Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

How does Vietnam justify itself?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 05 May 2014, 17:01
The Vietnamese name is ""Vai nhan thuc ve thoi dai ngay nay va con duong cua ta""
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 05 May 2014, 20:24
Thank you for your interesting and first hand insightful perspective on your great country. I'd like to echo the statement soviet78 made about Vietnam's war against imperialism saving millions of lives world wide by saying that never in the history of the struggles against global imperialist injustice have so many owed so much to so few who lost so much.

The proletariat and anyone who trembles with indignation at every injustice will always remember the heroes of Saigon.
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
tdn
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 28
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Apr 2014, 11:15
Pioneer
Post 05 May 2014, 23:02
Engelsist wrote:
Since the prehistoric times, there always exist elite people (the leaders) in humans' society. And generally, they are more well treated than the normal members of society. If I am not wrong, the Communists don't oppose against the elite, they don't say that everyone must be the same. What they oppose is the elites who using their economic privileges to exploit the masses. And Karl Marx said that the ultimate origin of problem is private property, which born around 4000 years ago. It is private property that the Communists oppose.


There was an elite class in the USSR and this elite class has been present in Viet Nam too. Some of them enjoyed good hospitals or schools thanks to their merit. But many were there because they were born into the elite class, or they worked for the Party apparatus, or they had good relationship with apparatchiks who made decision about who went to which hospital/school.

At least in Viet Nam, doctors who worked for these elite hospitals remained in big cities to serve the elite and rarely experienced other conditions of the country. Their daughters and sons got acquainted with these powerful patients and became the next elite (together with the daughters and sons of those who were already elite). These people were increasingly isolated and "alienated" from the rest of the population (for example, they did not understand the medical and educational conditions that 'normal' citizens were having). In the long run, we would be not much better than the capitalist system, and the leadership became "out of touch" with reality.

Again, I am not for absolutely egalitarian treatments on everyone for everything. But when it comes to the very basic needs to become a good socialist citizen like health care and education, we should always work towards "from each according to ability to each according to need".

Engelsist wrote:
Vietnam had done a good job during the 90s and early 2000s, but if you think Vietnam is doing a far better job than the Soviet Union, then I beg to differ. When I go to Google Maps site, I compare the field of Ukraine to the field of Mekong Delta and I must conclude that: Vietnamese agriculture still cannot compared to the old Soviet Union agriculture, their level of organization is higher than us (since USSR collapsing, Ukraine's agriculture has been on the decline). And that is only about agriculture, I do not want to say about the manufacturing sector.

Well, I think Vietnam is better than the Soviet Union in banking and religious sector


I agree. With all its down sides, the USSR still provided valuable lessons for socialist revolutions/governments around the globe.
And yes, our economy never reached the prosperity and equality that Soviet society achieved. Not all Vietnamese agree with me, but I'm nostalgic for the USSR for the socialist conditions it created that inspired others.
Maybe our leftguy referred to how Vietnamese managed to preserve their communist party and a socialism-oriented system. However, with the constant neo-liberal attacks from both inside and outside, I'm worried that the Communist Party of Viet Nam will concede to full-blown free capitalism.

Engelsist wrote:
But with me, I have reason to be nostalgic about Sovetsky Soyuz. Without Sovetsky Soyuz and the Communist Party, my mother, who was born in a very poor farmer family, can never study at a university in Moskva and know how the life in a socialist country was.

And I must say that, it was the greatest reason for me to become a Communist.


I yearn for socialism because I believe it allows all of us to create conditions in which everyone is given the same chance.
That's why I oppose the institutionalization of the elite privileges. I am always thankful that the Soviet system lifted hundreds of millions of their citizens out of misery and inspired my country to do the same. But towards later, these systems provided too many privileges for the elite (those who were poor working class members of yesterday), that instead of continuing to expand these conditions to the rest of the society, they thought they were entitled to the privileges.

In Viet Nam, I've seen (and even personally known) many people whose parents had contributed significantly to the revolution. Their parents had suffered American bombs, malnutrition and chronic illness due to long-term working in the jungle; or they had studied extraordinarily hard in the Eastern bloc with the hope of going back to serve the country. I believe their parents were genuinely communist.
But after some time of enjoying the institutionalized privileges, they thought their children should also be entitled to these because they had suffered enough together with the parents before.
I've seen several families in which the parents remained truly communist even the Party apparatus allowed them many privileges. In those families, many children accused their parents of "not caring". They asked questions like: "Look at your friends, their children are at this position or study in that school? Why are you letting your children down?".
In Viet Nam, we still have neighbourhood/community meetings several times a year. And I remember in one meeting, a 'privileged' family was very loud in accusing the government for failing to accept their son to work in a state-owned television station (where the father used to be deputy director) even though their son did not have any post-secondary degree. Entitlement thinking is like a disease in my country.

