Ho Chi Minh: Vietnam's Enigma
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?
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.
@TDF: 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.
I don't see much difference between either Jamie's bible-thumping or Samson's communist rants (other than the fact that Samson's rants are interlaced with personal insults towards the person he is replying to). both use their familiarity with particular literature which suits them to argue that everyone should think like them. both use selected bits of information to try to further their views while conveniently leaving out facts that might shed doubt upon or otherwise lead rational people to question their OPINION. and, at the end of the day, no matter how many books you quote or historical events that you interpret, that's all it will ever be - YOUR opinion.
Jesus freaks may know nothing about Communism, but they sure know how to be sensationalist. Also, for references on China, how about some authors who were actually there and have a different story to tell? People like Mobo Gao, Dongping Han, Edgar Snow, Bai Di, and William H. Hinton? Read them.
@Samson Keep up the solid replies.
what happened to the one in english, there was a excelient one on Ho Chi Minh not long ago i enjoyed it it was fascinating i would like to see it again. I served in Nam with the 1st Inf. The dialog above sounds like some kind of incriptic code? HELLO IS ANYBODY HOME!
Haha, tell me about it. I've responded to most replies as best I can, but there are limits.
I like when people use the bible as evidence to back up their arguments - saves me the of actually reading them before realizing they're crazy
because, 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. Professing to be wise they became fools.
You claim those who have argued against you are ignorant, and your evidence such as one calling a "communist state"; we all know the goal of true Lenin communism is the international... until this is accomplished it will remain appearing as communist states; yet one could argue that Russia has been and most likely remains the puppet master of these states.
Your vocabulary is impressive, but it is not being used to put forth a competent argument instead it is used to intimidate your opponent. Machiavelli and Alinsky (yes I read the Prince, Rules for Radicals and John L. Lewis) would appreciate the effectiveness of this tactic. Special kudos to you for pointing out misspelling of Lennonism; I am sure this had its desired affect among readers.
My dear Samson, I have read the "The Communist Manifesto", in face I have studied Lenin, Stalin, both through numerous biographies from pro-communist authors. I have studied their words that were hidden away in the Soviet archives until the collapse of the USSR. Read "The Long March" by Sun Shuyun.... she interviews the surviving Revolutionaries of China, detailing the atrocities committed in the name of the Revolution... the bloody cultural tour, sounding like a wandering hippie community dealing out justice as these lawless ones saw fit. Don't worry Shuyun does not judge these actions negatively, or even state they were unnecessary she simple documents. I love to read communist, in there own words they leave the evidence of men and woman who have lost their compass of truth, justice and love of many; mistakenly the communist way believes the total parting with the Christian paradigm is the way to human fulfillment.
And this occurred because of false brethren, secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in CHRIST JESUS, that they might bring us into bondage) to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the TRUTH of the gospel might continue with you.
All communist writings from Marx to Lenin have an objective to stamp out the truth of Christ, so submission of the masses will be obtained. Lenin uses the communal Christian movement in Russia by covert means to bring Revolution. Hitler with stealth infiltrated the Church gradually corrupting the interpretation of scripture to subdue the masses. Why is it communism, anarchy, fascism and totalitarianism promote supporting the Lie in their uncorrupted doctrines.... Yet the Constitution of the United States can only support lying to the people when corrupted.
Lies are only useful for controlling another; the truth sets us free to make logical, educated choices.
I do not have any misconceptions that you will even FEEL anything more than aroused anger or condescension from these words I have typed, but I have one more point for you...
The HEART is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, Who can know it?
I know you have some emotional attachment to the Communist International movement and you have read many books. I ask you to read the BIBLE, by yourself and cover to cover. I know nobody walks away unchanged from the Bible, it is a love story of God to You... Until you do that you can not debate this issue in whole. Cover to Cover.... God Bless and this is kindly meant.
"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"
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.
Each of these have been working societies in the libertarian tradition of communism which had to be put down by violence, and this is where the problems lie. Not in communism - that stage of society has been shown to work - but in overcoming counter-revolutionary forces, and that is the challenge which the working class face, but it is up to the working class to organise to defeat them. That requires education.
