|

Sự khác biệt giữa chủ nghĩa Cộng sản Châu Âu và Châu Á

Bản  tiếng Anh:

Differences between European and Asian Communism

Professor Jerry Livingston Voorhis

During 1989, two highly significant and very different events took place at opposite ends of the world. In Berlin, Germany, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Communism, as a ruling system, collapsed in Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe.

However in China, something very different happened. The hopes of the world for a free, democratic China were dashed when tanks and troops from the countryside rode into Tiananmen Square and massacred hundreds out of thousands of students who had been demonstrating for democracy in Beijing for months.

Democracy, a market economy and free political and cultural expression, triumphed over communism in Eastern Europe and even in Russian, while, in China and Communist controlled areas in Asia, these liberating influences were stifled by the Government of Communist China, Vietnam, Laos and especially, Cambodia and North Korea.

We must ask the question: Why was the outcome of the peace and democracy movement so different between Europe and Asia?

There are many reasons for these different outcomes and one of the first and most important of those reasons was the different types of Communism that the Characterized Asia as opposed to Europe.

In Europe, from the very beginning Communism was an urban-based phenomenon. Urban workers, preferably those employed in large-scale industries, were looked upon as the proletariat, the Vanguard of the revolution. Along with the Communist parties and their leaders, heavily unlonized workers and highly industrialized regions like Saxony or the Ruhr Basin in Germany would vote Communist or at least Socialist in large numbers. Throughout the countryside, and in small towns or suburbs in Europe, voters supported conservative or centrist political parties, but never the Communists.

Russian peasants joined and backed the Social Revolutionary Party not the Communists or Bolsheviks as they were then called during the time of the revolution. Both before and after World War II, rural areas in Eastern Europe, and especially the prosperous farmers bitterly opposed and sabotaged collectivization efforts in Ukraine Poland, Yugoslavia Rumania, East Germany and elsewhere. As far as European Communism was concerned, the city was the base of support and it was the countryside which had to be conquered or won over.

This fact had an enormous impact on what happened to the Communist regimes during the 80’s and 90’s in Communist Europe, including Russia. Once the city overthrew the Communist regime and replaced it with a non-Communist democratic government and a mixed economy with a large private sector, Communism was doomed. After all, the countryside had always been anti Communist!

In Asia, one is confronted with a totally opposite situation. Throughout Asia as well as Cuba, Communism spread from the countryside into the city. Mao-Tze Tung’s main center of strength, during World War II and the Civil War which followed it, lay in the rural, relatively sparsely populated agricultural region of Northwest China, from there Chinese Communism spread to Beijing, Nanjing, Guangzhou and other urban centers. Once Mao’s Communists had captured the cities where Koumintang or nationalists were relatively strong, they had conquered virtually all of China. Pol Pots Khmer Rouge movement was almost fanatically rural and peasant – oriented. It severely punished the inhabitants of Phnom Penh and other urban centers, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions, and forcing the survivors to labor in the countryside as peasants.

Finally, Ho Chi Minh’s Communist movement began as a major force in the hills and mountains North and West of Ha Noi. It did not take control of the cities like Ha Noi until after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. Also in South Vietnam, the cities of Hue, Da Nang and Saigon held out against the Communist until the bitter end. Where support existed for the Viet Cong was mainly in certain isolated, rural areas like parts of the Mekong Delta.

As a result of this fact urban dissent in Asian Communist Countries was not as effective as in Europe. Communist Government in China, Vietnam and Cambodia could always rely on their rural support for help. The Asian countryside was more pro Communists than its European counterpart.

A second factor contributing to the resilience of Communist regimes in Asia is the relative lack of outside anti-Communist influences compared to the situation confronting the East European Communist. Throughout the 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s Eastern Europe was bombarded with anti communist broadcasts from Radio free Europe CA private anti communist network, the Voice Of America, and the BBC Broadcasting Corporation. West Berlin, an anti communist enclave located deep in Communist territory severed as a sounding board for anti Communist speeches by President John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan Gorbachev (ich bin ein Berliner) tear down this wall, which had an enormous impact on people living behind the Iron Curtain.