In short, I don't oppose all privileges (particularly for the poor, the marginalized, the ethnic minorities). But I oppose systematic, institutionalized privileges for the elite.
As a socialist, I want true democracy for the working class. The workers should have more say about who get what privileges instead of leaving these matters totally in the hands of the apparatchiks.
tdn
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 28
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Apr 2014, 11:15
Pioneer
Post 05 May 2014, 23:43
leftguy wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Communist Party is playing a game; they are tricking the populace of both country. Thats not very surprising, considering how much the Communist Party of China has wathered down its ideology (in public these last years) - interestingly, the opposite seems to be true of ideology in inner-party indoctrination.. They've seem to have given up the hope of making the populace communist


That's what I am afraid.
As a Vietnamese, I think both sides (not just government but also people's forum) should sit down at talk frankly about the history of the dispute. If necessary, both sides should agree with bring the case together to an international court.
Both governments have rights to defend their legal and rightful sovereignty. But sometimes I have a feeling that they use too much nationalism to distract the population from economic and political problems inside each country.
I see this problem in China more than in Viet Nam (again, I may be biased) since every time the South China Sea is heated, it is because China has done something. Most recently, they've started a oil and gas survey using a gigantic drilling platform in Viet Nam's exclusive economic zone just a few days ago: http://tuoitrenews.vn/politics/19443/vietnam-protests-china-for-illegally-operating-drilling-rig-in-vietnams-waters.

leftguy wrote:
The third biggest immigrant group in Norway are the Vietnamese, so should say a lot (behind Swedish, the neighbouring country, and Pakistanis).. Most of the ethinic Vietnamese I've met are anti-communist (that is, most of the Vietnamese who follow politics)...


I can totally understand why these people are full of hatred for communism. But that's going to take a whole new topic to discuss.


leftguy wrote:
Maybe, but we agree on one thing; the idea that the state should own everything is extremely utopian - it just doesn't work. So I agree, a socialist-oriented market economy over planning any day


I dare say the idea of a totally free market is also utopian. If left to the market, the US economy will collapse at any moment.
So in any case, a market needs regulation and some planning. The key is socialist orientation if we still commit to the cause of socialism and communism.


leftguy wrote:
While I agree, there is one problem; it all sound like a very leftist (or old fashioned) social democratic policy-making ... But progressive taxation doesn't help alone, according to Thomas Piketty (the author of Capital in the 21st Century) since capital growth grows faster than national income, it makes little sense to actual tax income more than capital (which is what we do now, partly because of tax havens)..... Piketty's analyzes is riveting since he claims that the period which was experiencing from 1930s to the late-1970s was "abnormal" (capitalism didn't function properly). The reason being that the existing capital stock was badly damaged because of World War I, the Russian Revolution (and the ensuing failed revolutions in Europe), the Great Depression and World War II. According to him, what we in Europe have experience is nothing more than "luck" (more to do with our ancestors failure than our own policy).. His book was the top-selling book on American Amazon (says a bit when the American public buys such a book :P)


I am so looking forwards to reading this book. But so far I agree with what you describe.
Maybe income tax is not enough, we need capital tax and stronger regulation (how much the CEOs can earn as the Swiss were contemplating of doing).


leftguy wrote:
... but in much of Europe the Soviet Union symbolizes either failure or systematic oppression (Western communists should stop citing the Soviet Union, In fact we should rename or movement or simply call ourselves Marxists, people respect Marxists)..


Nostalgia doesn't mean re-creating the memories. We still have a lot to learn abou the Soviet 'experiment'.
For the name, "Marxists" sometimes only refer to people to appreciate Marxist analysis, not necessarily people who agree to build a better, more egalitarian society (i.e. you can be a non-socialist Marxist). But yeah, for most of the cases, when you refer to yourself as a "Marxist", people assume you're a very much left-leaning guy.


leftguy wrote:
I don't know :P but you can probably find it here (the name that is) http://books.google.no/books?id=VVfCPs9938EC&pg=PA341&dq=Phan+Dinh+Dieu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sVFnU_yeA6GxywOY54B4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Phan%20Dinh%20Dieu%22&f=false If you can't find the page number (I can probably scan it, I have the book)


I've read some of his arguments. I agree with many things he said (more democracy, better economic programs, etc.). However, I think he de-emphasized too much about class struggle (he forgets about capitalism's nature of creating crises, and suggests the government should not worry about protecting the working class because everyone should be free to do business).

