Fidel Castro says his economic system is failing

Vietnam: Where Capitalism Thrives, Communists Rule And Dissent Whispers From The Walls

Twenty-five years of “doi moi” reforms have unleashed Vietnam’s economy and solidified one-party rule. Yet in Hanoi, a rare few offer the first signs of rebellion.Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on linkedinShare on google_plusone_shareShare on redditShare on email

Share on kindleitShare on pocketShare on email

 

HANOI - Nguyen Duc Vinh, the ambitious director of a private bank with holdings of $2.5 billion, says he has the “heart of a communist.” Pham Xuan Ly, a confidante of former Vietnam Army chief General Giap, is perfectly comfortable with his personal fortune and party membership: “It is not a problem at all for me," he says. "Nor for them.” 

After 25 years of doi moi, a policy of renewal and progressive liberalization of the economy, Vietnam is glaring paradox: a one-party communist regime overseeing a Wild-West style of capitalism. In the streets of Hanoi, red is still omnipresent, with banners of propaganda celebrating the party’s 11^th Congress, which concluded this week. “Vietnam is communist only once every five years, during the season of this political ritual,” a French businessman says dryly.

“No one believes in communism any more, though the entire country pretends to," Dao Anh Kanh, a surrealist artist, explains. “Vietnam is a theater. Regular people stage small plays of their own, while the leaders put on a grand spectacle.”

Before the opening of each Congress, the party delegates receive each other in full force, with briefcases in hand and the hammer and sickle on the heart, in front of the embalmed body of revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh. But in cafés saturated with the strong aroma of syrup-flavored coffees, one learns how belonging to the party is a stepping stone to power and wealth. People discuss how much it costs to purchase a ministry, with jokes that bagging the prime minister post would be a jackpot for any aspiring clan. The experts do not disagree. “Fighting to replace political leaders is even more bloody than control for economic power currently in play,” notes Benoît de Tréglodé, director of the Research Institute on Contemporary Southeast Asia.

Communists by name, capitalists by nature

As the Communist Party grew to 3.6 million members, or 10 percent of the population, Hanoi residents developed a saying: “Communists by name, capitalists by nature.” The 87 million citizens, hungry consumers, have thrown Marxism-Leninism to the sidelines.

Today, the pursuit of money is a national obsession. And consumption is ostentatious. The Louis Vuitton store in Hanoi currently boasts the highest sales per square meter within the company’s global chain. Luxury cars have joined the buzz of traffic in what, 25 years ago, was an austere capital of people rolling on bicycles down avenues bathed in faint light, flanked by stores of the most humble merchandise.

“We think about money from morning to night,” said Ngoc, a student born the same year the doi moi reform policies took effect. In a country that has long symbolized the resistance to a Western vision of the world, Pham Xuan Ly, a formor bo doi (North Vietnamese soldier), who has become a restaurant owner, explains that “success is a beautiful house, a car and studies abroad for the children.”

“In 25 years, we have won the freedom to make money,” adds banker Nguyen Duc Vinh, 52. In his three-piece suit, the former soldier, who manned the trenches along the Chinese border in the 1980s, went on to attend the prestigious HEC business school in France and learned to be a banker in the United States.

This is the new face of Vietnam: dynamic, open to the outside world, optimistic. A United Nations index of happiness in populations around the world puts Vietnam in third place. Like Vinh, the majority of Vietnamese wonder little, if at all, about the country’s political structure. “As long as the Communist Party maintains a satisfactory level of development, people are not interested in getting involved with politics,” he said. For artist Dao Anh Kanh, who for 15 years worked as a censor for the cultural police: “doi mo saved the Communist Party. The leaders are clever and know how to adapt.” Being decidedly cautious at all costs, the Vietnamese, despite the many corruption scandals at the top, are for the most part confident in their political institutions, especially the Communist Party and the National Assembly, according to a study by Transparency International.

There is currently no viable, organized opposition. “There is no room for dissent. The state apparatus owns the turf,” said Matthieu Saloman, Transparency International’s Hanoi representative.

“Few artists dare to question power”

Still, the first rays of rebellion can be found. Over tea in her living room cluttered with paintings illustrating the reign of darkness, the writer Vo Thi Hao discussed her “revolt against a regime that has never loosened its grip over political life.” She is one of a dozen dissidents closely watched by the regime. She jokes that the walls have ears. “In East Germany under the Stasi, there was one spy for every 50 people. Today in Vietnam, the ratio is one for every 40.” As beautiful as she is courageous, Hao is one of the rare Vietnamese to challenge the single-party system. “The majority of Vietnamese are happy with the current regime. They’re satisfied with the improvement of their finances.”