The class societies which have came about as a result of communism have to be observed more closely. How many attempts have their been at revolution? Do you realise how many bourgeois revolutions took place until their triumph?
The USSR, for example, was the first wholesale attempt by the working class to overcome capitalism, only 90 years ago. We have to know our history in order to learn from it so as not to repeat the same mistakes. That means defending revolution from opportunists as well as capitalists.
We also have to know that there are no inevitabilities in life. No one knows how a revolution will develop before it happens. No one can predict the reactionary or class forces at play.
Second of all, communists acknowledge that 'some' class divergence will remain in the period of socialism - that's never been denied, because it's inevitable. You don't attain communism overnight. The key in a socialist transitional stage is balance, and the key of power in working class hands. The Soviets made the mistake of allowing too much centralisation of power under Stalin (and understandably - they were terrified of the Nazi onslaught and looked for strong leadership).
The best example of the socialist stage, in my opinion, is the Cuban model. It's imperfect, but still a democracy favouring the working class. Note also, that it doesn't buy into the anti-communist stereotypes of gulags and genocide or whatever capitalist opponents throw up.
"I guess the point I am trying to make is that everyone must be free to decide for themselves what is good for them. But when you have a group that has decided that it knows what is best for everyone, they will inevitably seek to impose their view."
But there's no disagreement there. Communists believe in raising the working class to the status of arbiter of its own revolution. That's what Marx meant when he called for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", the dictatorship BY the workers, perpetually revolutionising their society to their own ends.
Even Leninists don't believe in substituting themselves for the working class. They call for a party of the vanguard - educated revolutionaries who help to "steer" the revolution, but the revolution itself has to be from the workers. It's essential to have such a party to stand for election. Why? Because the working class isn't educated in revolution, socialism, communism and so on. When the time comes that they're ready to overthrow capitalism, they won't know exactly what to do. They won't have a structural analysis of the state, the class forces at play, etc. If you don't believe me, go into your local bar and ask the first person you see to explain capitalism, communism, the state. You'll likely get an erroneous answer.
"Those in power will ultimately seek to abuse it unless kept in check."
That's never inevitable, but it is a danger. However, you answer your own argument on my behalf. "UNLESS KEPT IN CHECK" - vigilance is an imperative. Mostly, though, people learn to work democratically. This can be seen in democratically run workplaces in Argentina at the moment (the Naomi Klein documentary "The Take" [on Youtube] shows this well). More importantly, the working class are the minority. If they are aware of their strength as they must be educated to be, they can always overcome opportunists.
"I certainly do not buy it now, especially after having lived in post-communist countries for the last 9 years, including Russia."
This is interesting. Firstly, the USSR was the very first attempt (and a flawed one at that) at socialism. It's more interesting, though, because you must have observed the destitution of the Russian people after gangster capitalism took hold. For all its flaws, the Soviet Union saw the transition from 3rd world country to 2nd world country in a matter of a couple of decades. Since its collapse, it's heading backwards towards a 3rd world nation. Unemployment is rife where as there was previously a garauntee to work, to healthcare, to education (free to the extent of your ability).
Capitalism is not just oppressing 3rd world countries. It oppresses all workers. We live under a system of wage-slavery, being subjugated under the dictatorship of the boss, who tells us to work harder, work faster, with less breaks, for less pay. We spend our lives deprived of democracy and freedom to express ourselves fully. We see and feel the alienation that brings, the anti-social behaviour which develops and the bewildered people who have no stake in society. We watch troops sent off to war for imperialist profits - sometimes we are the troops. Sometimes, we're on the recieving end of the troops. In all cases, the troops are us. We watch as capitalism destroys the enviroment because of its profit motive, and we know it doesn't have to happen. Rather than overthrow it, we let it threaten the very planet we live on. We have nuclear weapons pointing at one another so that the ruling class can defend its own interests. We see wealth and sheer power centralised under a tiny handful of people. How can we possibly tolerate such inequality, or a lack of control over our own destiny? Because we're bewildered by the propaganda, the racism which is perpetuated to keep us from joining forces and so on and so on.
