Vietnam Imposes New Blogging Restrictions

GMAW is one of many to mention that the Vietnam government has approved a new set of regulations aimed at bloggers. The new restrictions ban bloggers from discussing certain subjects that the government deems sensitive or inappropriate. Not only are the topics limited, but bloggers are being directed to only write about issues that directly impact their personal lives. "The rules, which were approved Dec. 18, attempt to rein in Vietnam's booming blogosphere. It has become an alternative source of news for many in the communist country, where the media is state-controlled. The new rules require Internet companies that provide blogging platforms to report to the government every six months and provide information about bloggers on request."

Comments

Necessity

[Jzanu]

This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders. Most of these actions truly do have the welfare of the citizens and their crucial security in mind. These things are done to preserve their life most of the time.

Those of you raised in the west or who have lived your lives mostly in the west may not understand or remember the reality of living in weaker states. It is not my intent to write a thesis or anything approaching that so I'll stop this here. Just think about the real situation in Vietnam before going off on the usual tangents and starting the usual crusades.

Re:Necessity

[FlyingHuck]

Yeah, I have thought about the real situation in Vietnam: a small tin hat group of asshats who will stop at nothing to manage and control the society in which they govern. Being a "small" or a "weak" state militarily these days means nothing... good countries (as in the freedom loving kind) will always find friends amongst strong free states. Unfortunately, the same is true for communist states. Keep drinking the koolaid, friend. I know, communism just needs a little more tweaking and adjustment in order to work... it's sound in theory... ad nauseum.

Re:Necessity

[SerpentMage]

I used to think like you actually.

About 10 years ago I got into a discussion with an American on the topic of what you can say and cannot say. It happened to be around Ernst Zundel in Canada. I said it was quite alright for the state to censor speech, etc, etc.

My American friend said, "oh really..."

He then put up the argument and said, "With him muzzled will he stop thinking what he is thinking? Will it stop his cronies to stop thinking what he is? Will it even stop the hate?"

I argued many things and basically he smiled at me and said, "maybe one of these days you will understand what I mean."

Then that day hit. It was when Austria elected this right wing nut job. At the time all of the sudden EVERYBODY in the EU put up embargos on this guy. Was he an Ernst Zundel? No. Was he a nice guy and a centerist? Not even close.

What bothered me was that the EU would slam this Austrian guy (BTW he died recently), yet the communists in the former East Germany can keep saying the things that they do. After all the Communists NEVER did anything wrong...

So I realized my good American friend was right... There is no benefit to seeking limits of speech...

Re:Necessity

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

So what you're saying is that in Vietnam, it's possible to die in a Blogging accident?

Re:Necessity

[Xerolooper]

Either Jzanu is being trite or he really buys into the whole oppression "for your own good" thing. Which is telling in itself. The powers that be always try to convince you that it is in the public interest that they are oppressing you.

Re:Necessity

[corbettw]

This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.

No, there aren't. There isn't even one legitimate reason for a state to censor what its citizens have to say, about anything or to anyone, as long as what they're saying is either truthful or obviously fictitious (eg, I could see not wanting someone to publish that election polling places have closed when they're still open, or the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater).

And while they may have the best interests of their constituents at heart, there's another proverb that relates to that: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Necessity

[Tracy Reed]

Nah, it's fascist bull just as we suspected. I lived in Vietnam for a year, married a Vietnamese woman, and spend at least two weeks there every year since. They have no legitimate need to censor the net other than to keep the current corrupt officials in power.

Re:Necessity

[FishWithAHammer]

I dunno if that's true. Though the only time that comes to mind is in times of (actual) war. The citizens should not allowed to publish the locations and troop strengths of army regiments, for example; it may directly endanger those soldiers.

Re:Necessity

[similar_name]

I don't think I've ever truly seen a communist state. For what it's worth I've never seen a true capitalist state either. Communism like capitalism is an economic model and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, religion or human rights.

The closest thing perhaps to communism would be the isolated communities of indigenous peoples. While the closest thing to capitalism would be Hong Kong.

Re:Necessity

[moose_hp]

Actually, according Google trends, thats a real treat in Norway and San Francisco, CA, USA.

Re:Necessity

[c6gunner]

Look at the parent here, is it really a troll or was a moderator simply abusing the system to push down my unpopular statements?

No, it wasn't a troll. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a "-50,000 Gormless Cretin" moderation category, the "troll" rating often gets used as a substitute.

Re:Necessity

[Jzanu]

What does it say about the person that decided to do that simply because I pointed out a side that would have otherwise been ignored?

Re:Necessity

[_Sprocket_]

Which doesn't mean that they don't really believe it. Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.

The fable of "The Emporor's Clothes" is popular for a reason. Not only does it represent an issue that exists throughout the ages, but it is also a criticism of that kind of mentality.

Re:Necessity

[rohan972]

Communism like capitalism is an economic model and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, religion or human rights.

Communism as espoused by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto required the use of public education as an instrument of social control, the destruction of the traditional family and the destruction of traditional religion.

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis"

"The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention"

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

There is of course some context to these quotes, which you can check out for yourself - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt

I don't think it is unreasonable to use the Communist Manifesto to answer the question "What is communism?". The answer most definitely has everything to do with freedom of speech, religion and human rights.

Re:Necessity

[Jzanu]

So for the reason that you did not understand something, you did not work to find out the actual causes of that counter point, but instead somehow changed all of your thoughts on a larger subject? That doesn't seem accurate. Will you explain more?

Re:Necessity

[TubeSteak]

Though the only time that comes to mind is in times of (actual) war.

Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.

All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...

Re:Necessity

[Duradin]

When is it (actual) war? Or, more importantly, when *isn't* it (actual) war.

Re:Necessity

[jacks0n]

that he agrees with you completely?

Re:Necessity

[gardyloo]

Just because there may be more than one side to a story doesn't mean they're all equally correct, in either a factual or moral view. A view *might* be popular because it happens to be *right*.

Re:Necessity

[Al Dimond]

Disclamer: IANA Expert on Communism... but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night (err... I mean, I have read the Communist Manifesto)

In the Communist Manifesto Marx calls freedom of the press a "bourgeois freedom". Although I don't think he called outright for censorship as necessary for Communism, he certainly didn't think press freedom was an important concern.

I also don't buy the idea that Communism is just an economic model. Again, I've only read the Manifesto and a couple other excerpts from Marx and Engels, but they wrote about a lot more than economics. They wrote about history, social movements and revolutions, and the implications their economic ideas would have on Communist society. They also agitated for Communist revolutions. It's easier to claim capitalism is just about economics, but I don't think this is true in practice either. It's long been held that markets can only have rational outcomes when their participants are accurately informed, for one thing, and that implies a social program facilitating free flow of information and transparency on the part of the holders of capital.

Re:Necessity

[schon]

1. You make a statement that is both contrary to common sense, and which has no historical basis.
2. You provide precisely *zero* logical support for your statement, instead offering only a vague appeal to emotion.
3. You make a play on the "I'll probably be modded down for this, but..."

Looks like your "troll" mod was well-deserved.

Re:Necessity

[Jzanu]

Wrong on every point. My reference is not to emotion but to fact. Not all states are the same, and not all populations are the same. Conflicts are everywhere. On your last point, is phrasing something for what it is in the first sentence somehow discouraged here? I thought that was to let people know what they were about to read. Are you simply an idiot?

Re:Necessity

[jacks0n]

While you are correct, the Communism being referred to is the history-free Communism-lite popular on college campuses which really amounts to nothing more than a kindergarten-level notion that 'sharing is good'.

Re:Necessity

[Man On Pink Corner]

I think what he's saying is that governments who drive subversive speech underground aren't really doing themselves, or their citizens, any favors. Ideas don't need sunlight to grow.

Look at the US's case. We don't criminalize any speech, really, except kiddie porn and direct incitements to violence. (The McCain-Feingold campaign funding law is an arguable subject but there it's funding and timing, not content as such, that is involved.) So any nutcase with a chip on his shoulder can propagate the most outlandish, hateful tripe you could imagine. Things that would get him prosecuted in much of the EU, or executed in China.

What happens as a result? Not a damn thing. The resulting cacophony of dissidence just raises the "noise floor" of popular discourse. No radical point of view gains any more traction than it would have if it were aggressively suppressed by the government; if anything, we've become a more conservative nation since the Internet gave the nutcases their soapbox.

Suppressing speech is always pointless at best, and more likely counterproductive.

Re:Necessity

[Jzanu]

Explain that coward. It was mostly a rhetorical question. Besides, how else could he have misinterpreted every single point in my other post?

Re:Necessity

[similar_name]

'In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.'wikipedia

I don't think it is unreasonable to use the Communist Manifesto to answer the question "What is communism?".

I will concede that you have a point though.

Re:Necessity

[Kleen13]

I don't agree, but come on, Troll? No way.

