[ThereBeDragons]

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

Certainly not one where I claimed that the United States was right about Cambodia or anything else. Pol Pot only ever got dragged into the debate because I inferred from Dagoth Ur's response that he was a Pol Pot apologist (which, apparently, he wasn't.)

I'm not even bashing on Marxists (not overtly, anyway). Dagoth Ur and I are just having a discussion of what constitutes "national liberation."

My position is that the mujahideen were part of a national liberation movement against Soviet occupation. That doesn't stop me from simultaneously thinking that the Soviets should have killed them all anyway.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't see how you could possibly construe a foreign funded (and mostly foreign-bodied) movement against people trying to modernize the nation as national liberation. The Taliban whored Afghanistan out to whoever would pay.

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 don't believe that history follows a linear path necessarily. But if a nation is becoming stronger and more resilient to coercion I'd call that progressive.

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.

[ComradeTim]

ComradeTim, SN-RF is clearly not going to accept you back any time soon. As for your recent postings it’s clear your anti-Marxism and willingness to side with fascists puts you at odds with this group aside from the personal grudges. You should embrace it already and go the Third Position route instead. Similar for you annatar, they aren’t going to accept a National Bolshevik which SN-RF considers to be fascist. You and Cromwell are clearly better suited to Third Position groups as well which includes left-nationalists.

Whilst comparing my position to Nazbolism seems kinda rough and I've alredy stated opposition to fascism, maybe it is time for a change. I hope SN-RF will realise it's mistake in the future but for now I'll withdraw my application.

It has been brought to my attention that the user Varax, has had fascist as her ideology this whole time but has still been allowed entrance and succor in the far leftist group.

Oh? Is that what you think has happened? Clearly you don’t know the full story and what any of this is about and as such you would be better off not using me as some kind of example or shield to get back in.

No, I don't know the full story, do tell. Sorry about that, btw, the fact that you still have fascist as ideology was somewhat odd, I hope you understand.

[fuser]

I hope SN-RF will realise it's mistake in the future

Why were you apologizing all these times Tim, if that's how you actually feel?

I'll withdraw my application.

After being rejected?

[Dagoth Ur]

That's the only honorable way fuser.

[Rei Murasame]

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

Nope, sometimes it's fine to just take the Russian weapons and logistics and do what you have to do, because there is no other choice and you'll die otherwise. Instances of this are:

• Vietnam (CPV)
• Iraq (Michel Aflaq, Salah Al-Din Al-Bitar, Saddam Hussein)
• Syria (Al-Assad family)

Just because the Russians are disgusting, doesn't mean it can't sometimes be a situation where you have to choose them in order to stave off some other threat that is more immediate.

Michel Aflaq explained this before, there was a quote for it:

The Arab nation struggles for political and economic liberation from Western imperialism, while the Soviet Union sees the continuation of the Western military and economic occupation, of the Arab land as a direct danger to its existence. Therefore when it supports the Arabs and provides them with arms and economic aid, it does not aspire to more than closing the Arab countries to Western imperialism and preventing it from using them as a theatre for its war operations and an economic source for augmenting its influence and hegemony.

You see the principle here.

This same principle applied in Vietnam. There was no chance that Vietnam could have taken a path of development under the west, because the west was intending to burn Vietnam to the ground, empower filthy Catholic fifth columnists, and inflict Pol Pot onto Cambodia.

Therefore, it was correct to choose the other side and take weapons and logistics from Russia in order to counter the destructive moves taken by the west. Because there was no other way.

It was also correct for them to have leveraged Russia against China's attempts to monopolise the area, because China's overseas agenda was completely incompetent and so Russia once again during the 1980s became the thing which would help Vietnam to remain independent.

Now, more recently, Vietnam's defence alignment is with India and with Japan. This is also the correct choice made the pragmatic CPV leadership. Basically I have nothing to complain about regarding Vietnam's behaviour. They did what they needed to do, and they didn't end up becoming a slave of Moscow, nor of the Americans. They played the game correctly, and did it exceptionally well.

NB: I think I've said this before, all those time when I have praised Vietnam and criticised the United States and France, it is kind of obvious that for Vietnam the more immediate threat was the United States and France, who were literally slaughtering them.

[Dagoth Ur]

Except they weren't just using the Russians as you'd like to interpret it. They were genuine allies and supported Soviet Russian missions over Asian ones over a long course (well after any point where you could blame their support of Russians on a need to survive).

You can try to co-opt the Viet-Cong as much as you want but nobody with an understanding of history will buy it.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not trying to co-opt. I'm saying that they had it both ways. They truly did - and still do - believe that the way forward is socialism, and that the task of the government is to continually take stances that lead to socialism and which will make the development of socialism 'irreversible'. In that sense, they are better at socialism than Russia ever was, simply on account of the fact that Vietnam still has socialism, whereas Russia reverted to Jurassic Park.

