Socialism? Seriously? I take my cue from my years in Vietnam.

I’m sorry, but I can’t take socialism seriously. Blame it on my ten years living in Vietnam when I received a first-hand lesson of what socialism really is and what it really does.

And what it doesn’t do.

The political left in America is giddy with idealistic hope that the dawn of the Democratic Socialist United States of America is right around the corner.

I have to laugh. Poor JFK must be doing some serious flips in his grave. Same with FDR. They might have to rename his hometown to Hide Park instead of Hyde Park by the fact he would hide in embarrassment from these people espousing the death of capitalism, mostly from his own party! It’s ironic that I point out FDR because he was the most socialist president – in terms of nationalizing the state’s economy – America ever had. But he was, thankfully, no Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Cortez, the new poster child for the Bernie Sander’s democratic socialist bandwagon, says that capitalism will not always exist.

Let’s hope that isn’t true.

Let me backpedal just a moment in case you think I’m trying to be political here. I am not. I have my personal political beliefs, of course, but I greatly respect other points of view. I am a strong proponent of rigorous debate between both sides of the political aisle. One of the greatest features of America is its pluralism, which pushes us to consider new ideas while defending our own points of view.  No one party has the exclusive claim on truth or good ideas. I hope any two Americans could easily agree with that statement.

Furthermore, every country uses socialism to one degree or another.  FDR, of course, introduced social security in the 1930s as a means of taking care of the nation’s elderly. It was the state mandating people to pay a portion of their earnings to the government so that the government would manage it and distribute it back to retirees. We don’t need to get into a debate about how well it works, but it has been functioning successfully for 80 years. My parents have been using social security benefits as a key means of income during their retirement. In addition, the U.S. has long used Public Utilities as a means to expand access to electricity and water systems throughout the US. Public Utilities continue to be a bedrock of American energy management.

Government control of certain parts of society is good. Needed. Even desirable at times. Governments, when well-managed, can achieve things that private citizens mainly cannot. (Now this wasn’t always the case. If you need a historical case study, look up J.P. Morgan or JD Rockefeller.) There’s a small community about 25 miles north of New York City where the local government decided to create a gorgeous park around a lake. It has a raised walking path which creates a stunning setting and a terrific place for the entire community to come together and enjoy the outdoors. This is an example of government at its best. Seeing a need and creating something for the community, through tax dollars, that gives citizens tangible benefits. Every government will take at least a part of the nation’s economy and manage it directly.  How much control should the government have? It’s clearly a debatable point.

I say all of this to clarify that I not hear to bash the need for a functioning government. We all need governance, but there should be a healthy, on-going debate about its role and how much of the economy, and what part of the economy, it should have control over.  After all, it will never be zero, nor should it be.

But what I’m hearing from the far-left is a departure of the America of the past. The death of capitalism? Really? You sure you want to go there? What would take its place? Government control over the entire economy? (As a side note, look into Elizabeth Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act. A proposal for the government to have direct input (control?) over companies worth over a billion dollars.)

And this brings me back to Vietnam.

I arrived in Vietnam to teach English in August of 1994, just a few months after the US lifted the trade embargo against Hanoi. That was 19 years after the fall of Saigon. Thirty years after LBJ ramped up US involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1994, Vietnam was dirt poor. A GDP of barely a $1000 per capita. I arrived in Haiphong, a city near the coast due east of the capital, and everyone I met worked hard to make ends meet. There were very few foreign products — no Coca-Cola besides an occasional flat bottle brought in from China. Westerners were still referred to as “Lien Xo” – Soviets, because since 1979 nearly any expat in the country was Russian. I was apprehensive about being there, not completely sure how a young American man would be viewed. But I can’t tell you how many times I saw the faces of the Vietnamese I met light up when they heard I was a “Nguoi My” – an American. They would smile from ear to ear and put their finger in the air and say “America number 1.” I was shocked, actually. And so very welcomed into their community.

Why was America number 1 in their eyes? I came from a country, after all, that spent billions of dollars and many years fighting against the communists in Vietnam. (And remember, I was living in the communist north – no sympathetic Saigonese there.) But America was number 1? Why?

Simple. An enviable economy. America had built themselves into a superpower through decades of innovation and economic achievement. That’s what the Vietnamese people I met those years wanted. They wanted opportunities to work for a better future. They wanted opportunities to have “luxury” items they could never afford. A bicycle. A washing machine. Dare they dream- a motorbike? A reliable food supply. Consumer products like toothpaste and soap and laundry detergent. In 1994, when I arrived, Vietnam was just beginning to awaken from nearly twenty years of a post war economy driven by what? Socialism.

