Is Vietnam Still Loyal To the Goal of Communism?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I haven't heard much news about Vietnam in a long time, though it could merely be lack of resources to gain any recent news of such. But I was wondering, from those that have remained paying attention to Vietnam, have they remained loyal towards the struggle to achieve the end goal, Communism? Vietnam was one of our most powerful & well organized socialist nations out there, so it would be a shame if they had left all that behind.

[Vendetta]

Short version: IIRC they gave up and became a tourist trap.

Or something.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Short version: IIRC they gave up and became a tourist trap.

Or something.

Any reason why? And when did this happen?

[bailey_187]

IIRC since the 80s they began moving towards a more market economy, but gradualy, however, in the early/mid 2000s they joined the World Trade Organisation - so thats that. They have the same line as China i guess "we are at the infancy of socialism and need to expand productive forces"

[rednordman]

Im no expert on this, but I do get the impression that they are alot more loyal to the goal of communism, than say, China is. I say this with knowledge of the reforms since the 1980s as well. I do know that the government does do some things to help its population that would not be allowed anywhere in the west.

[Revy]

There's billionaires in Vietnam.

[Vendetta]

Im no expert on this, but I do get the impression that they are alot more loyal to the goal of communism, than say, China is.

That's not saying much.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Is there any communist parties active in Vietnam right now?

[rednordman]

That's not saying much.I suppose it isnt. Just at least the government attempts to provide a fair playing field to its citizens, and provides certain measures towards equality. This is alot more than what Im hearing about China nowadays.

[Revy]

Is there any communist parties active in Vietnam right now?

The Communist Party of Vietnam. The ruling party.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Communist Party of Vietnam. The ruling party.

But they're not really Communist, are they? If so, more along the lines of being revisionist I'm sure.

[Revy]

But they're not really Communist, are they? If so, more along the lines of being revisionist I'm sure.

And I agree with that. I was only going by their name, and not their ideology.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And I agree with that. I was only going by their name, and not their ideology.

How about any parties that are Communist, ideology wise?

[Red Commissar]

Sometimes Vietnam acts as a source of cheap labor for Chinese industry. Funny considering the role China occupies for western economies. Vietnam is China's China.

I've even seen articles where gold farmers in China sometimes have gold farmers in Vietnam do the work for them.

As for whether there are legitimate communist groups, I'd imagine they'd only exist as a faction/tendency with in the Communist party. Groups that are organized are probably only at the local level, and I'd wager that the groups advocating for "democracy" and "free-market reforms" probably would have a more visible presence considering the support they'd get from outside. There may have been some in the past but they have probably disbanded or absorbed into the "communist" party.

[Kassad]

What revolutionaries have to realize is that the international communist movement is at a critical turning point. With a lot of different countries like China, Vietnam and Laos using market methods to promote economic prosperity. What you have to realize is that in countries where the working class has overthrown the rule of the bourgeoisie, the capitalists do not just sit back and pout over the loss of their wealth. On the contrary, they oppose workers control and progress more than ever. Countries attempting to build socialism, such as Korea, Cuba and Vietnam are met with things like the American wars in Korea and Vietnam, as well as threats and undercover operations in Cuba. Thus, countries like Vietnam are ravaged by wars of imperialism.

This is where we come to a critical question: when socialist forces are on the defensive and socialism appears to be "failing", do we blame socialism or do we blame imperialism? Real revolutionaries will realize that imperialism is the prime impediment to socialist construction. In Vietnam, the Vietnam War led to the destruction of much of the country, as well as millions of deaths. However, the heroic Vietnamese resistance led by Ho Chi Minh fought back against Western imperialism. Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh did not live to see American imperialism defeated, but the Vietnamese liberation was groundbreaking nonetheless.

Because of the impoverished state of Vietnam even before the massive devastation of the country by imperialism, the current state of socialist Vietnam is moving towards market reforms. With market reforms comes increased inequality, but this does not mean that the country or the Communist Party of Vietnam is "revisionist" or "capitalist". It is the duty of all revolutionaries to militantly defend the gains of socialist Vietnam, to stand with the Communist Party of Vietnam against imperialism in its attempt to build socialism and stand in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their struggle for self-determination and socialism.

[RED DAVE]

It is the duty of all revolutionaries to militantly defend the gains of socialist Vietnam, to stand with the Communist Party of Vietnam against imperialism in its attempt to build socialism and stand in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their struggle for self-determination and socialism.What you are saying is that it is our duty to support state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Kassad]

What you are saying is that it is our duty to support state capitalism.

RED DAVE

As I've stated numerous times, I'm not the type of person to embrace the elitist phrases of Tony Cliff and his ideological supporters and even if I was, merely stating a term does not make it true by any means. Try again.

