I’m so conflicted over what happened there, and it’s only getting more complicated the more I know about it.
Essentially people just wanting to be left alone, but the country getting torn by multiple groups.
French colonizers who’s time was ending.
The Soviets who took the opportunity to spread chaos to weaken the west and bring communism. The russians are doing similar shit now, particularly in Africa.
And the USA who wanted to stop that and get their influence over the country in an extremely brutal fashion.
Only to later to also have issues with the Khmer Rouge.
Now China is encroaching onto them.
You might want to consider looking a little deeper into the government South Vietnam had before you pretend it was just those peaky Soviets tricking dumb peasants into being uppity.
Either way, reasons aside, the Soviet model for “communism” was abject failure at achieving anything that can be defined as socialism that lead to a brutal one party elite dictatorship. Going from awful colonialism to awful authoritarianism isn’t fun.
Also, Marxists, including Carl Marx himself never had faith that peasants would willingly welcome socialism. He had public disdain for peasant. He called them “petit bourgeois,” also “little business owners.”
Not a Marxist, but you definitely need to look up the difference between proletariat and petite bourgeoisie before sticking your neck into this ring because that last take is just wildly, factually wrong.
Sure, but that was mostly an organizational concern, not necessarily a product of some elitist mindset. He believed the industrial workers would be the source because they had both greater material access and pre-existing organization.
I think he and Engels are occasionally guilty of a condescending attitude in that regards to rural workers at times, but not in this case I think, at least not as the comment meant it.
And they did, towards the end of their lives, start speculating that the Russian peasantry in particular was capable of revolutionary action, and they were even proved right, unless you argue that the defecting soldiers raised from the peasantry didn’t really count as peasants anymore.
I disagree with this assessment. Marx identifies the peasantry with a different set of material conditions, and the mindset to match. It’s not just that the peasantry were less organized or had less resources, but that their way of life was, fundamentally, different than that of wage laborers. The core of a socialist revolution must be the proletariat, in direction, in bases of power, in, well, class interests. The proletariat is very far divorced from the peasantry - they share only that they’re oppressed and poor.
And they did, towards the end of their lives, start speculating that the Russian peasantry in particular was capable of revolutionary action, and they were even proved right, unless you argue that the defecting soldiers raised from the peasantry didn’t really count as peasants anymore.
When Marx mused on the lack of revolutionary potential in the peasantry, he didn’t mean that they were incapable of fighting with or joining the revolution, or of having leaders within the revolution. Indeed, he notes that a revolution of the proletariat will appeal to the peasantry to some degree with the common cause in class conflict with the bourgeoisie. But ultimately they are in class conflict with one another as well. He identifies both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the products of an urban society (or rather, the proletariat the product of an urban society created by the bourgeosie) in contrast to the rural societies of peasants and lords which we casually refer to as feudalism.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
Marx and Engels both believed, correctly, in my opinion, that Russia was not ready for a revolution, and that the peasantry would not be the major factor in any successful socialist revolution. A successful socialist revolution is, necessarily, according to Marx, based on material conditions, not ideals or desires. An individual has ideals. A class has interests. Class consciousness is necessarily getting them to realize their own collective interests, not simply a propagation of ideology.
Russia’s socialist revolution unraveled almost as soon as it began - the workers’ soviets lost independent power as the need to bludgeon the peasantry back in line heightened over the course of the Russian civil war, and then, during the early years of the Soviet Union. The Party apparatus became supreme, in practice. The Soviet Union, in practical, material terms, was a kind of despotism, a feudal regime with modern trappings and socialist rhetoric.
Well one certainly can’t argue that the Bolshevik revolution successfully created a vanguard state and began the work of abolishing hierarchy, but correspondence from 1877 makes it clear that he thought the Russian peasantry had at least a chance of skipping the capitalist stage in the journey towards socialism, as no large number of them had yet been converted into the proletariat, and he comments that they will lose the “finest chance” of avoiding the worst degradations of industrialization.
That sounds to me like he’s at least open to the idea of a peasant revolutionary force, even if the conditions in his time weren’t quite right.
Whether he would have agreed that chance was still available in 1917 is another question.
As an American patriot and a student of history, I’m not conflicted at all. It was a horrific war and we never should have dipped our toes in. Diem was a dictator; the junta wasn’t much better. Ho Chi Minh had broad popular support, something even US intelligence recognized. Dumbasses who believed in ‘Domino Theory’ escalated the shitshow, and cretins who believed in ‘Realpolitik’ continued it, until an ignominious withdrawal from a war that remains a stain on America’s soul and culturally shattered a generation.
It’s such an amazing country.