He is a good mathematician (got his PhD from the USSR when he was only 30), and contributes a lot into the scientific part for many Party's conferences/congresses. He was also a deputy to the National Assembly even though he is never a Party's member. Although the Party does not take all of his advice seriously, he is still consulted for many scientific and educational matters.

leftguy wrote:
... but the official position of the CPV is that North Korea is still a socialist country, right?

That's right. When top leaders of Viet Nam and North Korea meet, they still refer to each other as "comrades". However, I think both sides understand this word does not mean much in this context. Ideologically and historically, Viet Nam and North Korea were not so close. When Viet Nam had wars to the Khmer Rouge and China, North Korea enthusiastically supported our opponents and condemned us.

Also, since North Korea has claimed itself to be a "socialist" country and has been called so by many other countries for a long time, harshly criticizing North Korea may put the Vietnamese government in an awkward situation. In general, we avoid mentioning too much about this place.


Yeqon wrote:
Thank you for your interesting and first hand insightful perspective on your great country. I'd like to echo the statement soviet78 made about Vietnam's war against imperialism saving millions of lives world wide by saying that never in the history of the struggles against global imperialist injustice have so many owed so much to so few who lost so much.


Thanks very much Yegon for your affection! I hope people (both inside and outside Viet Nam) understand that we fought these wars not because we liked fighting or communists liked bloody victories, but because there were no other ways.
By the way, we're going to celebrate 60th anniversary of the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ on May 7 (1954 - 2014), in which we decisively defeated the French and helped destroy the French colonialist system worldwide.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 06 May 2014, 06:01
tdn wrote:

In Viet Nam, I've seen (and even personally known) many people whose parents had contributed significantly to the revolution. Their parents had suffered American bombs, malnutrition and chronic illness due to long-term working in the jungle; or they had studied extraordinarily hard in the Eastern bloc with the hope of going back to serve the country. I believe their parents were genuinely communist.
But after some time of enjoying the institutionalized privileges, they thought their children should also be entitled to these because they had suffered enough together with the parents before.
I've seen several families in which the parents remained truly communist even the Party apparatus allowed them many privileges. In those families, many children accused their parents of "not caring". They asked questions like: "Look at your friends, their children are at this position or study in that school? Why are you letting your children down?".

In short, I don't oppose all privileges (particularly for the poor, the marginalized, the ethnic minorities). But I oppose systematic, institutionalized privileges for the elite.
As a socialist, I want true democracy for the working class. The workers should have more say about who get what privileges instead of leaving these matters totally in the hands of the apparatchiks.



The problem with believing that your children are entitled to more than others are is an inherent human flaw applicable to all societies and all times. It is in our genes to want more for our children when the opportunity is there.

I do agree in your belief that the workers should have more say over privileges.


tdn wrote:
We're going to celebrate 60th anniversary of the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ on May 7 (1954 - 2014), in which we decisively defeated the French and helped destroy the French colonialist system worldwide.


Fantastic! Just another celebration to add to the great month of May! First Labour Day, now this, and then Victory Day on May 9th!
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 06 May 2014, 08:37
Quote:
That's right. When top leaders of Viet Nam and North Korea meet, they still refer to each other as "comrades". However, I think both sides understand this word does not mean much in this context. Ideologically and historically, Viet Nam and North Korea were not so close. When Viet Nam had wars to the Khmer Rouge and China, North Korea enthusiastically supported our opponents and condemned us.

Also, since North Korea has claimed itself to be a "socialist" country and has been called so by many other countries for a long time, harshly criticizing North Korea may put the Vietnamese government in an awkward situation. In general, we avoid mentioning too much about this place.