Huge populations of people from Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Germany etc) lived in the United States at this time. Their presence and political influence gave rise to special activities in the United States like Captive Nations months of weeks. Captive Nations referred to the countries in Europe which were Communist and were therefore, under the tomb or domination of the Soviet Union. Events like these gave rise to political rallies and demonstrations which constantly focused the American and International Public’s attention on the plight of these East European Countries.

The same sort of sympathy, attention and effort was simply not available for the Asian Countries under Communist rule. The Chinese Americans were a much smaller group than the polish. German and Hungarian, Americans and other minorities who had their roots in Eastern Europe, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Korean refugees were even smaller contingents. Finally, Chinese Americans and Non Chinese anti-communist Americans focused their attentions on Taiwan and strengthening the Kuomintang Government there rather than liberation or democratization of the mainland.

Finally, Eastern Europe was the scene of the first anti-communist rebellions, or revolution. In 1952, East German workers in Berlin and other cities rebelled against Communist Rule, which was more oppressive in East Germany than almost anywhere else. Their uprising had to be suppressed with Soviet tanks and troops. During 1956 and 1957, Hungarians carried out an unsuccessful but heroic rebellion that overthrew a brutal Stalinist Government, and among other things, legalized non-communist political parties, advocated a mixed economy with a private sector and advocated Hungarian neutrality in the Cold War Struggle between the U.S.S.R and the Western powers. The Hungarian uprising was crushed, but only after massive Soviet intervention, and considerable loss in life. In its aftermath over 100, 000 Hungarians became refugees who formed a formidable political force working against Communism in Europe. Last but not least, while the Hungarian revolution was taking place, Communist Poland underwent a series of reforms which constituted a blow against hard line Communism. Among other things, the Polish Government ended its collectivization drive in the countryside, and it allowed polish farmers to keep their lands. It also allowed religious Roman Catholic instruction in the public schools, and it tolerated the world’s only private university inside a communist country the Catholic University of Lublin.

In Asia there were virtually no rebellions against Communist rule on the scale of what was happening in Eastern Europe. The Tibetan uprising of the late 1950’s was more anti Chinese than anti Communist. Also, there were some last ditches holdouts against Communist rule in Southwest China, along the Burmese border and in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, but these were not fresh or new rebellions like the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Finally, people in Communist controlled China, Vietnam and North Korea were more isolated or cut off from the non communist world. There was not a West Berlin in Communist Asia.

Another element that underscores the difference between Asia and Europe is the leadership factor. Except in Russia under Stalin, Yugoslavia under Tito, Rumania under Ceausescu and Enhver Hoxha’s Albania, all of the East European Communist leaders were faceless bureaucrats, unattractive army officers or uncharismatic Communist party hacks. They were usually looked upon by the people who they ruled as puppets of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the two most popular and charismatic leaders in Communist Poland, for examples, were Lech Walesa, leader of Solidarity, an anti communist labor movement, and pope John Paul II.

The powerful and charismatic Communist leaders in Eastern Europe: Tito in Yugoslavia, Ceausescu in Rumania and Albania’s Enhver Hoxha were anti Soviet and often critical of the Warsaw pact. Tito tolerated a large private sector in the Yugoslav economy, and he refused to join the Warsaw pact, preferring instead to follow a neutralist foreign policy. Ceausescu made overtures to both China and the United States, in defiance of the Soviet Union, and the most importantly, he continued to recognize Israel after the 1967 six-day war when all other Communist East European Countries broke off relations with Israel and became vehemently pro- Arab. Finally, Hoxha bitterly denounced both the Soviet Union and China. Albania left the Warsaw pact after the early 1960s.