If you visited Vietnam today, you’d hardly recognize it. The country is engulfed by commercialism, entrepreneurship, and dare I say it? Capitalism.

What happened?

Over the first several years of living in Vietnam, I came to learn a phrase which was frequently used, “thoi bao cap.” A literal translation is something like “the time period when the government supplied everything.” That sounds kind of frightening, doesn’t it? This phrase was always, and I mean always, followed by another phrase “ghe lam,” which means “truly miserable.”

As I lived there and delved into their history and listened to their stories, I began to understand how miserable that time really was. Here are a few examples:

  • During “thoi bao cap,” if you happened to be rich enough to own a bicycle, you might be stopped and harassed by the police. Why? Because they would want to know how you had enough money to own a bicycle.  It was that rare. Poverty was the expectation.
  • During “thoi bao cap,” Vietnam did not grow enough rice to feed its own people. There were bouts of famine in the countryside. The government imported low quality grain from eastern Europe to try and make up the difference. Can you imagine a Vietnamese meal without rice? My friends and neighbors didn’t have to imagine. They lived through it, telling me how truly insufferable this grain was. But they had no choice to eat it because there wasn’t enough rice. (My first thought was how in the world could there not be enough rice ? Have you been to Vietnam? Have you seen the expansive rice fields? Hello, what about the Mekong Delta? What’s going on?)
  • During “thoi bao cap” each family would line up and wait for hours to receive their monthly rations from the state run stores. It was referred to as “the brick years” named for the people who would write their names on a brick and place it on the ground to reserve their spot in line at the state stores so they wouldn’t have to stand for hours on end. Of course the stores had no supplies and the amount of food and goods received was extremely paltry. There were no other options. No corner stores. No “pho” stalls on the evening streets. No shops or markets. They lived on the basics of basics.
  • During “thoi bao cap: if a family was lucky enough to raise a few chickens, and if they were lucky enough to slaughter one in order to have a luxurious chicken dinner, they would shut their house up as tight as possible and eat in the back, hoping no one would smell it and then question where the meat came from.

There are many more examples, but I think this illustrates the point of how poor Vietnam was throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

What changed? Cause this is not the Vietnam you will experience today if you travel there. (And you should.)

The answer is simple. Vietnam slowly allowed elements of capitalism to creep into their economy. Once it starts, good luck stopping it.

Wait a minute. A communist government that allows capitalism? (Have you ever wondered what has made China rich today? It wasn’t their unyielding grasp on Maxist-Leninism.)

Famed North Vietnamese General Nguyen Vo Giap even said that a socialistic society needs capitalism (he said for a time) in order to build its economy. Hmmm, I wonder if the Vietnamese themselves have had enough time. It’s 2018 now. Are they ready to go back to “thoi bao cap?”

And here, to me, is the proof in the pudding. Or the water in the rice paddy.

Both Vietnam and China have followed the same model. Renovation. And when it came to economics, that meant giving the individual more control over their own personal economic activity. Allowing the citizens to innovate and create things which previously didn’t exist. It’s called capitalism, and it has pulled millions of people out of desperate poverty in a relatively short amount of time.

Remember the years when Vietnam couldn’t grow enough rice to feed its citizens? Well, in the 1980s, the government changed their policies. For the first time under their communist government, farmers could keep their own products once they had fulfilled their yearly government quotas. Well, can you guess what happened? The farmers suddenly had incentive to grow more rice and more vegetables and more everything. The surplus could be used to sell in the local markets, to feed local families, to help increase their monthly income. An increased income meant they had money to spend on consumer products which in turn created a market for yet more consumer products. This is capitalism 101. Even working under the strict economic constraints of a socialist government, capitalism proved to be an amazing force to combat poverty.

Capitalism isn’t a cure-all. It has its weaknesses. It has its excesses.  But of all economic systems and theories, what’s better at giving people freedom to achieve their goals and reach their potential? As Milton Friedman said long ago on the Phil Donahue Show:

” … the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

So, I’m sorry. I can’t take this thought of “killing capitalism” seriously because the results would be catastrophic.

And that’s my opinion based on my years living in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

What are your thoughts?

 

 

Advertisements

Don’t trust the word democracy. (aka: the principles of a democracy)

North Korea is officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Don’t trust the word democracy.

Countries can call themselves what they like but it doesn’t change the fact of what they are in real life.

I don’t know anyone, outside of the North Korean communist party, who would offer the word ‘democracy’ to describe the hermit kingdom.

But that’s not the only word you can’t trust. Example two: Vietnam. The official name of Vietnam is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Oh, so they are kind of like Sweden, right?

