Communist party of Vietnam construction

[red_fanatical_vn]

Ho Chi Minh - great leader, teacher of Vietnam Revolution - a firts and best Communist of Vietnam
http://cpv.org.vn/leader_e.asp?topic=14&su...leader_topic=39 (http://cpv.org.vn/leader_e.asp?topic=14&subtopic=99&leader_topic=39)

News about CPV
http://cpv.org.vn/content_e.asp?topic=12

Wish u like and support us

Thanks

Communists in the world, unite !

[redstar2000]

I regret to inform you that it's already known among "western" lefties that Vietnam is restoring capitalism.

For example...


At present in Vietnam, SMEs ["small and medium-sized enterprises"] exist and are developing in all economic fields and areas, under various forms of enterprise such as state-owned enterprise, private enterprise, corporate enterprise, joint-stock company, limited company, foreign-owned company, joint-venture company. These forms differ from those in the past, when under a prevailing command economy, SMEs mainly existed in two forms: state owned enterprise and cooperative.

http://cpv.org.vn/details_e.asp?topic=16&s...id=BT2370564852 (http://cpv.org.vn/details_e.asp?topic=16&subtopic=52&id=BT2370564852)

And the Vietnamese government wants "a lot more" of the same.

In another decade or two, if not sooner, Vietnam will be like Thailand or Malaysia or Indonesia -- just another "minor league" capitalist country.

Vietnamese "socialism" will be nothing but a dusty exhibit in a small and rarely visited museum.

Sorry about that. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Red Scare]

I agree w/ RedStarOverChina on this one. I lived in Vietnam last semester...its obvious that the revisionist government is about a decade behind China in its effort to restore Capitalism. Sure, Vietnam still flies the red flag and pays lip service to communism, but that hardly makes a country "communist."

Ho Chi Minh was indeed a great leader, but the new leadership is spitting on his legacy by restoring capitalism.

[Zeitgeizt]

I agree with Redscare.


Oh and Redstar - take that pompous cigar out of your mouth and shove it up your ass.

I'm sure the demagogue Ho Chi Minh forced the Vietnamese to fight, and die for something they didn't even believe in too. Or was it you who defeated the United States in that war? (this is sarcasm for those who missed it - I am demonstrating that Redstar2000 sees all Communist leadership as evil despots ordering around the mislead masses)

Ahhhh, I guess it doesn't matter; Redstar is right about the path Vietnam will take, but not correct about the cause and effect, because he is an idiot.

I would love to see you say "Sorry about that" so smugly to a Vietnamese comrade who fought for the ideal of Socialism - hell if you said it to my face you may get your old ass choked slammed as well.

If anyone is headed for the dust bin of history it is you. Your Marxism smells like Moth Balls.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:07 PM
I'm sure the demagogue Ho Chi Minh forced the Vietnamese to fight, and die for something they didn't even believe in too. Or was it you who defeated the United States in that war?

I would love to see you say "Sorry about that" so smugly to a Vietnamese comrade who fought for the ideal of Socialism - hell if you said it to my face you may get your old ass choked slammed as well.

If anyone is headed for the dust bin of history it is you. Your Marxism smells like Moth Balls.
I know redstar doesn't need defending but where does he say Ho Chi Minh forced Vietnamese to fight?!?

If by his breed of Marxism you mean the "marxism" that hasn't fail almost if not everywhere it has been implimented, unlike some types. If your talking about what I think you are, history is deffernaly against you.

[Zeitgeizt]

Slow down and read what I wrote. it was obvious sarcasm. I was saying Redstar would hold Ho Chi Minh in the same light as he sees Castro - as a dictator who orders around the ignorant masses. Re-read it.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:22 PM
Slow down and read what I wrote. it was obvious sarcasm. I was saying Redstar would hold Ho Chi Minh in the same light as he sees Castro - as a dictator who orders around the ignorant masses. Re-read it.
Alright alright was the joke in the word demagogue?, I don't even know what that means ;) . I can see the sarcasm in the bit about him defeating the USA. So what are your veiws on Ho Chi Minh, he was just a good leader or something?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
...hell if you said it to my face you may get your old ass choked slammed as well.

