💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ngo-van-revolutionary-witness.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:06:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Revolutionary witness Author: Ngo Van Date: 1996 Topics: Vietnam, Vietnam War, Stalinism, authoritarian socialism, Trotskyism Source: Retrieved on October 14 2021 from http://chatquipeche.free.fr/Revolutionary_witness.html Notes: Vietnam's history of struggle against imperialism, "The International", n° 17, January 1996. Ngô Văn Xuyết was a Vietnamese libertarian communist.
Ngo Van was born in 1913 into a peasant family living in a village near
Saigon. He started work at the age of 14 and from 1932 was active in the
revolutionary anti-colonial struggle in Vietnam. During the 1930s and
1940s he participated as a Trotskyist militant in workers' and peasants'
demonstrations, strikes and protests, undergoing, as did thousands,
torture and imprisonment at the hands of the French rulers.
The working class in Vietnam was small, but Trotskyist activists were
influential in the important industries, and encountered the ruthless
hostility not only of the colonial regime but of the Communist Party of
Indochina (PCI) under the leadership of Hô chi Minh.
Forced into exile in Paris in 1948, Ngo Van spent many years researching
the history of these years of struggle, told in full in his two books
published in 1995: Revolutionaries They Could Not Break: the fight for
the Fourth International in Vietnam (Index Books, London) and Vietnam
1920-45: révolution et contre-révolution sous la domination coloniale
(L'Insomniaque Éditeur, Paris).
Ngo Van, now in his 80s, was able to attend the launch of the English
book in London. He prepared a talk giving a background to the events he
describes, which had unfortunately to be curtailed due to the limited
time available. We are pleased to be able to print it now, in full.
---
Comrades and friends: I thank you with all my heart for coming to hear
me today, and a particular thank you to the comrades from Workers Press
and Revolutionary History, who have organised this meeting.
I presume that you already know something of the struggle of the
Indochinese comrades from 1930 to 1945 from my book Revolutionaries They
Could Not Break. For those who have not read the book yet, I would like
to speak about the essential elements of the history of this struggle,
which took place over half a century ago in the Far East almost the
other side of the world in a backward country very little known to the
French, let alone other Europeans, a country which suffered almost a
century of colonial imperialism.
But first it is necessary to dwell briefly on the nature of Indochinese
society and the history of colonial conquest. Before the conquest, the
Indochinese kingdoms of Annam, Laos and Cambodia were agrarian societies
of which the basic unit was the peasant family. It was essentially a
subsistence economy, dominated by rice growing. Fishing, hunting and
artisanry were all on a very small scale.
In this rural setting, the intelligentsia was considered superior to the
other three classes the farmers, the artisans and the merchants. The
labouring people stood outside any official classification. The
intelligentsia was composed of those who could read and write Chinese
characters, who knew the religious rituals, who had studied the
Confucian classics canons of morality, political philosophy and ancient
history.
From this class came the mandarins or administrators of the kingdom‹the
bureaucracy of the feudal regime. Those who failed in a career as a
mandarin became doctors and schoolteachers in the villages.
From this class came poets and writers who ensured the survival of
traditional culture. But members of the intelligentsia were also in the
leadership of peasant revolts against the throne, and at the heart of
popular insurrections against colonial domination.
Until 1954 Vietnam was divided into three different countries: Tonkin in
the north, Annam in the centre and Cochinchina in the south. In the
sixteenth century the Viet territory consisted of Tonkin (the
present-day North Vietnam) and the northern part of Annam, down to Hue.
In the seventeenth century, the Viets began their advance on the south,
destroying the kingdom of the Chams, between Hue and south Annam: then
they occupied Cochinchina (the modern South Vietnam), where the Khmers
lived. From this sprang the traditional enmity between the Khmers
(Cambodians) and the Viets, encouraged by the colonial government, which
pitted one against another. In the twentieth century it has been
exacerbated by the extreme nationalism of Pol Pot and Hô chi Minh, and
remains a potentially explosive source of conflict in the region.
Nationalism is indeed the scourge of our times.
Each communal village was administered by a council of notables, and
enjoyed considerable autonomy and independence from the central regime.
The council was composed of a dozen members nominated by the
intelligentsia, the rich and/or the "virtuous", and was led by the
oldest and wealthiest in the village. The mayor was in charge of
collecting taxes; other notables were responsible for the police,
education, religion.
