saint. The real underhand move here is your slandering me by claiming I accused you of being a Nazi! How cheap a tactic!
And if it's not a mere tactic? The fact that you think a historical comparison is the same as calling you a "****** Nazi" proves that this debate was simply too advanced for you. It was a mistake for you to attempt to take part, but a bigger mistake for me to dignify you with response.
it is time for me to declare victory when my opponent is reduced to hurling such childish insults as "Liar... cheat...", questioning my intelligence, and, in a typical act of communist desperation, going so far as to suggest i would question the legitimacy of the Jews use of violence in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising (thus implying Nazi sympathies).
so, if i understand correctly, i am, in your opinion, a lying, cheating, stupid Nazi. you know, coming from anyone else, that would be offensive. from you, it's to be expected.
i've been to Auschwitz. I've been to Terezin. I've been to Warsaw and seen memorials. I've been to Germany and seen the memorials.
you are pathetic to invoke these images for the sake of drawing sympathy to your argument. it's the oldest trick in the communist propaganda handbook - call 'em Nazis! i'll bet, at the end of the day, anyone who has a view different than you ultimately turns out to be a Nazi in your mind.
as a previous commentator pointed out, you are just an angry person who has found a cause to hide behind in order to further your own agenda.
it's been enlightening and i've won a few bets along the way in regards to predicting specific words and expressions you would use in your rants.
you are intelligent. but you are also a bully. i don't like bullies. never will.
And I take back the "there's so much room" comment, which actually 'is' an insult. Meant to delete it before posting. Momentary frustration.
Every single thing you say is wrong. It's a remarkable feat, I grant you that.
"now you are saying that you did not cite anarchist catalonia as an example of successful world socialism??"
You're now depending on deliberate misconstruing of what's said, so clearly I'll have to spell everything out with extreme precision for your benefit. It was not "world socialism", because it was not socialism on a global basis. It was, however part of the experience of the world socialist movement. I hope you're capable of conmprehending that distinction, though experience leads me to doubt it, quod erat demonstrandum when you continue...
"if you read over the conversation you will see my main argument against communism is not its ultimate goal [...] but rather the evils that are committed by those who feel they are pursuing it and the impossibility of attaining and maintaining it through any other way than forced suppression"
Liar, frankly. I quote you to provide context to what I was addressing:
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism/communism"
Secondly, the 'goal' is relevant, however you attempt to downplay it. The anarchists of Catalunya also used violence, and I never sought to hide this fact (not least because they were right to). I have never, nor will I ever renounce violence in self defence against oppression. In other words, your attempts to pretend I've mislead are demonstrably unfounded and indicative of a cheat.
Thirdly, your last sentence in the above quote is sheer speculation, backed by no rationale. There is no law in physics which says socialism is unattainable - HENCE (noto bene, Fudd, because I get the impression you're not paying attention) THE NEED FOR ME TO SHOW REAL WORKING EXAMPLES OF SOCIALISM. THE ANARCHISTS OF CATALUNYA DEMONSTRATE THIS, contrary to your claim that it is 'unattainable' and unmaintanable without "forced suppression". What a silly thing to say. That's what capitalism requires to maintain a system of wage slavery. It can't be done without violence. Socialism doesn't require "forced suppression" (whatever that term means). Not one bit. Attaining socialism doesn't require oppression, either. Not one bit.
So why do I not denounce violence? Because violence IS necessary in defending oneself. If the people want socialism, and a capitalist army attempts to crush their revolution, you cry "FOUL!" when the people take up arms to defend themselves! It's incredible! You blame communists for defending their revolution with suppression of the capitalists who attempt to destroy them! Never does it enter that skull of yours (which is odd, seeing as there's so much room) that capitalism is a violent system, and that to defend against it is legitimate.
Perhaps you would look upon the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and say: "SEE??? This proves that emancipation from the Nazis is a bad thing, because it took oppression!!! Look how violent these Jews are!!! I mean, it's not the IDEA of freedom from the Nazis that's a bad thing - who wouldn't want that? It's the things they do in order to achieve it which are the problem!"
It's utterly INSANE of you to suggest that taking steps to repress reactionary forces is a bad thing, whether in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazis, or in the world socialist movement against capitalists/fascists.
"uh, the Sino-Soviet split, Samson…?"