A nice illustration of the Leninist method of "ideological struggle". :lol:

Somebody says something you don't like: just beat the living crap out of them! :o

We are very fortunate that there is no future for Leninist despotism in the "west"...I can see guys like you coming in your pants over the chance to defend the "honor" of the "great socialist leader" in the basement cells at the secret police headquarters.

Why don't you just switch to fascism? You'd really like it a lot more, don't you think?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_fanatical_vn]

Well, comrades !
We chosed a way other System of budget subsidies in past, thats economy market field of vision orient Socialism.
We 're compelled change to protect System Communism. We accepted Capitliasm in shape and size. Our country is in phase of excessive, Lenin said we must soft in
soft to attain our mark.
I think, comrades r childish leftist deviationistic, a Cause of a disease, Lenin Criticized.
Im very sad, when comrades think about us that.
We trust in our way, okie !

[redstar2000]

Vietnam is your country and you are free to run it any way you please.

The big foreign corporations that invest in your country are going to buy off all of your political leaders out of petty cash.

"Market socialism" always turns into modern capitalism.

Ask the Russians, the Chinese or the Yugoslavs!

You are well advised to make reference to Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

His "New Economic Policy" was exactly what Vietnam is doing today...the only difference is that in Lenin's time the big foreign corporations were afraid to invest in Russia.

Otherwise, Russia would have restored capitalism by 1930!

So "welcome" to the global marketplace.

It's not going to be nearly as much fun or nearly as prosperous as you imagine that it's going to be.

But there's nothing like personal experience to teach that lesson to you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

If Ho chi Minh was so great and ahd the borad support of the masses then why did he find it necessery to kill off most of the trotskyist party in Viet Nam. It was actually bigger than his groups but had little weaponry. So being the communist that he was and wanting to fight a revolution with all comerades he made sure they were shot.

[norwegian commie]

any reliable sources on that one? exept cappie propaganda pamplets?

i think he was a great leader and managed to defeat the modern us forses with nothing but a bunch of poorly armed pesants. at least in the beginning.
Thry dropped more bombs in nam than it was dropped in ww2.
Minh as a great leader managed to encourage the people, make the m fight against the imperialist bastards and showed them that peoples believs are stronger thant the soliders pay check!

[Zeitgeizt]

Redstar:

It is true that path many posing "Communist parties" have taken a "free-market" route by opening up their markets to capital penetration, and thereby letting the greed, and opportunism fall directly into the hands of the Capitalist roaders in the party. But some Communist countries had no choice but to introduce the market just to stay alive economically - as we see in Cuba with tourism, but that doesn't mean Cuba is on a path towards Capitalism. Now Cuba has a partner in Venezuela. These two developing Socialist nations are reintroducing a new internationalism, which you downplay, by insulting it, and calling it "benevolent despotic" opportunism - your defintion is not scientific - it's false - you measure democracy like a bourgeois, and you even get that wrong.

Tito's Yugoslavia and market socialism there are a different story - I didn't hail him as a hero like the west did, but at least it was an alternative path then the those taken by countries subservient to the Capitalist camp - it is something. You think in black and white - you're dogmatic. Yugoslavia was looking pretty good for awhile too. It took 11 days of bombing to get rid of the last vestiges of Socialism.

If the Communist parties of "3rd" world nations can stay on a steady course towards Socialism, and can resist the imperialist onslaught, and keep the economy highly regulated, then what happened in China won't inevitably occur in Cuba - From what I know about Vietnam I don't see it's Socialism currently as strong as Cuba's - but maybe this Vietnamese comrade knows something we don't.

As far as my comments about what I would like to hypothetically do to you.... You have a middle class morality. Where I come from, when people cross a certain line, and just say crazy insulting shit there is a point where you may get smacked for it - when did humanity advance past the stage where sometimes people need a good smack in the head?

