THE
PEASANTRY’S LOT
By
Van Nguyen
Dinh Phu, a peasant from Mo
Duc District, Quang Ngai Province, told how he survived before and after the
new agrarian reforms:
“After 1986, the
agricultural cooperatives lapsed, the peasant worked on output contract. He was
allocated to use a piece of land of one "sao" (80 m2) or two, or
more, depending on the number of his family members. At harvest time, the cadre
from the agriculture department comes to the village to verify how the production
is undertaken. He estimates the season yield of the crop and set the rates of
land rent and taxes. Estimates always exceed the amount of gain the peasant
could get from the field. Thus, he had to look for other means to support
himself and his family. He gathers wood, bakes it into charcoal, and sells it in
the black market. Making one’s living that way is illegal since the State
prohibits any damage to the forest. But, there is no other way the peasant
could do to survive. Cadres know it. They hunt down the lawbreakers, who often
get caught but are released. Only are their wood and charcoal confiscated. These
"exhibits" are sold in the black market, and money naturally goes to
the pockets of the law enforcement officials!
As regards the fate of the
peasantry he exclaimed: "The common people are in the same boat. They are
still equally poor and miserable." The absolute majority of the people in
his district are peasants. Before 1986, they worked for the agricultural
communes but got the least food to support themselves and families. Three-fourths
of the crop yield went to the State --practically to the local cadres' and the authorities'
offices. After 1986, on the path of market economy, the local authorities allocated
10 “sao”(800 m2) of land to everyone who is 18 years of age and
older. The situation isn’t better than it was before 1986. The peasant usually
grows rice. On the average, the yield of rice per season varies from 60 to 80
kgs per 800 square meters. Subtracting the expenses for the care of the land,
there was only half of the income from the crop yield left. The expenses are
numerous. The peasant has to pay for all kinds of additional "State
contributions," from social relief program to military obligation, not to mention
the tuition fees for children. In addition, he still "has the right"
to pay rent for the land and the taxes he owes to the State. There is virtually
nothing left after he has done all his "citizen's obligations." In order to survive, the peasant must look
for other means to support himself and his family. Besides cutting wood and
baking it into charcoal, many peasants have sought to smuggle foreign-made
articles or commodities--soap, watches, and so on into the black market in the
local area for some gain.”
Expressing will and wishes,
Din Phu unveiled: “The people know that the Communist Part-y of Vietnam lies to
them. It says the people are "the master of the country, but, in reality, they
are only the slaves. They are like old and weak water-buffaloes laboring for
the benefits of the State cadres and Communist party- members. The people are
the master of the country, but the State is the real “organizer” that manages
their living conditions and properties. The Communist Party monopolizes the
right to the leadership of the people! Every Vietnamese knows it. He is with no
voice to express will and wishes. Every
Vietnamese, whether he is a peasant in the countryside or a worker in the city,
deep in his heart, wants to get rid that Party. But, how could they do? They
could silently fight back local security police and authorities only. They are
armed with modern weapons while the peasant possesses nothing but his bare
hands!" (Van Chuong, Interview with
Dinh Phu VNHRW (July 1993).
Discussing
the question on agrarian reforms, Nguyen Khac Vien, a veteran communist living
in France, had his remarks, referring to the policy of the Communist Party, the
roots of problems, the shortcomings in the realization of the policy, and,
particularly, the rights and interests benefitting the peasantry.
First and foremost, “it is true that the comments on
the policy in the news may sound inaccurate and unclear. Even those who are
most conversant with the question of how the peasantry is unsure about what the
policy is about. In addition, the cadres’ embarrassing conduct of affairs at
the base only creates confusion. They directly contact with the peasants, but don't
really know what the policy really is. Basically, the Resolution No. 10 of the Communist
Party of Vietnam on agriculture is a lengthy document that brings up many
things at a time. One does not know what the major problem is. Most
importantly, it should stress the gravity of the problem: Certain people think that
only the peasants of the South fidget. They are mistaken, though. The whole peasantry,
from the North to the South, is budging. One should keep in mind that the
peasantry represents 80% of the population. Also, it is not a minority of it
that claims a renovation, but the entirety of it does. This is the most
extended movement. It is the most striking phenomenon that has ever happened
since the VI Congress of the Party. It is a positive movement that it sets in
motion the great cause for self-renovation in our country. Tens of millions of
peasants are conscious of their rights and claim real and positive actions
within the mechanisms of Party’s leadership and the laws.
