Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 16:20:11 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Doug on Iran and Vietnam


Doug wrote re Vietnam:

>The U.S. war on Indochina was a crime against humanity, with 2-3 million
>killed. Though it looked at the time like the U.S. lost, did it really?
>Vietnam spent 20 years shell-shocked, impoverished, like a man wandering in
>a daze. Revolution virtually ceased, not only in Southeast Asia, but around
>the world. A prominent exception was Nicaragua 4 years after the U.S.
>withdrawal, but a war ensued that eventually destroyed the Sandinistas. The
>U.S. ruling class, chastened by mass opposition to the war, retuned its
>strategy, replacing the draft with an army of professional killers who can
>operate with impunity anywhere in the world. Vietnam is now welcoming
>foreign investment. Just how was this "screwing up"?

and re Iran and Saudi Arabia:

>Iran has, what, the third-largest oil reserves in the world? The stinking
>Yankee imperialists take it very personally when these reserves are under
>the control of a government that denounces you as The Great Satan.
>
>I'm confused by phrases such as "American diplomacy is too like the
>French," introducing what appears to be an unfavorable comparison with the
>Brits. Does this mean that the U.S. is doing a poor job of empire
>management? It seems like it's doing a rather masterful one to me.
>
>It seems Washington is now very worried about Saudi Arabia taking the Iran
>route, though. Perhaps there's some exquisitely subtle dialectical logic
>that could argue that that would not be a loss for U.S. imperialism.


The US devoted decades of material and human resources to blitzing Vietnam.
It didn't break the North and it had to quit the South with its tail
between its legs, after which Vietnam was able to unite as a (deformed)
workers' state.

The phenomenon of workers' states prostituting themselves to imperialist
investment is not unique to Vietnam. The Soviet Union, China and Cuba come
to mind. Does the capitulation of these Stalinist regimes mean that
imperialism never really lost in these countries either?

And if it never really lost in the workers' states, how come it appears to
*really* lose in Iran or the hypothetical case of Saudi Arabia?

The resources argument for a loss applies equally to the Soviet Union or China.

The denunciation argument for a loss is useless. Read Marx on Palmerston
and you'll see how Palmerston's diplomacy constantly worked to promote the
interests of Russia despite continual public denunciations. This is normal
practice in diplomacy.

The strategic argument isn't mentioned by Doug, but Vietnam is as important
in the strategic setup of South East Asia as Iran is in the Middle East.

Doug, which leg do you want to stand on?

Is the loss to the imperialist system of a country setting up a workers'
state after a military victory in a long, direct and very bitter war *less*
than the loss of a country rejecting socialist solutions and maintaining
capitalist relations of production and distribution?

And in your eagerness to make a point, you forget that it wasn't just
Nicaragua that exploded *after* the defeat of the US in Vietnam, but also
Iran, which you characterize as a real loss to imperialism. So much (and on
your own terms at that) for the argument that the US holocaust in Vietnam
had such a deterrent effect 'that revolution virtually ceased ... around
the world'.

Have it both ways if you like, but I think you'll have to rustle up 'some
exquisitely subtle dialectical logic' to get away with it.


Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---