They both have a bit in common. They’re both communist Asian states that the US went to war with during the Cold War and did not win. But the messaging regarding the two states is a lot different. DPRK is treated like the worst dictatorship ever, that kills you and your family for even thinking that the Kims are less than gods, whilst also starving. But Vietnam, they say… nothing.
Why isn’t Vietnam demonized like DPRK?
Vietnam “opened up” after the fall of the Soviet Union, Korea did not. The common consensus among the average Western “academic” was that Vietnam had abandoned Socialism and was embracing free market Capitalism.
Now, real G’s understand that a worker’s state with a free market is not wholly contradictory, as we can see in China. But to the average Capitalism fan, Vietnam’s “opening up” was seen as Capitalism’s triumph in that country through peaceful means.
The same could be said for China, of course, up until very recently - when I think those same academics are coming to the stark realization that markets and Socialism are not incompatible and that, in actuality, China is not the Western neocolony they thought it was but is instead a Socialist state that has used markets to propel itself to a preeminent world power.
They have yet to come to this same conclusion with regards to Vietnam but I believe this represents a contradictory worldview which will resolve itself in the coming years.
Now, real G’s understand that a worker’s state with a free market is not wholly contradictory, as we can see in China. But to the average Capitalism fan, Vietnam’s “opening up” was seen as Capitalism’s triumph in that country through peaceful means.
So, I don’t disagree with you, but I would like to hear a fleshed out reason as to why Vietnam, China, even Laos, are still socialist workers states. In the recent season of Blowback, they touch very briefly on the fact that Angola stopped being socialist at a certain point, despite it still nominally claiming to be a socialist state, led by and ML party.
So, by what criteria do we judge what constitutes a socialist state?
On the worse end of arguements I’ve heard are “[X AES] is socialist because it is governed by a Communist party, which espouses a Socialist ideology”, which feels flimsy when we take into account states like Angola.
On the better end of arguments, re:China especially, I’ve heard people run down the ways the state interacts with the people, the way socialist relations of production persist despite large scale marketization (i.e. Workers Congresses, Party Committees, Co-ops, Unions, etc.). I would be interested to hear arguments more along these lines with other AES like Vietnam and Laos, as they seems to get talked about less, btw. So if anyone has resources, let me know!
Ultras would say that the marketization of Vietnam and China are a betrayal of Socialism, and a reinstatement of Capitalist social relations. With states like Cuba or the DPRK, Ultras might say that they’re revisionist and therefore not Socialist. But I feel like accusations of Revisionism=no longer socialist feel awfully vibes based.
Let’s say Juche is revisionist for a second. Does that make the DPRK not socialist? They have relations of production and a state form that is most alike those of 20th century European Socialism. So what part isn’t socialist, even if they’re ideologically revisionist? We’re Marxists, not idealists.
Socialism isn’t just when you’re cool and right, and Capitalism is when you’re dumb and wrong. But that feels like how a lot of Ultras treat it. Was Khrushchev’s economic policy disasterous? yes. Did it set up a lot of problems that would cripple the USSR moving forward? Also yes. Did the USSR cease being Socialist the moment he made the secret speech, the way many ultras claim? That’s where they lose me.
My personal belief is that a contradiction between the professed ideology of a governing party and their actual ideology cannot last for very long. If the membership of the Party are Communist and can articulate Communist ideology, it’s a Communist Party and if they’re the party in charge, it’s a Socialist state. The idea that entire parties (of a relevant size) can exist whose members don’t actually believe what they say they believe is Liberalism.
Many Socialists and Communists have ideologies that are revisionist or ineffective but this doesn’t make them not Socialists, it makes them revisionist, ineffective Socialists. Their stated aims should be analyzed according to Marxist dialectics to determine if any given group is still truly Marxist, and there will always be some wiggle room with this.
Personally, I believe that the MPLA is still a Marxist-Leninist party, it’s just a mildly corrupt one. There is a difference between it and just any other “Social People’s Democratic” party in some post-colonial African state. The reason Angola is not typically counted among the “ML States” is because it is not a single-party state; they hold elections where other Parties can and do participate and could hypothetically win.
