Post Vietnamese War Viet Communism...

[Thorvald of Lym]

The "weakness" might actually devastate a person or literally lead to their own demise, The "strength" helps prevents that

This 'weakness' is part of our humanity, you know. Rather be weak and loved than strong and soulless.

Equality, is the foundation of Socialism

Communism. Equality is (theoretically) the foundation of Communism. Socialism in the broader sense is founded on duty to your community. Family, if you will.

 

[Traitorfish]

The "weakness" might actually devastate a person or literally lead to their own demise, The "strength" helps prevents that

And why is that a bad thing? Why is it better to be detached and emotionless? Remember, this "weakness" of interpersonal attachment is often one of the greatest forms of emotional and physiological supports a person can have, the benefits far outweighing the losses.
Trying to purge someone of "weakness" often leads to purging them of their humanity and I'm afraid that I just can't see how that could be considered a positive result.

Equality, is the foundation of Socialism

But equality is defined by interpersonal bonds, by mutual respect for rights and freedoms, by people treating each other as they wish to be treated. Mere material equality is not and never has been the intended result of true socialism, it's merely a side-effect. It's possible to have a capitalist society with greater material equality than a socialist one; what's significant is how people treat the differences in material wealth. In a capitalist society, any distinction in wealth is a distinction in power, while in a socialist society the richest citizen has the same inherent rights, freedoms and political powers as the poorest.

 

[xfactor99]

Generally Vietnam's human rights records have been better than those of, say, China or Cuba but it's still an autocratic state where opposition can get you jailed.

This is probably the most accurate summation I've seen here. State censorship is strongly emulated along the lines of the Chinese government, especially in regulation of the Internet, but the Vietnamese government is definitely not as pathetic as say, Myanmar's. Economic prosperity is emerging for the middle-upper classes, and it seems a peaceful transition to a more democratic system of government may occur sometime soon.

Now that I've gotten all the positive stuff out of the way, Vietnam is still a corrupt, inefficient, and careless kleptocracy still controlled by the generation of old geezers of the Vietnam War era. My mom is an emigre who is officially bared from returning to Vietnam for writing a book sharply criticizing the government's handling of Vietnamese ethnic minorities, and her works banned. Dissidents and protesters that pop up every now and then are still arrested. The absolute state censorship of information is nothing short of paranoia, and ineffective to boot. The roads in Vietnam are horribly congested, pollution is an issue, and infrastructure/housing is severely in need of drastic improvement. There is little indication that the macroeconomic growth will trickle down to the majority of the population.

With that being said, I am glad that Vietnam is at least stable and progressing economically, even if under a strongly repressive government. The situation could be significantly worse; North Korea, anyone?

 

[Tee Kay]

Equality, is the foundation of Socialism

Unfortunately, no socialist (communist) state to date have ever achieved that goal.

 

[El Justo]

that was a good post xfactor99. thanks for sharing and i'm sorry about your mother's travails. it's unfortunate

another problem i'm not sure that was mentioned so far are the environmental issues going on in vietnam. slash-and-burn agricultural techniques are being employed by many in the highlands. and it could potentially have a detrimental impact on future generations.

illicit timber cutting is another issue, too, iirc.

 

[amadeus]

(though there was no bloodbath like in Cambodia...)

In at least the first decade since 1975, I'd say that roughly a million people were killed as a result of the Vietnamese communist victory. (I'm including deaths of refugees trying to flee and Vietnamese democides in Cambodia.)

 

[sydhe]

The hundred thousand figure sounds more realistic.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

And why is that a bad thing? Why is it better to be detached and emotionless? Remember, this "weakness" of interpersonal attachment is often one of the greatest forms of emotional and physiological supports a person can have, the benefits far outweighing the losses.
Trying to purge someone of "weakness" often leads to purging them of their humanity and I'm afraid that I just can't see how that could be considered a positive result.