I refer you to what I said (can't believe I have to, but oh well...) :
"Like any ideology, there are theoretical and tactical disagreements. Just as some capitalists oppose some wars and others support them, some communists agree with some actions of socialist countries, and disagree with others. The fundamentals of socialism remain just that, however." - Those fundamentals are not a matter of interpretation. Communism cannot, for example, be interpreted as "wage slavery", seeing as this is in fundamental opposition to the ideology.
The Sino-Soviet split was nothing to do with interpretation of communist ideology, but tactical disagreements pertaining to the circumstances facing each county.
"you knew full well when you were saying this that it did not hold water"
Don't try to tell 'ME' what 'I' know. I think the very opposite. I've just explained at length why I believe it makes sense. If you find those arguments too advanced to comprehend, that's ok, if irksome, but don't bother claiming that it's not what I believe.
"why tell people the whole story when you already know what best for them anyway, right?"
Read, but not worthy of reply. Superfulous. I just hope anyone else reading it can see how you operate.
"you have completely twisted this around. if you had read my argument correctly......"
I did read your argument correctly, and I didn't twist it. My point wasn't a refutation of your argument, but an allusion to the fact that it wasn't actually any form of tangible argument given that its premise was false.
"you assume anyone who does not share your view is simply ignorant or brainwashed by the capitalist media."
That's untrue. It it were true, then there would be no capitalist media doing the brainwashing, so who's doing the brainwashing for them? What I can do, from experience, is spot the oft-repeated and inaccurate little anti-communist slogans as the one I quoted earlier in this comment, and deduce from that. I can note your eagerness to blame communism for "forced suppression" without contextualised history, as though communists exist in isolation. I can see that even though it makes no logical sense (as a pragmatist could easily discern), experience, you make ill-considered remarks about how 'maintaining socialism requires "forced suppression"'. You do so because you're so eager to make the point that socialism is evil, that it doesn't matter to you how poorly concieved the argument is, you just post it anyway, where as someone not already steeped in propaganda would step back from such arguments and say "Actually, that's a non sequitur...better not say it."
"every “ism” promises its followers the perfect society in the end"
Incorrect. Fascists, conservatives and even anarcho-capitalists all completely reject utopianism outright as justification of their ideologies.
"But that stems from your own ignorance of world socialism, not reality.
Working examples can be found. The Israeli Kibbutz. The Paris Commune (which was massacred militarily by the French bourgeoisie). Anarchist Catalunya (perhaps the largest scale example and was massacred by the Spanish fascists [Franco's fallangists]). The Mexican Zapatista."
that's a direct quote from one of your previous posts, easily verified. now you are saying that you did not cite anarchist catalonia as an example of successful world socialism?? it's right there in your own words, in the first sentence: "world socialism".
"No I didn’t. It was regional."
Yes you did. No kidding it was regional.
further, the examples you used were in reply to my observation that: "In the real world however, when people try to put that into practice, it simply does not cut it. I have seen no example where this has succeeded".
so you use a regional example of anarchism that was betrayed by their communist allies as a example of successful world socialism, deny it, and then point out that it was regional? yeah, that makes sense...
"I didn’t leave that out ‘conveniently’. It simply had nothing to do with the topic."
it's everything to do with the topic. if you read over the conversation you will see my main argument against communism is not its ultimate goal (utopia? heaven on earth? c'mon, who DOESN'T want that??) but rather the evils that are committed by those who feel they are pursuing it and the impossibility of attaining and maintaining it through any other way than forced suppression. you talk of how great a communist society would be. so what? every "ism" promises its followers the perfect society in the end. just need to slaughter a few innocents to get there...
the example in catalonia shows quite clearly that these particular communists would rather betray their allies (and ultimately lose the war) than cooperate with them and share power. nice. there is as much infighting, betrayal and backstabbing under the communist banner as there is under any other.
"Communism as an ideology is not open to subjective interpretation".
uh, the Sino-Soviet split, Samson...?
"At this point I’m going to digress and advise you that if you plan to put points across with vitriol, you’d better make them accurately, or you’ll set yourself up for humilation. Let’s see how you get on from this point on."
is that REALLY necessary? your scorn for those who don't share your opinion is, to use your own words, jaw-dropping. anyway...