You post those little cocky faces with cigars in your mouth, while you insult a 35 year struggle against Imperialism..I agree that Vietnam's Socialism (what's left of it is in some trouble) but you just come off like an asshole plain and simple, and if you traveled to Vietnam, and threw that hyper-occidental Marxism at them, called Ho Chi Minh a Despot, and then lit a cigar and blew it in thier face (as you are doing behind the saftey of your computer) - I wouldn't even bother talking to you - either that, or I may get mad and smack you upside the head....

Nobody is above it...The hippies were wrong. I come from a place where a good smack has helped people come along way - They suddenly are open to seeing the error of their ways.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 22 2005, 02:53 PM
any reliable sources on that one? exept cappie propaganda pamplets?


Sorrry, why would the capuitalist make this up? I cant remember hwere i read it but it seemed reliable.

Now, I support hte Viet Cong against U$ imperialism, but to say they were actually communists is somehting else entirley.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
But some Communist countries had no choice but to introduce the market just to stay alive economically - as we see in Cuba with tourism.

It does not matter whether they had a "choice" or not. Once you do it, the ballgame is over.


Now Cuba has a partner in Venezuela. These two developing Socialist nations are reintroducing a new internationalism...

Yes...we "know" that Venezuela is "socialist" because Chavez said so.

As always, that's "good enough" for you.


You think in black and white - you're dogmatic.

Yep. On the one side is real working class power and on the other side are all the various forms of capitalist despotisms.

Some are "nicer" than others. And that fools you easily enough since you are unable to look beneath appearances.


If the Communist parties of "3rd" world nations can stay on a steady course towards Socialism, and can resist the imperialist onslaught, and keep the economy highly regulated, then what happened in China won't inevitably occur in Cuba...

It will inevitably occur in every "third world" country. Modern capitalism is "on history's agenda" for all of those places...and the only significant variable is how much "social welfare" will be "in the mix".


As far as my comments about what I would like to hypothetically do to you.... You have a middle class morality. Where I come from, when people cross a certain line, and just say crazy insulting shit there is a point where you may get smacked for it - when did humanity advance past the stage where sometimes people need a good smack in the head?

Ok, have it your way. Take a swing at me and I blow your motherfucking fascist head off!

Is that "middle class" enough for you? :lol:


I come from a place where a good smack has helped people come a long way - They suddenly are open to seeing the error of their ways.

Mussolini High?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Zeitgeizt]

I'm saying that you insult people with such arrogance to the point where someone would want to take a swing at you.

I would be surprised if you went to Vietnam and would have the balls to call Ho Chi Minh a despot to a former Comrade who fought against the Americans...

I know you are going to say "I never did", but you have a blanketed answer for every revolutionary leader...why is that so hard for you to see>?

You're political economy suffers from myopia. Just because Cuba needs to do what it needs to do to survive doesn't mean we should lambaste it like the bourgeoisie, but rather try and criticize it honestly and put all the pieces together.

You are so obsessed with bureaucracy (just like a Trotskyite) that you lose site of context - the Stalinists and Maoists are guilty of the same thing in reverse...I don’t see you as moderate but rather as just as much as an extremist as they are... You are an ultra leftist.

And sometimes I smack is justified...and you don't have the right to blow someone's head off over it. I've been a smart ass before in my neighborhood, and one time I caught a real bad beating over it, and I didn’t retaliate because I realized they were right - I deserved it. So put away the piece...I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself tough guy.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeitz
You are an ultra leftist.

And proud of it! :)


And sometimes I smack is justified...and you don't have the right to blow someone's head off over it.

Oh yes I do. :)

Crime and Punishment -- Part 3 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1135171298&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Lethal force in self-defense is always justified!

My attitude towards violent assholes is zero tolerance.

Would you believe that some people here think I'm just "terrible" for that? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Zeitgeizt]

ALWAYS justified huh?

Well you are the king of absolutes, and dogma so ALWAYS fits your personality perfectly.

Should I put a stupid emotional face after this?

And could you please comment on the rest of my post - the signifcant parts, and don't try and be cute and say I thought that those were the significant ones..

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
And could you please comment on the rest of my post - the significant parts, and don't try and be cute and say I thought that those were the significant ones.

