Viet Nam supports private healthcare

[Dominicana_1965]

Ha Noi (VNA) – Viet Nam ’s Health Minister Nguyen Quoc Trieu says Viet Nam has excellent conditions for developing private healthcare to improve the quality of public healthcare and help ease the overload of the public system.

The statement was made at the 12 th Mid-term Meeting of the Medical Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (MASEAN) in Ha Noi on November 10.

Trieu told the meeting that developing private healthcare is a major policy in the country’s socio-economic development and Viet Nam wished to learn experience in the field from Singapore and Thailand.

The meeting, called “The Role and Responsibility of the Medical Profession in the Development and Regulation of Private Healthcare”, presented private healthcare development and management experiences from the two said countries.

Viet Nam now has over 30 hospitals and dozens of thousands of clinics under private ownership.

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=570531

[Marxist Napoleon]

It's a real shame that a people who could successfully fight the largest imperialist army on the planet are defeated from within. Abandoning Marxism-Leninism will only hurt socialist countries in the long run. Look at China, they'll be facing another peasant revolution soon enough.

[Cheung Mo]

Damn...If this keeps up, I'll have to take a neutral position if bourgeois capitalist states advocate regime change in Vietnam.

[RedStarOverChina]

They were hardly communists to begin with. They were nationalists, and their peasant fighters didn't give a damn about communism.

I'm not saying their contributions in the struggle against imperialism should be ignored. No, they were a brave and fiercely freedom-loving people who dealt a great blow to American imperialism. But they weren't communists and shouldn't be expected to behave as such.

And no, you shouldn't support "regime change" in Vietnam as purported by the Bourgeoisie. That's plain stupid.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Damn...If this keeps up, I'll have to take a neutral position if bourgeois capitalist states advocate regime change in Vietnam.

Yeah, that would be a great idea. Luckily for the workers of your world, your taking of one or another "position" effects nothing but your own credibility.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They were hardly communists to begin with. They were nationalists, and their peasant fighters didn't give a damn about communism.

I'm not saying their contributions in the struggle against imperialism should be ignored. No, they were a brave and fiercely freedom-loving people who dealt a great blow to American imperialism. But they weren't communists and shouldn't be expected to behave as such.

What is this based on?

The capitalist class was overthrown in Viet Nam, capitalist property relations were overturned, and the imperialists were thrown out.

This is from a recent email between members, friends, supporters, etc. of the organization I belong to; discussing some things.. Viet Nam included..

"In Viet Nam, the situation is a bit more complex. While the bureaucrats have definitely taken steps that could lead to capitalist restoration, there has been no counterrevolution. Banks, foreign trade and most industry remain in the hands of the state, the planned economy remains in place, etc. One indication of the differences between the situation in Viet Nam and Laos [which has seen capitalist property relations overturned - CdL] is that while Laos was hit very hard by the East Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, Viet Nam was barely effected. Major gains represented by the revolution in Viet Nam still remain: unemployment numbers are some of the lowest on earth (2%), for example. Still, the November 2006 entry of Viet Nam into the WTO represents a very dangerous step towards capitalist counterrevolution."

The introduction of private healthcare is a continuation of that, of course.. and represents another dangerous step towards capitalist counterrevolution.

* * *

BTW, this all really only makes sense if you understand the complex way revolutions have played out (some degenerating, some being overthrown, some being killed by their leaders, etc.). These parts of a draft document basically sum it up:

Since the earliest years of capitalism, working people have attempted -- to varying degrees of success and in various geographic locations -- to overthrow their exploiters.

In 1871, a revolutionary uprising in Paris, France, created the Paris Commune, considered the first attempt at establishing socialism.

The first successful attempt at overthrowing the capitalists came in 1917, when the October Revolution sent shockwaves through the world, by overthrowing capitalist rule throughout the vast Russian Empire and laying the foundation for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

After that huge gain was made by the working class, several waves of socialist revolutions broke out across the world.


In the period of 1917 to 1979 capitalist rule was overthrown, or was on the way to being overthrown through revolutions in China, Viet Nam, Laos, Cuba, Afghanistan, Grenada, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Romania, Poland, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Burkino Faso, Angola, Albania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Mozambique, the southern half of Yemen, the eastern portion of Germany and the northern half of Korea; though this doesn‘t mean that genuine socialism was established (see below).

Owing to the difficult conditions they faced (e.g. imperialist encirclement, isolation, underdevelopment, etc.), several of these revolutions began to degenerate at some point, giving rise to bureaucracies (similar to the sell-out bureaucrats in the trade unions). Still others were “born” with a bureaucracy at the helm, due to the ways in which capitalist rule was overthrown, and began their degeneration immediately. In both cases what existed was not genuine socialism, but bureaucratic socialism.