Not entirely correct, you were close during Ho Chi Minh's leadership (at least according to this article); http://www.nknews.org/2013/08/the-colorful-history-of-north-korea-vietnam-relations/

Anyhow, I thought class struggle was gone - private entrepreneurs were allowed to join the party at the 9th National Congress (in 2001); of course, I do understand that joining the party and holding a position of leadership are two very different things, but still... However, the 9th National Congress does say "The principal content of class struggle is to successfully pursue the goal of industrialization and modernization along the lines of socialism, to struggle to frustrate all schemes and acts of sabotage by hostile forces, and to build Vietnam into a prosperous socialist country" (but it sounds as the Chinese position; its only class struggle when you oppose the communist party - I may have understood this however).

Quote:
In Viet Nam, I've seen (and even personally known) many people whose parents had contributed significantly to the revolution. Their parents had suffered American bombs, malnutrition and chronic illness due to long-term working in the jungle; or they had studied extraordinarily hard in the Eastern bloc with the hope of going back to serve the country. I believe their parents were genuinely communist.
But after some time of enjoying the institutionalized privileges, they thought their children should also be entitled to these because they had suffered enough together with the parents before.
I've seen several families in which the parents remained truly communist even the Party apparatus allowed them many privileges. In those families, many children accused their parents of "not caring". They asked questions like: "Look at your friends, their children are at this position or study in that school? Why are you letting your children down?".

In short, I don't oppose all privileges (particularly for the poor, the marginalized, the ethnic minorities). But I oppose systematic, institutionalized privileges for the elite.
As a socialist, I want true democracy for the working class. The workers should have more say about who get what privileges instead of leaving these matters totally in the hands of the apparatchiks.


I've never understood why Lenin opposed the separations of power, checks and balances and so on. He was very interested in supervision (but that form of supervision which had proven to have worked; maybe because he never experienced it?) ... My point being, according to the Marxist analysis checks and balances/separations of power is a bourgeoise method of retaining their power - why can't socialist use the same method to retain power? (of course within the party) ... By making the Central Inspection Commission entirely independent from the Politburo, the Central Committee and the National Congress it could become an independent body within the party which could supervise these things independently ... Other note, create a Commission for Statutory Questions (similar to a Constitutional Court); the League of Communists of Yugoslavia did this. It was responsible for safeguarding the party rules; I don't know how it is in Vietnam, but in Eastern Europe and in North Korea the rules meant and means nothing - a problem, first of all for all those under the level of the Politburo (since the party is hierarchical) .. There was a proposal within the CPC (don't know if it has died out, havn't heard about it in a while), to make the delegates to a National Congress elect a Presidium (composed of only delegates) which would then be responsible for supervising the executive-legislative branch of the party Central Committee, Politburo, Politburo Standing Committee between congresses (it would be a permanent body) ... If a permanent body of delegates was established, you could as well just curtail the legislative functions of the Central Committee, Politburo.... These are my two cents, and I know they don't mean anything, but I can't see why Lenin opposed it. ... This system I believe would work better than the collective leadership system, considering how many times in communist history that this system has actually broken down. Of course, introducing term limits and so on (and by vesting executive powers in five different persons as you do in Vietnam; General Secretary, Executive Secretary of the Secretariat, National Assembly Chairman, President and Prime Minister), strengthens the chance of such a system working, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the best.

The only downside I see with introducing such a reorganization at the top is that some would consider them anti-Leninist and that it would weaken the party's effectiveness as a ruling organization (decisions would probably take more time to be developed, but corruption would be curbed since all the bodies would have different interests) .. My point being, in China they have failed to arrest Zhou Yongkang, even if the top establishment knew how corrupt he was, but now (after several years) they are pursuing a corruption campaign against him (there are so many incidents)... Or the fact that Dinmukhamed Konayev used corruption to curry favours from Moscow; by bribing Gosplan officials he got more resources to Kazakhstan... Something isn't work.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 06 May 2014, 08:57
Last question of the day tdn, what do you think of Nguyen Van Linh's Coi Moi policy? Do you think that level of openness (as the policy allowed) is impossible to have in the current socialist system? .. From what I've read, it was put an end to because of the collapse of the Eastern European regime and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. To the point, you're thoughts?
tdn
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 28
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Apr 2014, 11:15
Pioneer
Post 06 May 2014, 20:39
leftguy wrote:
Not entirely correct, you were close during Ho Chi Minh's leadership (at least according to this article); http://www.nknews.org/2013/08/the-colorful-history-of-north-korea-vietnam-relations/


Very interesting note! Thanks for this!
You're right, I oversimplified the relation between Viet Nam and North Korea.
I have to add one more thing, most news we got about North Korea is from South Korean and American sources. There might be a possibility (however slight it is) of a 'conspiracy theory' against North Korea. However, with the almost completely isolation of North Korea, it is extremely difficult to defend the image of this country.