Re:Necessity

[FishWithAHammer]

I was thinking primarily of the boneheaded "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" horseshit. (Obviously, specifics of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would fall under this, but that sure as hell isn't part of the same thing.)

Re:Necessity

[ckedge]

> because I pointed out a side that does not match the circumstances being discussed and in general violates the beliefs of the entire free world?

There, fixed that for you.

Debate clubs are just that, clubs, where arguing for or against "a side" doesn't matter. In the real world, it does matter. It matters a lot.

Re:Necessity

[Daimanta]

Because it does not fall into the standard /. creed.

If you don't support the /. groupthink(which they say they hate but deeply love)(which is ironically doublethink) you will be downmodded as troll/flamebait/overrated. It seems that the overrated tag is made especially for this situation. Some people may disagree with a message that is not troll or flamebait so there needs to be a solution. That solution develops in the form of overrated. Overrated is nothing more than a cheap populous vote on the popularity of the opinion. Don't agree with a post? Mod it overrated/underrated to "correct" the score.

Slashdotters claim to believe in absolute freedom of speech but if your opinion is unpopular it is hidden from sight. Well, that isnt a problem because everybody can still see it via the view levels, right? True, but it obscures the message and that is all /. needs, to make it harder to see views that do not conform to groupthink. It's like the great firewall of China, people with will can surpass it but it stops most people from seeing unwanted information and that's enough for them.

Re:Necessity

[fishbowl]

When you hear the word "bourgeois" in a 19th century context, substitute the word "professional" for a better understanding.

Re:Necessity

[Watson Ladd]

The real situation is that people like you crawl out of the woodwork to defend corrupt, selfish, and short-sighted criminal leadership in the name of stability. There is no excuse for silencing the citizens, no excuse for sitting on a throne of bayonets. When a man is killed by the police at a protest, the man who shot him is a murderer. The state would protect him by locking him up, rather then the man who is sent to kill him. When the starving shout for food, the freezing for warmth, the forgotten for someone to care, remember that the whispers of revolution will follow any silence.

Re:Necessity

[Atario]

It seems to me that if some Joe Random Civilian knows enough about locations and troop strengths of army regiments to interest the enemy, then the army already screwed up. Perhaps they ought to be encouraging that kind of posting, to flush out what is already out of the bag (and perhaps to spread misinformation through people making shit up, as people will do).

Re:Necessity

[Larryish]

This is fucking wrong. People should be able to speak their minds as the please.

For any Vietnamese bloggers: Hit me up for secure blog hosting, admin@amigahost.com

I can also provide proxy services.

Let's kick those commie fuckers right in the nuts.

Re:Necessity

[Man On Pink Corner]

Very true, you can't forget the essentially-equivalent effect of media censorship versus government censorship. However, the topic at hand concerns individual bloggers being punished for speech on the Web.

Re:Necessity

[Dutch Gun]

Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.

All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...

I think the larger point is that the US and other nations with inherent freedom of the press have to ask news outlets to hold a story. In Vietnam, I'm quite certain they simply tell the press what they can and cannot say. One of those pesky little "checks and balances" Communism doesn't have to worry about.

Re:Necessity

[schon]

You know, you're just too stupid to be an effective troll. Go bug people at Digg.

Re:Necessity

[LateArthurDent]

there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders. Most of these actions truly do have the welfare of the citizens and their crucial security in mind. These things are done to preserve their life most of the time.

Those of you raised in the west or who have lived your lives mostly in the west may not understand or remember the reality of living in weaker states.

It's not a question of being a "weaker state" whatever that means. It is a bit of a cultural question. Those of us who were raised in the west don't think the government has the right to decide what's better for us citizens. That's our job. We should decide what the government has the right to do, not the other way around.

I was looking through your other posts trying to decide if you were a troll, and discovered you have a different view. For example, one of your posts was a recommendation that people read another poster's story about someone who got badly hurt with their hobby chemicals on the house. You did this advocating the idea that government should restrict access to dangerous chemicals. In your view, you see this as protecting the individual. In my view, the government has no right to decide what risks I can or cannot take. If I think the benefits outweigh any risks to my life, that's my life, my decision to make, and the government has no right to interfere and say otherwise.

I would normally say that the people of Vietnam have a right to a government that limits their freedoms if that's what they want from their government, and that my opinion of what's best shouldn't matter. The problem is that if the government limits the spread of information, they don't have access to enough information to make an informed decision about the type of government they want.

Re:Necessity

[schon]

Wrong on every point.

*sigh* You know, if you're gonna continue with this bullshit, you could at least try to make it believable, rather than making provably false assertions.

Either back up your statements with facts (examples of "very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders" would be a good start) or just STFU.

Go troll Digg.

Re:Necessity

[the_womble]

He probably does buy into it. Just think how many people in the west would buy a clampdown on bloggers if they were told it was to "fight terrorism" or "protect the children".

Re:Necessity

[Zibblsnrt]

This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders. Most of these actions truly do have the welfare of the citizens and their crucial security in mind. These things are done to preserve their life most of the time.

No there aren't, no they don't, and no they aren't.

Re:Necessity

[UncleTogie]

Wrong on every point. My reference is not to emotion but to fact.

Ok, let's go to the Merriam-Webster and look at your use of the word "fact". The closest definition to what you're describing is as follows:

Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

This means that most rational people will view a "fact" as unvarying from person to person. "The sky appears blue on a clear day in most of the world" would be a factual statement. However, you didn't assert what many would call "fact". Here, let's look at your original post a line at a time.

This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.

Why, sir, would a government seek to deny simple truth to those under its control? We're talking about factual occurances here, not gossip mags or celebrity gossip. If 100 people die on a bridge because the officials in a certain province have been lax in bridge inspection, it would stand to reason that they may have failed to inspect OTHER bridges in that province. If citizen safety is TRULY the aim of a government, then why not warn those citizens if a hazard exists?

As for communicating with outsiders, can you be more specific on what subjects would be better held from "outsiders"? Other than military secrets, I'd be interested to find what information you feel would be SO hazardous to the citizens {not the government} that outsiders shouldn't recieve it.

Using the bridge example above, do you believe that information should be suppressed in order to maintain civil order? If you do, can you accept the idea that many other people would not consider your view to be "objective reality", if just for the fact that a large majority of people would disagree?

Those of you raised in the west or who have lived your lives mostly in the west may not understand or remember the reality of living in weaker states.

Can you please define "weaker states"? If you mean militarily, Switzerland spends less than Vietnam does, with a total population of 7.6 million. Vietnam, on the other hand, has ready for military service more than DOUBLE the population of Switzerland. That's right, the Vietnam military has more people available to it than the population of Switzerland. Even Vietnam's present standing force of 500,000 is more than the entire population of Luxembourg, and FAR larger than Luxembourg's army of 800.

...and yet Switzerland's Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of information for each citizen. They spend less on the military than Vietnam, have fewer people available for the military, and enjoy more freedoms. Same with Luxembourg. Are they somehow less "safe" than the Vietnamese? If you think so, why?

Not all states are the same, and not all populations are the same. Conflicts are everywhere.

While arguably "fact", it in itself doesn't seem to universally justify censorship. Wisdom is the answer to conflict... wisdom that might be hard to gain without access to all available information.

You're getting the reactions here about censorship because most of the world's population disagrees...which might not make your assertation of "fact" as convincing as you'd hoped.

Re:Necessity

[Trieuvan]

FYI, In the US you can do what ever that the law doesn't prohibit. In Vietnam you can only do the things that the law allow. So you better not to do thing that law doesn't mention.

Re:Necessity

[rohan972]

I will concede that you have a point though.

Since even your quote referred to Marxist theory, I'd say so. At this point, another Communist Manifesto quote is in order:
"It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto ...

It was intended to be the public declaration of what communism is. I don't see any reason to regard it differently now.

Re:Necessity

[Phoghat]

When the government controls blogs, only the intelligent will have them.

Re:Necessity

[Phoghat]

This what is known as responsibility. The US can request a story not be published and it is up to the editorial staff to decide whether to publish it or not. For info on this and other stories check out investigative reporting, or just go ask Woodward and Bernstein.

Re:Necessity

[jerep]

Slashdotters claim to believe in absolute freedom of speech but if your opinion is unpopular it is hidden from sight.

I had no idea FOX News had such an impact here.

Re:Necessity

[similar_name]

Since I read it, I must point out your arguments are very much taken out of context. You quoted this

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

This is very much like the Creationist argument that Darwin said the eye was too complex to have evolved. Marx isn't saying this, he's saying that his opponents(the rich) will accuse Communism of this. He's arguing that such thing should not be used by one class to suppress another.

