Saturday, November 01, 2008

Obama's marxism a bit dated

It's no wonder I recognized it from my college courses--he's apparently stuck back in the 1960s and 1970s with Bill Ayers and friends, while Europe and Asia struggle to release themselves from his type of chains. Here's a summary about marxism in Asia at the Irish Left Review.
    From Marx to the Market
    Not so long ago, there seemed to be a very different light shining from the East. It’s barely thirty years since the final defeat of the South Vietnamese regime set the seal on the most humiliating defeat the USA has suffered since appointing itself as the world’s policeman after 1945. The victory of the Vietnamese Communists was one by-product of a curious fact: the Communist International, founded by the Bolsheviks with the primary goal of spreading revolution in Western Europe, had its greatest impact in East Asia. Nobody would have found that more surprising than the Bolsheviks themselves.

    Communist parties were able to take power under their own steam in China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The Korean Communists had the benefit of support from the Red Army but still had a strong domestic base when they took over the north of their country. There were also long-running Communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, while Indonesia was once home to the largest non-ruling Communist party in the world.

    A quick glance at the regional scene will tell you that the challenge once posed by Asian Communism to the capitalist order has been almost entirely eclipsed. The Indonesia CP was smashed by Suharto’s bloody coup in the 1960s, while the Communist guerrillas in Thailand and Malaysia have long since been defeated. The Filipino CPP/NPA survives, but is a much diminished force. The turnaround is most striking, though, in the states where Communist parties or their descendents are still in power.

    China’s great leap forward has grounded itself on the embrace of private enterprise (although not, it should be said, the dogma of the Washington Consensus). . . and much more."
The author neglects to mention the millions of deaths of our South Vietnamese allies caused by the shameful exit of the U.S. at the end of the war; or the millions and millions of Chinese who met their early deaths on the road to restoring the economy of China before it scambled on their bodies to capitalism. Oh well.

10 comments:

R. L. said...

Or... one could argue that millions of deaths in that area due to our shameful entrance into a civil war.

Guess who Ho Chi Minh came to first... c'mon, guess. AND, guess who helped stymie elections in 1956 to unify Vietnam because the results weren't gonna be what we wanted. C'mon, you can do it, I know you can.

Yeah, shameful exit. How much more American blood did you want to spill in order to prop up a corrupt regime?

Anonymous said...

Murray sez:
I always find it amazing how quickly and easily we condem other governments as being corrupt when our own government is corrupted almost beyond repair. Blood isn't being spilled domestically but our government has certainly ruined this country financially. The legislators of both parties do it with out even breathing hard while they foolishly blame each other or some other outside force. What do the citizens do about this? They stay with their respective parties and walk lockstep to the same old, same old year after year. This compares to the "Pied Piper" concept.

Norma said...

R.L. That's so thoughtful of you to be concerned about shedding of American blood, but the fact remains, we killed more by running out than we did by going in. Deal with it, and don't let it happen again.

Murray: This should have been your year to vote 3rd/4th party, even though it would be a vote for Obama.

R. L. said...

So, if we are corrupt, then we are (and were) committed to supporting other corrupt governments?

Perhaps we should clean our own house before we take it upon ourselves to reform the rest of the world. If we are as corrupt as you say we are Murray, then we have no business interfering in other people's governments. We have nothing to offer them.

Norma: Thank you. I just think we should only get involved in a war when we have no other options, and we are very, very certain of the reasons and rationale for that war. Silly of me, I know.

Sooo... once we were committed in Vietnam, no matter how stupid and criminal it was, we should have stayed there no matter how much we bled? No matter the cost? So this is how Conservatives love the military and military personnel? "Sorry, the reasons we gave you were bogus, but we're gonna have to ask you to keep dying 'cause, well, we just darn love ya so much." Talk about being loved to death.

Deaths in Vietnam due to the re-education camps, etc, is, at the high end, 100,000. Deaths from the Vietnam war is in the millions. What do you think the losses would have been with our continued presence in Vietnam from 1975 to 2000 (which is when those 100,000 deaths occured)? I'm going to bet more the 100,000

Norma said...

You're wrong on this one, R.L. Must be reading some of that newly revised history that's showing up in the glossy new history books. It was millions, and our pull out did it.

R. L. said...

Actually, I just saw an upward estimate of 165,000. I stand corrected.

However, kindly show me the source for your millions of "our South Vietnamese allies caused by the shameful exit..." 'Cause everything I've seen so for comes nowhere close to that number.

And, is revised history a bad thing? I've noticed you've been promoting a revised history of the Roosevelt years. Oh, but wait, it's not revisionism when it suits your ideology?

In case you're not aware, history frequently goes through revision as new facts come to light, or if a Historian finds that a previous one ignored certain facts to make their case.

R. L. said...

Oh.. if I can ask for sources, I suppose that I should provide some of my own.

Here is one

wikipedia is where I got the number of 165,000.

From what I've read, deaths among the boat people are anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000.

Lets be clear, when we're dealing with numbers this large, we are talking about a tragedy. But, we are still not close to "millions."

Our involvement in Vietnam from 1959 to 1975 resulted in the death of millions. What do you honestly believe the number of deaths would have been from 1975 to 1986 if we had stayed in Vietnam (when relations were normalized and the deaths from re-education camps and boat people dwindled)? I'll bet it would have been more than 665,000 deaths (worst case)attributed to the camps and deaths from the exodus.

But, again, if you have different sources and numbers, please bring them to the table.

Anonymous said...

Murray sez:
I agree with you r.l.We should not be trying to reform the rest of the world. But, make no mistake about it, our government is corrupted. If you can't see that then you're part of the problem. Just ask any lobbyist for confirmation!

Norma, I agree with you also. This would be a good year for me to vote 3rd or 4th party. The only problem is that Obama has a lock on Illinois so therefore, since we still have the dreaded electoral college, my vote is meaningless.
It's been a long time since I agreed with two people at the same time.

Norma said...

Murray, even without the electoral college, you "down staters" have no say, you are so overwhelmed by the Chicago machine. They can always dig up more voters. I'm not sure there are enough cemeteries in the rest of the state. . .

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I'm still waiting for the day that "the machine" picks the same person that I like!