"It’s not misleading. You’ve just failed to comprehend it as a result of your eagerness to regain some intellectual pride after your ignorance was previously illucidated. This has lead to carelessness in constructing a debate. Every line of your comments espouses indignation. You really do need to man up and get over it if you want an intellectual discussion."
seriously, dude, get over yourself.
"More fundamentally, a charge of brainwashing is quite obviously absurd."
see above comment. my allusion to brainwashing has nothing to do with the effects of your opinions upon me. rather, i was referring to your attempt to use the anarchist movement in catalonia (which was doing just fine without the communists, thank you very much) as a successful example of world communism. you knew full well when you were saying this that it did not hold water (obviously, as you have since tried to deny even saying it) but, since you assumed "... that stems from [my] own ignorance of world socialism, not reality..." you went ahead and said it anyway. if i were as ignorant as you seem to think i am, i would have taken your statement as a fact and converted to communism under false pretenses believing what you say to be the communist gospel according to Samson. THAT would be brainwashing and i see you would have no qualms about employing it given the opportunity. i mean, why tell people the whole story when you already know what best for them anyway, right?
"If you feel that you are being unfairly manipulated, I draw your attention to the “manage your subscriptions” link, where you can elect to recieve no further comments in reply, or else, your inherent and remarkable ability to just ‘not’ read my evil communist brainwashing comments of doom."
uh, thanks... i'll bear that in mind.
'Fudd says: “Fascism means everyone has to wear pink hats!”
Expert on Fascism says: “Well actually, as an expert on fascism, I can safely say that this is not part of fascist ideology and defy you to provide evidence supporting your statement.”'
you have completely twisted this around. if you had read my argument correctly, this is how it would read:
EoF says: "Fascism is the best system in the world. We should all be fascists"
Fudd says: "I disagree. Historically, fascism (and the pursuit thereof) has been responsible for a lot of human suffering in the 20th century."
EoF says: "But I am a Fascist and I've read every book on Fascism and I've dedicated my life to the Fascist cause. Therefore, because I have done so and thus know far more about Fascism than you do, I am right and you are ignorant of world Fascism."
Fudd says: "I'm ignorant about human sacrifice too but I still don't think it's the best way to ensure a good crop of corn."
"You entered the debate in the first instance having done little to no research, but with your mind made up, throwing around the typical facile lines one hears in capitalist media."
i entered the debate knowing what i know. i don't claim to be an expert on communism nor do i aspire to be. this is your weakness - you assume anyone who does not share your view is simply ignorant or brainwashed by the capitalist media. you assume that we need to be educated. by you. if you look back to my original comment that started this discussion, you will see that i state no preference for either capitalism or communism. that's your cross to bear.
"I’d even bet you’ve begun working teleologically..."
don't flatter yourself, man.
"...prove your hypothesis that communism is evil, and everything Samson says is a lie because he is evil..."
never said that. have a nice day!
For the record, I am a communist, not an anarchist, although I once considered myself an anarchist. I still view anarchists as comrades.
And for your own information, two things should be noted from my last comment:
1) Not all communists agree on everything. Not all communists are Stalinists. Like any ideology, there are theoretical and tactical disagreements. Just as some capitalists oppose some wars and others support them, some communists agree with some actions of socialist countries, and disagree with others. The fundamentals of socialism remain just that, however.
2) Marxists and social anarchists want the same things in the long run. That is, a stateless, egalitarian and classless society, with a system of renumeration based on the motto "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". That means the collective, democratic running of society. Anyone who does not believe in this goal is not a communist, nor an anarchist.
The disagreements between Marxists and anarchists are primarily with regards tactics. Fundamentally, anarcho-communists see the fundamental issue as being the abolition of state apparatus, with no transitionary 'socialist' period to communism. Marxists believe that the state must 'wither away' when the conditions are such that it is no longer required. Many Marxists (I myself would fall into this category) maintain that the state is a necessary evil for a transitionary period to communism in order to defend a revolution against reactionary forces (such as the Fallangists in Spain - note that the anarchists lost, and it wasn't just because of the Stalinists. Many Marxists would put defeat down to those reasons).
To give another historical example of the logic behind that, after the October revolution of 1917, the Russians, lead by the Bolsheviks, were invaded by 15 (that's FIFTEEN, not a typo) imperialist nations, including Britain, America, Austro-Hungary, Japan, and (today's) Germany. Furthermore, the 1920s saw the rise of the Nazis in Germany, with their eyes on smashing the Soviet Union.
