[fuser]

I feel like even if Ho Chi Minh showed up to join SN-RF, he'd be shown the door for 'being too interested in attaining Annamese tribal hegemony', or something.

No. He is already with us, watching over all SN-RF members from his heavenly abode. Part and parcel of being a SN-RF member is that if you had more than 100 posts in the group you get a direct private channel for talking directly to Ho Chi Minh.

[Dagoth Ur]

Ho Chi Minh, for all of Rei's attempts to co-opt him, was a consistent Marxist-Leninist who, if alive, she would rail against as a Russophile.

[ThereBeDragons]

Would you say that Ho Chi Minh was not a nationalist?

[Dagoth Ur]

Of course he was. But Rei disagrees with national-liberation, Ho Chi Minh was one of its biggest proponents.

[The Immortal Goon]

I understand that, but if you want an answer "from the group" that is what I was trying do for you by giving you a bit of a heads up. Since I'm a member I know the group attitude on these things and to the extent its been discussed you have the group leader TIG for instance saying "a Nazbol is not coming in" and most of the group going along with that calling National Bolsheviks 'fascists in red clothing' or something to that extent. Barring significant internal changes that stance isn't going to change and to the extent any change is coming it's more of "how can we keep right-wingers out better" kind of deal.

I must say that I do think the change has happened. We do have an avowed reactionary that routinely sides with fascists.

SN-RF is about the group, not about ideological purity. Tim was not found to be consistent with the group.

The application process remains the way it always has been.

[Dagoth Ur]

I presume you mean donald? When did he side with fascists? Because I think that's really relevant.

[ThereBeDragons]

Re: Tim - You can always try and open your own left-nationalist group if you were found to be too chauvinistic for the Marxist club and don't feel like hanging with the open fascists.

Of course he was. But Rei disagrees with national-liberation, Ho Chi Minh was one of its biggest proponents.

I would guess that she only disagrees with national liberation movements when the forces doing the national liberating are ideologically shitty. The Taliban qualify, the Viet Minh probably doesn't. I'm not read on Ho Chi Minh so I can't say what he would think (well, I'm not read on Rei either, but that sounds more consistent to me.).

[Rei Murasame]

I would guess that she only disagrees with national liberation movements when the forces doing the national liberating are ideologically shitty.

Pretty much. If 'national liberation' happens to mean 'the Taliban', then that's a situation where I'm not in favour of it.

[Dagoth Ur]

The Taliban qualify,

False. The DRA were the liberationists, the Taliban/Mujahideen were foreign funded reactionaries against liberation. You might as well call the White Cossasks a national liberation movement.

I'm not read on Ho Chi Minh so I can't say what he would think (well, I'm not read on Rei either, but that sounds more consistent to me.).

Perhaps I could have been more clear. Rei opposes national liberation wherever she doesn't like a particular feature, like a trotskyist splitting hairs about who to support, and in effect only supports national liberation for her own narrow realpolitik interests (ie she doesn't support national liberation). Supporting national liberation is nothing less than taking a principled stance.

The real irony of Rei trying to co-opt Ho Chi Minh is she would have lost her shit about him allying with Russians against other Asians.

[ThereBeDragons]

False. The DRA were the liberationists, the Taliban/Mujahideen were foreign funded reactionaries against liberation. You might as well call the White Cossasks a national liberation movement.

Liberating them from what? The imperialist tyranny that was the Daoud republic?

The real irony of Rei trying to co-opt Ho Chi Minh is she would have lost her shit about him allying with Russians against other Asians.

Pot Pot and Mao were not exactly model Asians.

[Dagoth Ur]

Liberating them from what? The imperialist tyranny that was the Daoud republic?

And its imperial sponsors. The taliban aimed to set the clock back. The tribes especially as the Soviets aimed to undermine their autonomy, what with the educating women and building schools in rural areas. National Liberation is inherently progressive.

Pot Pot and Mao were not exactly model Asians.

Yeah but as far as I've ever seen Rei say, ANY Asian is better than a Russian.

[Red_Army]

wtf is a model asian?

[ThereBeDragons]

And its imperial sponsors. The taliban aimed to set the clock back.

I suppose if the Soviet Union assassinated the governor of Texas and sent in the Soviet Airborne to set up a Soviet socialist republic there, that would also constitute "national liberation."

The tribes especially as the Soviets aimed to undermine their autonomy, what with the educating women and building schools in rural areas.

Is a tribe not a nation entitled to national self-determination?

National Liberation is inherently progressive.

News to me.

wtf is a model asian?

Someone who doesn't murder millions of people for shits and giggles... or was that one of the prerequisites? I can never remember.

[Dagoth Ur]

I suppose if the Soviet Union assassinated the governor of Texas and sent in the Soviet Airborne to set up a Soviet socialist republic there, that would also constitute "national liberation."

Yeah just reduce what I'm saying to pro-sovietism instead of listening. I mean your example here is just a pure insult.

Is a tribe not a nation entitled to national self-determination?

Building a strong nation requires breaking some eggs.

News to me.

You thought the taliban was a national liberation movement. National Liberation movements are progressive relative to their own history, they are moving the nation forward, not progressive as in liberal values.

Someone who doesn't murder millions of people for shits and giggles

Is that really how you see Pol Pot?

[ThereBeDragons]

Yeah just reduce what I'm saying to pro-sovietism instead of listening. I mean your example here is just a pure insult.

They would be raising up the working people of Texas against their capitalist oppressors. Liberation! It doesn't have to be the Soviets. It could be the Japanese Red Army or the Kurdish Worker's Party. The important people is that the people of Texas be freed from their chains, whether they like it or not.