While bureaucratic socialism was not genuine socialism, it still represented a gain for the working class. Even under this degenerated form of socialism, working people in the bureaucratic socialist states enjoyed much better living conditions than they did prior to and after the existence of these states; and the very existence of these states themselves could have contributed to the defeat of world imperialism (i.e. if the capitalism was overthrown in the remaining capitalist states), thus removing all barriers for the construction of genuine socialism in every country and paving the way for a communist world.

In China, Laos, Afghanistan, Grenada, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Romania, Poland, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Burkino Faso, Angola, Albania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Mozambique, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, the German Democratic Republic and the 15 republics that made up the USSR, bureaucratic socialism was overthrown by capitalist counterrevolution (although the ruling parties in China and Laos still falsely claim their countries are “socialist”), marking huge setbacks for the international working class. While the bureaucracies sometimes fought against these counterrevolutions, in other instances they played active parts.



The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (north Korea) and Viet Nam are the only bureaucratic socialist states in existence today. Both are in serious danger of counterrevolution and capitalist restoration. If successful, such counterrevolution would represent a set back for the working class as a whole.

While communists fight for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist states, they do not do so in a way which weakens those countries in the face of imperialist aggression or emboldens or assists counterrevolutionary elements.

The best way for the working class to defend the gains in these countries is to defend the countries themselves from attack by the imperialist powers while at the same time fighting for socialist revolutions in the remaining capitalist countries. Only the victory of socialist revolutions in other countries can create the openings necessary for the establishment of genuine socialism in the bureaucratic socialist countries (e.g. by revitalizing the working class internationally, reducing the ability of the bureaucracies to prop their rule by pointing to the need to defend the country from the imperialists, etc.).

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
The capitalist class was overthrown in Viet Nam, capitalist property relations were overturned, and the imperialists were thrown out.
Actually, capitalist industries were nationalized and the imperialists were thrown out by the Nationalist Viet Cong.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But that's not communism, it's state-capitalism---and the Viet Cong wanted nothing more than to have a strong, independent state-capitalist republic. The average peasant fighters who fought against the Imperialists had exactly this in mind.

Come on now, did you seriously expect uneducated peasants to understand, or even desire communism?


In Viet Nam, the situation is a bit more complex. While the bureaucrats have definitely taken steps that could lead to capitalist restoration, there has been no counterrevolution. Banks, foreign trade and most industry remain in the hands of the state, the planned economy remains in place, etc.

Vietnamese "revisionism" is where Chinese "revisionism" was 10 years ago--and will inevitably step up and increase the privatization process and ratify private property.

So I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket if I were you.

Also, what good is a nationalized economy if the workers are exploited just as hard if not more?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually, capitalist industries were nationalized and the imperialists were thrown out by the Nationalist Viet Cong.

"Viet Cong" is a slang term made up by the U.S. imperialists to refer to the National Liberation Front of Viet Nam (Mat tran Dan toc Giai phóng mien Nam Viet Nam). It literally means "Vietnamese communists."

It doesn't refer to the entire revolutionary movement in Viet Nam, and especially not to the revolution itself. In any case, it's not a term any self-described leftist should be using.

Anyway.. if a workers and farmers movement smashes the capitalist state, builds a new state of their own, then take control of industry and land (which necessitates taking control of it out of the hands of the capitalists), and institutes a planned (i.e. worked-out to meet human needs) economy, capitalist property relations have been overturned and capitalists have been thrown out.

Who do you think all those Vietnamese people rushing to the U.S. Embassy as the revolutionaries took Saigon were? Here's a hint: they have a Cuban equivalent in Miami.


Come on now, did you seriously expect uneducated peasants to understand, or even desire communism?

Communism is not a set of ideals to be realized, but a real movement; so, yes I do -- in a way. Landless peasants desire land, an education, etc. Working people desire the full product of their labor, control of the means of production, etc. The fight by these brothers and sisters for these things is the fight for communism.


Vietnamese "revisionism" is where Chinese "revisionism" was 10 years ago--and will inevitably step up and increase the privatization process and ratify private property.

Well, the process of "reforms" has been underway for a while in Viet Nam, but there has been no restoration of capitalist property relations -- unlike China, where that process was completed with the U.S./World Bank/IMF designed decrees of March 3, 2003 decrees that eliminated price controls and barriers to foreign investment, breaking state-owned industries and farms by ending subsidies and financing and allowing the importation of foreign goods, etc..