You took the words before I had a chance to type them. :lol:

1. The Leninist thesis is that "third world" countries -- under "correct" Leninist leadership -- can skip the capitalist epoch and build "socialism" that will, in time, become "communism".

2. The Marxist thesis is that every country must, in one fashion or another, pass through the capitalist epoch while developing the material preconditions for proletarian revolution and communism.

You think Lenin was right; I think Marx was right!

To me, the right choice is pretty obvious.

Others, like yourself, have problems with this choice. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Zeitgeizt]

I think Marx was right, and his conditions were Ideal!

I also agre with Lenin that you can skip over a phase if you have the means of preserving the revolution. Force Marched industrialization was imposed more or less by external forces...look at the arms race, in a perfect world that would not have had to happen.

To be fair Redstar I have asked myself a million times did Lenin jump the gun...should they have let the bourgeois take power, and let Capitalism run it's course....

It's a tough question, but I am going to say no. Lenin was expecting Germany to follow suit. If Germany would have went Commuist, Europe probably would have folded like Domino's. Kautsky, and the other petty bourgeois "communists' fucked up, plain and simple...Lenin was banking on it - it was a huge gamble he lost, and it left Russia isolated, and then invaded....

we finally have grounds for a conversation.

I see where you are coming from now. I was nervous you were an anarcho before...I didn't realize you were just simply "Marxist" in the without Lenin sense of the "term"...I can respect your position, I see where you are coming from because I once held your position and argued it - of course not with the degree of knowledge you have (I was younger), but since then I have come to see Leninism as the best model, especially after reading a book called "Revolutionary life in everyday China"...it made me realize how complex the revolution is to hold on too...all the internal and external pressures are enormous, eradicating bourgeois thinking, and values from the people over night is no easy task...the fact don’t just absorb by osmosis, they take an objective/subjective dialectical interaction which takes years to build, and people can only learnt that through class struggle - it is the best teacher as Mao says.

Mao was a great teacher of class struggle. HE made mistakes and his model is better for a third world revolution, but still...what a fantastic teacher of Marxism.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:18 AM
His[Lenin's] "New Economic Policy" was exactly what Vietnam is doing today...the only difference is that in Lenin's time the big foreign corporations were afraid to invest in Russia.


Exactly! VN is learning a lot from NEP. NEP is a great policy in which Lenin proven his genius and how he is a visionary leader. Lenin was not dogmatic, he knew how to apply Marxism creatively to our time.

Otherwise, Russia would have restored capitalism by 1930!
On the contrary, if USSR leaders used and respected for NEP, it wouldn't have easily collapsed as we knew.

There's nobody as stupid as the dogmatic guys who only know to worship each word of Marx without improving and developing Marx's theory for suiting new time.

And, yes, you are so leftist deviationistic. I am not completely surprise about this.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt+--> (Zeitgeizt)It's a tough question, but I am going to say no.[/b]

I would agree with you. In 1917 it was worth a try. However after the complete and utter failures of creating Socialism in the third world, don't you think it is now time to boycott that idea.

Indeed it does make me laugh that Leninists still consider themselves "scientific Socialists." As any scientist will tell you, if an experiment fails repeatedly. Then the method is obviously flawed.


Hopes_Guevara
NEP is a great policy in which Lenin proven his genius and how he is a visionary leader.

The NEP only proved that for all Lenin's "visions." Material reality meant that Russia had to have modern Capitalism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 22 2005, 05:19 PM
Now, I support hte Viet Cong against U$ imperialism, but to say they were actually communists is somehting else entirley.
"Viet Cong" is a term which was used by U.S. troops when refering to the NLF. It's short for "Viet Nam Cong San" (Vietnamese Communists)...

[Zeitgeizt]

There's nobody as stupid as the dogmatic guys who only know to worship each word of Marx without improving and developing Marx's theory for suiting new time.


Bingo!

Viet Minh

[chebol]

Armchair socialism wrote:
"Indeed it does make me laugh that Leninists still consider themselves "scientific Socialists." As any scientist will tell you, if an experiment fails repeatedly. Then the method is obviously flawed."