There is a better world possible. The more people want it, the more they educate themselves, the easier it is to attain it. No one should be content to have their one life and its potential spent in the cogs of the market machine, without the democratic freedom over their destiny and that of their society. Not just us, but our children.
Don't make excuses for the status quo. We deserve better.
Your arguments are obviously well thought out and researched. I would never claim to know more about communism than you.
I am aware, however, that communism does espouse a classless, egalitarian society. 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. The earthly result is that communism ultimately creates a political class that dominates society. I assume these are the people who are supposed to manage the transition to that perfect society but they never seem to want to give up their power once they have it.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that everyone must be free to decide for themselves what is good for them. But when you have a group that has decided that it knows what is best for everyone, they will inevitably seek to impose their view. Those who do not agree will be marginalised. And ultimately someone will resort to force and so forth, until - given enough time - horrible atrocities are being committed in the name of a supposedly noble cause. This is the human nature I speak of. Those in power will ultimately seek to abuse it unless kept in check.
I am not a communist but I was raised by one. Admittedly, I heard a lot more about what was wrong with capitalism than what was good about communism. Perhaps it was the way in which the arguments were presented, but I did not buy it then and I certainly do not buy it now, especially after having lived in post-communist countries for the last 9 years, including Russia.
I can see how communism looks like an attractive system to people from poor, oppressed, agrarian societies where basic survival is the main goal. That's about the best I can say for it.
You say, "communism is a classless and egalitarian society". Sounds like Heaven - and look at what people have done / are doing / will do to each other to get THERE.
That's nonsense. I mean this quite literally. Unadulterated tripe. Not only is it devoid of tangible content, but it is an excuse to sit on your arse and do nothing.
If you had actually read my comment above, you would see that communism is a classless and egalitarian society. I'm a communist, so trust me when I say I know better than you what the word means. Communism is thus incompatible with subordination, given that subordination is an antagonism of egalitarianism. Please read my above comment in detail to see where this is expressed.
Secondly, there is no human nature. If you can accurately pin-point it, you will be the first person in history to do so and I will actively seek to nominate you for an academic and internationally recognised reward.
Thirdly, there is no logical link between refutation over inherent human nature and subordination. In fact, allusion to static human nature (which must inevitably repudiate evolution against all empirical evidence) is more likely to condone subordination, as has been the case historically (read "Critique Of Intelligent Design: Materialism Vs Creationism From Antiquity To Present" by John Bellamy Foster). It has been argued by proponents of human nature that it is "human nature" to be dominated. It was argued by Hobbes that man does not want to be free. It has been argued that class hierarchy is "human nature". It is said that human nature is "greed", which is an excellent way to justify one's personal greed. "Don't blame me for stealing. It's human nature."
Those who seek to monopolise on human nature attempt to speak for us all and usually have an agenda. Needless to say, this won't suffice.
Your formula currently looks like this:
Denial of human nature = Subordination of humanity
As you can see, this is intellectually insufficient. It's a clear non-sequitur, and given that you're not entirely inarticulate, I think you must have the cognitive capacity to recognise this deep down.
is it just me or this film entirely in vietnamese with no subtitles or dubbing...?
@ Samson: Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism/communism, it is the other way around.
As with any "ism" that seeks to change or deny human nature, the human elements of power and control eventually rear their ugly heads and quickly subordinate any good that might have been accomplished. It simply replaces one elite with another.
Your evaluation that I am full of anger is quite accurate. Do you realise how often I come across these distortions? Every time without fail, it comes from a person who hasn't so much looked at a communist book, let alone read it. Instead, they take their prejudices from capitalist propaganda, ridiculous James Bond films, or the books such as The Black Book Of Communism, by Robert Conquest - a man who worked for the British government's Information Research Department (the anti-communist propaganda ministry), profess to be an expert, then attempt to tell real communists who 'have' read and understood communist literature what it is.
"Do you agree that the list of people mentioned above are not commonly killed during communist revolutions?"
I think you mean "are" commonly killed instead of "are not". If so, then I disagree entirely. The reason you think this is evidenced at the bottom of your comment where you reference "First They Killed My Father", a book about the Khmer Rouge primitivists in Cambodia, whom no contemporary communist (perhaps one or two basket cases on the fringe aside) support.
