It's complex. On one hand he being a Marxist-Leninist made him believe strongly in the right of national self-determination[in his case, Vietnam]. At the time, Vietnam was under French rule, being as it was a French colony.
Kennedy once remarked, according to They Marched Into Sunlight,(I highly recommend it, and besides it won the Pulitzer prize) that he valued Vietnam only as a "resource puppet" in relation to the United States.
Ho Chi Mihn at the very least wanted an independent Vietnam that could put itself on equal footing in the world, and that wouldn't have to bow before any "master"-be they French or American.
Being a 20th-century communist politician, he happened to be a product-of-his-time: a proponent of the single-party state model, collectivization, etc.
It's temping to judge the man based around 21st-century notions of multiparty, representative democracy.
No-he didn't usher in "democracy"(in our modern, narrow sense of the word). He undoubtedly ruled a dictatorship.
Yes-he ushered in full independence for Vietnam, his primary goal.
It would be naive to suggest that all of he was "evil" simply for not ushering in a wave of neo-liberal democracy.
Likewise, it would be naive to suggest that he was "good" for compromising democracy in the interest of maintaining his nation's independence.
Should he be revered? Yes and no.
Throughout history, we see leaders whom are both "good" and "bad." I think Ho Chi Mihn falls somewhere between those two black-and-white concepts.