The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention

To continues the quote "and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. ", he is arguing that education is influenced by the ruling class and that education should be free and public for all. He is arguing that home schooling. should be replaced with equal public education for all. In this manner western education is very inline with the communist manifesto. One could make the argument that his form of public education is inline with that found in the U.S. constitution.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

He's speaking more of inheritance and child slavery. He's not talking about abolishing the family but looking at children as something other than people who can make profit for you and carry on your wealth. Additionally he argues that capitalism has already destroyed the family for the poor, looking around at the U.S. it's hard to argue with him.

I don't necessarily agree with Communism, but it is certainly one of those things that is vastly skewed by it's opponents.

Re:Necessity

[Locklin]

Not to defend improper mods, but freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to your dribble. Rant all you want, but there's nothing wrong with me adjusting my settings so that I don't have to read it. You are confusing Freedom of Speech with a guaranteed audience.

Re:Necessity

[FishWithAHammer]

So instead of "you shouldn't say this," the government should be engaging in even more secrecy?

You do know that there are civilians on bases, even in war zones? Civilians who talk? Soldiers who talk (especially in the age of the internets, where even soldiers have nearly unfettered access to commmunications)? It's infeasible for that to be perfect. Having the backup of "if you attempt to screw us, it's PMITA prison for you" is a deterrent from exacerbating those leaks.

Re:Necessity

[mysidia]

They have a legitimate need to censor, because in all likelihood other countries secretly asked and encouraged them to adopt these rules.

More and more countries are being asked to adopt these rules, as a demonstration of consensus, to help the governments of more powerful countries convince their populations that the restrictions are benign: they're just adopting best practices to ensure their own security already adopted by most other governments around the world.

Australia, China, Europe, the US will soon be pushing and probably passing similar rules, for the children, and for national security, with overwhelming support.

Vietnam's just at the forefront in terms of internet censorship.

Re:Necessity

[MrResistor]

Vietnam is small and weak, huh? I'll be sure to mention that to my Vietnamese friends when I get back home (and hope I don't get my ass beat). While we're at it, you might want to mention that to China, who tried to come in and take over after they gave us Americans the boot. Oh, and tell Cambodia and Laos how weak Vietnam is, too.

Re:Necessity

[smithmc]

Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.

Yes, it is, actually, at least to me. I don't see how "benevolent" and "seeks to suppress truth and freedom" can be reconciled. (Not to mention "dictator", but that was obvious.)

Re:Necessity

[_Sprocket_]

Yes, it is, actually, at least to me. I don't see how "benevolent" and "seeks to suppress truth and freedom" can be reconciled. (Not to mention "dictator", but that was obvious.)

Don't get me wrong - I don't believe it is ever a good idea. But I can imagine the mindset that justifies it and truly believe it to be right.

To that mind, they have the right answers to their population's problems. Criticism from the population simply serves to distract people from the right, chosen course. It also might threaten that population's standing with its neighbors - a matter of airing dirty laundry in public. For the good of that population, it is best if malcontents simply keep it to themselves.

Again - this is false. They've fooled themselves in to a bad situation. No individual is always correct and there is value in criticism for that reason alone. Criticism also tends to uncover corruption and other crimes. And it is a normal part of human behavior - suppressing it can lead to more morale issues than allowing malcontents to air their grievances.

Re:Necessity

[_Sprocket_]

The government of Vietnam got these requests via NSA courier squirrel.

Re:Necessity

[rohan972]

Since I read it, I must point out your arguments are very much taken out of context.

I didn't try to hide the context, linking to an easily searchable text. I will attempt to elaborate on the context as I understood it:

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

This is very much like the Creationist argument that Darwin said the eye was too complex to have evolved. Marx isn't saying this, he's saying that his opponents(the rich) will accuse Communism of this. He's arguing that such thing should not be used by one class to suppress another.

And yet the historical experience of communism abounds with religious persecution, so much that it is a defining characteristic. His argument appears to be not that communism won't abolish religion but that religion is a "class antagonism" that must be abolished, that is he justifies the abolishment of religion rather than denies it.

The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention

To continues the quote "and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. ", he is arguing that education is influenced by the ruling class and that education should be free and public for all. He is arguing that home schooling. should be replaced with equal public education for all. In this manner western education is very inline with the communist manifesto. One could make the argument that his form of public education is inline with that found in the U.S. constitution.

I thought the quote "The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education" adequately covered that. Indeed since freedom of religion has become widespread all statists have sought to replace it with another method of public indoctrination, compulsory schooling being the most prevalent. I agree that western education is very in line with the communist manifesto, something that in no way validates communism but should instead cause us to seriously question our chosen method of education and who it is really designed to benefit. I recommend investigating the work of John Taylor Gatto, starting with The Six Lesson Schoolteacher. There's a collection of quotes from his essays here: http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/Gatto/Gatto.html. One of his books is available online and audio files of his speeches also, both are linked from the wikipedia article. I've heard it said "It's hard to agree with everything he says, but it's hard to ignore what he says".

Most of the evils of communism are not exclusive to communism. The differences between the various forms of totalitarianism are minor compared to their similarities. Indeed the evils of totalitarianism could be said to be good things that are taken to extremes. I'm not an anarchist, I think it's a good thing to have a government. Just not an all controlling one, yet they all seem to have the tendency to grow into that role.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

He's speaking more of inheritance and child slavery. He's not talking about abolishing the family but looking at children as something other than people who can make profit for you and carry on your wealth. Additionally he argues that capitalism has already destroyed the family for the poor, looking around at the U

Re:Necessity

[similar_name]

Your right education is not mentioned in the Constitution (I wonder why I thought that). I appreciate your educating me though, I am grateful there are people who can argue and be intelligent at the same time.

Since you are obviously well read in this area I would like to know more of your thoughts (if you don't mind):

What do you think of his idea that there should be no government just a democracy of people?

Is such a thing even feasible under any philosophical doctrine?

Do you think any his points were valid? If so, could they be incorporated into Western philosophy?

Re:Necessity

[rohan972]

I appreciate your educating me though, I am grateful there are people who can argue and be intelligent at the same time.

I've got a lot of info and references to info from /. too, glad to pass it on.

Since you are obviously well read in this area I would like to know more of your thoughts (if you don't mind):

I don't mind but I'm not really well read regarding communism. I've thought about it quite a bit over the last few years of observing western society and I've noticed that people parrot things like "communism works on paper" without ever reading about it. I consider The Communist Manifesto to be the defining statement of what communism is because Marx intended it to be exactly that. It is required reading for anyone to comment intelligently on communism IMO.

What do you think of his idea that there should be no government just a democracy of people?

Is such a thing even feasible under any philosophical doctrine?

Completely unworkable in large groups, no.
If there is no enforcing of some form of property law, it becomes more efficient to plunder neighbours than to produce. Some people may refrain from doing so, but pretty much every tribal society I know of has warred with neighbouring tribes for plunder. I've lived my whole life until now without having a battle to the death over food or women. I like that. You could have more decentralised government, more power in local communities, but not no government. It would require a radical change in human nature that I don't think can be brought about by a political system. There is no utopia.

Do you think any his points were valid? If so, could they be incorporated into Western philosophy?

Some of his complaints against the effects of industrialisation were valid, his solutions were to make things worse, IMO. The exploitation of people as resources, the destruction of family ties, the formation of permanent social classes. We have the ideal that anyone could rise to any position in society but the reality is that there are significant obstacles to that. He was quite right that people should own the means of production but then wanted to abolish the private property system by which people can own the means of production.

I'm still working on what I consider the ideal protection against generational poverty. The internet goes a long way to making education accessible without government schooling, I consider a good resource good public domain or freely copyable and modifiable textbooks to be a necessity.

Visitors just arrived, I'm willing to continue discussion later.

Re:Necessity

[Xerolooper]

It took me a long time to realize on an individual level that all advise(criticism) is good. I had to become stubborn enough to listen to it all and still do what I thought was right. Sometimes I even hear something that changes my mind about what is right but I can take it or leave it now.

On a larger scale that is what they need to do. Allow the criticism and be willing and able to stand up to it when you feel it is wrong. It helps prevent mistakes from lack of knowledge. The down side is if your up against a fancy talker you could be completely right and they could still sway public opinion against you. On the personal level my solution to that problem was to learn to speak more effectively. Perhaps they should allocate more budget to their spin dept. rather than the censor dept.?

Didn't they choose Communism?

[Tubal-Cain]

For some reason the phrase "You made your bed, now sleep in it!" comes to mind. Although to be fair, it was technically the previous generation that made the bed.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[TheModelEskimo]

I don't think we can say that even the previous generation of Vietnamese deserve all the blame for what happened. LBJ helped make the bed, as did politicians on the other side of the Pacific. And to say that the average family supported the suppression of free speech...that might be going a little far. :-)

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Tracy Reed]

Some of them chose communism. A lot of them didn't. Having lived and worked over there (on a Linux related project even) I know good Vietnamese there who supported South Vietnam and the US. After the south fell they spent years in re-education camps. They had been to the US in the 60's and received training on computers and electronics. Now they don't own a single thing and are kept out of any good paying job by the communists who still seek to push the former South Vietnamese. They live in poverty even poor Americans cannot imagine. It is very sad what they are doing to their own country. But the poor brainwashed people of Vietnam still support communism.