Two questions.
1. Can you show me a more succesful method? And by that, I mean one which has actually acheived something other than copyright.

2. Can you prove to me that it was the method itself that failed, and not the application?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hopes_Guevara
There's nobody as stupid as the dogmatic guys who only know to worship each word of Marx without improving and developing Marx's theory for suiting new time.

And what shall we say of the mental capacities of those who "improve Marxism" by attempting to "develop it" into an apology for capitalism?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by chebol+--> (chebol)1. Can you show me a more succesful method?[/b]

I personally think that there should be a workers only movement. Perhaps, just perhaps, that will actually lead to a workers democracy.


Originally posted by [email protected]
And by that, I mean one which has actually acheived something other than copyright.

As opposed to what? ....the vanguard that has repeatedly failed to win the support of the working class in the developed world?


chebol
2. Can you prove to me that it was the method itself that failed, and not the application?

Don't you think that just one of the attempts might have applied the vanguard correctly?

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you. Prove to me where the vanguard has worked in creating a workers democracy.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 24 2005, 05:53 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 24 2005, 05:53 AM)
Hopes_Guevara
There's nobody as stupid as the dogmatic guys who only know to worship each word of Marx without improving and developing Marx's theory for suiting new time.

And what shall we say of the mental capacities of those who "improve Marxism" by attempting to "develop it" into an apology for capitalism?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
No, that's not an apology for capitalism but a right awareness of Marxism in the new conditions. You always say about the ways that you believe that only by conducting the economy according to we can call ourselves genuine Marxists. What you say is not absolutely new to the history of building socialism. Yes, all of the leaders of the socialist countries in the past did not only believe in very some things you are believing now but they also did it. But what happened to their economy? An emptiness and poverty. What happened to their countries' politic systems? An inevitable collapse. If Vietnam didn't carry out reforming the economy there would not be a "The Socialist Republic of Vietnam" with the only leading party - "The Communist Party of Vietnam" like today but perhaps it would be "The Vietnamese Republic" with the multi-party system like Russia or the Eastern Europian countries. Seem to China.

Why are you against the market economy with many ? Just because you suppose that it is a result of the capitalist economy and it is necessary for capitalists to exploit working class. So, do you think that to make the material conditions for building the socialism in undeveloped countries, a central planned economy is not available? Why? Because they lack material conditions for doing this. That is the strongly developed productive forces. Vietnamese people have ever passing the years of the central planned economy and they understood that the central planned economy is not a purpose, but a method for building socialism. Do not confuse them!

Why do you maintain the ideas which material reality proven their ineffectiveness and wrongs? That is an expression of conservative mind that is never accepted by Marxists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hopes_Guevara
Why are you against the market economy with many?

Because a market economy generates a certain kind of consciousness just in the process of its normal operation.

To put it crudely, in a market economy, the more money you have, the better you can live.

Therefore, you have a direct material incentive to do whatever it takes to get more money.

Steal? Sure. Take bribes? Why not? Give bribes? If it will get you into a money-making position, then of course. Hire wage-labor? Absolutely!

You end up with a "mind-set" that not only sees nothing wrong with bringing back private capitalism but wants that to happen.

And it does! :o

As the Chinese put it: To Get Rich Is Glorious!

Vietnam will be like eastern Europe...and it probably won't be long.

So much for "a right awareness of Marxism in the new conditions." :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 27 2005, 09:56 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 27 2005, 09:56 AM)
Hopes_Guevara
Why are you against the market economy with many?

Because a market economy generates a certain kind of consciousness just in the process of its normal operation.

To put it crudely, in a market economy, the more money you have, the better you can live.

Therefore, you have a direct material incentive to do whatever it takes to get more money.

Steal? Sure. Take bribes? Why not? Give bribes? If it will get you into a money-making position, then of course. Hire wage-labor? Absolutely!

You end up with a "mind-set" that not only sees nothing wrong with bringing back private capitalism but wants that to happen.

And it does! :o

As the Chinese put it: To Get Rich Is Glorious!

Vietnam will be like eastern Europe...and it probably won't be long.