Also worth pointing out that Vietnam is the only country on earth with similar numbers on the board to China. Poverty reduction, satisfaction with the government, belief in their government’s mandate for all people, economic development, etc.
The same could be said for China, of course, up until very recently - when I think those same academics are coming to the stark realization that markets and Socialism are not incompatible and that, in actuality, China is not the Western neocolony they thought it was but is instead a Socialist state that has used markets to propel itself to a preeminent world power.
The switch happened when China started cracking down on and significantly limiting foreign interests from owning capital in China. As much as the capitalism vs socialism ideological divide makes hay, practically speaking Western powers are more concerned with countries in the periphery allowing foreign ownership than levels of worker control or social benefits. A country could be completely capitalist internally, as long as they limit foreign capital TPTB will label it an oppressive, authoritarian regime.
see: Belarus
Now, real G’s understand that a worker’s state with a free market is not wholly contradictory, as we can see in China.
Dont ask a maoist or a trot that luuul
Or a leftcom. Browse a leftcom forum and take a shot every time one of them references Bordiga’s Dialogue with Stalin to make some quippy remark about socialist commodity production. You’ll have cirrhosis of the liver in a half hour.
I’m really new to theory but have been trying to dig deeper, and know a lot of Maoists. As I learn more from Lenin and Mao, I’m excited to engage with them about their stance on that. Especially because I’m picking up on a lot of things in “On Contradiction” that seem to…Contradict some of those more rigid beliefs that are attributed to Maoists.
I really don’t understand the Maoist hate except that people only perpetuate a stereotypical view of them because of Avakian or whatever, and inflammatory Maoists on the internet.
Here’s my (not super well read, mostly based off of discussions with comrades) take:
- There’s a difference between enjoying Mao and the contributions he made to the theory and being a Maoist
- Maoism was synthesized by Chairman Gonzalo of the Shining Path/Communist Party of Peru, which is a whole thing. Many communists denounce the Shining Path as being communist in name only, similar to the Khmer Rouge. I don’t want to get into the weeds of this discussion because I am not well read enough on the matter, but it is certainly baggage that exists.
- Maoists unarguably do a lot of good in the world. The communist insurgency in the Philippines is a great example of this. The guerillas there have set up a parallel state to the bourgeois one and are resisting and expanding, and materially making things better for people in the rural Indigenous communities, and they’re a real thorn in the “official” Filipino state.
- Maoists tend to be anti-China, both for ideological reasons (they think that socialism with Chinese characteristics is revisionism, and that China fell off/liberalized when Deng Xiaoping became the leader), and material ones, i.e. China selling arms to the Filipino bourgeois government, which it uses to oppress the revolution. This is because China trades with everyone, and is not the Soviet Union. In fact, many/most Maoists think that there are no actually existing socialist states. Thus, Maoists are often grouped in with ultra-leftists and Trots, who also don’t think there are any actually existing socialist states, and criticize AES states from a left perspective.
I think @ColombianLenin was calling Maoists out particularly over their criticisms of China, which, given the context, seems like a relevant point of discussion.
There’s a difference between enjoying Mao and the contributions he made to the theory and being a Maoist
I’m aware of that, most folks on here really respect Mao but aren’t Maoist. (I recognize you are probably just helping with a distinction, not trying to be snarky)
Maoism was synthesized by Chairman Gonzalo of the Shining Path/Communist Party of Peru
I often wonder about this. I know that there was like a whole book that someone from Prolewiki translated or something about Shining Path that somehow proved that they were/are a CIA op? I too am not well read on this, but the Maoists I’ve briefly talked to about this make the case that a lot of the talking points lobbed at Shining Path are ones that anti-communists lob at all socialist revolutions, and so that would be a reason to be critical of the sweeping assumption that Shining Path = bad. Also that it is very possible that Gonzalo was taken out of context with everyone’s favorite way to characterize him as a terrorist (boiling babies). Like that particular incident seems to be the reason why people completely condemn them, I never see more in depth comments about that besides what I pointed out above. Again, I’m not very well read/researched on this matter and it is one that I feel sus about until I can read more and draw my own conclusions. But I don’t think it is wrong to converse about it if people are indeed misinformed.