Traditionally, there existed a form of collective ownership. Paddy
fields and other land was communally owned: the land was reassigned
among villagers periodically and "fairly". A decree of 1897 alleviated
the situation of the poor by forcing rich peasants to give three-tenths
of their land to the commune.
The colonial administration failed to take account of the social
character of this "collective" tradition which prevented any individual
from falling into desperate economic straits. After the French took
power, communal land was too often seized by the notables and the rich
landowners. After the colonial takeover, only 2.5 per cent of the land
in Cochinchina was still collectively owned, whereas before the French
came "the land was owned entirely by the villages" (Jobbe Duval, La
Commune Annamite, p. 42). During the colonial era the land was leased by
process of law, and consequently inaccessible to the poor. The French,
however, did retain the commune as the basic administrative unit,
together with the councils of notables.
Merchants and missionaries first from Portugal and Spain then from the
Low Countries and from England had been arriving in Indochina since the
sixteenth century. French missionaries installed themselves from the
seventeenth century onwards. Evangelicism and mercantilism the cross and
the counting house were the forerunners of colonial conquest.
Christianity threatened not only traditional religion, but also the
Confucian social order on which rested the authority of the aristocracy
and the monarchy. But the aristocracy tolerated the missionaries because
they needed them as intermediaries in obtaining arms from the western
powers.
During the seventeenth century, the Viet people suffered under the rival
powers of north (the Trinh) and south (the Nguyen): the civil war lasted
from 1627 to 1787. The wars of the rival lords hastened the country's
ruin and brought untold misery to the population.
In 1772, the peasants of Tay son, a village in south Annam, overthrew
their local lords: two of their leaders installed themselves as kings
and founded the Tay son dynasty (1776-1801).
At the end of the eighteenth century, the epoch of the French
Revolution, one of the Nguyen aristocrats of the south succeeded in
taking over the whole country, from the Chinese border to the tip of
Camau. This was done with the help of French missionaries, merchants,
and deserters from the French king's ships moored at Pondicherry in
India.
In 1801 he made Hue his capital and proclaimed himself emperor Gia long,
founding the Nguyen dynasty which lasted until the 1940s. Nationalists
and historians of all kinds have glorified Gia long as the unifier of
the "Annamite fatherland". In reality, his l9-year reign saw the
imposition of forced labour and taxes on the population: many villagers
had to give up their land.
From 1802 to 1883, Gia long and his successors put down more than 400
uprisings by peasants and ethnic minorities, of which the best known
were those of Phan ba Van (1826-27) and Ta van Phung (1862-65).
In gratitude to the missionaries, Gia long gave them the freedom 'o
propagate the Catholic religion. But his successors revoked this,
promulgating anti-Christian laws which called it a perverse religion
which: allowed for no rites for dead relatives, plucked the eyes from
corpses to make a magic potion for hypnotising the people... The
European priests, who are the most guilty, will be thrown into the sea
with a stone around their necks... The Annamite priests will be tried to
see if they will renounce their heresy. If they refuse, they will be
marked on the face and exiled to the unhealthiest places in the empire.
Many French and Spanish missionaries were beheaded.
Napoleon III launched a 'Catholic crusade', under the pretext of
defending the missionaries and protecting those who had converted to
Christianity, to win the support of Catholics at home in France. In two
decades, through gunboat diplomacy and a series of punitive treaties
imposed on the Annamite monarchy, the French bourgeoisie consolidated
its hold on Vietnam.
Marx, writing in the New York Daily Tribune of 8 August 1853 about
British colonialism in India, said 'the profound hypocrisy and inherent
barbarity of bourgeois civilisation is revealed when it ventures out of
its native surroundings, where it takes respectable forms, to the
colonies, where it shows itself in its true colours."
The capture of Saigon in 1859 was followed by the almexation of the
whole of Cochinchina, which was completed in 1867.
The intelligentsia and the mandarins, threatened with the extinction of
the regime of which they were the mainstay, joined with the peasants in
a desperate struggle against the invader.
Bien hoa insurgents declared in December 1862:
Your country belongs to the west, ours to the east. We are as different
as the horse and the buffalo, in our language, our writing and our
customs... You have ships and guns, no one can stop you... But we are
bound in gratitude to our king... If you continue to bnng us death and
destruction, the price will be chaos without end. But we are following
Heaven's laws: Heaven will help us and our cause will triumph in the
end... Therefore we pledge ourselves to unending and inexorable
struggle.