I'm not sure we can really fault the poor and uneducated who chose communism. They were starving and were just looking for a better way. They did not have access to world news or history classes from their villages and only knew what they received in the form of propaganda.

But we can definitely fault the corrupt communist leadership for taking advantage of these poor people and making millions of them pay with their lives.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[RichardJenkins]

So have the Vietnamese authorities defined what a 'Blogger' is? Because no one else seems to have a clear definition.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Clarious]

Yes, the previous generation choosed communist, but it was the only way to gain independence back then. We have China (ROC) in the north, the French in the South. And the only force that can prevent us from being enslave one again is the communist.

So at least we got a bed to sleep ;)

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Tubal-Cain]

Isn't it the People's Republic of China? The Republic of China is on Taiwan

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Clarious]

Yes, it is known as Taiwan now, back in 1945, they are still the major force in China.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Clarious]

were*

Sorry.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Chandon Seldon]

Communism is a loaded propaganda term that's basically meaningless, but I'm guessing you mean "strong state socialism", which is an economic system. Strong state socialism with free communication and democracy would be an interesting experiment - we can see weak state socialism, working great, in Northern Europe.

Saying that Communism means Totalitarian Socialism would be like saying Capitalism means Fascism. It's certainly the way it was presented as a propaganda term during the cold war, but it's not terribly useful to accept that meaning.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Schemat1c]

Although to be fair, it was technically the previous generation that made the bed.

It's pretty easy to choose Communism when Democracy is blowing your babies in half.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Keen Anthony]

Yes, as I recall, the choices the Vietnamese faced then were communism, French colonism, or democracy under Ngo Dinh Diem, an corrupt extremist autocratic thug who routinely abused human rights, rigged elections and polls, and used his military to crush any groups who criticized him or who weren't Catholic. In any case, the South Vietnamese didn't really choose communism. They were stuck with it, mostly because of the corrupt of their "democratic" leader and the ineptitude of the South Vietnamese army, greatly illustrated by their performance during the Battle of Ap Bac.

And last I read, the younger urban Vietnamese generation have been doing fairly well. A lot of foreign businesses are pouring money in Vietnam and the communist government seems to be pretty successful at convincing people that Vietnam is a paradise. If anything, Vietnam becoming communist might have spared that nation from turning into a banana republic which only plays democratic on television.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Tubal-Cain]

The trend was towards Communism before the war started, IIRC.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Schemat1c]

The trend was towards Communism before the war started, IIRC.

Which war would that be, French, British, American or Chinese?

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[MrResistor]

British? I think you mean Japanese.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Reservoir Penguin]

In the 60s and 70s communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries was not such a bad idea compared to the life of ordinary people under corrupt Saigon regime. At that time the Eastern Block having recovered from WWII was relatively prosperous with growing econimies. Life in GDR or Poland was an order of magnitude better than anything the Vietnamese could imagine.

Re:Didn't they choose Communism?

[Tracy Reed]

As far as I can tell you are the first communist person to respond on this thread. From your signature I take it you go to a Russian University? And you study Math, Lisp, and Linux there? Very cool! Are you ethnic Vietnamese living in Russia or ethnic Russian?

You may be right about life in Vietnam and life in GDR or Poland. However, that is because Vietnam was such a backwards country from the beginning. They had a lot of catching up to do. But Poland is no longer communist. And the life there is still much better than the life of the average Vietnamese. And either way, we ultimately found out that the sort of economy that the Soviet Union was trying to create was not sustainable or practical and even Russia had to move towards a more free-market economy.

According to:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=116&Country=PL

The life expectancy in Poland in the year 2000 was 68.6 years. In Vietnam it was 64.9. And according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

The nominal GDP per capita of Vietnam is $829. In Poland it is now $11,072. Huge difference. And compare that to what it was in Poland before they became a free country. Huge difference.

Had GDR and Poland not suffered communism it is a pretty sure bet that they would have had even better lives. Saying life there was better than life in Vietnam is not saying anything at all.

I know many party members in Vietnam. In private they all tell me they love the Doi Moi "new thinking" which brought in the free market economy which made them richer. Now they are working on slowly moving away from the communist form of government. It has not escaped them that the more they get away from communism/socialism (two different but related things, I know) the more successful their country becomes. This study:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119050150/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

shows a 42% increase in GDP attributable to "Doi Moi" aka the move away from the socialist system to a market economy.

But they have to somehow maintain the pride of the people. They are all brainwashed into loving Ho Chi Minh (similar to how many Russians still like Lenin). They forget the bad and remember only the good (a lot of which is unsubstantiated). They spend a lot of time in school studying about him instead of studying reading, writing, arithmetic which puts them behind educationally. They have to somehow change course while the elders who got 2 million Vietnamese killed in their war to destroy their own country try to save face. They can't just come out one day and say it was all a big mistake and "I'm sorry." It would destroy their pride. So they must make the very slow change which ensures everyone feels good about it.

Right now they are fighting the scourge of corruption. There are far too many selfish people ruining the economy with the efficiency sapping corruption.

Yes, there was corruption in the government of South Vietnam. Because it was run by Vietnamese. That was part of their society at the time. And at that time the entire country was corrupt from north to south. It makes me wonder: Does communism bring corruption? Or does the corruption allow the communism to happen? It is hard to tell.

Things are slowly getting better in Vietnam as they change their society.

But there is still so far to go. Petty crime is everywhere. On Christmas day (3 days ago) my mother in law was standing in front of a very nice shopping area (Diamond Plaza) in downtown Saigon. A thief ran by and ripped the necklace right off of her neck. Fortunately, she was not injured. The communist police there do nothing about it. They are too busy confiscating peoples motorbike

So I guess no...

[ethicalBob]

So I guess no "me blog you long time"??

Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[FlyingHuck]

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)

Yeah, I'll bet the Vietnamese are really loving that communism now. Good thing the U.S. withdrew and left an entire region of the earth to the whims of that benevolent political philosophy.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[Klaus_1250]

From a purely ideological perspective, there isn't anything wrong with communism. But in practice it utterly fails due to incompetence, corruption and selfishness. From a purely ideological perspective, there is a lot wrong with capitalism. It thrives on selfishness, inequality and stupidity but it works better than anything (well, credit crisis aside).

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[techno-vampire]

Good thing the U.S. withdrew and left an entire region of the earth to the whims of that benevolent political philosophy.

And the credit for that deserves to be given to Congress, for giving up and letting the NVA do whatever it wanted after it had been repeatedly defeated in the field.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[SecurityGuy]

Credit crisis included, capitalism still works better than anything else we've tried.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[cdrguru]

The fundamental flaw with communism is that it fails to meet the test of reality. If people were wired to be altruistic and benevelent, communism might work. But people are wired to be selfish and not all that altristic.

Capitalism is built on the idea that if you are looking out for yourself, everyone around you benefits. Maybe not directly and maybe not without some work, but it generally works out that way. Communism tries (and fails) to achive a state where everyone is looking out for each other more so than themselves. Nope. Sorry, fails basic motivation test.

What we've spent the last 160 years or so proving is that if you give people an opportunity to better their lives, they will do it - even if they have to bring some others along. Communism doesn't allow people to better themselves, only to contribute to the good of all. And people just aren't motivated that way.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[FlyingHuck]

Oh wise moderator... please do tell me what exactly is flamebait. If the moderator is a communist, and my anti-communism statements disagree with his philosophy, does that make me a troll?

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[FlyingHuck]

Keep in mind that the credit crisis is due to government manipulation of the free market system. During Carter's tenure (he's not just peanuts), we had the Community Reinvestment Act, then doubled-down on it during Clinton's tenure because of this absolutely insane notion that you can create legislature that will foster individual responsibility. Well, all that legislation and bailout money, over 90% of the original foreclosures are still defaulting on their new fixed rate, low interest, low amount payments. Like I said, you can't force people to be responsible.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[gary_7vn]

Yes, the credit crisis and the fact that 2% of the population in America controls 90% of the wealth and 50% of the income.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[gary_7vn]

Except for seat belt legislation, drunk driving laws and now that I think about it, just about all the other laws, which are exactly about "forcing" people to be responsible.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[gary_7vn]

Yes, if only we had killed more Vietnamese, things would have been better. Nothing like wasting your vote on Sarah Palin.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[Dragonslicer]

Isn't socialism/communism by definition evil because it's based on violence and coercion? How can this be good in any way?