This is because China trades with everyone, and is not the Soviet Union.
The whole China debate is something I also struggle with. Like, China is a superpower at this point, why would they feel compelled to trade with the Phillipines? Why did they, for a time, side with Cambodia (iirc). I cannot think of reasons why China could not make a more moral choice in these instances. At the same time, I have heard compelling arguments that justify China’s cobalt mines in terms of there being more reciprocal benefit as opposed to colonial extraction, and it does seem to operate differently from other forms of colonialism. So they do seem to operate in a unique capacity compared to the US. Gotta readddd.
I need to ask my comrades more about their stances on AES’s. I believe they do try to avoid sectarianism. Always can improve on that front, but I just feel like a lot of sweeping generalizations are made about Maoists that may be innaccurate characterizations. Or maybe the ones I know are just less hardcore
I mean, there’s not much context that you can give “boiling babies” to justify it, and then when you look at the context it was basically “disciplinary terrorism” because some people in a village collaborated with enemies of the Shining Path. Notably, babies did not collaborate with those enemies and it was basically a form of collective punishment by brutal torture and death (adults were also boiled alive, in somewhat larger numbers).
I personally would not trust any Gonzalite.
I also view the PRC as revisionist and think that explains a lot of their decisions, though obviously they first started playing friendly with the US under Mao. They are still a historically progressive force (as the revisionist USSR also was), but if we imagined that they were internationalists then we would need to conclude that they are pathologically averse to conflict. I think the Philippines is probably one of the easier to explain examples because the PRC really does not want the government there to side hard with the US and turn their country into another fleet of unsinkable aircraft carriers like China already needs to deal with with its neighbors in East Asia. That and it would hurt the standing and credibility it has cultivated as “socialist country that does not export revolution” to back the guerillas to try to have influence over the Philippines that way.
I don’t talk about this view because it doesn’t seem that useful to me to try to move the mountain of Hexbear’s consensus, even though I have repeatedly run into one of the more annoying problems caused by this view of China, which is that people then use China’s revisionist stance as a justification to defend other revisionism, e.g. within the DPRK
User xiaohongshu has written quite a lot on the revisionism of the PRC, so that’s a good place to read more about it that is written in a register and frame of reference that is relatively more familiar to users of this instance.
I mean, there’s not much context that you can give “boiling babies” to justify it
First of all, yes you are absolutely correct and there is absolutely no way that I would ever consider that okay under any circumstance. Not for anyone at all. Just wanna make that EXTREMELY clear lol. Also I’m not a Gonzaloite and here I am just kinda playing devil’s advocate a bit because now I’ve been introduced to both sides of the argument about Shining Path and am curious about it, but still largely have reservations about Shining Path. And I think in my mind I probably need to remember the distinction between MLMs and MLMpMs because I would guess not all Maoists believe in gonzalo thought. (too many fuckin acronyms in communism)
I think what my comrade was getting at was that people will argue that Gonzalo approved of those acts because of his testimony while on trial, and that that particular testimony was misinterpreted, or that the documents may have been falsified or something like that. I don’t think my comrade was debating the validity of the massacre but that the members of the party that did it went rogue or something. I wouldn’t be surprised if a government would fabricate documents to imprison him, or any other communist insurgent. There are still people who believe that Mao intentionally starved five trillion people and that he made them eat rocks (yes, I have heard that one) and cannabalize eachother, so recognizing that is what makes me question the majority opinion on Shining Path.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective on China, how people totally glaze China here is kind of off-putting to me. I think there was a debate a while back about China-Israel relations and people seemed to bend over backwards to justify their continued relations in the midst of the Palestinian genocide. So instinctively I think your position is correct. And you allow for nuance, I feel like a lot of people kinda fall into black or white thinking sometimes.
I’m aware of that, most folks on here really respect Mao but aren’t Maoist. (I recognize you are probably just helping with a distinction, not trying to be snarky)
Yeah I figured, but just in case I wanted to make the clarification
the Maoists I’ve briefly talked to about this make the case that a lot of the talking points lobbed at Shining Path are ones that anti-communists lob at all socialist revolutions, and so that would be a reason to be critical of the sweeping assumption that Shining Path = bad.