In Viet Nam, the bureaucrats haven't been able to fully break the workers and farmers in a way necessary to carry this through.. this clash of interests has been seen in powerful strikes there. It's also the case that some of the Vietnamese bureaucrats want to sell out the revolution and oversee the restoration of capitalist property relations themselves, while others would prefer open capitalist counterrevolution, through the process of which they hope to benefit in ways they couldn't otherwise ..


So I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket if I were you.

I'm not sure what this means.


Also, what good is a nationalized economy if the workers are exploited just as hard if not more?

I don't know what a "nationalized economy" is.. and you didn't specify what you mean by "more." More than what?

A bureaucratic socialist state represents gains for the working class, as explained above.

And most of the surplus labor drawn from the work of the Vietnamese toilers goes directly back to them in some form.. unlike in the capitalist states.

To say that workers are "more exploited" in Viet Nam, than say, Honduras, is ridiculous. That would mean the workers in Viet Nam receive less of a percentage of the value they create than their counterparts in Honduras -- where imperialist-capitalists super-exploit workers for the benefit of themselves.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 12, 2007 12:03 pm
It's a real shame that a people who could successfully fight the largest imperialist army on the planet are defeated from within. Abandoning Marxism-Leninism will only hurt socialist countries in the long run. Look at China, they'll be facing another peasant revolution soon enough.
They were never Marxist-Leninists or communists in any vague sense of the word.

The communist label on the Vietnamese independent movement was taken solely as a means to motivate the people to join the struggle in anti-imperialism. They haven't bothered to implement a style of socialism ever since the end of the struggle against the South and US.

I like the fact that they're part of the WTO too. :rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

Doesnt Vietnam already have a beourgioise class anyway? You know, the centralised Stalinist central commitee of the ruling party?

<_<

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Let&#39;s be a little more serious, otherwise, why waste the time to talk about these things?


The communist label on the Vietnamese independent movement was taken solely as a means to motivate the people to join the struggle in anti-imperialism.

Really? Is that why the leaders of the Communist Party of Viet Nam played major roles in the world communist movement years and years before the Vietnamese revolution ever broke out, why Ho Chi Minh was a respected communist in France and China - for example, why soviets were set up at various times?


They haven&#39;t bothered to implement a style of socialism ever since the end of the struggle against the South and US.

Really? Then how did the economy become collectivized and planned? How did the banks become centralized? What wiped out unemployment?


I like the fact that they&#39;re part of the WTO too.

Yeah that was mentioned in the much deeper analysis I presented above.


Doesnt Vietnam already have a beourgioise class anyway? You know, the centralised Stalinist central commitee of the ruling party?

No; and to think that a 173-member section of a political party could make up the capitalist class of a country like Vietnam is absurd.

[Faux Real]

The communist label on the Vietnamese independent movement was taken solely as a means to motivate the people to join the struggle in anti-imperialism.
Really? Is that why the leaders of the Communist Party of Viet Nam played major roles in the world communist movement years and years before the Vietnamese revolution ever broke out, why Ho Chi Minh was a respected communist in France and China - for example, why soviets were set up at various times?
What "major roles" did he and they play? If any, did those movements succeed? How were they communist in more than name? Please enlighten me.


They haven&#39;t bothered to implement a style of socialism ever since the end of the struggle against the South and US.
Really? Then how did the economy become collectivized and planned? How did the banks become centralized?
Oh sorry, I forgot they modeled their "socialism" similarly to how Soviet Union did after the counterrevolution began in the USSR. Failed to bring the workers to power though didn&#39;t it.

What wiped out unemployment?
Admirable.

...but don&#39;t forget those worker-friendly prisons are full of employment as well.


I like the fact that they&#39;re part of the WTO too.
Yeah that was mentioned in the much deeper analysis I presented above.
Sorry for ranting.

[RedStarOverChina]

"Viet Cong" is a slang term made up by the U.S. imperialists to refer to the National Liberation Front of Viet Nam (Mat tran Dan toc Giai phóng mien Nam Viet Nam). It literally means "Vietnamese communists."

It doesn&#39;t refer to the entire revolutionary movement in Viet Nam, and especially not to the revolution itself. In any case, it&#39;s not a term any self-described leftist should be using.

Eh, no. It&#39;s actually a Vietnamese word (Việt Cộng, the short form of Việt Nam Cộng Sản) meaning Vietnamese communists, the same way Chinese "communists" sometimes refer to themselves as "zhong gong".