"1 Anyone who is a mixed-race, foreigner, immigrant, or foreign educated"
In Cuba, this did not happen. In Hungary, this did not happen. In the Soviet Union, this did not happen. In the GDR, this did not happen. This happened in Cambodia, which again, is not indicative of communism.
"2 Anyone part of the previous government"
Another distortion. In fact, in 1917, a mob had the leader of the Provisional Government who had continuted a war which had thus far killed 2 million Russians cornered with the intent to slaughter him. Leon Trotsky, later leader of the Red Army, stood on a nearby car and preached to the mob that they were simply going to kill one man, but that it was the system which was killing their families. He urged them to spare his life and instead smash the feudalist and emerging capitalist state, replacing it with a socialist one. They did.
The Bolsheviks 'did' kill the Tsar, but what you will no doubt deliberately fail to mention, is that the Russians were in the middle of a civil war, with the White Army leading a counter-revolution with the intention of re-installing the Tsarist dictatorship. Whilst he was alive, the loyalties to the old system remained. Likewise, you will ignore that the Tsar had killed millions - because it's ok for the establishment to kill for people like you. I've seen it all before. It's only the communists that you hate.
In Cuba, the existing government was not killed, either. Nor in Hungary, GDR, etc.
Meanwhile, when they 'are' forced to kill, you pretend as though they do so in isolation, and ignore the existence of an enemy which is attempting counter-revolution, leading armies to destroy the people's movement, such as the Tsar. Or, when Mao took power, you act as though anyone killed was just killed for sport! Do you realise that the revolution lasted 24 years? Do you realise that the imperialist backed government, nationalists and all other factions were massacring the people and attempting to enslave them?
"3 Educated people"
This simply has 'no' substance. This happened in Cambodia, and again, not in any of the countries refered to in my answer to question 1, contrary to your claim that "When a group of people or a country is taken over by Communists the following people are almost always killed"
"4 Religious people"
I'm almost incredulous of your claiming this. This happened, again, in Cambodia. In many of the other nations, such as Cuba and the USSR, religion was repressed, but religious people themselves were NEVER killed. The reason they were repressed was that the church has always been a tool of the ruling class in deseminating its ideas, hence the link between church and state throughout feudal Europe. Post 1992 (I think that's the right year, you can check), and a visit from the Pope, the Cubans allowed their churches to be opened once more. In the USSR, it was done much earlier, in the 1930s, and hadn't begun until the mid 20s under Stalin (after Lenin had died - many incorrect and anti-communist policies were implemented by Stalin. For example, Lenin had legalised homosexuality, and Stalin later criminalised it). The main reason for this was most likely a realisation that the church held so much power, and that in order to defeat the Nazis in WWII, its support would be necessary. The reason the propaganda that communists are "out to kill the religious" is distributed is that there are a great many religious people in the world. In order to steer them away from emancipation, and from reading the work of communist intellectuals, such as Marx or Lenin, it is necessary to fill them with fear with such absurd claims so that they cannot think straight.
I am a communist and I dislike religion. That said, like most of my comrades, I do not believe in repressing religion, let alone killing the religious. I am cautious of the church's ruling class role, but, all morality aside, repressing religion simply isn't even 'practical'. Faiths cannot be forced from people.
"In the end Communists hope to bring their people back to an agrarian state and use murder in order to make this happen."
............. <<< My honest reaction. This is why I get angry with the ignorance I mentioned.
Communists specifically want the 'opposite' of agrarian states. The "murder to make it happen" part is just verbal/written diarrhea, frankly - it makes no sense as to why murder = agriculture.
Again, the agrarian state was exclusive to Cambodia - as I called the Khmer Rouge "primitivists". That is, they believe in technology free society. Communists, however, believe that, as Marx explained in the communist manifesto, the historical developments under the capitalist mode of production, and via the constant revolutionising of the means of production, threw up such technological advances and automation that lay the groundwork for communist society, that is, an end to material scaricity - something which communist society absolutely depends on. It is thus essential to utilise INDUSTRIAL, not agrarian society (although quite obviously, and I don't think you'll disagree, in order to feed people, agriculture is still essential, hence, under economic blockade from the USA, Cuba was forced to implement some agrarian reforms, as was the USSR in order to oversee its mass industrialisation programme, which brings me neatly to my second point on the bankruptcy of your claim...)