The French Third Republic, proclaimed on 4 September 1870, pressed on
with the conquest of Vietnam. Jules Ferry, president of the council,
characterised its colonial policy in this way:
Colonisation is the child of industrialisation. For the rich countries,
where capital abounds and rapidly accumulates, where manufacturing
enterprises are constantly growing... export is essential for general
prosperity and potential of capital, and consequently the demand for
labour is directly related to the extent of the foreign market.
After the occupation of Tonkin by the French, the royal court at Hue
signed a treaty on 6 June 1884, accepting the French protectorate. In
1874, after the loss of the Cochinchinese provinces, the Annamite
intelligentsia called on the people to 'chase out the Westerners and
exterminate the practitioners of a perverse religion.' Thousands
attacked Catholic villages. The movement was put down by the pro-French
monarchy, and Christians avenged themselves by setting fire to the
houses where non-Christians lived. In 1885, in response to a
provocation, the Hue court launched a surprise attack against the
French.
The king fled, and the mandarins and notables organised a rebellion
which spread to the whole of Annam. To enforce 'pacification', the
French brought up battalions of artillery, and the insurgents were faced
with columns of soldiers under the command of the French. The rebellion
was finally quashed in 1896, and the king deported to Algeria.
Thereafter the Hue court was to became the instrument of French
domination‹but not always a docile one, as is shown by the deportation
of two more kings to Île de la Réunion in 1909 and 1916.
From 1887 Indochina fell under the authority of a governor general based
in Hanoi, who controlled administrative and military power in all five
countries‹the kingdoms of Annam, Tonkin, Cambodia and Laos, which were
protectorates, and the colony of Cochinchina. In the protectorates, the
monarchy was under the control of the French presidents.
Cochinchina was directly administered by France through the governor of
Cochinchina. A French administrator controlled every province, whereas
in Annam and Tonkin, the mandarin in charge of a province was under the
orders of a French resident. A poll tax was instituted, and salt,
alcohol and opium monopolies were set up. The poll tax and salt tax,
combined with the setting up of forced labour gangs to build the roads
and canals, were the main sparks for the peasant revolts in 1908 and
1930.
Colonisation was to drag a country with a so-called 'Asiatic' mode of
production out of its isolation, and impose a capitalist mode of
production on it, transform it into a source of raw materials like coal,
minerals, rubber, rice, cotton, to feed the industries in the
metropolitan countries and to provide a market for exports manufactured
in France. The colonisers found in Cochinchina a huge reservoir of cheap
labour.
Exploitation of Indochina on this scale began around 1900. The first
mineral industry started in 1889. Mines, the big conglomerates
(dredging, public utilities, electricity, cement, distilleries),
transport, all the new industries, gave rise to a pronounced social
differentiation in a matter of a few decades.
The proletariat, born in conditions approaching slavery, was
concentrated mainly in the coal mines of Tonkin, in the rubber
plantations of Cochinchina and Cambodia, which belonged to the French
conglomerates. In the towns, coolies‹ those who did hard, unskilled
work‹and workers in native bourgeois enterprises were no less exploited
than their counterparts in French and Chinese factories.
Traditionally, the homes of these coolies and workers were in the
countryside. The peasantry constituted the majority of the population.
The rich peasants were small proprietors who employed agricultural
workers; the middle peasants cultivated their own paddy fields; the poor
peasants possessed so little land they could not even feed their
families, and had to sell their labour power, as did millions of
landless peasants, the agricultural proletariat.
The poor peasants became farmers by renting land from landowners, who
lent money at very high rates of interest. As well as paying rent for
his paddy, the peasant had to work free for the proprietor for a certain
number of days and take him presents on feast days. Always in debt, they
were often reduced to the status of serfs, tied for life to the
landowner. Those with no land, such as day workers and domestic
servants, made up a dispersed agricultural proletariat, superexploited
by the landowners and the rich peasants.
The landowning class was formed through the conquest - of Cochinchina by
the French, and the confiscation of land abandoned by the old landowners
who had been driven out by war. They increased their land through
confiscations and seizures, by order or with the complicity of the
French, as payment for their collaboration in the war of conquest and in
the repression of rebels.
In Cochinchina in 1950, 2.5 per cent of the landholders controlled 45
per cent of the cultivated land. They increased their holdings through
usury and plunder, with the tacit connivance of the colonial
administration, to the detriment of the small peasants.
Landlords grew rich from the rent of land and from the rice paddies.
