Vietnam - Socialist or Stalinist? - I'm curious about that l

[il Commy]

I know there are elections in Vietnam, and I know the democratic situation there is better than in China for example, but are the elections really democratic? Or is it like the elections in Syria, where everybody is ordered to vote for the same candidate? Do the workers in Vietnam really have a part in the management of the factories?

[redstar2000]

To the best of my knowledge, Vietnam is a "one-party" state. If I'm not mistaken, it's called the Vietnamese Workers Party, and is a Leninist-Maoist party.

Thus, in the western sense, there are no multi-party elections; you can vote yes or no to the candidates and that's about it.

Not that the elected governmental bodies have any power anyway; they exist for ceremonial purposes. The real struggle over policies goes on within the party and is hidden from public view.

This is "standard procedure" in countries where communists have taken power but the working class is in a tiny minority; it is assumed (probably correctly) that the peasant majority would, if given the opportunity, vote overwhelmingly for a party representing their class interests...a party that would restore capitalism.

Do the workers in Vietnam really have a part in managing their factories? It is possible that they do...but if so, only in the factories that are directly owned and managed by the government itself. Foreign-owned "sweatshops" in Ho chi-Minh City are quite notorious for their treatment of Vietnamese workers and, apparently, the government there "looks the other way". (Bribes?) Workers there have rioted in protest on occasion. (Check the search engine at the BBC News site.)

People have to learn to be realistic about what happens when "communists" take power in a backward society...it isn't communism. What these regimes actually do is provide for a more humane (at best) transition from some form of feudalism to capitalism.

When you hear people compare Cuba to the U.S. or Vietnam to Taiwan, you know it's the old "apples and oranges" problem again. Compare Cuba to Honduras. Compare Vietnam to the Phillippines.

See the difference.

:cool:

[Gaddafi]

Number one it is called the Communist Party of Vietnam (www.cpv.org.vn), NOT HE VIETNAMESE WORKERS PARTY OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, number two, listen very carefully to this, VIETNAM IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN MAOIST!!!!!!!!!!!! Vietnam even invaded Cambodia in 1979, to destroy the Maoist Chinese backed and murderous Khmer Rouge. It might not be democratic, like Venezuela, but neither is Cuba, but at least it is not totalitarian, as bad as the previous regime in former South Vietnam and at least they are recovering Vietnam very quickly. Also Vo Van Kiet, Vietnam's president at best is a moderate reformer, NO MAOIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redstar2000]

Il Commy, here is a link on the transition to capitalism in Vietnam...

http://www.cpv.org.vn/hotnews/2003/mar03_b...tbeadriving.htm (http://www.cpv.org.vn/hotnews/2003/mar03_businessesmustbeadriving.htm)

Gaddafi, you are correct that the current name of Vietnam's party is indeed the Communist Party of Vietnam. It seem to me that at some point in its turbulent history it was actually called the "Workers' Party" but I could be wrong about that. A number of communist parties have used that label in the past...

I'm not wrong, however, about it being a "Maoist" party. You evidently think that I mean by that a party loyal in some personal sense to Chairman Mao; I do not.

Maoism is a variant of Marxism applied to countries with enormous peasant majorities. Its main program is land reform...an alliance of poor and middle peasants against rich peasants and big landowners. The peasants in the countryside are mobilized to fight the small urban elite...usually a bourgeoisie directly in the service of some foreign colonial power.

During the first 30 years of the Vietnamese struggle (1925 to 1955), the leadership of the Vietnamese party were in constant contact with the Chinese Communist Party and learned a great deal about guerilla warfare. After 1949, the Chinese supplied substantial direct assistance to the Vietnamese.

It is true that after the victory of the Vietnamese over the Americans in 1975, there arose substantial differences between the Chinese and Vietnamese parties. Possibly, the Vietnamese already had their suspicions of the road that China was going to take...the road that Vietnam itself is now beginning to take.

What you call a "moderate reformer", Gaddafi, is what Maoists become as their revolution ages. They are "reforming" themselves into capitalists, not because they are "evil" or "traitors" but because material conditions only allow for capitalism.

Anyway, here's the homepage of the Vietnamese if you want to see how they're doing...

http://www.cpv.org.vn/index_en.html

:cool:

[El Barbudo]

CUBA as VIETNAM arent Communist country but state capitalism places... Dont follow neither fidel or the vietnamese guy. How many political prisoners are in jail in both states?

[Jesus Christ]

if having about 300 "Political Prisoners" in each country is a crime
then the US and Britain should be sentenced to death

[Gaddafi]

An economy cann still have open markets and progressive private insentives and remain socialist. I mean just take a look at the forced collectivization and so called "pure socialism" applied by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, how it failed and the famine it all caused. Perhaps economically the CPV is Maoist, but they definately dont follow any cult of the individual, and also hasn't the Communist government of Vietnam always been tolerant and friendly towards the Buddhist clergy (and other religions too) while during the height of Mao's cultural revolution monks and priests were being drug out into the streets and beaten to death by young, violent, red book carrying Red Guard militias.

[redstar2000]

An economy can still have open markets and progressive private incentives and remain socialist.

Yes, but not for very long, historically speaking. A decade or two or three doesn't really mean very much...what you have to look at is the trend.

And the trend is pretty obvious.

:cool:

PS: that "tolerance" towards Buddhism is not a "good sign" -- as you seem to think -- it is a bad sign. When communists start "tolerating" superstition of any kind, it means they've "given up" on winning the population to the concept of rational thought...including, of course, communism itself.

[il Commy]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:38 am on June 11, 2003
[i] PS: that "tolerance" towards Buddhism is not a "good sign" -- as you seem to think -- it is a bad sign. When communists start "tolerating" superstition of any kind, it means they've "given up" on winning the population to the concept of rational thought...including, of course, communism itself.


Tolerance to the religions is good. We should compete with them and educate the masses to think rationaly, but there is no reason to execute innocent monks just for being religious. I think it will only make religions more popular in some cases, and would just be a waste of human lifes. I'm not a pacifist, but when killing is not necessary we must avoid it.

[redstar2000]

...but there is no reason to execute innocent monks just for being religious.

Who said anything about executions?

How about something a little "less bloody"? Shut down and demolish the temples and monastaries; abolish any traditional public ceremonies based on religion; tell the monks to get a regular job like everybody else.

What's so bad about that?

:cool:

[il Commy]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 7:00 pm on June 12, 2003
...but there is no reason to execute innocent monks just for being religious.

Who said anything about executions?

How about something a little "less bloody"? Shut down and demolish the temples and monastaries; abolish any traditional public ceremonies based on religion; tell the monks to get a regular job like everybody else.

What's so bad about that?

:cool:


Well, Gaddafi wrote about the cultural revolution and how Vietnam didn't have it, and you wrote in response that the vietnamic situation isn't good, so I made some wrong conclusions.

And I don't think religions should be out of the law. I do believe that the religion and the state should be seperated and that dangeoruse fanaticals should be out of the law. But some people need religion psychologicaly - when you are a kid your parents look after you, and some people find it abit difficult to grow up so they invent gods and stuff like that to replace their parents. It's not a problem if they don't involve politics into this.

[oki]

you hardly hear anything ebver about vietnam.is that because the country is so closed or because they aren't doing mutch stuff that cants see the light of day?