Finally, it could be said that with the exception of Lenin, the only charismatic and truly powerful leader of the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, who, by the way, was not a European. Stalin came from the Asian Republic of Georgia and because of this fact he ruled Russia more like an Asian Communist leader than a European one. The Soviet leaders who followed Stalin had nowhere near his charismatic almost supernatural power. Nikita Khrushchev who followed Stalin was a clown like figure whose domestic and foreign policies were miserable failures. Leonid Brezhnev, who followed Khrushchev, was a faceless bureaucrat, who bungled the Soviet Union into a hopeless war in Afghanistan. Brezhnev’s successors were even less successful, including Mikhail Gorbachev, who helplessly presided over the demise “death” of the Soviet Union.

Just as the Soviet Union started to disintegrate, Communism collapsed in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, in Rumania after the execution of Ceausescu, and in Albania after Hoxha’s death.

Finally, these European Communist leaders were vilified and rejected after their deaths and their influence evaporated. This was even true about Stalin.

Asian Communist leaders constituted a real contrast to their European Counterparts. This also applies to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Mao-Tze-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, and Kim Jong Il were worshipped as Gods or Emperors by their Communist followers. Even today, in China, although many of Mao’s policies were changed, Mao himself has not been attacked. Here has been absolutely no de-Maoization like the de Stalinization that occurred in the Soviet Union. Mao was and is as powerful an Emperor as Shih-Huang-Ti or Chien Lung. His influence or shadow lives on long after his death. Kim Il Sung is the official head of state for North Korea, even though he has been dead for two decades. Foreign ambassadors must present their Credentials to this great leader not the living had of State Kim Jong Il “The beloved leader”.

Then there is Ho Chi Minh, another red emperor, whose power extends beyond the grave.

This difference between the awe and respect accorded Asia Communist leaders as opposed to their far-less popular European Counterparts can explain why Communism failed in Europe, but continues in Asia. It is also necessary to deal with the two great Communist powers China and Russia, and to discuss their different impacts on their Communist neighbors.

Russia lies on the Eastern Fringe of Europe. She had been historically treated with arrogance and contempt by her European neighbors. The poles invaded Russia in the early 1600s and captured Moscow. Napoleon’s imperial French Army also invaded Russia during the early 18th century. Finally, Germany invaded and devastated Russia twice during the first and second World Wars.

Russia has had a very limited cultural impact on Europe. The Russia Cyrillic alphabet is not used by any formerly Communist European country except Serbian, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Ukraine and Belarus. There is also a huge religious gap between Russia and her East European neighbors. The Baltic States, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia and Eastern Germany are either Lutheran or Roman Catholic, and they use the Latin alphabet. Russians practice the Eastern Orthodox form of Christianity. Those Communist East European Countries which are Eastern Orthodox have national Orthodox Churches that differ on a number of points with the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Russian language or variants of it are spoken only in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. German Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, Hungarian, and Rumanian are totally different from Russian, and even in the case of other Slavic languages like Polish, Serbo-Croatian or Czech, there are considerable differences between them and Russian.

Russian holidays, dress, cuisine, attitudes toward life were very different from those of other Communist East European Countries, with the possible exception of Ukraine and Belarus. Even Russian myth and folklore is different from that of other East European Countries.

Finally, more than half of Russia is in Asia (Siberia). Russia has become more Asiatic and less European after Ukraine and Belarus became independent. Also, Russia’s population is declining. Only 140, 000, 000 people live in what is now Russia. Europe has looked upon Russia as a fringe wild, uncivilized, half Asian, barbaric territory. All of this may not be true, but it is believed by many European, especially those living in East Europe (poles, Hungarian, Lithuanians etc)

China’s relationship with her communist and noncommunist neighbors is entirely different from that of Russia. China maybe resented or even hated by her neighbors, but she is never looked down upon as being barbaric, uncivilized or culturally inferior. Unlike Russia, China is respected and also feared by her neighbors.