They borrowed money from the Bank of Indochina and practised usury on a
huge scale in the countryside. Through an intermediary, the landlord
exploited the peasant through land rent‹ the basis of the feudal
economy. But capitalist characteristics predominated over the remnants
of feudalism, and finance capital held sway. It was not, as the
Stalinists characterised it, a 'semi-feudal economy'.
The native bourgeoisie came out of the landed class. Most of them were
also landlords. This section arose suddenly, artificially, and never
succeeded in finding a place in the capitalist colonial system.
Industrial development was barred to them to prevent competition with
metropolitan industries, so they had to remain content with involvement
in industries connected with agriculture (cloth, soap making, dehusking
rice, and so on). They hardly formed part of the colonial regime, since
the French capitalists had found in the Chinese more effective allies.
In 1925, they formed the Constitutionalist Party, demanding a
constitution which would give them access to power. The colonial leaders
agreed that they should be elected to consultative assemblies, such as
colonial, municipal and provincial councils.
Both the indigenous bourgeoisie and the landlords owed their entire
existence to imperialism. They always took the side of the colonial
power against any revolutionary movement, always favouring a
Franco-Vietnamese collaboration.
Intermediate layers grew up among the big social classes: artisans,
small traders, teachers, intellectuals, all constituted the petty
bourgeoisie.
The intelligentsia, if one could give that title to the group of
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intellectuals, were faced with an unstable
social situation that offered them no prospects. Colonial society
consigned them to subordinate roles in every sphere. From the 1920s,
this layer was the revolutionary contingent which took action against
the colonial regime, a military and police dictatorship ever since its
establishment.
We have already mentioned the two bloody rebellions by monarchists
against the French occupation, that of the intellectuals from 1860-74
and of the mandarins from 1885-1896. Both were decisively crushed and,
from 1897 onwards, the French enjoyed supreme power.
From 1900, intellectuals formed two different tendencies reflecting the
aspirations of an indigenous bourgeoisie striving for modernisation. The
first, in Annam, was led by the intellectual Phan chau Trinh. It was
republican and democratic, demanding administrative reforms and modern
training for industry from the protectorate‹to no avail. The second,
epitomised by the intellectual Phan boi Chau, was monarchist, looking
simultaneously towards education and a war of liberation, and seeking
the support of Japan.
These reformers were decimated in 1908 during serious peasant
disturbances in Annam against the poll tax and forced labour. Many were
beheaded or deported to Poulo Condore. The partisans were utterly
crushed in their terrorist attempts in 1913, as well as in their
military campaigns of 1914-16, during the first world war.
In the 1920s we see the birth of a new nationalism, drawing in the
young, French-educated intelligentsia. Four nationalist revolutionary
groups sprang up between 1925 and 1929: the Tan Viet (New Vietnamese
Revolutionary Party, 1925-29); the Hoi kin Nguyen an Ninh (Nguyen an
Ninh Secret Society, 1928-29); the Viet nam quoc dan dang (VNQDD,
National Party of Vietnam, 1927-30); and the Thanh nien (Association of
Young Revolutionary Comrades, 19251930, which was to become the
Indochinese Communist Party).
Faced with a colonial regime which would concede not even the most
elementary democratic rights (freedom of the press, of communication, of
association, of meeting, of travel... ), a regime which felt itself to
be permanently under threat, these groups imposed on themselves an iron
discipline. On pain of death, members were obliged to keep totally
secret the affairs of their party and not speak of them even to
relatives, friends and acquaintances. It was a dark, silent world. Their
common aim was to 'make revolution' through an armed insurrection, 'to
free our country from the yoke of imperialism'.
For the Tan Viet, the final objective was the establishment of a
socialist republic. The Nguyen an Ninh Secret Society would achieve,
they said, some kind of agrarian socialism. The National Party of
Vietnam (homologous with the Kuomintang) wanted a democratic republic.
None of these three sought foreign help. The Thanh nien, created on the
initiative of the Third International in 1925, had the perspective of
founding a socialist republic in the image of the USSR. All drew members
from the cultured middle classes. Both the Tan Viet and the Secret
Society were destroyed by the repression of 1929.
The National Party was annihilated after the failure of the Yen Bay
insurrection on the night of 9-10 February, 1930, in Tonkin. Those who
escaped took refuge in China. The party was not to reappear in Vietnam
until 1945. The Trotskyist militant Ta thu Thau wrote of this attempted
putsch:
It was the work of the left nationalist faction, which attracted
students influenced by the Chinese revolution, and supporters of
Sunyatsenism (a synthesis of democracy, nationalism and socialism), a
faction which opted for the violent overthrow of imperialism.