As matter
of fact, “within the framework of the
existing mechanisms of Party’s leaderships, the peasants do not claim a
change of regime; they remain faithful to the Party and the State. In the past years, they have suffered bad effects
of an erroneous policy; they now claim a replacement of that policy. In putting
into effect the practice of “khoan”
(output contract), clandestinely operated or operated in hiding in the 1970's and then officiously
operated under the Resolutions of No. 100 of 1981 and the Resolution No. 10 of
1988 by the Vietnamese Communist Party in the early years of the 1980’s , to
the detriment of the corrupt potentates. That is a measure by which a whole
complex process is set in motion. From afar, it is truly difficult for an observer
to understand the law in its entirety.
The peasants
claim two criteria as regards agrarian reforms; the one is the rectitude and transparence
of the policy, and the other, the safe and sound process of actions, which is
less distinctive but which is more fundamental. One should be reminded that the
agrarian reforms of the Party have proceeded in two periods. The first period took
place in the North during the years 1953-1956. This was the process of confiscation
of the lands belonging to the landed proprietors and that of the distribution
of these lands to the peasants. Serious errors were committed during this
reform, and the Party officially recognized and rectified them. The second
stage took place after 1975. It was during latter period that a land
distribution adjustment took effect, based on the principle of partial
expropriation of land of rich peasants for land redistribution to poor peasants.
On this occasion, certain cadres and Party members had unduly appropriated the
lands of richest soil or hoarded the fertile lots for themselves or for their
relatives, provoking anger of the peasants who then reclaimed justice. If the
problem ever persists, it will be a very difficult problem to solve. There are more
corrupt cadres or new potentates representing the majority component of the
Party there.”
The
root of the problem resides in the policy of collectivism described in the
official document which critics often qualify as "subjective and
hasty." At least, one could say about the ill-conceived agrarian policies
on total land collectivization between 1958 and1960 in the North and the land
collectivization in the South between 1975 and 1980. The processes were virtually
similar, although the objectives were variously defined. Whatever connotations the
terms "subjectivity" or "hastiness," may imply, they do not
sufficiently make a ring round the essence of the problem in the appearance.
The true major problem is the process of collectivization, as defined in ductal
in the document. It discomposes the peasants’ lands by means of political,
administrative, and psychological dispositions even during the war of resistance.
It suffices to re-read the news and novels that discuss the problem in that
period to be convinced. What are the consequences from this collectivization,
then?”
In addition, “production
stagnation is another problem. The population increases. The personnel increase
accordingly. The apparatus of administration is cumbersome with “directions"
and "departments" and large contingent of cadres and a string of
orbit organisms. They only engender the parasites on it. They sponge on the cooperative,
only making it mal functioning. What,
then, is the share for the peasant that practically works for the production? Not
a big lot. Impoverishment is certain. More claims for rights rise. The peasant
is deprived of his right to mastery of the plot of land he cultivates. What to
plant, how to cultivate the soil, and where, when, and how to work are all
conditioned. Other people decide for him when it comes to sharing the crop, selling
it, deciding to whom it is sold, and how it is priced, and so on. Other people decide, and not the peasant.
Is the peasant ever the master of his land? Yes, but not for a long time. Collectivization has dispossessed the peasant
of it. He finds himself working on his land with miserable salary. This right
is transferred to the Party committee. This organ exercises the Party’s
monopoly of power, which is manifest in such an authority’s manner that it
often hurts the sentiments and the psychology of the peasant. While the worker could change easily the
conditions of work, the peasant ever remains attached sentimentally to his piece
of land and his buffalo; he does not easily want to give place and his properties
to anyone. The founders of socialism repeatedly said: “One must spare time and moment
for reflex ion for the peasant; do not impose on them collectivization before
they will really be ready.” Today, it must done in accordance with a priority
order, render to the peasant the right to mastery of land, first.
Next, how
could one share the products? In
the actual state of affairs, the “khoan”
has already rendered to the peasant the right to mastery of his land. One does not define that right clearly. One sows
confusion, and thus exposes oneself to trouble. What one must say clearly is
that one renders to the cultivator the right to mastery of his land. One must affirmatively
define the socialist character of our regime cherishes. One reaffirms this principle:
"Render the land to those who work on it", his management of the land
to him and the right to mastery of the land to those people who till it only.” The
trader in the cities, the civil servant of the State, the religious
organization0n, and any other people have no right whatsoever to claim that right
to ownership of land. That is it.
Shortcomings
are numerous. Collectivization is one. “It
is the profound worry to so many cadres, here and there. A French comrade, a
specialist on the history of Vietnam, after having listened to a report on the
question of peasantry, exclaimed: "Then, one comes back to the rights to ownership
of private property? “ What is then the difference in terms of concepts on
collectivization from capitalism?"