Lets say that X (X=A Good friend or family member of you) loves Y (Y= A form of government that opposes the current government, You , love your country no matter what
Ok, so I composed this...
Ending #1--

Spoiler :

You are attached so much that whenever the government finds out that X loves Y they blame you for not telling them thus leading to your imprisonment/form of punishment

Ending #2--

Spoiler :

X joins a rebellion (that overthrows the current country)/becomes leader of the current country you are in and X forces some drastic changes that you/the people do not like, and X might know that you love the old form of government thus leading X to imprison you/punish you in some other way

Ending #3--

Spoiler :

You, tell the current government current authorities and they deal with X in some sort of way, thus leading to you to still stay in the country you love

But equality is defined by interpersonal bonds, by mutual respect for rights and freedoms, by people treating each other as they wish to be treated. Mere material equality is not and never has been the intended result of true socialism, it's merely a side-effect. It's possible to have a capitalist society with greater material equality than a socialist one; what's significant is how people treat the differences in material wealth. In a capitalist society, any distinction in wealth is a distinction in power, while in a socialist society the richest citizen has the same inherent rights, freedoms and political powers as the poorest.

You make a good argument at that part of the post, currently I have no way to respond to that post

 

[Traitorfish]

Lets say that X (X=A Good friend or family member of you) loves Y (Y= A form of government that opposes the current government, You , love your country no matter what
Ok, so I composed this...
Ending #1--

Spoiler :

You are attached so much that whenever the government finds out that X loves Y they blame you for not telling them thus leading to your imprisonment/form of punishment

Ending #2--

Spoiler :

X joins a rebellion (that overthrows the current country)/becomes leader of the current country you are in and X forces some drastic changes that you/the people do not like, and X might know that you love the old form of government thus leading X to imprison you/punish you in some other way

Ending #3--

Spoiler :

You, tell the current government current authorities and they deal with X in some sort of way, thus leading to you to still stay in the country you love

Well, to start, that's a highly over-specific yet simplistic premise- almost to the point of being invalid as serious examples- and the three limited eventualities you suggest just make that worse.
As for the individual eventualities, it seems that you're somewhat paradoxically attempting to simultaneously propagate nationalism and self-interest, two essentially incompatible ways of thinking. What's more, self-interest is fundamentally incompatible with an ideology such as socialism, which you claim to adhere to in some form or another.
But, even stripping away this confusion, the situation you present doesn't actually present a sound moral or ideological basis for the rejection of interpersonal bonds. You have not said why it is better to preserve your over your loved ones, thus rendering your examples incomplete and so irrelevant.
What's more, you assume that interpersonal bonds only extend to family and love ones, while in fact people form interpersonal bonds simply though contact. Co-workers, neighbours, someone working a cafe that you happen to buy a coffee from, whatever- interpersonal bonds exist. To reject these in favour of self-interest or "strength" is to embrace a dangerously sociopathic mindset.

You , love your country no matter what

I felt that this part needed to be highlighted- loving your country is not the same thing as loving your country's government. Indeed, the two are often at odds- a true patriot is always watching his government to make sure they do right by the country, that they do not become corrupt or incompetent. It's been said that there's no greater patriot than the revolutionary, and I believe this to be true.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

But, even stripping away this confusion, the situation you present doesn't actually present a sound moral or ideological basis for the rejection of interpersonal bonds. You have not said why it is better to preserve your over your loved ones, thus rendering your examples incomplete and so irrelevant.
What's more, you assume that interpersonal bonds only extend to family and love ones, while in fact people form interpersonal bonds simply though contact. Co-workers, neighbours, someone working a cafe that you happen to buy a coffee from, whatever- interpersonal bonds exist. To reject these in favour of self-interest or "strength" is to embrace a dangerously sociopathic mindset.

Ok, whatever started this was about Pol Pot, he never took away inter-personal bonds with the children to other children, just their families (Incase one happens to be shot ), but yes, I do understand where your getting at

there's no greater patriot than the revolutionary

Great quote, absolutely love it