Yeah this is basically what I meant when I said I wasn’t well read enough on it.
The whole China debate is something I also struggle with. Like, China is a superpower at this point, why would they feel compelled to trade with the Phillipines? Why did they, for a time, side with Cambodia (iirc). I cannot think of reasons why China could not make a more moral choice in these instances.
I think the sibling comment from purpleworm has a good explanation for the Philippines. China seems to be trying very hard to not export revolution, for better or worse, and appear “politically neutral” at a world stage. I think this is something I’m personally disappointed in, but it also seems they’re playing the long game and that the world, and the future possibility of leftist movements, would be much worse off if China were to cease to exist.
As for Cambodia, are you referring to China backing the Khmer Rouge (and in particular, against the Communist Party of Vietnam)? IIRC that was still under Mao, and I think a lot of the poor foreign policy decisions of that time are a direct result of the Sino-Soviet Split, which ended up manifesting in very weird ways (the US and Mao’s China both backing the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam, which was backed by the Soviets, for example).
At the same time, I have heard compelling arguments that justify China’s cobalt mines in terms of there being more reciprocal benefit as opposed to colonial extraction, and it does seem to operate differently from other forms of colonialism. So they do seem to operate in a unique capacity compared to the US.
Would you happen to have any resources about the cobalt mines? I would like to read more about that if you have it handy, plus it would be nice to keep it in my back pocket.
Hey I got busy over the past couple of days but wanted to come back to this
it also seems they’re playing the long game and that the world, and the future possibility of leftist movements, would be much worse off if China were to cease to exist.
That is a valid point, for now at least. No matter the objectives, weakening the US empire is a good thing. But at this point I guess we can’t really predict whether or not they will save the world and usher in a socialist utopia if they establish themselves as the primary global superpower, or if they’ll just end up perpetuating imperialist projects but maybe they are a little nicer to the indigenous people that they are extracting resources from.
As for the Cambodia thing you are right and that would be better question for my Maoist comrades lol
Here are some links about mining in Africa that I just found, I don’t remember what I read specifically when I learned about it
South China Morning Post - Science drives China’s Westward expansion in Africa
The us promoted Trotskyism and Maoism during the cold war as alternatives to “classical” ML thought, that should tell you how “docile” the empire views it. Many Maoists remain very based good comrades, but as a whole they havent been successful in a while (see India, Nepal & Philippines).
Oooo can you think of any articles or documents about the Maoist psyop stuff? That’s very interesting.
To push back a bit for funsies, I wonder how many explicitly Marxist-Leninist parties have succeeded in revolution since the 70s? I think thats when “Maoism” in name first started to take shape, right? Pretty sure Vietnam and Laos were post-1970, and the Zapatistas but I think their ideological line is explicitly indigenous even if inspired partly by communism/anarchism. Do Venezuela and Bolivia count? I guess my point is, while they havent been successful in deposing their current governments, the ideology is much newer than ML, and some of the currently existing parties are newer still, having been established in the early and mid 2000’s, some are perhaps even newer. Like I think the Nepalese Maoist party was formed in 2012. Just think those things are important to consider as well as maybe how much aid and influence the US might provide some of those countries
I wonder how many explicitly Marxist-Leninist parties have succeeded in revolution since the 70s?
Not a lot because the main ML country became revisionist and then fell which caused ML to be a dead branch essentially. And given the few actually succeeding revolutions at all - its basically just (barely) Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Benin, Grenada, and Zimbabwe.
Oooo can you think of any articles or documents about the Maoist psyop stuff? That’s very interesting.
Through the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Also the Nouvelle Philosophie & Foucault. More here, Here, Straight from the source, From page 96 or so, may not entirely be relevant to your question, but a good poignant read entirely - also from the empire’s lips
Not a lot because the main ML country became revisionist and then fell
Jk. Damn I need to look into those countries, Africa holding it down. Thanks for the links comrade, I appreciate it
A VERY short TL;DR is:
- AES are Actually Existing Socialism countries, a mostly online reference to countries that have communist parties in power.