leftguy wrote:
Anyhow, I thought class struggle was gone - private entrepreneurs were allowed to join the party at the 9th National Congress (in 2001); of course, I do understand that joining the party and holding a position of leadership are two very different things, but still... However, the 9th National Congress does say "The principal content of class struggle is to successfully pursue the goal of industrialization and modernization along the lines of socialism, to struggle to frustrate all schemes and acts of sabotage by hostile forces, and to build Vietnam into a prosperous socialist country" (but it sounds as the Chinese position; its only class struggle when you oppose the communist party - I may have understood this however).


The Communist Party of Viet Nam does not make it clear what class struggle means in today context.
I think the Party should not admit private capitalists. Private entrepreneurs who ran small-scale, family businesses might be accepted.
However, I can see why they do that, they want to be a representative for the whole country, not only the working class. I am afraid that the capitalists would take over the Party without dismantling it (like they did in the USSR).


leftguy wrote:
I've never understood why Lenin opposed the separations of power, checks and balances and so on. He was very interested in supervision (but that form of supervision which had proven to have worked; maybe because he never experienced it?) ... My point being, according to the Marxist analysis checks and balances/separations of power is a bourgeoise method of retaining their power - why can't socialist use the same method to retain power? (of course within the party) ... By making the Central Inspection Commission entirely independent from the Politburo, the Central Committee and the National Congress it could become an independent body within the party which could supervise these things independently ... Other note, create a Commission for Statutory Questions (similar to a Constitutional Court); the League of Communists of Yugoslavia did this. It was responsible for safeguarding the party rules; I don't know how it is in Vietnam, but in Eastern Europe and in North Korea the rules meant and means nothing - a problem, first of all for all those under the level of the Politburo (since the party is hierarchical) .. There was a proposal within the CPC (don't know if it has died out, havn't heard about it in a while), to make the delegates to a National Congress elect a Presidium (composed of only delegates) which would then be responsible for supervising the executive-legislative branch of the party Central Committee, Politburo, Politburo Standing Committee between congresses (it would be a permanent body) ... If a permanent body of delegates was established, you could as well just curtail the legislative functions of the Central Committee, Politburo.... These are my two cents, and I know they don't mean anything, but I can't see why Lenin opposed it. ... This system I believe would work better than the collective leadership system, considering how many times in communist history that this system has actually broken down. Of course, introducing term limits and so on (and by vesting executive powers in five different persons as you do in Vietnam; General Secretary, Executive Secretary of the Secretariat, National Assembly Chairman, President and Prime Minister), strengthens the chance of such a system working, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the best.

The only downside I see with introducing such a reorganization at the top is that some would consider them anti-Leninist and that it would weaken the party's effectiveness as a ruling organization (decisions would probably take more time to be developed, but corruption would be curbed since all the bodies would have different interests) .. My point being, in China they have failed to arrest Zhou Yongkang, even if the top establishment knew how corrupt he was, but now (after several years) they are pursuing a corruption campaign against him (there are so many incidents)... Or the fact that Dinmukhamed Konayev used corruption to curry favours from Moscow; by bribing Gosplan officials he got more resources to Kazakhstan... Something isn't work.


I need to read more about Leninism to develop any position on these matters (it's a shame that while Marxism-Leninism is taught at every school in Viet Nam, not many students and even lecturers understand and/or can explain it in a systematic, understandable way).

I think the separation of power can create deadlock within the system. A simple comparison between Western Europe (where parliamentarianism is dominant) with the USA (presidentialism, more separation of powers) points out that the American system is ineffective. But I agree that some degree of separation is good. I also think the Central Committee's Inspection Commission should be independent from the Politburo (only report to the National Congress or the Central Committee) as you suggested.

The newly-amended Constitution of Viet Nam (2012) for the first time mentions the division of powers between the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches under a united state power. However, I haven't heard the same thing from inside the Party.

At the 11th National Congress of the Communist Party of Viet Nam in 2011, there were demands from some representatives that the Politburo and the General-Secretary be elected directly by the National Congress instead of the Central Committee as it had always been. The Congress did not exercise this but indicated that this type of election would be considered in the future.


leftguy wrote:
... what do you think of Nguyen Van Linh's Coi Moi policy? Do you think that level of openness (as the policy allowed) is impossible to have in the current socialist system? .. From what I've read, it was put an end to because of the collapse of the Eastern European regime and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. To the point, you're thoughts?