You've confused socialism and communism with authoritarianism again. Communism is a primarily economic model; authoritarianism is a political model. It's okay, though, lots of people get confused on this point, do it isn't just you.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[techno-vampire]

The point I was making, and you ignored, is that we weren't defeated in 'Nam. (I was there, or at least off-shore; I can call it that if I want.) Enough people made enough noise about getting out, and Congress bowed to their wishes.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[grouchomarxist]

A basic flaw in Communism is central planning. I haven't studied Communism significantly, so I don't know if central planning is a fundamental tenet of Communism or not, but it appears to be how Communism was generally practiced. With central planning a small group makes decisions, while with Capitalism various people develop plans that they try out for themselves. The result is often that the Communist plan comes up short, while under Capitalism many of the plans may also come up short, but a handful come out ahead.

Often in predicting the future no one really knows what will happen. One conceit of Communism is that it believed itself to be scientific and rational and that there was one solution to a problem, when really the solution was unknown.

Under Capitalism various ideas get worked out. No one knows beforehand what will be successful, but perhaps someone's idea will.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[the_womble]

There is a huge difference between seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws: drunk driving laws punish you for risking other people's lives, seatbelt laws punish you for risking your own life.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[the_womble]

I agree. I think it may be only true of Marxism and that there are other schools of communist (or at least extreme socialist) thought that would also oppose such a strong state.

A more immediate problem is that our current capitalist system is becoming more and more regulated and centrally controlled. A number of US states require interior designers to be licensed to practice. Many EU regulations are just as silly.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[gary_7vn]

I got your point. You were defeated. The goal of any war is to kill your enemy or deprive them of the will to fight. For a lot of reasons the United States lost it's will to fight. Where you and I part company is that after 3 million dead Vietnamese and 50,000 Americans, that was a good thing. As people have said Vietnam didn't exactly go communist, the POW's got to go home, no Vietnamese has killed an American since May, 75.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[techno-vampire]

You seem to think that I consider the end of the war a bad thing; I don't. What I consider bad is the way it ended, and the myth that the US was defeated in Vietnam. As far as the 50,000 go, I regret that. By good luck, nobody I knew was killed, or even injured there, because my war was strictly off-shore. However, I've never regretted going, or what I did there, and about the only thing keeping me alive right now are my VA benefits. (Type II diabetes, probably caused by Agent Orange, but I've yet to persuade them to agree.) My perspective on the war as a 'Nam vet is different from yours, and let's just leave it at that.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[makomk]

Keep in mind that the credit crisis is due to government manipulation of the free market system. During Carter's tenure (he's not just peanuts), we had the Community Reinvestment Act, then doubled-down on it during Clinton's tenure because of this absolutely insane notion that you can create legislature that will foster individual responsibility.

Nope. That's just Republican propaganda. The CRA was not responsible for the current crisis.The majority of the subprime mortgages were made by companies not covered by the CRA, and the CRA itself doesn't do what the Republicans claim.

As I understand it, the reason behind the CRA is that companies were refusing to make any loans to people in poorer or predominantly black areas ("redlining"), even if they were safe loans that would be well within the individuals' ability to pay. The CRA requires to them to lend to those people if they otherwise meet the criteria - nothing more.

The actual reasons for the crisis were far more complicated. Basically, it comes down to a combination of greed, over-optimism, poor judgement and risk-taking on the part of individuals and the entire financial services sector.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[FlyingHuck]

Wow, killing Vietnamese people is now linked to voting for Sarah Palin... incredible! What astute political analysis! As far as the millions of dead Vietnamese are concerned, I think you will find that those numbers are due to the fact that 1) communists didn't like American forces defending a free South Vietnam, 2) picked up weapons to engage in hostilities with said American forces, and 3) were subsequently killed by their decision to fight a better trained, more disciplined, better equipped military force. The Communists and the Khmer Rouge really did a bang up job once we left. As far as your vague reference of war belonging to Republicans (I'm guessing by your rather obtuse Palin reference), it was Kennedy (a democrat) who started the war, Johnson (a democrat) who escalated the war, and Nixon (a republican) who ended the war. Just thought I'd remind you of those facts.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[FlyingHuck]

Glad you bring that up. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As such, it is a reserved right of the states as per the 10th amendment to license drivers and establish standards of licensing. As with any license, there are certain terms and conditions of that license. The laws don't FORCE any driver to buckle up, or to stay sober... they simply establish punishments for failing to do so. Owning, or rather, buying, a house is not a right endowed unto someone by their creator. While someone may have property rights (what the 'pursuit of happiness' clause has been often interpreted to be) once they OWN that house, it is not a right to be given the means in which to PURCHASE that house. When I bought my house, I could very easily have acquired a mortgage of about a quarter million, far beyond my means to pay on a 20 year loan. I instead opted for $75k, which bought the fixer-upper that I wanted, and is within my means. Yes, while it was unethical for lenders to seek giving out the biggest loans possible to a buyer, banks were essentially forced to do so or face penalty for not loaning to sub-prime borrowers. In the end, it's the responsibility of the individual to not try to live beyond their means.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[FlyingHuck]

Yeah, and 10% of the population also pays 90% of the tax burden. Quick question: Have you ever been hired and given gainful employment by a poor person?

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[meringuoid]

Ah, I see. Stabbed in the back, were you?

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[techno-vampire]

No, not in my opinion. I do, however, know those who'd agree.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[MrResistor]

No I don't think I'm confusing anything, although I apologize for being vague. Socialism and communism require an authoritarian government. Oops, tautology.

No, you are quite confused, and utterly wrong. There are plenty of socialist countries that are not authoritarian (like most of northern Europe). There are also numerous examples of small scale communism functioning just fine with little or no central control.

It is true that every country that has gone communist has also gone authoritarian, but it is certainly not a requirement.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[Hal_Porter]

No, you are quite confused, and utterly wrong. There are plenty of socialist countries that are not authoritarian (like most of northern Europe). There are also numerous examples of small scale communism functioning just fine with little or no central control.

It is true that every country that has gone communist has also gone authoritarian, but it is certainly not a requirement.

Except for the whole replacing the concealed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (any non communist state) with an open dictatorship of the proletariat (any communist state) thing. Doing that pretty much implies censorship of non communist opinions and shipping people off to reeducation camps.

I think you're confusing communism as in 'sharing is good' with a bunch of Stalinists taking over the state and killing millions of people whilst claiming to be socialist/communist.

Those countries aren't really socialist in any meaningful sense though. Democratic socialists believed in transferring more power to workers, communists believed in turning those workers into serfs who could not leave their job or have any say in the conditions they did it under. Similarly democratic socialists were in favour of ordinary people being political active, whereas communists shipped politically active people off to camps, even politically active people who were broadly pro communist.

Imagine that, politicians saying they are doing one thing which is in the public interest whilst doing another which is purely in their interests.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[makomk]

No, it's not just "Republican propaganda." The CRA was a large factor in the current mess... you're very correct about it being a combination of greed, over-optimism, poor judgment and risk-taking. Real-estate securities have always been a stable investment because real-estate lending has always been of a very conservative and regimented nature.

Recent changes to it may have had a minor role in how things played out, but the issues are elsewhere.

Before the CRA, the idea of lending to a sub-prime borrower was simply out of the question... banks wouldn't do it, because the business of foreclosing on houses owned by the bank is simply a write-off for the bank to stop the bleeding... not exactly a money-maker.

I'm not sure if this was ever true, but it ceased being so a while ago. Firstly, banks and other financial institutions could charge much higher interest rates and fees for this type of loan. This was very profitable. Secondly, there was a perception that, due to rising house prices, they'd be able to get their money back via foreclosure. It was seen as win-win.

The CRA fostered an environment in which borrowers who had poor credit, no down payment, and an income too low to be deemed a safe percentage of total income for payment were suddenly turned into victims of racism or bigotry because the banks wouldn't lend to them.

Nope. In particular, the majority of sub-prime loans were to people with good credit profiles. The actual causes appear to be an irrational belief that house prices would always rise, and a willingness to borrow unsafe amounts of money across pretty much all segments of society. This lead to house price inflation, resulting in people taking out increasingly unsustainable loans. Then they started to be unable to pay them back, the housing bubble burst (partly due to overbuilding), people went into negative equity, and the banks panicked. It's basically a vicious circle at this point - declining prices cause more foreclosures, which increases the amount of unsold property, causing further price drops.

Of course, the Republicans and libertarians will never understand this. It goes against their beliefs that such a thing could happen. The trouble is, the markets don't work the way they think they do - irrationality is common and perfect information is a myth.

The appetite for real-estate investments was also growing to huge levels due to the increase in many nations' government investment strategies to buy real-estate related investments.

That, however, is true. I believe China invested particularly heavily in things like mortgage securities.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[MrResistor]

Except for the whole replacing the concealed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (any non communist state) with an open dictatorship of the proletariat (any communist state) thing. Doing that pretty much implies censorship of non communist opinions and shipping people off to reeducation camps.

I think you're confusing communism as in 'sharing is good' with a bunch of Stalinists taking over the state and killing millions of people whilst claiming to be socialist/communist.

