Vietnam and the TPP

Going by the article off the Communist Party website that I'll chuck on the end of this post, the Vietnamese government are dead keen on joining in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, a trade treaty of sorts that is going to give all sorts of ludicrous rights to corporations over governments to knock over things like local labour laws, local environment laws, even local laws pertaining to minimum levels of healthcare and such.

Of course this is all being driven by the US, and will throw all signatory companies even deeper into their control. Speaking from my own perspective in Australia, we have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent this wretched agreement from coming to pass, as it is going to erode many things we've fought very hard for over the years, such as access to cheap medicines, rights in the workplace such as penalty rates and a fair minimum wage, and legislation to protect our beautiful natural environment.

I know the argument from many here is that the Doi Moi reforms are simply an NEP style program, more or less designed to develop Vietnam to a point in which socialist policies, collectivization and the like can be implemented effectively, but surely enthusiastically signing on to an agreement such as this that more or less sells all workers that it concerns totally up the river and willingly signs over many powers that a government has into the hands of multi-national capitalists is a sign that the path Vietnam is on is no different to that of China, that the capitalist roaders have unfortunately won the fight?

http://dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_ ... O_ID=30105

I never really understood how people could defend Vietnam's economic liberalization while denouncing China's. The former was obviously not going to be as immediately blatant as the latter considering that Vietnam's relations with the US were bad until the 90s and it doesn't have the vast labor pool which China had at the start of its own liberalization.

And it's worth remembering that China's program was hailed as "temporary" as well, "developing the productive forces" in order to lay the basis for the further development of China's allegedly socialist economy. Gorbachev also cited the NEP when pursuing his own policies.

http://content.time.com/time/world/arti ... gle+Reader

This is modern day Vietnam.
They don't consider such abuses to child abuse.
This isn't socialism. They don't ever care what is happening to their children.

Yami wrote:

This isn't socialism. They don't ever care what is happening to their children.

Yami wrote:

http://content.time.com/time/world/arti ... gle+ReaderThis is modern day Vietnam.They don't consider such abuses to child abuse. This isn't socialism. They don't ever care what is happening to their children.

It is quite over-criticizing when you say that they don't ever care what is happening to their children, but I cannot deny moral decay in our (Vietnamese) society.

The minority in the Party, who want to maintain socialism, now is powerless. In the society, no one care about socialism anymore...

Ah, and the TPP...
Mr. Prime Minister said that nearly half of State corporations, companies and enterprises must be privatized (or in Vietnamese, equitised) in 2014, if any company is "slow in equitisation" (read as: resist privatization), the director will be sacked. I bet that is the most important condition for joining TPP. What a shameless betrayal of socialism. And I even dare to bet that in the next 12th Party Congress, they will let bourgeoisie join the party, change the party name into "People Party", change the country official name into "Democratic Republic of Vietnam".

R.I.P Socialism in Vietnam. May your ashes someday will rise again like a phoenix and give judgement to those traitor.

The Communist Party of Vietnam is socialist, however, any fool can see that the current state-owned companies (SOEs) are hugely inefficient.. Equatization is the best way to go, if you have to liberalize at all; the government will retain majority share, and control the government, while at the same time, the company will be more efficient since it will be open to more competition.. I know some people here believe competition to be social darwinism (or some sort), but they have to do something - the economy has slowed down in large parts because of the SOEs. But I don't get the point, the public sector (or as they like to call it, the "socialist sector") is still the dominant driving force in Vietnam, and that will not change in the foreseeable future.

I'm a 100% sure that the majority in the Communist Party believe in socialism, the only difference is that the meaning of socialism has changed. If you disagree with that fine, but that doesn't make Vietnam less socialist. And at last, I think anyone would be stupid if you/they wish you reimplement the planned economy - Vietnam was on the border of being a failed state.

I vehemently disagree on the majority of that, but I'll ask, how can you justify the signing of the TPP? Which will further drive down wages and conditions of workers in 'socialist' Vietnam and hand over yet more power to the multinational corporations that exploit cheap labour in Vietnam.

leftguy wrote:

The Communist Party of Vietnam is socialist, however, any fool can see that the current state-owned companies (SOEs) are hugely inefficient.. Equatization is the best way to go, if you have to liberalize at all; the government will retain majority share, and control the government, while at the same time, the company will be more efficient since it will be open to more competition.. I know some people here believe competition to be social darwinism (or some sort), but they have to do something - the economy has slowed down in large parts because of the SOEs. But I don't get the point, the public sector (or as they like to call it, the "socialist sector") is still the dominant driving force in Vietnam, and that will not change in the foreseeable future.