Yen Bay, he added, was 'a barely organised revolt, localised, lacking
contact with the civilian population and ideologically unprepared.'
The Indochinese Communist Party entered on the scene on 1 May 1930. The
Thanh nien had a training school for militants at Canton, in China, and
since 1925 had put down roots in Vietnam, with a proto-Bolshevik
nationalist ideology. Reorganised in February 1930 as the Indochinese
Communist Party (PCI), it was able, only three months later, to launch
the peasant movement of 1 May.
The Vietnamese Trotskyist Left Opposition was formed in France in 1930.
After the February demonstration in Paris against the death sentences on
the Yen Bay insurgents, many comrades were deported from France to
Saigon. The stalinists met them with thousands of leaflets denouncing
them as counter-revolutionaries.
After the failure of the 1930-31 peasant movement and the crushing of
the peasant soviets of Nghe Tinh in northern Annam, an opposition
faction was formed inside the PCI, in north Annam, and the Baclieu-Camau
region of Cochinchina. Those who had returned from France contacted the
latter group and the Indochinese Left Opposition or Ta Doi Lap was
launched in November 1931 in absolutely clandestine conditions.
The organisation was broken up in August 1932, with 65 arrests. The
trial of 21 militants of the Left Opposition took place in Saigon on 1
May 1933, followed by that of 122 PCI militants from 3-7 May. Eight were
condemned to death.
The United Front between the Stalinists and Trotskyists of 1933-37‹known
as 'La Lutte' ('Struggle') was a last resort. Out of this came the
splits in the Trotskyist organisation, at the time of the Laval-Stalin
pact (1935), the Moscow trials (1936) and the Popular Front (1936).
The programme of the PCI from 1930 to 1935 was based on internationalism
and the class struggle: it called for the overthrow of the imperialist
colonial power. In 1935, the Laval-Stalin pact sealed the alliance
between France and the USSR. The PCI followed the line of the French
Communist Party (PCF), accepting the integrity of the French empire and
choosing to 'defend France, which is threatened in Indochina' and
calling for 'the defence of our country and our race'.
In 1936, the Stalinists defended the Popular Front, which upheld French
imperialist rule in Indochina. The Trotskyists criticised this policy,
and as a consequence won the confidence of the majority of workers in
Saigon-Cholon. Their influence extended into the provincial centres.
The break-up of the united front, La Lutte, in 1937, was carried out by
the PCF on orders from Moscow. The Trotskyists called for the building
of a party of the Fourth International, which had been proclaimed by
Trotsky in 1938.
War broke out on 3 September 1939, and wholesale arrests followed of all
oppositionists‹Stalinists, Trotskyists, nationalists, members of
politico-religious sects. They were sent in their thousands to the
island prison of Poulo Condore or to the concentration camps.
After the Hitler-Stalin pact in August 1939, the PCI stopped
collaborating with the French 'for the defence of Indochina' against
Japan. In an abrupt about-turn, it launched a peasant insurrection in
Cochinchina in November 1940‹ despite the repression, the party could
still call on considerable forces in the countryside.
The uprising was quickly crushed, shelled and machine-gunned by
Cambodian artillery. Thousands of villagers were massacred, 5,846
arrested (the official figure), 221 condemned to death (of whom 181 were
actually executed), 216 sent to hard labour camps and a thousand to
prison.
In July of this year Nguyen ai Quoc, the future Hô chi Minh, wrote in a
report to the Comintern:
As far as the Trotskyists are concerned, concessions are out of the
question. We should do everything to unmask them as fascist agents. They
must be politically exterminated.
This call for 'extermination' was to be answered, and between 1945 and
1951 PCI activists were to systematically assassinate any Trotskyists
who fell into their hands.
In 1945, events proceeded rapidly. On 9 March, French rule, which had
survived for 80 years against generations of conspiracies and peasant
uprisings, was ended in one night by the Japanese army, who installed
themselves as sole masters of Indochina under martial rule.
In July, as the defeat of Japan drew closer, Truman, Churchill and
Stalin decided at Potsdam how the country would be occupied: by the
Chinese army from the extreme north down to the 17th parallel, and by
Indo-British troops in the south.
On 18 August, after the Japanese surrender, Hô chi Minh took advantage
of the political vacuum. Under his leadership, the Vietminh‹a
nationalist organisation led by the PCI‹and its guerrilla fighters took
power in Hanoi. On the 23rd they captured Hue, before the arrival of the
occupying Chinese army, and on the 25th they proclaimed in Saigon the
establishment of the Vietminh government in the south, pre-empting the
coming of the Indo-British troops.