Russian Civilization is approximately 1,500 years old. Chinese Civilization (the oldest on Earth) is at least 5,000 years old. China is the third largest country in the world, and her population of one billion five hundred million is greater than that of any other country. China is a huge, fat country that dominates totally the map of East Asia. Compared to China, geographically Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and Laos are little slivers of land which are dwarfed by the Chinese giant. Finally, Chinese minorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, India and other Asian Countries are often hotbeds of Maoism. Russian minorities in countries outside of Russia, on the other hand, are usually quite anticommunist.

It will be difficult for Laos, Vietnam or North Korea to overthrow their communist regimes as long as China remains communist.

One final factor, which must be considered when dealing with the different paths followed by European as opposed to Asian Communism, is anti-imperialism. In Cuba, China, Laos, Communist were able to capitalize on Native Resentment of French, British, Japanese or American Imperialism. They could pose as patriots fighting to rid the country of hated foreign rulers. In Europe, once again, the opposite was true. European Communists were anti-nationalistic and anti-imperialist. But Europe was the cradle of imperialism. To oppose imperialism in Britain, France or Holland was to be unpatriotic and subversive. Communist in Europe sang the “internatimale” and advocated a universal class struggle against Capitalism and the British, French, Dutch and other Empires. This put Europe’s Communist in direct conflict with the nationalists of Britain, France or Germany.

In Conclusion, it could be said that although it may take a longer span of time in Asia than in Europe, Communism in Asia still can be overthrown or displaced. For example, the disputed over the parcel and sprately island has put Vietnamese nationalists and communists in direct conflict with one another.

As urbanization grows in Vietnam and other Asian countries, and as the peasantry declines in numbers, the hold of Communism in Asia will decline. Also, along with urbanization will come a greater dependent on technology and a world-wide economy. This will increase contact with the noncommunist world and further undermine communism. With a higher level of education, the number of anticommunist intellectuals will increase.

Finally, an expanded and heightened interest in religion throughout Communist Asia will further undermine the authority of Communist regimes. All of these factors plus a stronger private sector in the economy will eventually produce a democratic, noncommunist Asia.

A. Different Communisms

I. Europe Urban-based

II. Asia peasant-based

III. Peasant based Communism more resilient

B. Outside Pressure and Anti Communist Rebellions

I. Europe

1. Hungary 1956

2. East Germany 1953

3. Czechoslovakia 1968

4. Rumania and Albania

5. Radio Free Europe

6. West Berlin

II. Asia

1. No large scale anticommunist rebellions

2. No West Berlin in Communist Asia

C. Leadership Communist

I. Weak in Europe

II. Strong in Asia

D. China and Russia

I. Russia: less influential and less respected in Europe

II. China: more powerful and respected in Asia

E. Anti Imperialism

I. Advantages for Asia Communists liability for European Communists

F. Conclusion

Communism in Asia will eventually be overthrown.

Pages: 1 2 3

4 Phản hồi cho “Sự khác biệt giữa chủ nghĩa Cộng sản Châu Âu và Châu Á”

  1. data says:

    chống cộng

  2. Võ Nam Quảng says:

    ÂU VÀ Á

    Âu hay Á cũng là cộng sản
    Cũng một thân ông Mác xẻ ra
    Cũng là cờ đỏ sao vàng
    Cũng liềm cũng búa, cũng toàn thế thôi !

    Đó là nói ngày xưa cơ giới
    Còn bây giờ, nguyên tử, hạt nhân
    Liềm nay tự động rần rần
    Búa thì búa máy, mười phân vẹn mười !

    Thế mới biết cuộc đời chuyển biến
    Ông Mác xưa tính chuyện trên trời
    Hay đâu sự thế đổi dời
    Chỉ toàn khoa học dễ thời đến ông !

    Chỉ đáng tiếc, đời không thấy hết
    Nên Á, Âu, cũng vậy mà thôi
    Một màu đỏ khắp năm châu
    Bây giờ đến lúc đổi màu thành xanh !

    Nói chơi vậy nhiều anh tức tối
    Chực la lên “phản động” đây rồi
    Nào hay chỉ một con người
    Con người nhân bản, con người tự do !