This experience, in my own strategic opinion, demonstrates a need for the state in order to defend against capitalist aggression (as the ruling class of capitalist nations will invariably seek to destroy any socialist revolution as it's contrary to their economic interests), even though the state runs contrary to communist tendancies. Hence I use the term "necessary evil" to refer to the state. The state should, however, be democratically run at all times to minimise the threat of internal opportunism.
"you cited anarchist catalonia as an example of successful world communism"
No I didn't. It was regional.
"what you CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT was that those anarchists were brought down and massacred by their own allies in the spanish civil war – the communists and the socialists"
I didn't leave that out 'conveniently'. It simply had nothing to do with the topic. At the time, if you read over the conversation, you'll see that I'm addressing the practicality of a socialist society from a historical perspective, not the militaristic events. Again, your personal agenda has blinded you and forced you into another error.
"the communists and the socialists. your communists. your socialists"
Error number 2. The correct thing would be to say that 'some' communists within the Stalinist faction undermined the anarchists ("massacre" is the wrong word, although there were assassinations - the massacre came from the Fallangist side). These are not 'my' communists - error number 3 - because I rebuke those events, although I also understand the other side to the argument. The POUM were an example of just one group of Marxists who fought alongside the anarchists and did not fight against them. So you're wrong there yet again. Many members of the Communist Party Of Britain also joined the brigades in Spain.
At this point I'm going to digress and advise you that if you plan to put points across with vitriol, you'd better make them accurately, or you'll set yourself up for humilation. Let's see how you get on from this point on.
"now it seems to me that you are a communist. yet you cited an example of anarchism to somehow support your cause"
This pertains to my first point once more. A communist society - which is what I was addressing, not the tactics employed in attaining it - is an anarchist society by its very definition. It was defined by Karl Marx as the point at which the state "withers away", leaving an anarchist organisation of society. Once more, the vitriol is misplaced.
"your communists killed those very anarchists who you are toting as a successful example of communism. are you seeing my point? because i’m not seeing yours…"
I feel my previous response will clear your confusion on this matter.
"i’m quite familiar with the meaning of “ignorance”"
Then you'll understand why you've no basis to make the claim that my comment was interlaced with insults.
"isleading statements like the one i’ve cited above"
It's not misleading. You've just failed to comprehend it as a result of your eagerness to regain some intellectual pride after your ignorance was previously illucidated. This has lead to carelessness in constructing a debate. Every line of your comments espouses indignation. You really do need to man up and get over it if you want an intellectual discussion.
"one who IS familiar with the subject can say anything he wants about that subject(true or not) and it becomes true by default. sounds like brainwashing to me"
This is incoherent logic. If this is your thesis - that you do not know about the issue, and my knowing puts me in a position to manipulate you - then it wouldn't make sense that you should engage me in debate on the matter, such as you did. It would make much more sense to remain silent than subject yourself to 'brainwashing'. More fundamentally, a charge of brainwashing is quite obviously absurd. This is another one of those incredible comments you've made which has left my jaw on the floor for the mere fact that you thought it would be a good thing to say. You have access to the internet, clearly. You seem to be able to read, also. It follows, then, that you should be able to read information on the internet for yourself at your own leisure, rather than VOLUNTARILY(!) subjecting yourself to my evil communist 'brainwashing'.
If you feel that you are being unfairly manipulated, I draw your attention to the "manage your subscriptions" link, where you can elect to recieve no further comments in reply, or else, your inherent and remarkable ability to just 'not' read my evil communist brainwashing comments of doom.
"others have read every book on facism. does that mean when i disagree with them that they are right?"
No. It does not. It means that when you say something which is incorrect and built on stereotypes, as you have in previous correspondence, that person will probably be able to call on their knowledge of fascism and correct you. An example:
Fudd says: "Fascism means everyone has to wear pink hats!"
Expert on Fascism says: "Well actually, as an expert on fascism, I can safely say that this is not part of fascist ideology and defy you to provide evidence supporting your statement."
So for example, when you say "Communism is subjection of man to man and capitalism is the same" (as you did), I am able to do something similar (as I did).
