The National Assembly – A Bourgeois Organ of Power
One of the most fundamental concepts of Marxism is that of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political and economic power of the workers made manifest through organs of the class, especially through workers councils. It is the State wielded by the proletariat, to put it shortly. The dictatorship of the proletariat is crucial for the revolution and the transition to Communism. Unfortunately, it seems one is missing in the “Socialist” Republic of Vietnam.
Rather than a congress of councils or soviets, as was typical in genuinely communist experiments, the highest organ of power in Vietnam is the bourgeois National Assembly. It is only a break from bourgeois democracy aesthetically, i.e. in that it has red flags everywhere and many “commissars”. Functionally, however, it is no different than the British Parliament or the American Congress.
Makeup
The only requirement to run for the National Assembly is age related. You have to be at least 21 years old to run. The official 2013 constitution says:
Article 27
Every citizen who reaches the age of twenty-one has the right to stand for election to the National Assembly or People's Councils. The exercise of those rights shall be prescribed by a law.
So there is nothing stopping bourgeoisie from running? Nothing stopping petite-bourgeoisie from running? How can one have a dictatorship of the proletariat if one’s legislative body is not even inherently proletarian? This policy of letting non-workers into organizations has historically led to the bourgeoisification of policies. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (S.P.D.) and their entrapment in opportunism is a notorious example. The international proletariat saw in 1914 the fruits that had borne. The treacherous S.P.D. voted for the war credits, sending the working class to the slaughter, and thus betraying their Marxist roots.
And this is not a “nitpick” criticism. All proletarian programmes centered around Communism have addressed the question of workers being the only people eligible for government positions. The programme of the Communist Workers Party of Germany (K.A.P.D.) said that only those workers who pledged to work towards the proletarian dictatorship would be in a workers council. And Alexandra Kollontai’s programme of the Workers Opposition specifically calls out the Bolsheviks for allowing non-proletarian elements into the Party.
This non-worker-oriented policy has of course led to the National Assembly being a body which is more-or-less disconnected from the working class. The State has often enacted policies against the interests of those it claims to represent. The protests around the Special Economic Zones (S.E.Z.) are a shining example of this.[1] As are the acquisitions of farmland (for “urbanization”) by the State which has led to disenfranchisement of farmers.[2]
Revocability
While a large part of the innovation of proletarian dictatorships were that they were built by and maintained by the class, another was that the delegates in them were instantly revocable. This has been a staple feature of them, ever since the Paris Commune. Has Vietnam replicated this feature for it’s supposed “Socialist” Republic? No. Not in the slightest.
The closest thing that the National Assembly has is a “vote of confidence” wherein representatives of the Assembly may vote “high confidence” or “low confidence” on certain officials. This is completely detached from the original idea of revocability, which involved those being represented taking the vote.
Now what does this mean? It means that the Vietnamese working class, much like the working class in other bourgeois democracies, are stuck with their representatives for several years (5 in the case of Vietnam) before they have any hope of switching them out for someone else. Even if they are corrupt or unrepresentative of their constituency. And it also means that Vietnam has strayed far from the vision the international proletariat has laid out.
Workmen's Wages
Another characteristic of proletarian dictatorships which was revolutionary concerned wages. Speaking of the Paris Commune, Marx described it’s representatives as having “workmen’s wages”. He said:
“From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves”
Vietnam has seemingly forgotten about this feature. In 2005, it was reported that the President (who is elected by the National Assembly) made 3.77 million dong per month, equivalent to $240 USD.[3] But as of 2018, the standard monthly wage of a worker is 2.9 million dong or $128 per month.[4] Considering that this is a substantial difference, I do not think these representatives are working at workmen’s wages.
It ought to be clear to the Vietnamese proletariat that the State is not actually representing them. In fact, it should be clear to the whole of the international working class that no such state does this. For this to manifest, for a real dictatorship of the proletariat to arise, we must bring a revolution. A revolution truly international, truly communist in character. Then, and only then, can we break off the chains of capitalism which bind us.
[1] https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-jails-nine-more-for-violent-sez-law-protests-3846842.html
[2]
[3] http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Vietnam/sub5_9f/entry-3444.html#chapter-7
[4] https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnam-hikes-minimum-wages-by-5-3-percent-in-2019.html/
Comments
Post a Comment