Jump to content
Soviet.ie | Sóivéid.ie
Sign in to follow this  
lenin86

China, Vietnam, Laos ?

Recommended Posts

Im interested to see what people on this forum views are on China, Vietnam and Laos. Does anyone see them a being socialist countries? are they progressive countries? I dont know much about these countries myself so im interested in anyones view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

All are state-capitalist countries. The methods and technologies of production, the systems of exchange and exploitation, and, in general, the class structure of those societies indicate a capitalist mode of production. Societies which rather than adopting 'western' style political and legal structures to organise the systems of production and society in general, adopted a state-centric totalitarian alternative in their transition from feudal methods of production to industrial methods.

 

An alternative re-branded with red flags and socialist rhetoric. But the ruling class live in palaces, exclusive neighbourhoods and opulance creamed from the surplus labour of the workers. In a similar fashion to western style capitalism.

 

The seamless political and economic transition between what was established initially and what has become more obvious in recent history further illustrates what mode of production we are looking at - capitalism.

 

They have nothing to do with socialism or communism, historical materialism or Marxism.

 

But they do have progressive aspects. But most probably not as progressive, in terms of both rights and actual practice, than we have here in the west. Freedom of speech, association, freedom to form trade unions, womens rights, homosexual rights, individual and legal rights and so on are most probably far behind what we have here. While many of these rights may be legally spoken for, the socities themselves are most likely behind. Patriarchal families, huge gender divisions in occupation and social/family roles etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they do have progressive aspects. But most probably not as progressive, in terms of both rights and actual practice, than we have here in the west. Freedom of speech, association, freedom to form trade unions, womens rights, homosexual rights, individual and legal rights and so on are most probably far behind what we have here. While many of these rights may be legally spoken for, the socities themselves are most likely behind. Patriarchal families, huge gender divisions in occupation and social/family roles etc.

 

 

I'm not sure that these issues are central to Communism. Many say they are, but I'm not so sure. I suspect that they are more bourgeois ideals than anything else.

 

I'd say that China is an interesting case. Maoism is still a very strong ideology there, among millions of people - though usually not ones with too much power. That said, the state can't ignore the Maoist instinct of so many people. Part of the current five year plan is the building of 36 million units of social housing. They should be completed by next year. Building 36 million social units in five years could only be achieved by a Communist Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All are state-capitalist countries. The methods and technologies of production, the systems of exchange and exploitation, and, in general, the class structure of those societies indicate a capitalist mode of production. Societies which rather than adopting 'western' style political and legal structures to organise the systems of production and society in general, adopted a state-centric totalitarian alternative in their transition from feudal methods of production to industrial methods.

 

An alternative re-branded with red flags and socialist rhetoric. But the ruling class live in palaces, exclusive neighbourhoods and opulance creamed from the surplus labour of the workers. In a similar fashion to western style capitalism.

 

The seamless political and economic transition between what was established initially and what has become more obvious in recent history further illustrates what mode of production we are looking at - capitalism.

 

They have nothing to do with socialism or communism, historical materialism or Marxism.

 

But they do have progressive aspects. But most probably not as progressive, in terms of both rights and actual practice, than we have here in the west. Freedom of speech, association, freedom to form trade unions, womens rights, homosexual rights, individual and legal rights and so on are most probably far behind what we have here. While many of these rights may be legally spoken for, the socities themselves are most likely behind. Patriarchal families, huge gender divisions in occupation and social/family roles etc.

 

I would agree with this. From the little I know of these countries I would see them as being state-capitalist to. But Iv come across some websites that clame to be communist or Marxist-Leninist sites and they would support these countries and see them as socialist. I cant see how any of these countries would socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with this. From the little I know of these countries I would see them as being state-capitalist to. But Iv come across some websites that clame to be communist or Marxist-Leninist sites and they would support these countries and see them as socialist. I cant see how any of these countries would socialist.

 

I think the logic is that a certain amount of capital accumulation has to be achieved before Socialism becomes really possible. Marx had the same idea, so, on that basis, its not really possible to say that these countries are not being Marxist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

I would agree with this. From the little I know of these countries I would see them as being state-capitalist to. But Iv come across some websites that clame to be communist or Marxist-Leninist sites and they would support these countries and see them as socialist. I cant see how any of these countries would socialist.

 

There are two uses for the term communism.

 

There is Communism (with a capital C), associated with Communist States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

 

And there is communism, as in, the theoretical society Marxists and anarchists understand develops from the capitalist mode of production.

 

Both are completely different from one another. The former is a type of capitalism, and uses the rhetoric and symbology of labour struggles to justify itself and the state-bourgeois class which rules, The latter is a classless, stateless, moneyless society as understood by marxism and anarchism.

