Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Lost My Past (2017)

glineq.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 193 posts

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#51

Post by donquichotte »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
elurg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?

Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.

What a beautifully deep thought. Looking at it this way, e.g. supporting ideologies as a means to an end, helps understanding a lot of idiosyncracies in the world, past and present.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#52

Post by refurb »

sofixa wrote: post #36
kstenerud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case, the North was in the right. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were just one more occupier in a long line of Western occupiers. And even though the Americans didn't intend to become occupiers, that's ultimately what happened (a theme that's repeated itself many times). The Americans and the Vietnamese were fighting different wars with each other. So the North pushed out the occupier…

Western or Eastern, Japan occupied Indochina for a few years during WW2, and Ho Chi Minh rose as a big resistance leader opposing them. However for the rest you're on point. South Vietnam was a fake regime propped up by the French initially and then the US, had no legitimacy, wasn't democratic ( which could have been a saving grace for it) and was in US-backed violation of the Geneva conference. That's not to say the…

South Vietnam was certainly not “fake”. Not any more “fake” than any other country. It wasn’t a democracy but neither was the north. And the North also violated numerous treaties including the one where the US pulled out all troops and North agreed to stop further infiltration.

The communists certainly had strong support in the North (they had secured power and purged any opposing elements, including within their party). They also had support in the south, but were forced to infiltrate hundreds of thousands over the war to sustain a fighting force as they weren’t able to grow it organically in the South (also shown during the 1968 Tet Offensive where no population center or military unit “flipped” to the communist side).

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#53

Post by jeroenhd »

anovikov wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Communism would be great if people would actually be good. It's hard to not feel enticed by a future where everyone has equal rights, where the plentiful resources of the world are shared among everyone else and where there is no need for class warfare.

Sadly, time and again humanity has proven unable to do good at the scale of a country. The laudable ideals of any political system will need to resist man's evil nature or they're doomed to fail, and the communist regimes have all proven to be to easy to corrupt.

Communism isn't evil, it's foolish. The same way the idea that unrestricted capitalism is foolish if you strive to make everyone's lives better.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#54

Post by vidarh »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
elurg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?

Self rule, just like you'd think. The CCP's primary claim to legitimacy is that they kicked out the Japanese. They were a little late to get to kick out the Manchus.

To really underline this, one should read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. Ho Chi Mihn greatly admired many things about the US and so it starts with a quote from the US Declaration of Independence, before it talks about the French revolution, and then attacks the French colonial rule.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#55

Post by trasz »

refurb wrote: post #52
sofixa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western or Eastern, Japan occupied Indochina for a few years during WW2, and Ho Chi Minh rose as a big resistance leader opposing them. However for the rest you're on point. South Vietnam was a fake regime propped up by the French initially and then the US, had no legitimacy, wasn't democratic ( which could have been a saving grace for it) and was in US-backed violation of the Geneva conference. That's not to say the…

South Vietnam was certainly not “fake”. Not any more “fake” than any other country. It wasn’t a democracy but neither was the north. And the North also violated numerous treaties including the one where the US pulled out all troops and North agreed to stop further infiltration. The communists certainly had strong support in the North (they had secured power and purged any opposing elements, including within their par…

This is pure whataboutism.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#56

Post by shkkmo »

It's a little disheartening to see such a fascinating take on the denuancing of history reduced to "communism is bad/good" in many of the comments here.

By allowing ourselves to be fed a picture of unavoidable grimness behind the iron curtain, we become more susceptible to believing that a lack of such grimness in our own lives means all is well.

I think we need to strive to protect this nuance and preserve memories such as those the author shares. History and the worlds are not cookie cutter fairy tales were everything is either all good or all bad.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#57

Post by vidarh »

xwolfi wrote: post #41

I live in China and I feel the same. I can understand the high level corruption, and media uselessness reporting nothing of substance, sure, but that's very far from how life in China seems to be perceived abroad. I guess like the author it depends also where exactly in China/Yougoslavia you live(d), as Im sure a migrant miner in the north doesnt have the same experience as an electronics trader in the south. But, I…

Mainland China has multiple parties - they don't even need to proclaim "Communist purity". The other parties just won't get more power no matter how many votes they get. The CCP is not afraid of elections, but of opposition politicians allowed to actually speak their minds, and transparent elections.

EDIT: whomever downvoted might want to look up political parties in China

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#58

Post by cblconfederate »

Interesting thread by him about the economic growth in post-soviet republics:

https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1470492667884851202

So to summarize (leaving Stalin etc out, in order not to complicate matters further) we have the average per capita income in "Euroasia" growing at:

1.6% pa during the last ~30y of Tsarism

2.1% pa during 18y of Brezhnev's "stagnation"

0.8% pa during 30y of "new capitalism".

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#59

Post by mmarq »

elurg wrote: post #44
kstenerud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case, the North was in the right. As far as they were concerned, the Americans were just one more occupier in a long line of Western occupiers. And even though the Americans didn't intend to become occupiers, that's ultimately what happened (a theme that's repeated itself many times). The Americans and the Vietnamese were fighting different wars with each other. So the North pushed out the occupier…

Defending a communist regime purely on nationalist grounds ignores the whole point of communism. Today Vietnam and China having mostly-capitalist economies so what was really the purpose of their revolutions?

In fact all communist revolutions, bar the Russian, were nationalist/liberation revolutions or at least started like that. Then they became oppressive regimes (and that was the point since the beginning, maybe).

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#60

Post by gigel82 »

I have friends that immigrated from Romania, and I was surprised by their very different stories of living as a teenager in the 80s under communism. One was enjoying vacations abroad, imported goods and generally mostly living a western lifestyle while the other was struggling to survive.

Later learned that the former's father was an informant for Ceausescu's secret police (Securitate) - a butcher by profession but a literal snitch for any "anti-communism" behavior of his acquaintances, while the latter's grandfather was an "intellectual" despised by the regime and punished with forbidding anyone in his family from accessing higher education or good jobs.

It is possible the author's family enjoyed such privileges as well without his knowledge.

Post reply on HN