    Võ Hưng Thanh
    (21/8/11)

  3. Sigma says:

    “Chúng ta đã mắc lừa một bọn lưu manh”
    Hoàng Đế Bảo Đại
    Toan the dan toc VN da bi lua , cu xem lai nhan su cua dcsvn tu nhung ngay dau se thay rat nhieu tri thuc noi tieng cung voi biet bao tu san va dia chu hay con cai cua ho…bon lua dao nay sau khi nam duoc quyen luc la quay sang phan phuc ngay tuc thi , chung da thang tay tieu diet (tan sat va hanh ha rat tieu nhan ) nhung nguoi con uu tu cua dat nuoc tieu bieu 2 vu Cai cach ruong dat va Nhan van giai pham … va sau ngay 30.4.75 chung tieu diet ngay mat tran dan toc giai phong mien nam cung nhu chinh phu cong hoa mien nam viet nam.do la nhung nguoi da theo va giup chung ,con doi voi nhan dan VN thi oi thoi that la kinh khung ….Bon csvn chi la mot tap doan toi pham mot lu luu manh day muu meo tham doc. chung cu rap khuon quan thay cua chung (tau phu) de cai tri ,de de dau cuoi co nhan dan VN . chu chang co gi la sang tao nhu chung van lu loa hang ngay tren bao dai
    cu nhin bo quan ao sooc cua tu nhan va cai vanh mong ngua tai toa thi thay ngay thoi ky do ho cua thuc dan….

  4. Vì sao chúng ta chưa thể lật đổ VC để thành lập một nước cọng hòa VN. Nói đến Trung Hoa chúng tôi không bàn vì chưa sống với xã hội Trung hoa để biết tâm lý của người dân muốn gì, nhưng là một một người Việt hơn 35 mất nước tôi hiểu thế nào là tự do độc lập và hiện trang cũng như lối suy tư của về người VN bấy giờ.

    Tôi không phải là một quân nhân của chế độ củ, nhưng tôi may mắn làm người thích đọc sách nên do tôi hiểu khái niệm dân chủ và tự một phần nào và VC khó mà lừa tôi được, khi tôi thấy bộ mặt thật của chúng. Nhưng điều quý báu của tôi là kẹt lại sau 75, nhờ thế tôi chứng kiến cuộc đổi đời của dân tộc từ một thể chế tương đối tự do sang một thể chế độc tài toàn trị VC và thấy rõ ai là kẻ áp bức ai là kẻ bị trị.

    Tuy nhiên sau ngày mất nước, chúng ta mới thấy những bộ mặt trớ trêu của lịch sử như phó tổng thống Nguyễn Cao Kỳ hay nhạc sĩ Phạm Duy, những người đã ăn bám chế độ sài gòn, nhưng khi quốc gia hữu sự, thì quay về với giặc, chửi bới những giá trị xưa củ mà các ông một thời tôn thờ. Những con người cầm cán cân quyền lực mà làm như vậy, làm sao VC không tiếp tục tồn tại. Tôi là một sinh viên trẻ, không dính máu nhân dân chống VC nhưng rất kịch liệt chống VC không bao giờ đầu hàng, trái lại những con người tay dính máu nhân dân như ông Kỳ,làm những công việc hết sức bỉ ổi, đem danh từ hòa giải chế nhạo nhân dân, đây là yếu tố làm VC tiếp tục sống còn. Tự do hay là chết, không có tự do thì sống làm gì. Trong khi ông Kỳ về VN, VC đặc ân cho ông nhiều tự do nhưng ông vẫn làm ngơ trước sự mất mát tự do của hàng triệu dân VN đang đói khát tự do. Điều ông Kỳ phải làm đòi hỏi tự do cho dân ông không làm, ông đi làm những chuyện ruồi bu như hòa hợp hòa giải dân tộc.