Anyway.. if a workers and farmers movement smashes the capitalist state, builds a new state of their own, then take control of industry and land (which necessitates taking control of it out of the hands of the capitalists), and institutes a planned (i.e. worked-out to meet human needs) economy, capitalist property relations have been overturned and capitalists have been thrown out.
Look, I know what nationalization means, geez. And I&#39;m still saying, that&#39;s not communism. Workers did not have any control over means of production like workers of Paris Commune did so there&#39;s no comparison.

In the past, people around the world kept mistaking the Viet Cong for a group of invincible, selfless communist freedom-fighters fighting against capitalism, that&#39;s just naive. The reality is, they were simple peasant fighters who just wanted the French and the Americans to get the hell out of their country&#33; It&#39;s that simple and more than enough reason for us to support them wholeheartedly.

But that doesn&#39;t make them communists.


communism is not a set of ideals to be realized, but a real movement; so, yes I do -- in a way. Landless peasants desire land, an education, etc.
So giving peasants more capital is somehow related to communism?

In backward countries such as China and Vietnam, it was definitely progressive to give landless peasants something to live on...but how does that help communism?

Remember that the peasants are actually petty bourgeoisie whose ultimate dream is to hoard as much capital (in this case, land) as possible and start living like real bourgeoisie.


Working people desire the full product of their labor, control of the means of production, etc. The fight by these brothers and sisters for these things is the fight for communism.
Workers in Vietnam did better enjoy their own labor than before the civil war, granted. But that&#39;s all state-capitalism offers, charity---Because it is the state that controls the means of production, and the workers ultimately live at the mercy of the state.

So when the state decides to, say, revert back to capitalism, the workers can&#39;t do zilch other than work ten times as hard so they don&#39;t get fired.


A bureaucratic socialist state represents gains for the working class, as explained above.
Good for you. Now tell me why Nike has factories in "communist" Vietnam? Is it in Vietnamese workers "interest" to work in horrendous working conditions for the profit of Nike Corporation and being paid peanuts?

[Marsella]

@ CompañeroDeLibertad

Well, the process of "reforms" has been underway for a while in Viet Nam, but there has been no restoration of capitalist property relations

There hasn&#39;t been?

:lol:

Vietnam&#39;s stock-market up 60% (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/17/8374384/index.htm)

Vietnam&#39;s Stock Market Boom (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592579,00.html):


The vast majority of Vietnam&#39;s companies belonged wholly to the state. But as part of the government&#39;s move to a free-market economy, some 3,600 state-owned companies have been partially privatized by issuing shares to employees, managers and the public—who in turn have sold them through the Internet and in private deals with family, friends and acquaintances. This is capitalism in the raw. When deals are struck, whether online or over tea, purchasers take physical possession of the shares, and buyer and seller often go to the company&#39;s headquarters to register the change of ownership. In some cases, no registration takes place; the seller only provides a bill of sale.

Vietnam&#39;s stock market is a capitalist&#39;s wet dream: highly unregulated.

[Axel1917]

This is not surprising at all, and it is very unfortunate. It is a law of history that a Stalinist regime will eventually sell out to capitalism when the nationalized economy ends up seizing up compared to the past, as the bureaucracy end up becoming an absolute fetter on it.

[co-op]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:15 pm
This is not surprising at all, and it is very unfortunate. It is a law of history that a Stalinist regime will eventually sell out to capitalism when the nationalized economy ends up seizing up compared to the past, as the bureaucracy end up becoming an absolute fetter on it.
All state capitalist regimes will either eventually change to back to private capitalism (with a lot of the bureaucrats/coordinators becoming owners) or be destroyed by a workers libertarian revolution. The latter has yet to happen, and is likely a more difficult prospect for workers than such a revolution in a capitalist state, but it will happen one day. Vietnam is another country on the list which western workers generally see as being communist/socialist and thus they reach the conclusion that communism is not worth fighting for. Who can blame them? These state capitalist nightmares like Vietnam, North Korea, China, the USSR etc have made the job of convincing workers of the possibility, and the need, to achieve libertarian communism all the harder. Did all those millions of people die for this crap?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 13, 2007 12:33 am
Damn...If this keeps up, I&#39;ll have to take a neutral position if bourgeois capitalist states advocate regime change in Vietnam.
Damn, the Vietnamese must be shitting their pants now. Whatever are they going to do if they force Cheung Mo from RevLeft to take a neutral stance towards them?

[R_P_A_S]

Im not trying ti hijack this thread or anything. or imply that you guys "have too much time on your hands" BUT where do you get the time though, to type so much stuff and get into debates and fiction debunking and fact calling.. crazy lol :blink:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Now tell me why Nike has factories in "communist" Vietnam?

Because a socialist vietnam took market inroads. Vietnam turned to the market at the expense of the working class