Some young contemporary artists are starting to push back against this “fear hidden within people that prevents them from questioning power,” said Hao. They present a Vietnam torn between doctrinal communism and liberal economic policies.  Watched continuously, one of them holds meetings on a sidewalk and confides secrets amidst the din of a crowded café. “Today, word no longer comes from above. It’s no longer necessary to be a member of the Artists’ Union to get paint and brushes, but few artists dare to challenge power,” he said. The cultural police watches them groping through the dark. “In Vietnam, demanding subjectivity and invention is a political act,” he sighs, after telling of his weariness over taking down his paintings judged at each art exposition as being “out of step with cultural and moral values.” 

Lost in the maze of winding streets in south Hanoi, there is a residence as closed off as it is insignificant – and yet it is home to the most incendiary cultural works in Vietnam. Writer Nguyen Qui Duc holds an eclectic collection of censored art. “Out of love for painting, intellectual resistance and the spirit of contradiction,” he says. He stands in front of a greenish canvas inspired by pop art. A lascivious woman ignores a man in a suit who stands upright behind her. “Who is more vulgar, the woman, the businessman or the leaders who have absolute power?” he asks. The painter Nguyen Van Cuong works on the theme of dictatorships, which is why he is forbidden from showing his work in Vietnam.” With an amused smile, Duc shows a series of vases that the censors failed to appreciate in which “uniforms, bodies and bank notes intertwine ad nauseum.”

“After the doi moi, or the opening in 1985, contemporary art began to truly bloom. But today it still is cautious about approaching sensitive subjects,” says Duc, the collector. He cites just four artists taking such a bold approach: Nguyen Van Cuong, who plays with the obscenity of women for sale and dictatorships, the artist Truong Tan and his gigantic diaper that takes the form of a police officer’s jacket pocket, ready to absorb under-the-table payments. Le Hong Thai, attempts to draw a parallel between leaders and bottles – which make much noise when they clink together but remain empty. Le Quang Ha and his characters have hideous, uncouth traits that wear the uniform of leaders.

In a darkened hallway in Duc’s home, a spiral of incomprehensible words eats a blue face. It is a forbidden canvas by Nguyen Quang Huy. The most perceptive could discern the silhouette of a young Ho Chi Minh, the father of the country’s independence. Behind the flies’ feet, betrayed ideals, the individual chewed up by the machine.

But in Vietnam, the sayings and poems of Uncle Ho have been thrown at people for so long that the cult of personality is now internalized. Daring to shake the image of a deified hero is unimaginable, even if he is systematically surpassed by Bill Gates, the model of American capitalism, in popularity polls. So when asking Nguyen Quang Huy whether this poll result is healthy, he says soberly: “I will not say yes or no.” Insolence against this regime has its limits.

http://www.worldcrunch.com/vietnam-where-capitalism-thrives-communists-rule-and-dissent-whispers-walls/world-affairs/vietnam-where-capitalism-thrives-communists-rule-and-dissent-whispers-from-the-walls-/c1s2352/

Why Didn't Communism Work in Eastern Europe?

Article Details

• 
  Originally Written By: Michael Pollick
  
• 
  Last Modified Date: 11 January 2014
  

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Communism failed in Eastern European countries for the same reasons it routinely fails in others — corruption and mismanagement of goods results in the needs of citizens not being met, which usually leads to a civil uprising, and eventually the end of communist rule. While the economic system known as communism may have worked well on paper, the political form forced on Eastern European countries brought little more than oppression and hardship to the working class citizens it exploited. Many of the Eastern European governments were puppet regimes handpicked by communist party leaders working remotely from Russia; communications between Russia and its Eastern European satellites were rarely two-way streets.

Mismanagement

One main reason why communism failed in Eastern Europe was due to the human nature. Under economic communism, control over production is supposed to be given to the workers, ostensibly with the guidance and oversight of a strong central State. Communist farmers who produced corn, for instance, would donate the vast majority of their yearly crops to the government; in exchange, the government would provide each farmer with a supply of corn for personal use, along with a portion of all the other goods produced by other self-controlled communes. Unfortunately, the timely distribution of goods was severely hampered by corruption and mismanagement, a common problem in communist countries. Many citizens felt the provisions they were given were fair and satisfactory, while many others felt restricted and did not have enough means to survive.