I'm a 100% sure that the majority in the Communist Party believe in socialism, the only difference is that the meaning of socialism has changed. If you disagree with that fine, but that doesn't make Vietnam less socialist. And at last, I think anyone would be stupid if you/they wish you reimplement the planned economy - Vietnam was on the border of being a failed state.

You just listen to the opinion of one side, why not listen to the other side? I believe that if you read more about the international communists viewpoint on China or Vietnam, you may change your opinion.

Here is my opinion: It is painful for me to say that the Party has lost its communist essence, but it is the truth. Because of market economy, state enterprises have been degenerated and turned into capitalistic monopoly corporations. Market economy was neccessary twenty years ago, but now, it is holding back production.

What need to be done now is overthrowing the capitalists, create a workers' goverment like Soviet Republic and build a planned economy, that is the only pro-people way for Vietnam. But the capitalists are strong and the workers have not awaken yet, so revolution cannot happen now, but it will happen in near future.

You may think that I am an ignorant fool, that's fine. Everyone has his own opinion and to not give it up is a good virtue, but you should consider other opinions to get an objective view.

Quote:

I vehemently disagree on the majority of that, but I'll ask, how can you justify the signing of the TPP? Which will further drive down wages and conditions of workers in 'socialist' Vietnam and hand over yet more power to the multinational corporations that exploit cheap labour in Vietnam.

The argument is simple, if the planned economy had been superior they would have still used it, but since the system is not as dynamic as capitalism, they can either chose capitalism or chose failure. They could of course try to establish a new form of a socialist economic system (but the result is a market economy dominated, as they say, by the "socialist sector")... For instance, the Cubans are opening up to their market, but are trying to establish a market economy led by private cooperatives.. Supporting the old planned economic system of the Soviet Union doesn't make any sense; the system was extremely inefficient, and you can't use the same economic model now as you did 20years ago (that wouldn't make sense).. At last, the hallmark of the planned economy was that it couldn't change - it remained nearly identical from the 1930s to the collapse of the USSR - that is by definition proof of inefficiency.. We hate capitalism, but capitalism changes (and continues to do so) - while the basic contradictions exists.

How will the TPP help the workers of Vietnam? ... The party probable views it from an elite perspective (as they've always done) - economic growth = wage increases... Will the surplus value be taken from the workers? Yes, but they are gambling that it will at the same time increase their wages... The point being, when you're first taking part in the market economy, you can't chose and stay out (especially if you're a poor country like Vietnam).. Its a reason why the Chinese are talking about turning capitalist globalization into socialist globalization, and its a reason why both CPC and the CPV say that it would be stupid going against the mode of production of our time (yes, indeed they view capitalism as a global mode), and they believe that socialism can only come after capitalism...

But I'll conclude, its a reason why CPV General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong says that the socialist-oriented market economy (the economic system of Vietnam) is neither socialist nor capitalist, both of them are, however, competing elements within the economic structure... The reason that the economy is partly socialist is that its led by a communist elite, and that the economy is dominated by a "socialist sector" (which has many monopolies).. At last, they are thinking the same way as the Russian party elite did during the 1920s. The people who supported the New Economic Policy (NEP) were not capitalists, they believed however, they needed to develop capitalism to ensure socialism. It retrospect it seems more correct then forcing an inefficient planned economy on the people, and trying to "skip" the capitalist mode of production..

My conclusion, if the Bolsheviks were communists under NEP, why can't Cuba, Laos, China and Vietnam be communist under a market economy? Other thing; what you think people care most about, not being exploited and getting lower wages or getting exploited but receiving higher wages? ... just because Lenin said that the planned economy had be state control doesn't make it right, Marx only vaguely wrote about the subject, and he did it to contrast it to the anarchistic capitalist market system

Quote:

You just listen to the opinion of one side, why not listen to the other side? I believe that if you read more about the international communists viewpoint on China or Vietnam, you may change your opinion.

The Portuguese Communist Party supports China, Laos and Vietnam, the same does the Russian Communist Party, the Ukrainian, the Brazilian, the Spanish, the Indian, the Nepalese, the Belgian, the Czech and so on.. In fact, if you'd read about the opinions of the international communist movement, you would notice only the most stagnate and non-thinking communist parties don't support China, Laos and Vietnam... Its a reason why the Chinese, Laotian and the Vietnamese communist parties gets invited to the International Communist Seminar or the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties (the CPV and the CPC delegates both spoke at the annual meeting; good speeches)..