 

Yes, you will find people, and indeed organisations which support Communism. Most of them are probably in the 'third world' - Communist ideologies such as Maoism, Titoism, Hoxhaism, Stalinism and, indeed, Leninism.

 

Rather than becoming enveloped in what these people thought, or believed they were doing. Historical materialism must look at what they did do. What they created. What political, economic and social forms developed from their historical context and actions. The answer is some form of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

I'm not sure that these issues are central to Communism.

 

Perhaps not. But at some stage Communism may develop and progress towards western style social-democratic forms. By which case those rights may become part of that progression, and that those issues are not central could be seen in Communisms historical context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the logic is that a certain amount of capital accumulation has to be achieved before Socialism becomes really possible. Marx had the same idea, so, on that basis, its not really possible to say that these countries are not being Marxist.

I think the logic is that a certain amount of capital accumulation has to be achieved before Socialism becomes really possible. Marx had the same idea, so, on that basis, its not really possible to say that these countries are not being Marxist.

 

 

 

I understand the logic of this. Its something similar to the NEP. But it appears to me that the ruling partys in these countries are pretty much the ruling class. They profit from the expliotation of the workers in their countries. I dont think that all of the wealth that is created goes towards creating a better society for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two uses for the term communism.

 

There is Communism (with a capital C), associated with Communist States - https://en.wikipedia...Communist_state

 

And there is communism, as in, the theoretical society Marxists and anarchists understand develops from the capitalist mode of production.

 

Both are completely different from one another. The former is a type of capitalism, and uses the rhetoric and symbology of labour struggles to justify itself and the state-bourgeois class which rules, The latter is a classless, stateless, moneyless society as understood by marxism and anarchism.

 

Yes, you will find people, and indeed organisations which support Communism. Most of them are probably in the 'third world' - Communist ideologies such as Maoism, Titoism, Hoxhaism, Stalinism and, indeed, Leninism.

 

Rather than becoming enveloped in what these people thought, or believed they were doing. Historical materialism must look at what they did do. What they created. What political, economic and social forms developed from their historical context and actions. The answer is some form of capitalism.

 

Perhaps thats true. But, a native form of capitalism was better then staying as colonies for the West. In the 19th century China was just as weak and fractured as Africa is today, with a major famine once a decade. It could easily have stayed that way - and would have if the imperialists had anything to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps not. But at some stage Communism may develop and progress towards western style social-democratic forms. By which case those rights may become part of that progression, and that those issues are not central could be seen in Communisms historical context.

 

I think you need to have reached a certain level of economic stability before those issues become pressing. Most of the Third World is a long way from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the logic of this. Its something similar to the NEP. But it appears to me that the ruling partys in these countries are pretty much the ruling class. They profit from the expliotation of the workers in their countries. I dont think that all of the wealth that is created goes towards creating a better society for all.

 

No doubt it doesnt. But, on balance, I think you only have to look at the conditions people in Eastern Europe now live in compared to the lives they had under Communist governments. It's very telling that nearly every survey shows a majority believe their standard of living has continued to decline over the lst 20 years of capitalism. I posted a report this week that says most pensioners in Bosnia live on 175 euro per month. I've been to Bosnia, and the prices there are not very different to here. I think supermarket prices and petrol are the same. That's a level of poverty that I don't believe existed in Communist Yugoslavia.

 

Capitalism has achieved very little over the last 20 years. Communism practically rebuilt Eastern Europe from rubble, after WW2, during that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt it doesnt. But, on balance, I think you only have to look at the conditions people in Eastern Europe now live in compared to the lives they had under Communist governments. It's very telling that nearly every survey shows a majority believe their standard of living has continued to decline over the lst 20 years of capitalism. I posted a report this week that says most pensioners in Bosnia live on 175 euro per month. I've been to Bosnia, and the prices there are not very different to here. I think supermarket prices and petrol are the same. That's a level of poverty that I don't believe existed in Communist Yugoslavia.

 

Capitalism has achieved very little over the last 20 years. Communism practically rebuilt Eastern Europe from rubble, after WW2, during that time.

 

I agree with you. There is no doubt that Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia were much better off back when they were socialist, than now under capitalism. But I also think there is a hell of difrence between these countries where the means of production were publicly owned and what china is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article here comparing the "socialism"/"Communism" in Vietnam and China that might be of interest:

 

Socialism and the market - China and Vietnam compared

 

http://links.org.au/node/14

 

 

Thank you for this link. It is very informative.After reading that, I think Mao and Ho Chi Minh would be horrified by what has happened in China and Vietnam. Particularly in China the Chinese Communist Party inviting capitalists to join. And giving millionaires leading roles in the Party. It was an interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×