It depends on what kind of information we're talking about. For how the government works, government's budgets, how governmental positions are filled, who is responsible for what, etc., it is a lot more open today in Viet Nam than during Nguyễn Văn Linh's General-Secretaryship. Examples include two grand projects (national high-speed train, and bauxite mining in the Central Highland) proposed by the Central Government that were struck down at the National Assembly with all the information that the deputies were provided.
Some online news sites (owned by the State) even allow discussion about the political future of Viet Nam, questions about the dominant role of state-owned enterprises, the mistakes during central planning, etc. They even discuss the fundamental/systematic problems with our society (some even hint that the problem is Marxism-Leninism). This discussion about the fundamental problems might be more limited than during the first years of Đổi Mới.

In my opinion, before the Party can develop a convincing and reasonable alternative to neo-liberal capitalism, open political debates will cause uproar.

Sooner or later the Party will have to do it. They should take this valuable time to develop a new political and economic doctrine, improve significantly the performance of the state and the economy, and reform how Marxism-Leninism is taught. All of these could be done. The problem is there are too many incompetent apparatchiks in our system (particularly the lack of efficient political and developmental think-tanks).
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 08 May 2014, 09:02
Quote:
The Communist Party of Viet Nam does not make it clear what class struggle means in today context.
I think the Party should not admit private capitalists. Private entrepreneurs who ran small-scale, family businesses might be accepted.
However, I can see why they do that, they want to be a representative for the whole country, not only the working class. I am afraid that the capitalists would take over the Party without dismantling it (like they did in the USSR).

I wouldn't call Gorbachev a capitalist. You should read The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism 1976-1992, its has two great chapters which denotes the similarities and differences between the Soviet and Chinese reform efforts. Gorbachev was a communist, and still remains a communist - however, he was a true believer in democracy and extremely anti-Stalin. By 1988 he had come to believe that the socialism developed in the USSR was "deformed socialism" because of Stalin's totalitarian policies (which is in many ways correct since his predecessors never changed the system, it was still the same set of rules - with the exception of one, don't kill people) ... While his policies led to marketization, I still find it impossible to label Gorbachev a capitalist - he was a devoted communist his whole life, but he came to believe that the failures of socialism were not only economical, but also moral (lack of democracy, ossified leadership, conservatives elements who opposed all changes, neo-Stalinists etc) .. Because of his deep hatred of the conservatives, he sided with the reformers (and because of that, he moved further right - because Gorbachev clamped down on the conservatives, and not the reformers, and could not clamp down on the reformers since he had no supporters within the conservative faction(s) ... Of course, his policies directly led to the Soviet Union's dissolution, but the real problems came under Joseph Stalin. As said, one CPC theoritician claimed that the Soviet Union deserved to collapse because of the oppressive policies of Joseph Stalin alone.

Quote:
I need to read more about Leninism to develop any position on these matters (it's a shame that while Marxism-Leninism is taught at every school in Viet Nam, not many students and even lecturers understand and/or can explain it in a systematic, understandable way).

I think the separation of power can create deadlock within the system. A simple comparison between Western Europe (where parliamentarianism is dominant) with the USA (presidentialism, more separation of powers) points out that the American system is ineffective. But I agree that some degree of separation is good. I also think the Central Committee's Inspection Commission should be independent from the Politburo (only report to the National Congress or the Central Committee) as you suggested.


Neither can people in liberal democracies (or bourgeoise, do you call them bourgeoise or liberal?) explain systematically how our system works - lack of interest.... Parliamentarism is a form of checks and balances/separation of power - just not to the same degree . However, I agree, it would lead to more deadlock and more time to form policy, but the system would more easily counter-corruption, but again, it could (in theory) destroy party unity....

Quote:
The newly-amended Constitution of Viet Nam (2012) for the first time mentions the division of powers between the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches under a united state power. However, I haven't heard the same thing from inside the Party.

At the 11th National Congress of the Communist Party of Viet Nam in 2011, there were demands from some representatives that the Politburo and the General-Secretary be elected directly by the National Congress instead of the Central Committee as it had always been. The Congress did not exercise this but indicated that this type of election would be considered in the future.