'All the nationalist parties at this time were pro-Chinese or
pro-japanese, and together with the politico-religious sects were
preparing the armed struggle against colonial reconquest and for
independence. The two Trotskyist groups were also preparing. The La
Lutte group proposed to work with the Stalinists to form an armed united
front, but the Ligue des Communistes Internationaliste (International
League of Communists), the other group, organised a workers' militia
with the perspective of fighting independently of the Vietminh, for
national liberation and the emancipation of the proletariat and the poor
peasants, under the red flag and with the anthem of the
'Internationale'.
For a year, from 1945 to December 1946, that is, up to the beginning of
the Indochinese war, Hô chi Minh consolidated his hold on power. He did
this through manoeuvring and negotiating with the Chinese, the French
and the Americans, and through the physical elimination of all other
nationalist tendencies.
Workers and peasants were also reacting to the vacuum of power in the
country. Still outside the totalitarian control of the Vietminh, 30,000
miners in Hon Gay elected their own councils to control mineral
production. They took control of all the public services in the area,
the railways, the telegraph system, and applied the principal of equal
wages for all workers, manual or professional. Illiteracy was tackled
and attempts were made to begin a welfare system. This new order reigned
from August to November, 1945, to the apparent indifference of the
Japanese.
But this movement was isolated and soon government troops encircled the
area. When the miners refused to submit to the requirements of 'national
unity', three elected workers' leaders were arrested by the Vietminh,
who then replaced the people's councils with a new hierarchy‹the
military-police regime of the 'democratic republic'.
The Trotskyists called for the land to be given to the peasants and the
factories to the workers‹in other words, the implementation of the 1930
programme of the PCI. In one province of Cochinchina, the peasants began
taking over the land: the de facto Vietminh government in Saigon
immediately forbade this and instituted severe penalties for any act of
expropriation.
At Tra vinh, the peasants began to share out the land, the livestock and
agricultural implements. To conciliate the landlords, the Vietminh
stopped these actions and forced the peasants to hand back what they had
taken. This made the Vietminh very unpopular among the poor peasants. In
numerous provincial centres and villages, notably in north Annam and in
Tonkin, people's committees ordered the distribution of the land and the
confiscation of goods of the rich. In November 1946 a Vietminh
government circular to the provincial committees decreed that 'no paddy
fields or cultivated land must be shared out'. It re-established a
pyramid hierarchy of government, whereby the executive committee of each
region was to be responsible for the implementation of government orders
and every component of the pyramid was to control the one immediately
below it. This is what the Stalinists called 'democratic government'.
The Commissioner for the Interior, Nguyen van Tao, issued threats
against Trotskyists who sided with the peasants and agricultural
workers. He wrote:
Those who urged the peasants to expropriate the landlords will be
ruthlessly punished. The communist revolution, which will solve the
agrarian problem, has not yet taken place. Ours is a democratic and
bourgeois government, even though it is communists who are in
Tao was conveniently forgetting that the division of land among the
peasants was, according to PCI theory in 1930, a task which the
bourgeois-democratic government had to accomplish before passing over to
the socialist revolution. Instead, the Vietminh had returned to the days
of the Thanh nien, of 'national revolution' (national unity for
independence) before any agrarian reform.
Let us return to the Trotskyists, chief target of the Stalinists. In
Saigon, on the evening of "3 September, Le van Vung, secretary of the
Saigon-Cholon comittee of La Lutte, was murdered outside his house. Some
days later, the teacher Nguyen thi Loi who, like van Vung, had been
instrumental in reviving La Lutte after the Japanese surrender, was
killed in Cholon.
The month of October saw the worst of Stalinist crimes, with the
assassination of Trotskyists and sympathisers throughout Cochinchina.
The lawyer Hinh thai Thong was surprised by the Vietminh as he chaired a
meeting of delegates from neighbouring village action committees: they
were all arrested and he was murdered. His body was to be discovered
only in 1951, along with a hundred other corpses who had been tortured,
at Quon long.
The Co giai phong, organ of the PCI central committee, urged the
slaughter of Trotskyists in its edition of 23 October 1945, justifying
it in these terms:
At Nam bo, they [the Trotskyists] demand the arming of the people... and
the completion of the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, with
the aim of splitting the national front and provoking opposition from
the landlords to the revolution.