The confusion is born from the lack of accuracy in the defining of terms
in the texts on question issued by the Party. One should have said errors have
been committed; and one has to rectify them. One should not come back to the question
of the right to total ownership of private property as is institutionalized in
the capitalist system, but to go forward toward socialism by another way,
instead. That is, one has to follow a new process. It is true that the first
step might seem to go a step further back, because one should take the family
as a fundamental unit for production, as it was conceived in the ancient
regime. The peasant, after having paid taxes to the State, is able to decide
with full right for his mode of production, of his fruits of work and the sale
prices for his products, without interference from the State.
Coming back to the "Laissez-faire”? There could be a "laissez
faire" in a socialist state. In the first place, the State protects the peasant.
The land is prevented from being given to non-cultivators neither is his right
to the land monopolized by anyone. In the second place, the peasant is not bound
to dominance by an uncertain economic system. He has the rights to purchase
industrial products-- machines, fertilizers, insecticides, and commodities—and agricultural
products. In the capitalist economic system, exchanges go with big firms that fix
the prices in their favor and to the disfavor of the cultivators. That is one of
the reasons for which one can specify this distinctive appearance. Peasants in the
capitalist country voice protests against the magnates’ policies of prices and
land concentrations. In the socialist regime, industrial products and agricultural
products make up a great part of products exchanges between the peasant and
State. The problem is to determine on what bases the apparatus of administration
of the State. The industrial, scientific, and commercial sectors of the State
conduct affairs. It operates the exchanges, executes the measures with which the
society is assured a sufficient volume of products and the practices the policy
for prices benefitting the cultivators and the whole society. Thus, bereft of a
socialist state, private commerce takes the upper hand. And, a small minority
monopolizes the ownership to the land of the people, making it individual
property.
As
regards the peasant, he still faces serious problems. Will eternally work on his small
pieces of land, individually? No. That’s
impractical. Two problems come into view: insect’s annihilation and irrigation. It is
unwise to spray insecticide over a small piece of rice. It flies in an instant over
onto the enamoring piece of land that belongs to someone s else. Still, it is
untenable for one family to dig a long canal for irrigation for the whole
collective. People club money together to fund the work, join efforts, and work
collectively. But, all of that must be done by the peasants themselves. Ten or
fifteen families could club fund together to buy a pump; fifty or seventy
families could join efforts to dig a canal, elevate a dike, or club fund to afford a fruits processor, create a
credits cooperative, and so on. But, let the people do all of this by themselves,
without the interference from the Party committee or the chiefs of villages,
districts, or provinces. The people themselves choose the responsible and
select the accountants. In another word, they create a collective which is conceived
on private and self-generated initiatives and which are totally different from
the directed decisions by the existing collectives or cooperatives. It is imperative
that everything should be done according to the conditions of the moment and the
particular situation and place. The operation of the collective or cooperatives
should necessarily be independent and without intervention and pressure from
the outsiders.”
In short, “the
new model will be the following: “The family constitutes the unit base. The
collective organization operates under various economic forms. These economic institutions
are assisted by the socialist State. The process of realization of this model
takes many years, depending on the processes of development of the new
technology and the progress of the society in general
At the present time, the conditions
are favorable to the regime. The members of the Party who have unduly
appropriated the land of the people are bound to the law to render it back to
the people. The redistribution is done
through redistribution operations under the “land funds.” There should be four
land funds categories: The first one is assigned to help with the
administration of the land surface reserved for the economic growth of the base
products, regulated by output contract (khoan)
under which the collective cedes the land surface to the cultivator in accordance with his
work ability. The second category is assigned to help with the administration
of fertile land surface nearest to the village habitations. This land surface
is given first priority to the invalids and wards of the State. Other communal land properties such as ponds
and handicraft facilities are put up for auction. Those who win the auctions
assure themselves of the exploitation, pay the taxes and tip over a fixed
percentage of their production to the commune. Likewise, other properties
belonging to the previous cooperative, namely, cattle, agrarian implements, and
other particulars are administered through similar processes. The immediate
resultant effect is reflected in the number of non-negligible commune properties,
namely, the reduction of 50% of the number of the "encased" instances in all categories, for instance. The personnel
that stay to work with the commune collective assure of the farming techniques
or serve as liaison between the peasant and the State services. A small number
of them assure of the administration of the remaining collective means of production,
in view of the possibility for establishment of a new form of more elaborate
peasant cooperation in the future.” (Nguyen Khac Vien, Doan Ket. April 1989
(No. 42:pp. 36-38)