- Trots hate AES because they don’t believe in the idea that socialism can be built in a single country. So if a country calls itself socialist, the trots say, “no u are not” because either the revolution is globalized and completely international or it simply isn’t.
- Maoists hate AES because most of these countries, except maybe Cuba, are either burocratized, as they would probably say of the DPRK, or they are revisionist, meaning they are communist in name only and act as imperialists, as they say China is because Idfk they give loans to Africa.
- Leftcoms hate AES because you can’t have a socialist state with commodity production or a mixed economy, so they shit on the USSR as well.
In other words, refer to
No surprise then that the pure [AKA sectarian] socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
I guess in my experience with Maoists (not Trots, everyone hates Trots except other Trots) is that they try to avoid sectarianism which is why I don’t understand the stereotypes lobbed around. Or even if they find China to be revisionist, for example, I think that there is more of a nuanced explanation there instead of just “China is not Maoist therefore bad!!”. Which is kinda how I see Maoists characterized here and elsewhere which I just find uncharitable. But perhaps I’m wrong and it is the vast majority of Maoists that are extreme vs the ones I know
Why isn’t Vietnam demonized like DPRK?
The simple answer is because the ROK exists. DPRK gets demonized as an example of socialism while the ROK gets praised as an example of capitalism. You see a similar dynamic with China vs Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore.
For the US, everything around that region concerns China. Vietnam is still considered a strong strategic country for the “containment” of China. The scaremongering of the DPRK plays perfectly into keeping South Korea and Japan in the strong grip of the US to counter China.
Vietnam is still considered a strong strategic country for the “containment” of China.
China hasn’t exactly been some benevolent geopolitical neighbor to Vietnam
yep, I don’t blame any of China’s smaller neighbours for being cautious about China.
I don’t blame DPRK for being cautious of China for following western sanction regimes against them, but the rest of the southeast Asian nations grievances with the PRC are overblown and exaggerated. Nothing akin to what the Americans did
they have when compared to the imperialist americans who slaughtered millions. equating disputes with fishing ships and territorial waters to full blown invasion and genocide is absurd
equating disputes with fishing ships and territorial waters to full blown invasion and genocide is absurd
I don’t see anyone even suggesting they’re equal.
Also, consider that the PRC has previously launched a surprise land invasion of hundreds of thousands of soldiers back in 1979.
Again, in case it needs to be emphasized, pointing out China and Vietnam’s tensions is not equating China to the US in any way, that would be absurd.
It is a zero-sum game between whether Vietnam supports China more, or America more. Those are the multipolar blocs of power. That’s why they are being compared. The question being implicitly asked underneath this discussion is “who would Vietnam side with in a war or cold war between China and America? Or would they remain neutral” or put another way, in a correct-thinking anti-imperialist manner: Would Vietnam fight against imperialists or with them, or would they try to fail their duties of internationalism and solidarity and remain neutral?
There are legitimate concerns and hopes that Vietnam would participate as part of the ring of containment against China, alongside Japan, Occupied Korea, Occupied Chinese Taipei, India, etc. That they are brought up in this light isn’t damning? It’s the tug-of-war meme where you see who’s on your side and go wtf?
Its damning when they chose chauvinism (deserved or otherwise) and align themselves with the very same nation that bombed them with agent orange, over the many socialists and anti-imperialist states, not to forget also trading weapons with israhell.
Like that is a total betrayal on Khruschevite levels and spits on everything the Vietnamese people fought for. Vietnamese communists need to hold their leadership accountable and kick out the revisionists and pro-americans, or risk becoming an enemy of the free peoples of this world.
they have when compared to the imperialist americans who slaughtered millions.
You realize Vietnam is AES state? You don’t have to do this
and? Does that make them immune to criticisms of revisionism and collaboration with imperialists? China is guilty of this as well. There is a liberal rot in both of their foreign policy apparatuses, and they need to purge them and stand in solidarity with each other - not bicker and run off to America when spurned. Both are far too chummy with the Israelis and Americans. There’s only so long the “we trade with everyone equally” excuse holds up to scrutiny before it collapses, and that was some time ago. Capital has strong footholds in both, and this is a serious problem that is warping their decision making to be more nationalistic and short-sighted.