The so-called 'victory of the heroic little people' in Vietnam was due
to the Cold War between the Sino-Russian bloc and the USA. Without
Russian and Chinese arms and advisers, Dien bien phu would have been
inconceivable, as would the 'defeat' of the United States in the second
stage.
Certainly, Hô chi Minh's party won the war, but did the Vietnamese
people win anything more than slavery? In Indochina, the militants of
the Fourth International fought to involve coolies, workers and poor
peasants in political struggle, with the perspective that only a
proletarian revolution can bring a true and lasting solution to the
national and agrarian questions. They disappeared during the battle
against colonial reconquest, but due chiefly to the methodical
assassinations ordered by Hô chi Minh. He, as a good pupil of his
Kremlin masters, could not tolerate their intransigent adherence to the
class struggle, their refusal to unite with the bourgeoisie and the
landlords, their internationalism as opposed to the nationalism of the
Stalinists.
The small proletariat, with as yet scarcely any revolutionary
consciousness, was not able to take the lead in the liberation movement.
The Stalinist party came to power through the terrible suffering and
sacrifice of millions of peasants, who were rewarded by their renewed
enslavement to the nationalist bureaucracy, as a workforce necessary for
the primitive accumulation of capital... for the sole profit of a new
variety of moneygrabbers.
'National independence' become dependence: the country, a satellite of
the so-called Soviet empire, found itself caught up in the confrontation
between the two great 'Party States', battling for power in southeast
Asia. Its 'communist' army, revitalised by the Russians, drove out the
'communist' Pol Pot, protégé of the Chinese, and occupied Cambodia for a
decade (1979-89).
The Vietnamese bureaucracy, this new ruling caste of the 'Socialist
Republic of Vietnam', with its 'cultivated middle-class' background,
master of a hierarchical one-party state, has done nothing but replace
the bourgeoisie and the landowners in exploitation of the proletariat
and the peasantry.
The working class today is even smaller, the new mandarins rule over
producers who still do not enjoy collective ownership of the means of
production, nor time for reflection, nor the possibility of making their
own decisions, nor means of expression, nor the right to strike. A
bureaucratic order reigns over social misery and inequality, with its
military-police regime, its nomenklatura essentially motivated by
careerism.
Ever since 1956, after Khrushchev's 'secret speech' on the crimes of
Stalin, some poets and writers have dared to break the apparent
consensus. In December of that year, Hô chi Minh issued a decree banning
all opposition publications‹the penalty was indefinite imprisonment.
In November 1956, a serious peasant revolt ousted the bureaucrats in
Nghe an, after agricultural reforms were arbitrarily decided. Fifteen
thousand innocent people were executed, according to a report by the
Ministry of Security in 1956, unearthed in 1961 in the Hanoi archives.
In other words, an average of five executions in each of the 3,014
communes involved in the uprising. Estimates of the number shot put this
at around 50,000. Many more peasants were thrown into prison or
deported.
In 1975, after the unification of the country, agrarian reform in
Cochinchina was no less disappointing. Demonstrations such as those by
the peasants of the Mekong Delta and the Plaine des Joncs indicate the
extent of injustice and oppression at this time.
A brutal collectivisation decimated livestock and in many places
peasants themselves pulled their ploughs instead of buffalo. The hasty
and equally brutal expropriation of commercial and industrial
The International No. 17 January 1996 enterprises, together with new
laws on fishing, brought economic chaos and provoked the emigration of
more than a million people. Social malaise grew to such an extent that
internal party criticism burst out into the open.
On 21 December 1986, the Nhan dan (The People), the Communist Party's
daily paper, published a statement by Duong quang Dong, party member in
the south since 1930:
For eleven years now, the party has shown itself to be incapable of
providing a single grain of rice, portion of meat or drop of brine; it
has even been incapable of stabilising prices. The people are suffering
too much... The best solution would be for the party to give them the
freedom to produce, to live, to study.
tre (Young Age):
How did we revolutionaries manage to create such an unprecedentedly
bureaucratic state? The province of Thanh hoa itself contains more
functionaries than the whole Indochinese colonial apparatus. How can the
country countenance such a state? I am over 70, and I have never seen
the peasants as poor as they are now: once the harvest is over, they've
nothing left to eat. Why? Because they are forced to sustain a
bureaucracy as disproportionate as it is inefficient.
In 1989, Le quang Dao, a member of the PCI central committee and
president of the National Assembly, declared :
Party dictatorship has taken the place of the dictatorship of the
working class... the result is a totalitarial regime based on
privilege... a regime based on social injustice which provokes revolt.
