Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 12:21:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Who won in Vietnam?


 
I can't understand how anyone could see the US defeat as anything
other than a major defeat for Imperialism.

Everyone at the time saw it as such, both pro and anti Imperialists.
The US was, and still is, afraid to commit its troops to a war where
there is a serious risk of large scale casualties. As soon as the US
does encounter such a risk, as in Somalia, it withdraws.

The Gulf War was only a partial exception to this - the issue at stake, oil,
was far more important than usual, and they made damn sure the Iraqis had
been bombed to bits before they started a serious land war.

This is the enduring effect of the defeat in Vietnam, for which anti 
Imperialists in general and socialists in particular today should be
grateful to the Vietnamese people, and the other anti Imperialists
throughout the world, particularly in the US itself.

However, this has nothing whatever to do with the internal politics
of the regime fighting against Imperialism. So when Rahul writes :

> You tell me what socialism and
> anti-imperialism have to do with tenant farming, debt slavery, and the
> official statement by a bureau of the government that their prosecution of
> the agrarian question should be based on the U.S.'s early 70's "land
> reform" policy.

this is simply not relevant to the discussion.

Of course, it is quite relevant to a discussion over the social nature
of the resulting regime in Vietnam. On this question, I disagree with 
Malecki - but this is not the main area of disagreement, now or in the
the 60's.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---