    Người VC làm hòa giải sẽ bị phản ứng ngược lại, nhưng tôn giáo làm hỏa giải, hay tướng tá binh lính VNCH làm hòa giải thì sẽ thuận buồm xuôi gió cho VC và VC sẽ tiếp tục ngự trị để đè đầu cởi cổ dân việt. Thầy Nhất Hạnh Làm hòa giải là một mất mát đau thương kinh khủng cho lẽ phải công bằng của dân tộc. Nhưng biến cố Bát Nhã ở Lâm Đồng đã vớt vát rất to lớn cho uy tín thầy, chính Phật đã độ trì thầy để thầy thấy những nhận thức sai trái của cuộc đời về thực trạng VN và từ bỏ làm công cụ tay sai cho VC. Nhờ kinh nghiệm quý báu ấy, thầy đã nhận ngay chân tướng VC và từ bỏ con đường ác đạo VC trở về với chân lý chân như như hằng viễn mà đức phật đã dạy để chúng sanh bước qua những khổ hải lầm than của cuộc sống. VC còn dùng đức cha Phạm Minh Mẫn tuyên bố về cờ vàng cờ đỏ làm sửng sốt một cộng đồng công giáo đang chống VC rất có chính nghĩa, nhưng có nhiều người chống VC vẫn bênh ông làm cho cuộc chính nghĩa chống VC hiện nay bị lu dần. Trong quá khứ Công Giáo bị mang tiếng là thế lực ngoại quốc, VC dùng đòn này để đánh thiên chúa giáo. Nhưng hiện tại, công giáo có khả năng cầm ngọn cờ chính nghĩa dân tộc qua hai hình ảnh quá bất khuất là cha Lý và Lê Thị Công nhân, hai nhân vật này là biểu tượng của hồn thiêng sông núi Việt, nếu Thiên Chúa Giáo mền dẽo liên kết với phật giáo như qua vụ Bát Nhã thì tương lai tôn giáo sẽ lật đổ VC. Hiện nay sự kết hợp của người công giáo với những tôn giáo khác còn dè dặt, người công giáo chưa thương những người tín hữu khác như tín ngưỡng của mình nên sự kết hợp chưa sâu rộng, chưa có một sự đoàn kết sâu rộng nên VC vẫn sống còn

    Người VN bị VC đuổi ra biển nhưng nay cũng quay trở về với giặc, còn ca tụng VC là đã đổi mới, tuyên bố phải xóa bỏ quá khứ hướng tới tương lai. Nhưng tương lai đang ở đâu, con cái quý vị được VC trọng dụng không, nếu có tài. Xin thưa: con cái quý vị đối với VC là phần tử phản động cần tiêu diệt. Nhưng điều đó người tỵ nạn không dạy rõ cho con hiện tượng và bản chất VC như thế nào. Ham quyền ham lợi nhỏ đổi lấy danh dự của mình vì thế ngày tàn VC còn tiếp tục ngự trị trên đất nước thân yêu.

    Cuối cùng yếu tố Mỹ và yếu tố Tàu. Hai anh chàng này thật sự chưa mở mắt như những người tỵ nạn, vẫn còn thương cái gì nhỏ đáng âu yếm còn sót lại, là tin tưởng là VC thay đổi lối sống bớt thù thêm bạn và sẽ không chơi trò phản nữa. VC là tên phản, nhờ thái độ điểu giả mà chúng lừa Mỹ và Tàu. Tàu và Mỹ , tướng Kỳ, Thầy Nhất Hạnh chưa bao giờ sống với VC nên chưa hiểu lòng dạ của VC, thói đời thích nịnh hót mà VC rất có tài nịnh hót vì thế VC chơi trò điếm làm những chàng trai Tàu Mỹ ngẫn ngơ trước cô gái VC trét đầy phấn son để che đậy nét hằng năm tháng, nhưng khi khám phá ra bộ mặt thực của VC thì hoảng hốt là mình bị mắt lừa. Thế ngoại giao nịnh hót của VC rất khôn ngoan vì thế chế độ VC còn tồn tại đến ngày nay.

Phản hồi