Without trying to provoke your indignance further, I don't get the impression that your agenda is that of a free thinker. I think there's evidence to support this impression. You entered the debate in the first instance having done little to no research, but with your mind made up, throwing around the typical facile lines one hears in capitalist media. I'd even bet you've begun working teleologically - scouring the internet for anti-communist information to prove your hypothesis that communism is evil, and everything Samson says is a lie because he is evil and so on and so forth.
This seems to me to be contrary to free thinking.
Again, a futile analysis serving only to further a personalised agenda.
anyway, i'm sure that Jamie is just as put out at being lumped in with you as you are at being lumped in with him.
actually, you are right - in a way. i am jumping in to settle an old score. in one of your previous posts you cited anarchist catalonia as an example of successful world communism. well samson, you are right: the anarchists had a good thing going. but, what you CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT was that those anarchists were brought down and massacred by their own allies in the spanish civil war - the communists and the socialists. your communists. your socialists. now it seems to me that you are a communist. yet you cited an example of anarchism to somehow support your cause. but your communists killed those very anarchists who you are toting as a successful example of communism. are you seeing my point? because i'm not seeing yours...
i'm quite familiar with the meaning of "ignorance". it is your presumption of others' ignorance that makes you think you can get away with misleading statements like the one i've cited above. so in other words, if one is not familiar with a subject, one who IS familiar with the subject can say anything he wants about that subject(true or not) and it becomes true by default. sounds like brainwashing to me, which as i'm sure you know is part and parcel of any decent repressive society.
my agenda, if any, is that of a free thinker, live and let live, do unto others...etc. so you've read every book on communism. good for you. others have read every book on facism. does that mean when i disagree with them that they are right?
I should also point out that none of my previous comments to you, nor the Christian lad were "interlaced with personal insults". I tackled every debate head on, missing no arguments, except the last Christian one, which I decided wasn't worth tackling because I assumed most intelligent people would recognise it was nonsense.
If you're thinking that bemoaning your "ignorance" is an insult, read the dictionary definition of the word and reconsider, since I used it in the strict sense.
Well since you're admitting to finding it difficult to discern the difference, allow me to enlighten you.
One of us is presenting a an empirical interpretation of the world. The facts presented can be researched until you attain satiation.
This is a very bizzare thing for you to say, and stunned me when I first read it:
"both use selected bits of information to try to further their views"
Really? Are you really accusing me of observing the opposing argument, then being so DASTARDLY as to select information from my knowledge base which counters it?? HOW DISPICABLE OF ME! You must not be familiar with how debates work. What would the alternative be?
Opponent: "Hitler was a communist"
Samson: "No, you're wrong, because my cat wears slippers!"
Can you see why that was not a good thing for you to say, now? More importantly, I repudiate that I "conveniently leav[e] out facts". You have no evidence for this accusation. What you 'really' want to say is that the facts I include don't suit 'your' agenda, which poses a problem for you since you have no facts of your own to refute anything I say and want me to do the work for you.
The Christian opponent, on the other hand, is not presenting 'any' evidence - period. That isn't to say that they are presenting evidence which is questionable - it simply hasn't been attempted. His Biblical quotes were irrelevant ("although they knew God, the did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" - how does this further a debate?), whilst the rest was theological speculation and general mumbo jumbo which others (not yourself, apparently) were able to discern.
Not only are his comments lacking evidence, he makes claims which are entirely falsifiable - such as a claim to the ideology of communism which is demonstrably incorrect. Communism as an ideology is not open to subjective interpretation - as per your claim, Fudd - as its intentions are written clearly for all to read in the works of men such as Marx, Kropotkin etc. Anyone blessed with literacy can read it. One wouldn't make the claim (lest they were a absolute philistine) that "Capitalism is a system of common ownership of the means of production" - because it's not by definition. So no, it's not an opinion. You're simply wrong about this, and it was a facile attempt.
Still, I think I've given your comment more of a reply than it deserves. I feel you're personalising this issue - jumping in to settle a score because you feel hard done to when I demolished your arguments above quite coherently, in my opinion (<<< THAT is opinion, but others may judge who comes out best in the debate for themselves). Hence you feel a need to reclaim some intellectual pride. I understand this, but it's rather juvenile and acerbic, and you should overcome it. When someone demonstrates more knowledge on an issue which you (clearly) haven't studied (as demonstrated above for those wishing to read), just accept it and move on, like a man should.
I think I've said my piece on this matter. As I said, it was rather facile, so I'd rather we leave it there than further futile ad hominems.