Building a strong nation requires breaking some eggs.

Well now you're being as selective about what units get national liberation and which don't.

You thought the taliban was a national liberation movement. National Liberation movements are progressive relative to their own history, they are moving the nation forward, not progressive as in liberal values.

Yes, if moving "towards" the right direction (the Marxist ideal) has somehow made its way into the definition of national liberation, then... I don't know why you would expect anyone other than an orthodox Marxist to support national liberation unconditionally.

Is that really how you see Pol Pot?

No, he was actually the great hero of the Cambodian people, who heroically threw off the chains of Vietnamese imperialism and saved his country from becoming a shithole.

[Dagoth Ur]

They would be raising up the working people of Texas against their capitalist oppressors. Liberation! It doesn't have to be the Soviets. It could be the Japanese Red Army or the Kurdish Worker's Party. The important people is that the people of Texas be freed from their chains, whether they like it or not.

Is this your view of the DRA, a system imposed by invasion? Interesting. Instead I see it more like a popular revolution in Texas is winning against its local enemies but is forced to ask allies to assist against clearly foreign funded rats. I wonder which view meshes with actual history better...

Well now you're being as selective about what units get national liberation and which don't.

No I'm not. One group is fighting against liberation, the other is fighting for. Pretty cut and dry. I'm not opposing the whole affair because I'd prefer imperialism to win in a particular situation.

Yes, if moving "towards" the right direction (the Marxist ideal) has somehow made its way into the definition of national liberation, then... I don't know why you would expect anyone other than an orthodox Marxist to support national liberation unconditionally.

Try reading what I said again. Try to see where you imposed this interpretation on words that never said anything like that. Get back to me.

No, he was actually the great hero of the Cambodian people, who heroically threw off the chains of Vietnamese imperialism and saved his country from becoming a shithole.

Tell me more about how Pol Pot was out in the fields looking for glasses-wearing enemies of the people to execute for his own personal sadistic pleasure.

[ThereBeDragons]

Is this your view of the DRA, a system imposed by invasion? Interesting. Instead I see it more like a popular revolution in Texas is winning against its local enemies but is forced to ask allies to assist against clearly foreign funded rats. I wonder which view meshes with actual history better...

Certainly not one that assumes that the conservative Islamic masses were overjoyed to learn that their traditional society was going to be systematically dismantled by a bunch of progressive elites.

No I'm not. One group is fighting against liberation, the other is fighting for. Pretty cut and dry. I'm not opposing the whole affair because I'd prefer imperialism to win in a particular situation.

And what does "liberation" mean in this context? If the Soviets (or some other socialist country which has managed to whip up fifty divisions of naval infantry out of nowhere) had managed to establish a Texan SR, would that be "liberationist" because they've liberated the people of Texas?

Try reading what I said again. Try to see where you imposed this interpretation on words that never said anything like that. Get back to me.

National Liberation movements are progressive relative to their own history, they are moving the nation forward

What does "progressive relative to history" mean other than heading towards the Marxist ideal?

Tell me more about how Pol Pot was out in the fields looking for glasses-wearing enemies of the people to execute for his own personal sadistic pleasure.

You seem to be doing a pretty good job yourself already.

[Dagoth Ur]

Certainly not one that assumes that the conservative Islamic masses were overjoyed to learn that their traditional society was going to be systematically dismantled by a bunch of progressive elites.

If you knew about the Saur revolution you would know that A. it was a popular movement, B. early anti-islam radicals had to be thinned out and were, C. up until foreign funding of terrorists there was no concerted counterrevolutionary grouping.

And what does "liberation" mean in this context?

It means turning a nation from a servant, or a cow, into a peer with other nations. Does this mean the nation will never be abused again? Probably not. Does this mean their liberation failed? No, not unless they slide back down into servant, or cow, status.

If the Soviets (or some other socialist country which has managed to whip up fifty divisions of naval infantry out of nowhere) had managed to establish a Texan SR, would that be "liberationist" because they've liberated the people of Texas?

People liberate themselves, and you cannot do the liberating for them. Che's Focoism proved that by failing spectacularly.

Just because I defend the Soviet Union as the greatest ever nation to exist, doesn't mean I ignore very real faults.

What does "progressive relative to history" mean other than heading towards the Marxist ideal?

relative to their own history

Get it?

You seem to be doing a pretty good job yourself already.

I didn't even know about it until you told me how he killed millions just for the lols. I was really hoping you has some juicy tales.

[ThereBeDragons]

So you think the Saur Revolution was imposed from above. Okay good luck with that.

That was a coup by elites against other elites, but the Soviets didn't have to invade Daoud's government one year into his reign to prop it up.

People liberate themselves, and you cannot do the liberating for them. Che's Focoism proved that.

Fair enough.

relative to their own history

Does this distinction even matter? Presumably we imagine that (very loosely and very broadly) that nations are loosely 'progressing' from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. For any given nation at any given stage of development, whether something is progressive (even 'relative to its own history') is determined solely by whether it's getting closer to communism compared to where it was before, right?

I didn't even know about it until you told me how he killed millions just for the lols. I was really hoping you has some juicy tales.

I never went through the accounts of atrocities in that particular area of the world; I only have stories from China and Germany. I blame ethnic chauvinism and the Jews.

[The Immortal Goon]

It might also be noted that while the heroic Vietnamese communists were taking out Pol Pot, Maggie Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan were backing him up.

It's always such hypocrisy to see someone try to attack the communists on the Cambodian front, "Why did it take so long to stop the capitalist-funded killing fields? All your side was doing was leading an army in to stop it, while we provided weapons, training, and logistics to Pol Pot."

I mean, really, what kind of an argument is this supposed to be?