Civil Uprising

When any form of government, whether capitalist or communist, fails to meet the basic needs of its people, civil unrest is bound to follow, and this was especially the case in Eastern Europe after World War II. Tyrannical communist leaders, such as Joseph Stalin, used economic communist rule as a means to support their own agendas, while millions of civilians were systematically imprisoned or summarily executed. The message to Eastern European countries became clear — dissension would simply not be tolerated. During the 1950s and 1960s, country after country in Eastern Europe began to revolt against the oppressive Soviet system that sought to keep them enslaved to a corrupt form of political communism.

Appeal of a Free Market Society

By the time of the Soviet Union's disintegration in 1991, economic communism was fast becoming a failed experiment in the eyes of the Western world. Many collective companies in Eastern European countries discovered the advantages of a free market society, including the right to deal directly with buyers. Under economic communist rule, there were very few incentives offered to more industrious workers; the idea of profit through increased production proved to be one of the strongest arguments against communism. Many Eastern European countries were eager to move towards a freer economic system.

End of Soviet Communist Rule

Some historians credit former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev with implementing the policies leading to the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe. Gorbachev's policy of glasnost, meaning openness, allowed eastern European countries the freedom to replace Moscow-controlled governments with local leaders. Once free of Soviet rule, the individual countries were free to create their own economic systems, many of which still retain some elements of economic communism while embracing capitalism and socialism as well.

http://www.wisegeek.org/why-didnt-communism-work-in-east-europe.htm

Why Communism Failed

MARCH 01, 1991 by BETTINA BIEN GREAVES

Three years after the Russian Revolution, an Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, argued that Communism would fail and explained why. Communism, or socialism, couldn’t succeed, Mises wrote in 1920, because it had abolished free markets so that officials had no market prices to guide them in planning production. Mises was relatively unknown when he made his controversial forecast, but he acquired some international renown later as the leading spokesman of the Austrian (free market) school of economics. Since his death in 1973, his theories have gained new adherents, some now even in Eastern Europe.

The Soviet Union was launched with high hopes. Planning was to be done by a central committee, insuring plenty for everyone. The state was to wither away. But things didn’t work out that way. The Soviet state soon became one of the most oppressive in the world. Millions of Russians starved in the 1920s and 1930s.

As Mises pointed out, the raw materials, labor, tools, and machines used in socialist production are outside the market. They are owned by government and controlled by government planners. No one can buy or sell them. No market prices can develop for them because they aren’t exchangeable.

Modern production is time-consuming and complicated. Producers must consider alternatives when deciding what to produce. And they must consider various means of production when deciding how to produce. Raw materials, tools, and machines must be devoted to the most urgent projects and not wasted on less urgent ones.

Consider, for instance, the planning of a new railroad. Should it be built at all? If so, where? And how? Is building the railroad more urgent than constructing a bridge, building a dam to produce electricity, developing oil fields, or cultivating more land? No central planner, even with a staff of statisticians, could master the countless possibilities. Machines might be substituted to some extent for labor; wood, aluminum, or new synthetic materials might be substituted for iron. But how will the planners decide?

To make these decisions, planners must know the relative values—the exchange ratios or market prices—of the countless factors of production involved. But when these factors are government-owned, there are no trades, and thus, no market prices. Without market prices, the planners have no clues as to the relative values of iron, aluminum, lumber, the new synthetics, or of railroads, oil fields, farm land, power plants, bridges, or housing. Without market prices for the factors of production, the planners are at a loss as to how to coordinate and channel production to satisfy the most urgent needs of consumers.

More than 70 years have passed since the Russian Revolution and 45 years since the end of World War n. Why then do the Russian people still lack adequate housing and many everyday items? Why does agricultural produce rot in the fields for lack of equipment to harvest and transport it? Why are factories and oil fields so poorly maintained that production declines? Because the raw materials, tools, machines, factories, and farms are not privately owned. Without the bids and offers of private owners, prices reflecting their relative market values cannot develop. And without market prices, it is impossible to coordinate production activities so that the goods and services consumers need will be available. That is why Communism fails.

In a competitive economy, where factors of production are privately owned, these problems are solved daily as owners calculate the monetary values of the various factors and then buy, sell, and trade them as seems desirable, As Mises wrote in 1920, “Every step that takes us away from private ownership of the means of production and from the use of money also takes us away from rational economics.”

Today, even Communists are coming to recognize that Mises was right. The U.S.S.R., a socialist society without private property and monetary calculation, is still “floundering in the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations,” as Mises foresaw in 1920, “without the compass of economic calculation.” Will she now take the important step Mises recommended of introducing private ownership of the means of production?