In a vibes-based historical context, the difference is that SK still exists as a US puppet regime. Vietnam doesn’t have a frozen conflict to contend with, so the propaganda has much less usefulness. Demonizing real Korea is part of maintaining the narrative to justify the status quo forced upon the peninsula by the US.
Because in the American cultural imagination the Vietnam War was a horrifying slaughter and a complete loss. But the nature of the loss depends on who you ask. Chuds say politicians hampered the generals, liberals will say lack of morale or something.
Vietnam is kinda unique in that most Americans at this point think about it through movies rather than an actual event. And movies always portray it in the negative, as a complete tragedy. So for modern Vietnam to be demonized you’d have to somehow portray what exists now in Vietnam as worse America’s involvement and that’s not possible
Vietnam gets exploited for cheap sneakers
Korea is officially still at war with the US and Samsung. But wtf are they gonna do about it? Korea has nukes :) Amerikkka is bitter because of it.
North Korea will never give up its arsenal. It’s all that is keeping us alive. Look at Saddam Hussein - and we never forget that North Korea was named as part of the “axis of evil” a year before the United States invaded Iraq. Do you think we would be stupid enough to believe American promises after all this? We are a nuclear power. That is not negotiable. We are willing to talk about limits freezes - but we would need to be given something in return security, in the form of diplomatic recognition by Washington and guarantees of nonaggression from China, Japan and the United States.
-Kim Jong Un
The US Empire is trying to treat Vietnam like they did China in the 90s, and is trying to leverage Vietnam’s socialist market economy into pivoting them away from China and towards the US. The DPRK cannot be treated as such.
The US failed to pivot China, and will likely fail with Vietnam as well as both are socialist countries and practice shows that by maintaining control of the large firms and key industries and a dictatorship of the proletariat, porkie can’t act freely and reinstate capitalism.
I’ve seen boomers still get enraged over “Hanoi Jane”.
Lol that pic used to be the background on my phone. I’m pretty Fonda Hanoi Jane.
Don’t be, IIRC she walked that back, sort of blamed the Vietnamese for misleading her, and abandoned Vanessa Redgrave (her co-star in Julia) when she expressed an actually radical position of anti-zionism.
Oh no I don’t love Jane Fonda. Just that pic.
Vietnam kicked our ass. I think at a subconscious level even chuds can respect their military prowess. Also, not an economic threat.
US is still occupying the South and is therefore at war with DPRK. The media knows this and gives it the kind of coverage it gives any other country that the US is currently at war with.
Vietnam lets us have cheap resources(be it material or labor).
That’s it. That’s always it. If the USSR let the USA come in and let them have cheap resources, we wouldnt have said shit about USSR and the cold war wouldnt have existed. It’s literally always a fight for resources.
It’s why the China hate is ramped up. from about the 80s until the early 00s China was a great partner thanks to the cheap labor. Now that labor wont be as cheap, and China is way better at being unified and protecting themselves from western interests. Im sure you could make a chart of how many “china will collapse soon” articles have been made as Chinas presence has strengthened.
Where does your t-shirt come from?
I also want to add that DPRK does do exports to other countries but it’s all done in a clandestine manner which sees the workers of the DPRK get a fraction of what they’ve owed.
Its been revealed that amazon prime video capeshit “Invincible season 3” was offshored to an animation studio based in the DPRK.
The brutality and collective punishment of the economic sanctions translates into an ideology shield to justify those sanctions.
In addition to the points mentioned here, DPRK assisting the Russian SMO (based) didnt help things in the liberal court of public opinion.
Also westerners genuinely believe in great man of history bs and thats why every american knows who the “dictator” of north Korea is but can’t tell you the names of literally anyone else in the country (or even who their state reps are)
The more a country is a threat to the empire, the more demonized it is. Make of it that as you wish. Btw did you know that I could have enrolled in several Vietnamese university for my semester abroad, a bit unusual for digital security students.
Imf loan