Lenin defined communism in Russia, still then a feudalist agrarian society (having never properly seen the capitalist historical transition prior to socialism), thusly:
"Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country"
Most of the end of Lenin's life was focussed on fighting off 15 imperialist countries and 3,000,000 troops which had invaded Russia at the time, and was hence unable to oversee this project. After his death and Stalin and Bukharin's implementation of the "Socialism In One Country" policy (up until then, it had been expected that the revolution would be international), the USSR embarked on a host of "5 year plans" for industrialisation. Whereas it had taken capitalist nations 100 years to industrialise, the centrally planned method allowed the Soviets to do it in just 10 years. Indeed, the Soviets saw a transition from 3rd world to 2nd world country in its short history and became an economic and industrial super power.
And so, the claim that communists want an "agrarian state" is just a sheer lie. In fact, it's TWO lies, because "in the end", communists want a stateLESS and industrialised society. Read the communist manifesto and you'll see. It's only about 10 pages long.
"Then the leader(s) get a taste of power and move the country from a communist state to a dictatorship"
Opportunism is a problem which only the people themselves can conquer. That said, the reason dictatorships have been ALLOWED to develop, and why the people themselves have followed it, is that socialists nations come under attack by imperialist nations! The USA is still at war (an economic trade embargo is an international declaration of war) with Cuba. As I mentioned, the War Of Intervention saw the Soviet Union attacked by 15 imperialist countries. The USA invaded Vietnam on a pack of lies when they attempted socialism. They invaded Guatemala over mediocre land reforms, and that wasn't even socialism! It was only social-democratic. Right after the USSR saw off the 15 imperialist nations, they were then faced with the rise of the Nazis, in a war which destroyed most of Russia, constant coup attempts and other methods of infiltration. In WWII, Britain postponed its elections to see off the war threat.
And once the Nazis and the capitalists put these countries under siege, destroy their crops, launch wars on them, threaten them with nuclear weapons, and force them into siege mentality, they turn around and say "SEE! I told you the communists were evil!". It's an incredible hypocrisy!
To give an example of the difficulties socialists face, in the late 70s, early 80s, Yuri Andropov presented a Marxist analysis of alienation from the means of production in the Soviet Union. He claimed that to counter it, it was imperative that a greater implementation of democracy was pursued (there was 'some' democracy, but insufficient), and to get back to the Leninist idea that "Every cook must learn to govern the state". Perestroika was then introduced with that very intention (there was a "left-wing" and a "right-wing" interpretation of the programme). However, the right-wing capitalist infiltrators manipulated the reforms, and what happened? They dismantled the Soviet Union.
That said, it should ALWAYS be communists intentions to implement democracy, even in difficulties, and it should have been done earlier. That is the most communistic policy there is. REAL democracy of the people, not this capitalist 5-year dictatorship nonsense.
And so, in answer to your question:
"Do you agree that communist leaders often turn their governments into dictatorships (instead of true communist governments)?"
Yes and no. There are opportunists, yes, and no communist would be honest to say it's not possible. But at the same time, under siege from imperialism, it can be at times impossible to implement 'real' socialism, and so the "no" part of my answer indicates that it's not as simple as you imply.
"Do pseudo-communist leaders live hypocritical lives?"
Yes. Men like Robert Mugabe, or Ceau?escu, who claim to be "Marxists", yet build palaces for themselves and live like kings are not communists in the least. These are perfect examples of opportunists, and the people themselves must organise against them. Others such as Fidel or Raul Castro are in a position where they are technically dictators in that they're unelected (although it's worth noting that despite the Old Guard revolutionaries, Cuba does have a healthy democracy), but their hands are often forced, making it difficult to implement what communists would like. I.E., workers' democracy.
First of all Samson, you seem to be full of anger. I am interested in discussing the ideas and implications of Communism and am not interested in saying bad things about you or your pursuit of truth. Let's please have an intellectual discussion and leave the emotions out of it.