Hardly.

Vietnam still has a one-party, communist system. Their economy has long since shifted into a mixed economy which indeed might fall in line with some democratic socialist countries that one would find in western Europe, for instance. But Vietnam does not qualify as a democracy. They just don’t pass the test.

What are the basic requirements of a democracy? Try these on for size and see if they sound right:

  • Fundamental worth of the individual
  • Majority Rules, Minority Rights
  • Equality of all People (before the law)
  • Necessity of Compromise
  • Individual Freedom

Fundamental worth of the individual (a little John Locke, perhaps?) Everyone has innate rights simply because they are human. These are often called inalienable rights. They can’t be removed from us. Now of course governments can prevent us from having those rights, but they are ours nonetheless because the rights come from God (or nature, if you prefer that description). This is a pretty special trait of democracy. It’s essential in creating a limited government where the rights of individuals are preserved.

Majority rules, minority rights. You can’t have a democracy if the rights of the minorities whether by race or religion do not have the same rights as the majority. Why? See point above. Laws and judicial rulings must be in place to preserve the rights of minorities. Without that, we would fall into an authoritarian regime. (Who wants that?)

Equality of all People. There can’t be any preferential treatment. Certain individuals, in government or elsewhere, have to play by the same rules as everyone else. It’s essential for any democracy.

Necessity of Compromise. Because all ideas are freely expressed, a democracy will naturally become a pluralistic society. Without compromise, you will get stagnation (see US Congress). There must be a natural give and take. No one will always get what he or she wants. If that happens, it’s called a dictatorship.

Individual Freedom. This is, perhaps, the hallmark of all democracies. Freedom to live. Freedom to pursue happiness. Freedom to express ideas, even unpopular ones. Freedom to demand government action (redress of grievance). Freedom to move. Freedom to work where one wants. Freedom to live how one sees fit, as long as that freedom doesn’t impinge on the rights of others. See point 1 and 2 above.

If a country has these five features, you can be assured it is indeed a democracy.

Democracies aren’t perfect. Some more imperfect as others, but even with all its flaws, it most definitely beats the alternative.

Poor Edward Bellamy

Edward Bellamy was a writer who wrote the Utopian novel 2000-1887: Looking Backward,where Julian West wakes up in a Utopian society in the year 2000 where everyone is equal and everyone is wealthy. A while back I did an essay on the Robber Barons, the ruthless capitalists who ruled America during the Gilded Age of the 1900, and I included a short critique of Bellamy’s views which I felt were very insufficient.  Here’s an excerpt of that essay. I’d appreciate your feedback. As usual, complete references are available on request.  – Mark

It may be a tempting proposition to suppose that the Robber Baron era did not have to occur and that there were any number of different ways in which society could have more effectively evolved.  Certainly no one relishes the struggle that the workers of this era had to endure.  They were squashed at gun point by Fiske and his band of armed thugs (Josephson 150).  They were put on trial for defending their jobs at Carnegie’s Homestead works.  But some of the alternatives that have been espoused seem severely lacking in both substance and reality.  One such idea espoused by Edward Bellamy in the utopian novel Looking Backward 2000-1887 shows the vision of a utopian American society gradually forming out of the continued concentration of capital into the hands of a few until one day the government becomes the sole capitalist for the benefit of everyone in society.  Bellamy’s socialist ideals which may have profoundly attracted many who were being torn under the cogs of the industrial giants’ great economic wheel seem overly naive from a modern day perspective.  But of course, Bellamy did not have the benefit of hind-sight.  Nor did he have the opportunity to feel the effects of a modern regime which tried to partially duplicate his utopian society.  Vietnam in the mid 1980s had nationalized everything from heavy industry to beer halls, and all of them lost money (Lamb 115).  Food was scarce, starvation was not uncommon, shoes were too expensive for most, and personal freedom was non-existent except for the communist elite (Lamb 115).  Bellamy’s criticism is well founded, but his solutions are sorely lacking. I suppose if Bellamy’s protagonist Julian West would have awoken in the year 2000 as we know it, he equally would have been impressed to see a wealthy nation with unparalleled freedom, incomparable choice in consumer products, and matchless wealth for a citizenry which was one of the most prosperous of the world.  And would it not have been interesting for him to see that the giant corporation did not go the way of a sole nationalist capitalist entity but that they had spurred on technological innovation and legitimate competition both locally and globally.  He also would have seen a reformed government structure which had worked to regulate the business community and to ensure the rights of all workers.  In fact, Julian West would have seen a more fair society which still had direct roots in the Gilded Age.