I almost forgot that yesterday was May Day!

That's a big day for Marxists, and while it wasn't celebrated with the customary splendor of the past, a notable tribute was paid by General Vo Nguyen Giap, who took the occasion to offer (as my local paper put it) "insight on Iraq":

HANOI, Vietnam - The frail and tiny man who defeated two superpowers returned to the spotlight Friday to talk of triumphs past and deliver words of warning to the Americans at war in Iraq.

"Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat," said Vo Nguyen Giap, the legendary general whose strategies wore out the French colonial regime and then the U.S. Army.

Giap is 92 now, the last of Vietnam's giants in a 30-year war to shake off colonial rule and unite the country under communism.

What brought him to a rare meeting with journalists were two landmark anniversaries: The fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, and the defeat of French colonial forces at the epic siege of Dien Bien Phu, 50 years ago next Friday.

With some critics of the Iraq war likening it to America's Vietnam experience, Giap's opinion was eagerly sought, but the man considered one of history's foremost military strategists prefaced his reply with caution, saying he didn't know the specifics of the Iraqi situation.

He offered this: "All nations fighting for their legitimate interests and sovereignty will surely win."

Giap emphasized the powers of today should not underestimate weaker countries' desire for independence.

Vietnam "proves that if a nation is determined to stand up, it is very strong," he said, adding that his country led the wave of independence wars that freed the colonies of the European empires after World War II.

It never ceases to bother me that Communists always seem to get a pass. The fact that tens of millions were slaughtered is unimportant, and never worth mentioning.

And if the slaughter is worth mentioning, the new trend is to mention it only to blame the one country which has done more to oppose Communism than any other: the United States.

I'll return to Rene Gonzalez, not because his political insights are particularly more profound than General Giap's, but because he's a good example, and an easily recognized one right now. Here's his review of Socialism, by noted Marxist rehabilitator Michael Harrington:

I found Michael Harrington's Socialism by accident in a dusty used bookstore. The large red letters in the title attracted me to the book and as a young student trying to understand how to make this world a better place, I decided to pick it up. I thought I new everything about socialism and its history in the world. I was wrong.

Michael Harrington highlights very important concepts such as the idea that socialism was impossible to construct in poor nations like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and even the U.S.S.R. and that thus the governments of these countries had to resort to repressive measures in order to maintain their control. Instead, he proposes (as Marx did too) that socialism must gain hold first in nations with "abundance" like the United States, England, France, Germany, etc. Furthermore, he reiterates that socialism MUST be democratic or it is not socialism. It either is people's socialism (bottom-up socialism) or it is anti-socialist "Socialism" (top-down socialism).

Michael covers a lot of theoretical AND practical ground (a rarity in books regarding socialism) and it is great for beginners as well as serious readers of socialist ideas (like myself). The book gave me hope and I'm sure others will get that feeling too. It is a shame that God claimed his life already (Michael died of cancer in 1989), but I hope his life's devotion (struggle for democratic socialism) some day gives fruit. Thanks Michael.

Yeah thanks Michael. And thanks Rene, for reminding me that those like you who are endlessly fascinated with building a "better world" through Marxism will continue to ignore, minimize or excuse the murder of millions.

As Harrington said,

socialism . . . is the idea of an utterly new society in which some of the fundamental limitations of human existence have been transcended.

How many did Castro kill on his island paradise? 70,000? I guess that's small potatoes in comparison to a population of 10 - 12 million. (In terms of U.S. numbers, a proportionate figure would top 2 million killed, but it's "red-baiting" to speak that way of builders of better worlds.)

Here's Mr. Gonzalez's review of Ted Szulc's Castro biography (Fidel: A Critical Portrait):

As a critical political science student, I wanted to know what was all the hype about Castro. Yes, he is a communist, but is that all that makes him a "boogeyman" (if communism ever makes a person a boogeyman!). After reading many biographies of the "bearded one", Tad's book is the only one that permeates objectivity. In many parts, he criticizes Fidel for his faults but praises many of his superior societal reforms (such as the healthcare and education successes). The U.S. has got a lot to learn from his social reforms...and Castro needs to learn to democratize a little more.

A sympathetic Lady Astor once asked Joseph Stalin how long he planned to go on killing people. Stalin's answer?

As long as it's necessary.

One of the most refreshing things I discovered about the blogosphere is that bloggers are not afraid to condemn Communism just as strongly as Nazism. Here's an excellent example, from Glenn Reynolds:

Communists are, in my opinion, as bad as Nazis: mass murder, totalitarianism, etc. (And calling them "Marxists" instead doesn't fool anyone.)

Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi.

But knowingly going to either one makes you icky. And calling it McCarthyism when people point that out, or point out that the Communists really are Communists, makes you either dishonest, or stupid.

UPDATE: More May Day remembrance at Catallarchy and at Jay Solo's blog. (Via he who refuses to forget.)