It should be within the party, and the party is more important of the two, or at least, thats what I believe.. Of course, the other option is to democratize the party by giving delegates more authority, such as its ability to appoint the General Secretary (instead of the 1st Plenary Session of the CC doing so...) ... However, isn't it said that Nong Duch Manh was elected GS by running against three other candidates? Against Nguyen Minh Triet and another?

The whole problem with how Communist parties are ruled (at least this what I believe), it that they give to much power to the central leadership while nearly none to the lower-level. Supervision doesn't from the very bottom to the very top, but instead from the very top to the very bottom. Of course, by strengthening the powers of the delegates, and letting them have more duties and responsibilities, the system would work much better (and princelings probably wouldn't get elected...) But as it is now, when top leaders can influence the leading personnel of the Organization Commission, which is responsible for nominating members of the CC, it does indirectly lead to a growth of more princelings. Its not transparent enough; the Organization Commission's power over CC appointments should be curtailed, the system is to easily corruptable. Look at North Korea, Kim Il-sung ended up by appointing, at the very end, only close relatives to top positions. And those that weren't members of his family, were allowed to make top central offices hereditary. The point being, he did this through the very same system as you guys had - albeit, with term limits he couldn't have mustered the same power (which is a good thing, so It couldn't have happened)

I'll be honest, I like the political changes in Vietnam (and compared to reading about the Soviet Union, North Korea or other Eastern Bloc countries), its actually a joy to read about, because it seems that the party is continously looking for ways to self-improve. And they've done this, first of all, by institutionalizing the Politburo, the Secretariat, the GS, the Executive Secretary, PM and President , their functions are given clear duties and responsibilities and the chance of one man becoming to too domineering is low (Nguyen Tan Dung was even criticized at a plenary session of the Central Committee last year; however, he wasn't fired...) .. A strong central leadership is always important (and Lenin himself would probably have approved of the changes), but the lower-levels should be able to influence the central leadership more then it currently does. But again, the situation is much better then let say China, in which National Congresses are similar to the Soviet congresses. But in China, delegates are 100 percent democratically elected (or, they were democratically elected at the 18th Congress), but this doesn't help if they don't have any power to change discourse.

Again, considering all the changes which have taken place in Vietnam (but have not taken place in other socialist countries), I may be too hard, because when it comes to inner-party democracy you're only behind League of Communists of Yugoslavia (and that party did the opposite of the CPV and the CPC; it institutionalized the powers of the lower-levels, and weakened the powers of the central party leadership). For instance, after Tito's death, the term of the President of the Presidium (Politburo) of the LCY was one year (and was non-renewable), which in the end meant that no-one at the top was able to centralize enough powers to actual implement policies. Here the problem was not party democratization per se, but rather that Tito democratized the party while at the same time he weakened the central leadership, making it unable to respond to the increasing nationalist unrest which manifested itself over the country and the economic problems facing the problems (and led to its dissolution).. It must be said, Tito actually supported a two-year term. The reason for these short term lengths was that Tito was afraid that a neoStalinist in the mold of the other Eastern Bloc countries, would take power in Yugoslavia.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 21:13
Quote:
In the Soviet Union, the very top of the elite did have special hospitals, but as with their access to state dachas, limousines, etc., this was in line with the fact that as officials, it is important that they live as healthily and as long as possible.


Not if there are enough capable cadres to replace them. You're expressing the viewpoint of corrupted a corrupted bureaucratic stratum that has left the population in complete political ignorance, taking it into the grave with them.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
tdn
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 28
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Apr 2014, 11:15
Pioneer
Post 10 May 2014, 03:04
Hello everyone,

All your thoughts are very interesting but I've got no time to response now since we're all following closely the confrontations between Viet Nam and China in the South China Sea.

You can get a glance of what is going on here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27318910

The tension does not seem to de-escalate yet.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 13 May 2014, 17:59
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96267a7c ... z31X8qsMp9
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/world ... .html?_r=0

I wonder what the resolution of the 9th Plenum of the 11th Central Committee is going to say tomorrow...
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 14 May 2014, 12:50
Socialism cannot exist in one country and the ruling party in Vietnam was never going to establish socialism there. All they can ever do it strengthen capitalism, that is what happened in Russia, China, North Korea and every other so-called communist regime.
I thought everyone knew this? Surely no one believes they are abolishing the state in Vietnam?

The majority of the working class in Vietnam and around the globe don’t want socialism...at present. We know from bitter experience that socialism cannot be imposed from above. All you end up with is the gulag, secret police & unbelievable repression and misery.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.