Quote:

It is painful for me to say that the Party has lost its communist essence, but it is the truth.

How do you define communist essence? They still call themselves communists, and trust me, if they wre not communists anylonger they would have stopped calling themselves that - capitalists would have trusted them more, other countries wouldn't talk of them in a strange manner. If they had lost their communist essence they would have turned the CPV into the a Vietnamese-version of the Cambodian People's Party.

Quote:

What need to be done now is overthrowing the capitalists, create a workers' goverment like Soviet Republic and build a planned economy, that is the only pro-people way for Vietnam. But the capitalists are strong and the workers have not awaken yet, so revolution cannot happen now, but it will happen in near future.

If the workers haven't woken up yet its because of one thing only; the mode of production isn't developed enough.. But, I'll be honest, I'm not even sure if the workers' are ever to stand up. Why? Marx wrote that the proletariat would stand up because their living conditions would deteriorate (as they did in the early-to-midlatish 1800s), but that has stopped. While living standards have dropped in the Western World (if you look at wages only), prices for food and basic services have also decreased. People only riot, participate in revolutions if the system itself fails - as we see in Egypt, Syria and Ukraine today .. The problem is that people seem, the majority of the time, to protest against the superstructure, but never against the mode of production - which means that capitalism is here to stay during our lifetime. However, I'm positive - I do believe that if we Marxists are able to ally/collaborate with the Green movement that our movement can be revitalized - its really the only movement people seem to support wholeheartedly these days in an age where people in the Western World seem to be totally disinterested in politics .

As I pointed out early, leftguy only listen to the side of market socialism advocators and his post above is evidence of that.

First, the same old argument that "planned economy is inefficient". I must confess that at the time I joined this forum (five years ago?), I believed in that idea too (due to Party propaganda). But now, after many years of reading and researching, I could firmly say: that is bull****. The reason that China and Vietnam failed is because of their backwardness, but you cannot apply that to Soviet Union. Sure, planned economy of the Soviet had some problem, but it still is thousands times better than capitalist economy we live today. What we need to do is not reject it, but fix and upgrade it.

Second, NEP argument, hah. NEP is a compromise with peasantry, but the State enterprises did not have to work in the market. They was outside and higher than the market. But in China and Vietnam, they put State companies inside the market, on equal level with private companies, and that is the key error. You cannot use NEP as an example, because what Vietnam and China doing is different from NEP.

Third, living condition is not the main reason that people make revolution, if that is true, then First World countries can never have revolution before Third World. The core reason of revolution is that the ruling class cannot sustain and control production process, and our era has that condition. According to Marx, production is what keep human society existing, so who wanting to hold back, harm or destroy it will be crushed by society.

The thinking framework of leftguy and me are different from each other, so I will refrain from further argument, because there is no common ground.

P.S: On the first argument, my source is: http://www.solidnet.org/greece-communis ... -socialism. I have no source on second and third, they are just my thought.

Quote:

As I pointed out early, leftguy only listen to the side of market socialism advocators and his post above is evidence of that.

Thats fine

Quote:

First, the same old argument that "planned economy is inefficient". I must confess that at the time I joined this forum (five years ago?), I believed in that idea too (due to Party propaganda). But now, after many years of reading and researching, I could firmly say: that is bull****. The reason that China and Vietnam failed is because of their backwardness, but you cannot apply that to Soviet Union. Sure, planned economy of the Soviet had some problem, but it still is thousands times better than capitalist economy we live today. What we need to do is not reject it, but fix and upgrade it.

I don't trust the Communist Party of Greece, they still support Stalin, and at last, if it was so efficient why did the Soviet Union spend 50 years of adding market mechanism to the economy to make it more efficient, and on the par to the capitalist economies of the West ... The Soviets themselves didn't view the system as efficient, that communists outside the USSR believe otherwise is fine, but none of the remaining (major) communist parties in the Eastern Bloc supports central planning.. But alas, different views.

Quote:

Second, NEP argument, hah. NEP is a compromise with peasantry, but the State enterprises did not have to work in the market. They was outside and higher than the market. But in China and Vietnam, they put State companies inside the market, on equal level with private companies, and that is the key error. You cannot use NEP as an example, because what Vietnam and China doing is different from NEP.

In China and in Vietnam the state has several monopolies, they haven't monopolized every sector, but many (and way to many for the Western media to swallow).. Contrary to popular belief, China has a more monopolized economy than Vietnam.