I’m so conflicted over what happened there, and it’s only getting more complicated the more I know about it.
Essentially people just wanting to be left alone, but the country getting torn by multiple groups.
French colonizers who’s time was ending. The Soviets who took the opportunity to spread chaos to weaken the west and bring communism. The russians are doing similar shit now, particularly in Africa.
And the USA who wanted to stop that and get their influence over the country in an extremely brutal fashion.
Only to later to also have issues with the Khmer Rouge. Now China is encroaching onto them.
You might want to consider looking a little deeper into the government South Vietnam had before you pretend it was just those peaky Soviets tricking dumb peasants into being uppity.
Either way, reasons aside, the Soviet model for “communism” was abject failure at achieving anything that can be defined as socialism that lead to a brutal one party elite dictatorship. Going from awful colonialism to awful authoritarianism isn’t fun.
Also, Marxists, including Carl Marx himself never had faith that peasants would willingly welcome socialism. He had public disdain for peasant. He called them “petit bourgeois,” also “little business owners.”
Not a Marxist, but you definitely need to look up the difference between proletariat and petite bourgeoisie before sticking your neck into this ring because that last take is just wildly, factually wrong.
He did believe that the peasantry didn’t have revolutionary potential, though. That’s a Marxist-Leninist innovation.
Sure, but that was mostly an organizational concern, not necessarily a product of some elitist mindset. He believed the industrial workers would be the source because they had both greater material access and pre-existing organization.
I think he and Engels are occasionally guilty of a condescending attitude in that regards to rural workers at times, but not in this case I think, at least not as the comment meant it.
And they did, towards the end of their lives, start speculating that the Russian peasantry in particular was capable of revolutionary action, and they were even proved right, unless you argue that the defecting soldiers raised from the peasantry didn’t really count as peasants anymore.
I disagree with this assessment. Marx identifies the peasantry with a different set of material conditions, and the mindset to match. It’s not just that the peasantry were less organized or had less resources, but that their way of life was, fundamentally, different than that of wage laborers. The core of a socialist revolution must be the proletariat, in direction, in bases of power, in, well, class interests. The proletariat is very far divorced from the peasantry - they share only that they’re oppressed and poor.
When Marx mused on the lack of revolutionary potential in the peasantry, he didn’t mean that they were incapable of fighting with or joining the revolution, or of having leaders within the revolution. Indeed, he notes that a revolution of the proletariat will appeal to the peasantry to some degree with the common cause in class conflict with the bourgeoisie. But ultimately they are in class conflict with one another as well. He identifies both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the products of an urban society (or rather, the proletariat the product of an urban society created by the bourgeosie) in contrast to the rural societies of peasants and lords which we casually refer to as feudalism.
Marx and Engels both believed, correctly, in my opinion, that Russia was not ready for a revolution, and that the peasantry would not be the major factor in any successful socialist revolution. A successful socialist revolution is, necessarily, according to Marx, based on material conditions, not ideals or desires. An individual has ideals. A class has interests. Class consciousness is necessarily getting them to realize their own collective interests, not simply a propagation of ideology.
Russia’s socialist revolution unraveled almost as soon as it began - the workers’ soviets lost independent power as the need to bludgeon the peasantry back in line heightened over the course of the Russian civil war, and then, during the early years of the Soviet Union. The Party apparatus became supreme, in practice. The Soviet Union, in practical, material terms, was a kind of despotism, a feudal regime with modern trappings and socialist rhetoric.
Well one certainly can’t argue that the Bolshevik revolution successfully created a vanguard state and began the work of abolishing hierarchy, but correspondence from 1877 makes it clear that he thought the Russian peasantry had at least a chance of skipping the capitalist stage in the journey towards socialism, as no large number of them had yet been converted into the proletariat, and he comments that they will lose the “finest chance” of avoiding the worst degradations of industrialization.
That sounds to me like he’s at least open to the idea of a peasant revolutionary force, even if the conditions in his time weren’t quite right.
Whether he would have agreed that chance was still available in 1917 is another question.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm
Interesting. I’ll give it a read when I’m more awake.
As an American patriot and a student of history, I’m not conflicted at all. It was a horrific war and we never should have dipped our toes in. Diem was a dictator; the junta wasn’t much better. Ho Chi Minh had broad popular support, something even US intelligence recognized. Dumbasses who believed in ‘Domino Theory’ escalated the shitshow, and cretins who believed in ‘Realpolitik’ continued it, until an ignominious withdrawal from a war that remains a stain on America’s soul and culturally shattered a generation.
I think that the us escalated because they didn’t want to appear weak.
It was all posturing.