I'm quite clear on the differences; that was the entire point of my post. The one I was responding to seems to have bought wholesale the line that socialism == authoritarianism, which as we both pointed out is observably false.

The "sharing is good" anarcho-communism described by Marx can only function on a very small scale (but it can function, I've witnessed it personally). The problem with any anarchic political theory, though, is that eventually your society gets big enough that it includes an asshole who just has to be in charge (Stalin, Mao, etc) and enough idiots/lesser assholes willing to take their orders that they're able to consolidate power (the respective communist parties). They call themselves communists because if you read the Manifesto it sounds really good, and then they conveniently forget that part where the central government is supposed to fade away once the distribution mechanisms are in place (which makes perfect sense really, since distribution mechanisms don't run themselves).

Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. My main point was that socialism != authoritarianism. My secondary point was that communism != authoritarianism either, even though it generally plays out that way in the real world.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[Hal_Porter]

Except for the whole replacing the concealed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (any non communist state) with an open dictatorship of the proletariat (any communist state) thing. Doing that pretty much implies censorship of non communist opinions and shipping people off to reeducation camps.

I think you're confusing communism as in 'sharing is good' with a bunch of Stalinists taking over the state and killing millions of people whilst claiming to be socialist/communist.

I'm quite clear on the differences; that was the entire point of my post. The one I was responding to seems to have bought wholesale the line that socialism == authoritarianism, which as we both pointed out is observably false.

The "sharing is good" anarcho-communism described by Marx can only function on a very small scale (but it can function, I've witnessed it personally). The problem with any anarchic political theory, though, is that eventually your society gets big enough that it includes an asshole who just has to be in charge (Stalin, Mao, etc) and enough idiots/lesser assholes willing to take their orders that they're able to consolidate power (the respective communist parties). They call themselves communists because if you read the Manifesto it sounds really good, and then they conveniently forget that part where the central government is supposed to fade away once the distribution mechanisms are in place (which makes perfect sense really, since distribution mechanisms don't run themselves).

Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. My main point was that socialism != authoritarianism. My secondary point was that communism != authoritarianism either, even though it generally plays out that way in the real world.

I'm not sure why people think Marx was about "sharing is good anarcho-communism". Here are a couple of quotes.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Karl Marx

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
Karl Marx

It seems to me that he was in favour of a violent revolution followed by a dictatorship that would kill off the former ruling class. In fact he was critical of the Paris Commune which failed in his view because it did not conscript an army and use it againsts its opponents, allowing them time to seek help from the Prussians. In fact he disagreed with Anarchists like Bakunin on exactly this point - whether a post revolutionary state should use traditional means like conscripted armies against counter revolutionaries.

Post Russian revolution, Lenin behaved exactly in this way and that led inevitably to dictatorship. It's silly to allow a White Party to compete with the Communists for seats in parliament when you've decided to crush them with a Red Army.

Re:Communism-- the gift that keeps on giving

[MrResistor]

Well, it's been almost 20 years since I read it, but I'm quite sure I remember him saying that a dictatorship of some sort would be necessary to get things operating properly, after which it should dissolve. That sounds a lot like anarchy to me. The bit about expecting those in power to just walk away was the stupid part of the whole thing, in my opinion, but then again it seems a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature is at the heart of anarchic theory.

Well done, comrade.

[Anonymous Coward]

This blog posting is officially sanctioned and approved for dissemination by the Communist Party of Vietnam.

All hail our democratically elected and ever-benevolent overlord, Nguyen Minh Triet.

Communist?

[matt4077]

Vietnam is communism in name only (not even that since it calls itself socialist). Since 1986 Vietnam is, like China today, just yet-another undemocratic country. Communism is mostly an economic concept, and the Vietnamese economy has largely shifted to a free market system.

Re:Communist?

[Tracy Reed]

This is absolutely true. They have a stock market and everything. They are very capitalist in that even the communist leaders are playing the markets, making investments, and trying to acquire as much wealth as they can. The free market is definitely in effect. The big difference is that there is little transparency and no real regulations to ensure that it is a fair market. So corruption is everywhere destroying the efficiency of the market. You are right: Is is capitalism without democracy.

Re:Communist?

[arthurpaliden]

At the end of WW2 had the western powers kept their word and given the SE Asian countries self govenment in excahnge for their resistance to Japan. We would not have had the any problems and SE Asia might well be totally democractic today.

Re:Communist?

[matt4077]

It should be noted, though, that many countries in Asia are doing spectacularly well compared to other parts of the world, esp. Africa. While the development is mostly economic, there has been a lot of political progress since WWII, too. Take the current "revolution" in Thailand as an example. While it'd be a disaster by western standards, it is remarkable that is has remained entirely peaceful so far.

Then there is Korea, one of the largest-scale social experiments of all times. I'm not sure if the north and south were equally developed before the war, but the contrast between the two must be the best example of how the seed of economic and political help can transform a society (that is willing and able to make the most of it).

Re:Communist?

[gibbsjoh]

To some extent I think a lot of the economic growth (especially wrt South Korea) just had to do with Western backing and not press/individual freedoms or the "seed of... political help" as you say. South Korea lived under a dictatorship for a good part of its post-war history, but we supported their dictator against the North's Soviet-backed dictator. Wiki reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee - the bit about torture of political opponents makes a crackdown on blogging seem tame all of Vietnam's other human rights abuses notwithstanding.

Vietnam's history is checkered with horrible abuses of its people, but so are a lot of former and current Western allies.

Just being pedantic and not sure what point I'm really trying to make... I'll get me coat.... /angrySocialistRant

Re:Communist?

[FlyingHuck]

The fact that your post gets 5 informative for score only leads me to believe that the moderators are firm believers in leftist ideologies. To date, there has not been a single nation of "benevolent communism" like all you pro-Marxist lemmings like to believe. I've heard a million times how communism "is perfect on paper" but it "has never been executed properly or to its original intent like Marx modeled." Shall we go down the list? Of the nations who are or have at some point claimed to be communist, please tell me which one is a shining example of freedom while at the same time exercising this "economic concept." Read Marx himself, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." What happens when those of us with ability don't want to take care of others' needs before our own wants and ambitions? Oh, that's right... "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521!"

Re:Communist?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Vietnam is communism in name only (not even that since it calls itself socialist).

That in itself doesn't mean much. I thought most communist countries call themselves socialist, I think it still fits within the term, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Some of those countries and the communist countries that don't call themselves socialist call themselves democratic.

Re:Communist?

[Daimanta]

"The free market is definitely in effect. The big difference is that there is little transparency and no real regulations to ensure that it is a fair market."

Sounds like capitalism at its finest.

Re:Communist?

[Tracy Reed]

Not at all. For capitalism to work it requires a fair market. This is why Vietnam is not really seeing the benefits of capitalism and remains quite poor with very bad infrastructure.

Re:Communist?

[Daimanta]

"For capitalism to work it requires a fair market."

That's why capitalism doesn't work, since it never guarantees a fair market. Only a goverment can through rules and regulations try to approach a fair market. The essence of a company is to subvert all those rules and regulations and become the most powerfull company in existance. That's how you explain abusive monopolies and lobbyists. They come from the center of all the greed of a company. The invisible hand of Adam Smith is simply a powerfull force(most of the time the government) who tries to halt unfettered growth that leads to abuse.

Re:Communist?

[J. T. MacLeod]

Do you really believe that the only form of capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism?

I could very well say that government doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarian regimes. You could respond that government isn't only totalitarian and can have checks and balances... but the same thing can be said of capitalism.

Re:Communist?

[matt4077]

I'm not sure what your point is. I agree with you that communism is a bad form of government, since it places too much emphasis on the "common good" and not enough on individual freedoms. I was, however, trying to prevent the reverse, namely that every dictatorship has to be communistic. In fact even the self-described socialist countries like China and Vietnam now are much closer to fascism.

In fact, you even show that Vietnam cannot be called communistic as you quote one of Marx's criteria, namely collective ownership. Since Vietnam has recognized private property since the 80ies, it's not communistic. QED

Re:Communist?

[soporific16]

There is something i simply DON'T UNDERSTAND that maybe the OP or an American or evern a Vietnamese could tell me. The reason the US decided to invade Vietnam over, which resulted in the 'Vietnam War' which killed millions and poisoned entire generations, still exists doesn't it? What's changed? Either the US was wrong to invade and kill so many people so they should say so (the US has never apologized or paid reparations for the 15 year war) or it was the right thing to do. But if it was the right thing to do, why not go back and finish the job? The US invaded Iraq and killed over a million without too much fuss, surely for the sake of freedom and democracy we can do the same for the Vietnamese?

Re:Communist?

[Tracy Reed]

I did not say it requires a perfectly fair market. The more fair it is the better it works. Even Vietnam is seeing some small level of prosperity today thanks to their change towards a free market economy instead of a command driven economy. The average American would say most of them live in squalor but it is better there now than it has ever been.