More recently, in October 1991, the novel The Sorrow of War by Bao Ninh
was published; it evoked the terrible drama lived out by the 27th
brigade from 1959 to 1975, until the capture of Saigon, which was
witnessed by only ten out of the original 500 members of the brigade.
Those who survived went on living, but their most ardent hope... was not
realised... Look around you: isn't this post-war life mundane, coarse
and violent? It seems to me that the masks of the past years have
fallen, and everyone now reveals their true horrific faces. So much
blood and bone lost, and for what?
The author does not condemn the war, without which 'there would have
been no peace', but neither does he condemn the desertion of his
anti-hero:
I am not afraid of dying, but to be always killing, it's destroying what
is human in us... How many bastards are sitting back making a mint out
of this war, while the peasant sons have to harden their hearts and go,
leaving behind old mothers with the sky as their curtain and the earth
as their mat... Victory or defeat... that means nothing to me any
more... I've already killed too much.
In November 1991 Bui Tin, editor of Nhan dan, organ of the party central
committee, left the government while on official business in ~aris‹a
sure sign of the political and economic crisis ravaging the country. He
said:
Our present situation concerns every Vietnamese person... bureaucracy,
irresponsibility, egoism, corruption, fraud, are allowed free rein under
this arrogant regime of privilege. The Communist Party of Vietnam is
still firmly rooted in Stalinism and Maoism, in a tendency which is
feudal, peasant, idealist, paternalist, authoritarian: it is
conservative and degenerate, a complete stranger to any democratic
instinct.
Russian aid has dried up; Chinese aid comes with punitive conditions;
the bureaucracy is now appealing to foreign capitalist powers and an
economic commission is discussing the 'free market economy'.
Whatever the problems which confront us, we know that what was called
'communism' in Vietnam, as in the USSR and China, was in fact a criminal
and barren travesty, a kind of state capitalism, a politico economic
monstrosity run for the benefit of a greedy, unscrupulous bureaucracy.
This 'communism', in fact non-existent, used lying terms to disguise the
bonds of its new form of slavery.
How could some historians apply the formulation 'national communism' to
the unjust, unhappy regime of Hô chi Minh?
The Marxist utopia of a free, open, rational world order without classes
and without capitalism, and therefore without exploitation and national
antagonisms, has not been achieved anywhere in the twentieth century.
Totalitarian, nationalist Stalinism, with its oppression, its lies and
its assassinations, has presented a distorted picture of such a society.
Ho chi Minh, who always claimed allegiance to Marx and Lenin, did
nothing but follow exactly the line of the Moscow bureaucracy as laid
down by Stalin, its master‹down to the last wretched detail. So, in the
1940s, he called himself, and even signed documents as, 'Uncle Ho'‹a
name with all the associations of a revered tutor in traditional
Confucian society. When he gained power in Hanoi
At the age of 55, he proclaimed himself 'Father Ho'. In the
hagiographical biography written by him but signed Tran dan Tien, An
account of the active life of President Ho, we read:
President Hô chi Minh does not want to say anything about his own
life... A man like our president, so virtuous and modest, and so busy,
how could he tell me about his life... We have other great national
heroes... but President Hô alone was able to complete the job... The
people call him 'Father of the Nation-because he is the most loyal son
of the Vietnamese fatherland.
In his testament the 'Father of the Nation', who died on 2 September
1969, expressed his wish that there should be no grand funeral rites:
I ask that my body should be burned... My ashes divided into three
parts, one sent to the north, one to the centre and one to the south. My
compatriots in these areas should choose a hill to bury the urn. I wish
for no tombstone nor bronze statue, but instead a simple shelter, large
and shady, so that visitors can rest there. A plan should be made to
plant trees around the hillside. Each of my visitors could plant a tree
of remembrance... The care of the place could be entrusted to elderly
people.
What a way for the elderly to end their days, caring for a hillside
shrine!
In fact, after his death the Hanoi bureaucrats had Hô embalmed. The
personality cult during his life was followed by the worship of his
mummy on show in a mausoleum; Stalin did the same with Lenin's remains
(one can imagine how sarcastically Lenin would have greeted such a
proposal). In Moscow, now, people are saying it is time to end this form
of fetishism. Will the same happen in Hanoi tomorrow? What is not in
doubt is that one day, the oppressed and exploited masses will rise up
and put an end to their suffering. That is our profound hope and
conviction.