So much for "a right awareness of Marxism in the new conditions." :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[/b]
With all of what yo said, I realise that insteads of relating to material conditions for developing an economy, you put so much of moral elements into the process of building it. You are a man of great reading ;) , I think you must know the following sentences Engels wrote in "Anti-Duhring":

"If for the impending overthrow of the present mode of distribution of the products of labour, with its crying contrasts of want and luxury, starvation and surfeit, we had no better guarantee than the consciousness that this mode of distribution is unjust, and that justice must eventually triumph, we should be in a pretty bad way, and we might have a long time to wait."

"Since the historical appearance of the capitalist mode of production, the appropriation by society of all the means of production has often been dreamed of, more or less vaguely, by individuals, as well as by sects, as the ideal of the future. But it could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realisation were there. Like every other social advance, it becomes practicable, not by men understanding that the existence of classes is in contradiction to justice, equality, etc., not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions"

You probably knew or heard that Vietnam is building a socialist-oriented market economy. And I am sure that you will utter that "Oh, that is just a fuck oxymoron". Yes, it's so long for you to understand how a socialist-oriented market economy is.

Yes, the market economy will encourage the greed of humankinds. All of what you criticized are right to an market economy. That are the wrong sides of it. But to have a strong economy with full of potentials, an market economy is necessary. But to limit the negative effects of it, we need "socialist-orientation". You should know that Vietnam's market eonomy is very different from capitalist countries'. Some of different points I can show you:

1- Land belongs to the people's ownwership.

2- The main means of production belongs to state ownership, such as: Railroad, Airline, Resources, Post and Telecommunications, Electricity, Water,etc...

3- In a join-stock enterprise, the state owns priority shares and keep the ruled role.

Moreover, the important different point of a socialist-oriented market economy is that the economy is built in a state led by the only party: the communist party of Vietnam and by the ideology governing the society: Marxism-Leninism. All of the priority policies are always to care to the poor and the working class.

I know you may disagree what I said above. So, can you show us the better ways to develop our economy that is essentially so poor and backward? But do not tell us the old ways that we had to be too miserable by them in the past! :( .

And finally, we have nothing to do with moral or unjustice matters for replacing one economy by another economy. :wub: .

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hopes_Guevara
But to have a strong economy with full of potentials, an market economy is necessary.

That is certainly the fashionable wisdom of contemporary bourgeois economists. But I am rather skeptical of that myself.

The strength of the market economy is that it opens your country to foreign direct investment.

Not only money but advanced technology comes "pouring in". And, of course, profits go pouring out.

The surplus value produced by Vietnamese workers is not reinvested in Vietnam but instead goes to buy yachts, limousines, and very expensive girl friends for capitalists in Taiwan or Thailand or wherever.

You may argue that this path will develop Vietnam "faster" than any other path...though I think there were Russian planners from the 1930s who would argue otherwise.

But that really doesn't change my central point: the path you have chosen leads to modern capitalism and, in fact, cannot lead to anything else.


You should know that Vietnam's market economy is very different from capitalist countries'. Some of different points I can show you:

1- Land belongs to the people's ownership.

2- The main means of production belongs to state ownership, such as: Railroad, Airline, Resources, Post and Telecommunications, Electricity, Water,etc...

3- In a join-stock enterprise, the state owns priority shares and keep the ruled role.

You know as well as I that all that stuff is just words on paper that can be changed with the stroke of a pen.

And will be.


Moreover, the important different point of a socialist-oriented market economy is that the economy is built in a state led by the only party: the communist party of Vietnam and by the ideology governing the society: Marxism-Leninism. All of the priority policies are always to care to the poor and the working class.

This is the Leninist theory that "correct ideas" are "more important" than what is actually going on in a material sense.

It is already known in the "west" that foreign-owned factories in Vietnam are hellholes.

So much for "care to the poor and the working class".

The "communist" party will become increasingly corrupted by foreign bribes (and the luxuries they can purchase). The "Marxist"-Leninist ideology will become ceremonial...just like American political rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy".

It's all happened before. So we know how the process works.