That being said:
Do you agree that the list of people mentioned above are not commonly killed during communist revolutions?
Do you agree that communist leaders often turn their governments into dictatorships (instead of true communist governments)?
Do pseudo-communist leaders live hypocritical lives?
There's nothing worse than a discernible ignorant proclaiming personal omniscience. See my previous comment.
Of course, it's not worth debating such philistines. Particularly not ones who believe that communists support the Khmer Rouge primitivists, or who use the oxymoronic term "communist state". However, anyone reading his uninformed diatribe and taking it seriously may want to research the Cuban revolution, Marx's communist manifesto and Das Kapital, Lenin's State And Revolution then decide for themselves. They may note that the above reviewer clearly hasn't read any of them, lest they'd understand that communists do not seek agrarian society, but on the contrary, have consistently sought to develop the means of production, a prerequisite of communist society.
When a group of people or a country is taken over by Communists the following people are almost always killed:
1 Anyone who is a mixed-race, foreigner, immigrant, or foreign educated
2 Anyone part of the previous government
3 Educated people
4 Religious people
In the end Communists hope to bring their people back to an agrarian state and use murder in order to make this happen.
Then the leader(s) get a taste of power and move the country from a communist state to a dictatorship; yet they continue to call the system communism and continue to use murder and fear to retain their power.
Please read the following books for more information:
First They Killed My Father (Cambodia)
The Colors of the Mountain (P.R. China)
It's a shame I didn't get to this sooner, I'm really interested in watching it.
"with regards communism"
Here here. There's this remarkable phenomenon with regards phenomenon whereby every anti-intellectual moron considers themselves to be an expert without so much as having picked up a book........something evidenced by the use of the term "Lennonism".
John Lennon: Not just a great musician, but leader of the Russian vanguard.
It has been said- that god must love the stupid-he makes so many of them!
No such thing as deception, lies, Lennonisms disguised in propaganda make anything right. The Russians are the most wicked insane liars I have ever studied on earth, and Ho Chi Men laid in bed with the devils to get his own way and he was taken by It. He could not help himself and killed just as they do. So you see he sold his soul to the devil but did not even know when he did it. He laid in bed with Hell's children to get what he thought was a great cause to liberate his country from oppressions.
In the end he was taken over by the evil he laid in bed with at any whim he could not control it. He thought he was smarter and manipulated and lied and dabbled and thought to outsmart the wicked to get his own way. He was taken and took millions with him for what? Murderous communist socialists. He had the right Idea to go to America but was not strong enough to keep to it. So he went the easy way to the wicked mafia, the murderers and sold His soul. There is one way, one God, one gospel and Christ has sent servant Apostle Prophet Doyle Davidson to deliver all who will believe in God's son's gospel to walk in His power and deliverance if you only believe.
It is not the easy way. Believe and be blessed and prosper. Fight against america and perish. Psalm 105:13, 14, 15, 16 TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED AND DO MY PROPHETS NO HARM, SAITH JEHOVAH OUR CREATOR TODAY. I by Christ speak of the America who are God's children that God set The United States up, to deliver the good news of God's redemption to the world. Everyone, All, American's, Nations of the world, politician, police, governments of men who come against the freedom to deliver God's word to the world will perish even Ho Chi Man who had an honorable cause but sold his soul to get it easily and did not attain to it with honour and lasting protection and deliverance from evil by submitting unto God whole heartedly.
look how they lost millions in order to win...look how they went to drastic measures (ex.Chu Chi tunnels etc) this is no different than the war were in now
Insanity is defined as trying a behavior over and over with failing results only to expect a different outcome before each attempt.... you know what I mean.
very good doc...to bad about the US not helping HO early on in his struggle He would have never adopted commmunizm as a means for liberation.
this lesson of a people who have a passionate liberation idea i wish my country (United States)would learn from this historical wisdom...and get its huge nose out of other struggleing countries....but NOOOOOOOOOO now look where we are a repeat of the past....
Haha. Well said, Weix.
The reason for attempting communism is to 'end' suffering, Janice. You're not paying attention to the billions of deaths which the capitalist system has caused.
Janice Thor, I don't know what you are going on about. But you sound so fu***** stupid.