At the same time, Vietnam also actually believed - and still believes - in the existence of the nation, and that was equally important in how they gained their independence and why they still have it now. You all try to downplay this aspect of their struggle, because it seems to be something that you all don't like. The communists from Tonkin and Annam also transcended their pre-colonial Annanese identity. Their original intent was not to stop at Vietnam, but rather, to create a socialist Indochina in which the Annamese ethnic group would naturally be hegemonic. So they were also regionalists.

[mikema63]

I would suggest taking this argument and making a thread, or simply doing it via PM. It's an interesting argument but also a bit off topic.

[Cromwell]

And, apparently, this is what you left. Could have fooled me.

You were wrong. You haven't challenged that assertion, just dumped quotations into the thread with no comment or analysis.

Reading through your post history only vindicates what I've said.

No, it doesn't. I could direct you to the thread again, that I've directed you to before, in order to debate this. Instead of debating, however, you feel fit to keep sniping and making assertions before backing out with twaddle about not wanting to waste time engaging with me (not mentioning the amount of time you've already "wasted").

You have quite the history of issues with left liberals like PoD and communists like Kurt and Goldberk, often arguing alongside far-right users (and people like Tim), on common themes such as multiculturalism, immigration, minorities, and 'misguided' anti-fascism.

So, what?

Those don't seem like bread and butter Marxian issues.

Oh, and the issue of self-described communists joining a user group led by a Nazi, which is apparently 'whiny' to you.

The whining was evident for all to see, independent on any broader point.

You apparently have some socially progressive views but this is pretty mitigated by the fact you use it to contain chauvinism against conservative cultures such as Roma. No doubt you also think the left and the liberals are 'too focused' on Europe and not the 'reactionary cultures'.

No, you're taking one example of me making a specific argument and trying to ascertain a much broader stance from it. Should I only be repulsed by regressive tendencies within my own culture?

Oh look, you do.

Classic quote-mining. Why cut off half the sentence?

This is the full statement:

"Just as we witness the rise of the far-right in Europe, which is driven by a desire for the good old days and has no revolutionary aspirations whatsoever (its interests are in business as usual, which is capitalism minus immigration and social protection), we must acknowledge that the immigrant-descended population, especially in Britain, has the propensity for reactionary ideology."

Again, you have combined your English nationalism and national aspirations for Britain to world socialism if only because it brings the world up to equal development and there insofar eliminates mass immigration. Also because capitalism is 'internationalist'.

That's comical. If I were only concerned with mass immigration, isn't revolutionary socialism a very "round-the-houses" way of solving it?

Cool, that's really common and there's a lot of people like you, but it's not Marxist in the slightest.

Not even in the slightest. Oh, dear.

Mind you, guild socialism isn't Marxist in the slightest, and neither is anything Sorelian or syndicalist. You seem to be ignorant of this fact, since you simultaneously claim to be a Sorelian Marxist.

Except, Sorel was a Marxist so it has to be Marxist, at least in the slightest.

You are pretty indistinguishable from your run-of-the-mill left nationalist, but nothing like your average (Western) Marxist, from Marxist-Leninists to left communists.

I want to be special.

[Conscript]

I would totally show Ho Chi Minh the door, for the record. Great national liberation hero, still a nationalist-stalinist butcher of trots whose revolution ended up for naught anyway. It was never meant to be anything but nat lib and couldn't do much else except build capitalism. Vietnam is perhaps the greatest example of how nationalism and vulgar anti-imperialism is an utter dead end.

I'm a bit ultra left, though, and probably alone on this.

[DrSteveBrule]

Well, the last few pages of this thread has made for some interesting reading.

As for the Vietnam War: It's not really that complex. The Vietnamese sided with the Russians simply because the USSR was ideologically aligned with them. I really doubt that some type of complex geopolitical game was being played: the Vietnamese have always been supporters of Russia.

At the same time, Vietnam also actually believed - and still believes - in the existence of the nation, and that was equally important in how they gained their independence and why they still have it now. You all try to downplay this aspect of their struggle, because it seems to be something that you all don't like. The communists from Tonkin and Annam also transcended their pre-colonial Annanese identity. Their original intent was not to stop at Vietnam, but rather, to create a socialist Indochina in which the Annamese ethnic group would naturally be hegemonic. So they were also regionalists.

Sure, national and ethnic identity played a role in the motivation of Vietnamese Communists, but their main motivation was economic inequality and their immediate materialist condition.

[Red_Army]

I think this farce of a club has gone uncorrected too long. I propose the creation of The 100% Real Legitimate Actual Communists Club.

Depending on the support I get in this thread I will decide whether or not to create it.

[Conscript]

You're a communist, Red_Army? I thought you were just Russian or something.

[Red_Army]

You aren't allowed.

[Conscript]

Not allowed? I thought I could be your poster boy.

[The Clockwork Rat]

R_A, I think we need to take the Man Brigade to the next level.

[Eauz]

I'm converting to no-ideologyism. Anyone else interested?

[Red_Army]

Man Brigade membership will not necessarily help or hurt your chances to be part of my club.

Anyone besides Comrade Tim is eligible, so lets show our enthusiasm!

[ComradeTim]

Racist