Some people on this board think that Cuba will be an "exception" to this...but I'm not one of them.

For what it's worth, I think the "best path" for an undeveloped country to take is to build up its own industry with its own resources.

It won't be "socialism", much less "communism", but when such a country does go back into the "world marketplace", it will do so as a modern capitalist country not completely "at the mercy" of the big imperialist countries and their massive corporations.

The Chinese have actually done well in this regard...they are "real players" in the world market now -- instead of what China used to be like...a helpless victim of whatever imperialist country that took an interest in stealing something from them.

Considering all the sacrifices that were made to kick imperialism out of Vietnam, it would be a real shame if your country just ended up one more pathetic neo-colonial dependency of Japan or China or some other big imperialist country.

I hope you can avoid that fate...but the "market path" of development puts you in very great danger.

Twenty or thirty years from now, don't say that no one warned you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:02 AM
The strength of the market economy is that it opens your country to foreign direct investment.

Not only money but advanced technology comes "pouring in". And, of course, profits go pouring out.

The surplus value produced by Vietnamese workers is not reinvested in Vietnam but instead goes to buy yachts, limousines, and very expensive girl friends for capitalists in Taiwan or Thailand or wherever.


1- We are making use of the stocks and advance technology from it.

2- You lacked a side of your judgment on the market economy: The strength of the market economy does not only open the country to foreign direct investment, but it also allows the goods that are the main forces of the country to penetrate into foreign markets and to approach world market. That is the thing that we couldn't do in the time of the planned economy before.

3- It's sorry :( that not all of the profits go pour out as you imagined. Every year, the foreign investers extract amount from their profits for carrying out reinvesting in Vietnam. And this amount is getting larger and larger.

4- We can be absolutely aware of the wrong sides of the market economy. You are unnecessarily afraid we can't.

You may argue that this path will develop Vietnam "faster" than any other path...though I think there were Russian planners from the 1930s who would argue otherwise.

I am not argueing that this will develop Vietnam faster than any other path but that this is the only path we have to take.

You know as well as I that all that stuff is just words on paper that can be changed with the stroke of a pen.

And will be.

And you know as well as I that all of the laws and policies all over the world are just words on paper! When you doubt about anything you should have the proofs to prove that.

For what it's worth, I think the "best path" for an undeveloped country to take is to build up its own industry with its own resources.
It won't be "socialism", much less "communism", but when such a country does go back into the "world marketplace", it will do so as a modern capitalist country not completely "at the mercy" of the big imperialist countries and their massive corporations.
The Chinese have actually done well in this regard...they are "real players" in the world market now -- instead of what China used to be like...a helpless victim of whatever imperialist country that took an interest in stealing something from them.

That is exactly what we are doing. We are not depending on any foreign resource absolutely. But also, no country today can exist without any relations with others. It's too vague to say that "we have to develop our economy with our own resources". It's more important that by how we should develop it. Before reforming the economy, China was a poor country just like Vietnam. Now you see what are they attainning from the reform?

Perhaps you are too busy to know much of Vietnam. It's just a small country and very few comrades notices it. I can understand that. Poor Vietnam :( !

I hope you can avoid that fate...but the "market path" of development puts you in very great danger.

Twenty or thirty years from now, don't say that no one warned you.

Thanks very much for your care and warning :) !!! But I am ony afraid that we will never have a chance to witness that. :lol: .

[ReD_ReBeL]

Che Guevara wanted to take on a market economy approach for Cuba as opposed to the soviet style industrial scheme. I think market to a certain level is good because it gets countries working and co-operating together which brings true solidarity between these countries and will benefit thm for the greater.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:32 AM
Che Guevara wanted to take on a market economy approach for Cuba as opposed to the soviet style industrial scheme.
Oh, really? I haven't heard this before. If so, perhaps Che supported NEP Lenin drew. It's great!

[lei_lord_demon]

I'm a new member from Vietnam!Thank you for this viewing abt my country!

[bolshevik butcher]

http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/bac...2/MosTrial.html (http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol3/No2/MosTrial.html)

That is the article I was talking about. Sorry it took so long to post this link.