I don't know where you live but here in the US we lead lives like faery tales compared to most people in the world (although most of us have not traveled enough to realize this). I live in an ordinary middle class neighborhood and looking down the street I see trash cans full of boxes and wrapping paper today. Capitalism works very well. Yes, you need a government to impose some rules and regulations to approach a fair market. I'm not saying we have a perfectly fair market. What I am saying is that the fairer the market the better capitalism works. Our market is as close or closer to fair than that of any other country in the world.

Yes, companies try to subvert those rules and it is our jobs as citizens to make sure they don't. We do this by holding our leaders accountable for producing the appropriate rules and legislation, enforcing those rules, and ensuring that they work to make the market fair. We don't always succeed but fortunately we don't have to. Just ask Randy Cunningham who is now serving time in a state prison in Arizona.

Re:Communist?

[kentfowl]

How is it that hardline Communism is never characterized as "socialism", but invariably totalitarian state capitalism with myriad social and economic regulations is held up as the gold standard of "free-market" capitalism?

Re:Communist?

[HungWeiLo]

It goes quite a long ways past just torture. According to this recent article, the US-backed South Korean regime murdered at least 100,000 leftist sympathizers and put them into newly-discovered mass graves.

Re:Communist?

[Trieuvan]

It is communist. Here is article 4 in Vietnamese's constitution: The Communist Party of Vietnam, the vanguard of the Vietnamese working class, the faithful representative of the rights and interests of the working class, the toiling people, and the whole nation, acting upon the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and Ho Chi Minh's thought, is the force leading the State and society.

Re:Communist?

[Keen Anthony]

There is *a lot* to read up on in order to understand it, but hopefully I can summarize it without too many errors...

During WWII in 1945, Japan took formal control over Vietnam and installed Bao Dai as Emperor of the Empire of Vietnam. When the Japanese surrendered that same year, a nationalist Vietnamese independence movement called Vietminh among other smaller nationalist groups took over. The Emperor abdicates and becomes the head of a new government in Hanoi. Ho Chi Minh read the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam which took heavily from the American DoI. After WWII ended and the French government was restored, France tried to reclaim Vietnam as its colonial territory. In 1949, China becomes communist, and this gives encouragement to the Vietminh. France and the Vietminh eventually fight over the independence of Vietnam and the Vietminh wins by 1954. The Geneva Accords splits Vietnam into two temporary halves, north and south. Ho Chi Minh becomes ruler of the north as a communist country. France essentially gets control of the south by establishing a second government. I think the ruler was Bao Dai again, who was a French supporter. His prime minister was a man named Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem becomes a very important player in the war. The Accords called for a reunification of Vietnam after free elections by 1956.

The US, who had been supporting the French for years there, had just ended the Korean War. We saw the Korean War as an expansion of communism in Asia via China and the USSR. Following a policy of containment we felt the need to support any democratic government in Vietnam, especially since the north had been getting support from China. Also China and USSR formally recognized the government in Hanoi as the official government, whereas we acknowledged the government in the south.

Later in '54 Diem becomes the premier of South Vietnam after Dai steps down. Diem was a nationalist, but frankly, he was a thug in his own right. He was a bit of a McCarthyist. He wanted to weed out communists wherever he could find them. He was also a strong Catholic. When he took power, he did a very public pro-catholic campaign in order to get people from the communist north to move south. But he also used his military to go after anyone he branded "communists"; that included other nationalist opponents. As a result, many people were thrown into concentration camps. He also targeted Buddhists and other minorities in the South. In the north, the government began supporting resistance movements in the south, and started encouraging them to create insurgencies. So by 1957, there were hundreds of assassinations on both sides... total power grab. In 1959, the north formally authorized resistance movements (Vietcong) in the south to stage large operations against the Diem's military. The National Liberation Front was born.

Back to Diem. He was incompetent, abusive, and he was quickly turning the people against him. He called off free elections out of fear citizens would vote for unification under the northern government. He rigged other elections. In the US, we realized a need to prevent the south from falling to the northern communists. As our policy was containment, we really couldn't do much about the fact that our de facto ally there (Diem) was himself a tyrant. We, of course, entered the civil war on the side of the Diem regime. However, that shouldn't mean that we supported his regime's policies beyond the fact that he was anti-communist and fairly westernized.

The major problem we faced was that the South Vietnamese army was utterly inept. There were battles where the communist Vietcong were outnumbered by more than 10 to 1 but still overwhelmingly defeated the south. Many of the south's generals were corrupt or incompetent. Diem's own atrocities against his people only enabled the Vietcong to gain support in the south. Initially, we were there only as military advisors, providing supplies and training. But naturally, we ended up taking the lead in fighting the war for the people of south vietnam b

Re:Communist?

[megrims]

The question is that of an end.

If Capitalism's purpose is Materialism, it does its job very well.

Ideally, Socialism and Communism have different goals. However, the problem is that we've rarely seen examples of these where the capitalistic mindset wasn't brought into play.

Re:Communist?

[Hal_Porter]

Millions of people starved to death in North Korea as recently as the 1990s when South Korea was almost as rich and as free as Japan. I'm not going to say that killing those leftists was a bargain in terms of death tolls, but it seems to be preferable to have a Park Chung He type dictatorship than a Kim Il Sung one.

Of course if the US public had stuck it out Vietnam would have ended up rich and free too. Personally I'd have had no problems with them killing a few million communists to achieve that.

Re:Communist?

[MrResistor]

Just a few minor points:

While the Japanese didn't formally take control of Vietnam until 45, they were basically handed control when the Vichy government took over in France. The Viet Minh existed before WWII, and were armed by the US in order to keep the Japanese busy.

Ho Chi Minh was involved in laying the groundwork for the communist revolution in China, but his real ties were Soviet. The PRC and USSR didn't get along too well, which ultimately led to the conflict between Vietnam (USSR backed) and Cambodia (PRC backed).

Also, roughly 90% of Vietnamese are Buddhist, hardly a minority. The rest are Catholic, pretty much. (FWIW, the nobility prior to French colonization was mostly Confucian.)

IMO, we were not right to go into Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh would have been a much better choice than Diem, and in fact he approached the US for help after trying to petition the French directly. He ended up becoming a communist because they were the only ones willing to help him, but I have serious doubts that he ever fully bought into their ideals. Diem was a monster, and the ones after him were not significantly better.

Re:Communist?

[Keen Anthony]

Thank you for the corrections.

In retrospect, I think it's easier to say now that Ho Chi Minh would have been better than it was then. As you said, roughly 90% of Vietnamese were Buddhist. There was a growing Catholic minority. Both groups feared the potential for violent religious persecution under communist rule after seeing what happened in China. Diem milked those fears heavily.

I always remember this story (possibly an urban legend) about Johnson insulting Minh once early on, and Minh in turn implying that Johnson's mother was a whore; and thus killing any chance of Minh getting American support. I'm not convinced he was a real communist either. It seemed that he really loved the West and he often made statements indicating that he believed in individual liberty. I wonder if we could have sided with Minh instead were it not for that communist label. Possibly not, since we had previously acknowledged Diem as the rightful leader.

Re:Communist?

[MrResistor]

The problem really went back to WWII. We armed the Viet Minh to fight the Japanese, and we should have supported their independence after the war as we had promised. We had already been spitting in Minh's face for a decade before Diem even came to power.

And this is why we have....

[3seas]

....anonymous re-mailers and such...hosted at universities of law.

No more "Surf Vietnam"?

[SoundGuyNoise]

Neither on the waves nor on the net.

What the Pho?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The new restrictions ban bloggers from discussing certain subjects that the government deems sensitive or inappropriate. Not only are the topics limited, but bloggers are being directed to only write about issues that directly impact their personal lives.

If I was a Vietnamese blogger, the new restrictions would directly impact my personal life.

Re:What the Pho?

[Tubal-Cain]

You forgot to bold the part about the topics being limited.

What!?!?

[bacon volcano]

I found this part of the article to be scariest:

The regulations, written by the Ministry of Information and Communications, encourage bloggers to use "clean, healthy Vietnamese language."

So no more Vietnamese 1337 5P34K? Now nobody will know who is the most 1337!

It's obvious what we need now

[markass530]

Rambo, or Chuck Norris, preferably both

Re:It's obvious what we need now

[markass530]

wasn't my first though but yea that works too

No need for censorship.

[mangu]

I could see not wanting someone to publish that election polling places have closed when they're still open, or the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater

People who are so credulous they will not check if the polling places are actually closed shouldn't vote. They will believe any promises the politicians make. As for shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, if I can't smell smoke or see flames, I would calmly stand up and walk (not run) to the nearest exit.

I think the only limits to freedom of speech come when the words are spoken and heard as commands or as an authority. People who are in a position of leadership where their words are obeyed for some reason are responsible for the acts of their followers.

Also, when someone speaks as an authority on a subject where false information could cause damage, they should be responsible for the consequences. For instance, a doctor cannot say that he doesn't believe HIV can be transmitted through unprotected sex, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and the consequences of someone believing that could be deadly.

Everybody else should be free to say whatever they want

Re:No need for censorship.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It isn't a matter of whether or not you are calm, it is a matter of whether or not the 15 people behind you exit the theatre in an orderly line, or over your dead body...

I'm no fan of speech restriction, but denying the fire in a theatre one while embracing the HIV one just makes no sense. Both are situations where, by issuing a contrafactual statement, somebody can induce (some) others to act in a manner likely to be seriously harmful to themselves and others.

No, they didn't

[mangu]

In case you haven't heard of it, Vietnam didn't become a communist state as a result of some democratic process. Military force was involved, with the help of foreign powers

Re:No, they didn't

[shutdown -p now]

The USSR and China got more than equal match in Vietnam in the USA... still, it wasn't any of those countries that won or lost the war. It was, indeed, the fact that the North had more popular support, like it or not.

Of course, this is actually quite sensible. Vietnam commies weren't originally that - they were just a bunch of "freedom fighters" struggling against foreign powers occupying their land. They didn't really have any specific political agenda outside of that, but they looked around, and it so happened that the USA turned them away (for its own political reasons), but the USSR welcomed them; and so another originally nationalist party signed up into the "great struggle against the imperialist invaders for the freedom of the people".

Well played, sir

[xant]

Wish I had mod points. mod up parent!

Re:Typical ...

[JackieBrown]

Typical.

Another country does something that is wrong so you have to find some way to bring US wrongs into this.

So is the story was about US war, would you mention censorship in Vietnam?

free as in freespeech

[Clarious]

So free as in 'freespeech' is worse than 'free beer' here.

FYI, Vietnam is under an economic reform, but that doesn't mean more freedom for citizen, the upper leaders still want to keep a tight control for everything, they still fear what has happen to Soviet will happen again. Back in 2000 we even had a 'great firewall' like china too, though it is just a simple filter, not a grand one like the one in China :)

As a Vietnamese myself, I don't really mind about the new restriction, it has alway be like that anyway, not just the communist, but long before that, it has somewhat become one of our 'tradition'.

One last thing about our government, they aren't evil, they are just very incompetent.

Re:free as in freespeech

[Chandon Seldon]

One last thing about our government, they aren't evil, they are just very incompetent.

If they punish people for what they write, they're evil. When it comes to evil governments, that's one of the obvious clues.

The Internet is a series of tubes...

[jadedoto]

What if their blogs are hosted outside of Vietnam? Say, a webserver in Sweden or something?

Can't they still just use IRC or something?

Re:Circumventable...

[Clarious]

They will arrest you directly instead.

This new 'restriction' is not really a restriction, they just need a tool to keeping a tight grip on bloggers. They already has something else to arrest anyone they want, as this is written in Vietnamese law:

- The communist party of Vietnam is the only political party in Vietnam
- All action that is against the government or the nation is strictly forbidden.
(roughly translated)

Obligatory movie reference...

[Nathrael]

Adrian Cronauer: Good morning Vietnaaa~m!

Re:A lesson on Communism from Sirik Matak

[gary_7vn]

And that would be the same Democratic freedom fighter, Sirik Matak who, "On March 18, 1970, while Norodom Sihanouk was on a trip abroad in Beijing, China, Prince Sirik Matak assisted Prime Minister Lon Nol in organizing a vote of the National Assembly to depose Norodom Sihanouk as head of state. The measure passed easily in parliament and they declared a new government named the Khmer Republic." Wiki Thus opening the country (with the help of millions killed by B52 raids) to Pol Pot, who killed a couple of million more.

lol

[prndll]

Well, in spite of the idiocy found in the very concept of what is called "blog". I find it utterly ridiculous to place limitations on people like this (especially by government) when it comes to what is typed into a website. People get so swept up in the thing called "blogs". For what?....NOTHING. All I can surely say is that maybe if these sites would remove the name of "blog" from their site that they might be spared the agony of governmental enforcement. But, if the general populous would learn to get a clue as to just what it is that actually constitutes a "blog", then maybe people wouldn't get so worked up over the wrong thing. A blog is a blog for no other reason than the fact that it is labeled "blog". This entire thing is just so obscenely ridiculous.

I learn best by example

[Weaselmancer]

...there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.

Could you provide an example?

Re:A lesson on Communism from Sirik Matak

[schon]

Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century

Capitalism has killed more than a million people in the past 4 years. What's your point, other than to create a straw man?

Cue the Streisand effect

[billcopc]

If history has taught us anything, it's that every attempt to suppress freedom is met with one very simple response: underground movements. People don't stop doing what they want to do, just because some smartass in a suit doesn't approve - they just "hide". Drugs, gambling, prostitution... these things haven't disappeared as a result of laws prohibiting them, nor will freedom of speech.

Bloggers will use concealed identities and secure channels to divulge the information they want to divulge. The more important (and secretive) the data, the greater the efforts to distribute it shall be. Some people call this the Streisand effect, I see it as the natural yin-yang equilibrium applied to social forces.

What could the government possibly want to hide ? Why is this information so "dangerous" ? Is it of a strategic, economic or military nature ? Either way, it is deceitful and hints at fascist motives, whether or not that is their true nature. Negative acts are always perceived with an aggravating bias. If the government is trying to suppress that information, maybe it should have done so before it reached civilian ears and minds.

Re:A lesson on Communism from Sirik Matak

[Just Another Poster]

That destruction of private property rights in the means of production is directly responsible for some 120 million deaths is fact.

To claim that capitalism had anything to do with the Iraq War, or to claim that capitalism is responsible for Muslims murdering other Muslims, is lunacy.

Keep your newspeak to yourself.

[rohan972]

I don't think it is unreasonable to use the Communist Manifesto to answer the question "What is communism?".

That is like using On the Origin of Species to answer questions about evolution. Of course quote mining Creationists like to do just that since it weakens the argument, which is I suspect why you use Marx rather than contemporary communist theorists.

It's nothing like that at all. Communism is a political philosophy not a science. Evolutionary theory has changed in response to new evidence, as you would expect for any field of scientific endeavour. Coming up with a completely new and unrelated theory and calling it "evolution" would be fundamentally dishonest, as is coming up with new political theories and calling them "communism".

Redefining words to stifle opposing arguments is exactly the kind of behaviour to expect from people intent on destroying freedom of speech and human rights. I'm shocked to hear it from a communist, shocked I say!

Marx not a good enough source of information about communism? I doubt you'll manage to pull that one off very successfully. I suppose the rest of us have it all wrong and "communism" means "love"? Maybe I just need to be sent to a "re-education camp" to learn more about love. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

technology-specific laws are bound to deprecate

[wikinerd]

I really wonder how they define a blog. So if the law restricts these discussions in blogs, does it mean that you can discuss these issues in a simple webpage, in a wiki, in a gopher server, in a file on an FTP server, in an email, over an IRC server, over VoIP, on a normal weblog operating on a port other than 80, on a password-protected blog, or through a technology not yet invented? Blogs could be obsolete in 10 years just as gopher is obsolete now (but still alive). Does it mean they are going to continue making new laws for every new technology? Good luck to them keeping current with a drive towards technological singularity that accelerates every year.

Re:technology-specific laws are bound to deprecate

[shentino]

Have a government backed officer with a gun...

If he says it's illegal, it is.

Re:A lesson on Communism from Sirik Matak

[FlyingHuck]

OOooH GOODY! An anti-war activist! I love you guys... in your fervent shouting for an end to hostilities, you will often be hostile to guys like me, who being part of the great "military-industrial complex" are either viewed as baby killers, mother rapers, father rapers, or any other number of really bad things. This past year, thousands of Christians in Iraq were able to celebrate Christmas as an official holiday for the first time in decades. I served my nation's military which through our actions helped make that happen, in addition to giving millions of people freedom from a brutal dictator... how's that protesting coming along?

Re:A lesson on Communism from Sirik Matak

[FlyingHuck]

You antiwar types are really funny... as if I'm pro-war, even though I'm the one with friends who never made it home, or came home severely injured. So that 30879 number listed as the "Official" number of wounded troops... we can account for that via medical records reporting to the DoD... that 100000+ estimated number is utterly bullshit. The military provides for psychological treatment to combat troops, and there isn't any reason to believe those wouldn't be included in the numbers. My unit was thoroughly screened when we came home by VA counselors... that is the standard practice these days.

Re:Typical ...

[Alex Belits]

Last time US invaded Vietnam, US lost the war.

Weakness through history

[_Sprocket_]

The United States of America was, for much of its life as a nation, a weak state. Yet it managed to flourish without state censorship.

There's nothing wrong about it.

[rats modeerf]

Proof that Vietnam is an authoritarian government.