[Revy]

What revolutionaries have to realize is that the international communist movement is at a critical turning point. With a lot of different countries like China, Vietnam and Laos using market methods to promote economic prosperity. What you have to realize is that in countries where the working class has overthrown the rule of the bourgeoisie, the capitalists do not just sit back and pout over the loss of their wealth. On the contrary, they oppose workers control and progress more than ever. Countries attempting to build socialism, such as Korea, Cuba and Vietnam are met with things like the American wars in Korea and Vietnam, as well as threats and undercover operations in Cuba. Thus, countries like Vietnam are ravaged by wars of imperialism.

This is where we come to a critical question: when socialist forces are on the defensive and socialism appears to be "failing", do we blame socialism or do we blame imperialism? Real revolutionaries will realize that imperialism is the prime impediment to socialist construction. In Vietnam, the Vietnam War led to the destruction of much of the country, as well as millions of deaths. However, the heroic Vietnamese resistance led by Ho Chi Minh fought back against Western imperialism. Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh did not live to see American imperialism defeated, but the Vietnamese liberation was groundbreaking nonetheless.

Because of the impoverished state of Vietnam even before the massive devastation of the country by imperialism, the current state of socialist Vietnam is moving towards market reforms. With market reforms comes increased inequality, but this does not mean that the country or the Communist Party of Vietnam is "revisionist" or "capitalist". It is the duty of all revolutionaries to militantly defend the gains of socialist Vietnam, to stand with the Communist Party of Vietnam against imperialism in its attempt to build socialism and stand in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their struggle for self-determination and socialism.

Do you defend their billionaires? Is that part of their "socialist gains"?

[Nolan]

What you are saying is that it is our duty to support state capitalism.

RED DAVE

Christ, the "state capitalism" slogan-spewing gets fucking old fucking quick.

[cb9's_unity]

This is fucking unbelievable.


With a lot of different countries like China, Vietnam and Laos using market methods to promote economic prosperity.

How do you define 'economic prosperity'? The GDP? By how much profit the top 1% is making? This isn't any different than capitalist nations.

I'm no expert on the official cliffite 'state capitalist' theory. However china is clearly in a capitalist stage of development. Private Property exists, profit exists, exploitation of the workers exists, alienation between the workers and the government exists. I'm not sure how many other factors way into calling a country capitalist. And beyond that the state is carefully planning the whole thing.

[RED DAVE]

It is the duty of all revolutionaries to militantly defend the gains of socialist Vietnam, to stand with the Communist Party of Vietnam against imperialism in its attempt to build socialism and stand in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their struggle for self-determination and socialism.
What you are saying is that it is our duty to support state capitalism.
As I've stated numerous times, I'm not the type of person to embrace the elitist phrases of Tony Cliff and his ideological supporters and even if I was, merely stating a term does not make it true by any means. Try again.All the work that needs to be done has been done in this thread. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that there is anything going on in Vietnam that has the slightest resemblance to socialism. Socialism, briefly is a society whose root is workers control of industry. Whatever else is going on in Vietnam, that ain't.


Christ, the "state capitalism" slogan-spewing gets fucking old fucking quick.Not as fucking old as one more country being turned over to capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Sarah Palin]

It's an impoverished country that is continually being shat on by the west

Images removed, infraction given. ~ Loveschach :-*

[Robocommie]

I think it's worth stating that when Vietnam really began to build socialism, it had been blown to hell several times over. Decades of French colonial rule followed by a Japanese occupation, then a war against the French, and then finally an incredibly devastating US intervention. The country had been almost entirely agrarian prior to these conflicts, and then it was ravaged by bombs and napalm. It didn't exactly have a lot of wealth to collectivize... and frankly I've yet to see any compelling arguments in favor of large scale collectivization as a means of land reform. The Doi Moi happened for a reason.

[red cat]

What revolutionaries have to realize is that the international communist movement is at a critical turning point. With a lot of different countries like China, Vietnam and Laos using market methods to promote economic prosperity. What you have to realize is that in countries where the working class has overthrown the rule of the bourgeoisie, the capitalists do not just sit back and pout over the loss of their wealth. On the contrary, they oppose workers control and progress more than ever. Countries attempting to build socialism, such as Korea, Cuba and Vietnam are met with things like the American wars in Korea and Vietnam, as well as threats and undercover operations in Cuba. Thus, countries like Vietnam are ravaged by wars of imperialism.

This is where we come to a critical question: when socialist forces are on the defensive and socialism appears to be "failing", do we blame socialism or do we blame imperialism? Real revolutionaries will realize that imperialism is the prime impediment to socialist construction. In Vietnam, the Vietnam War led to the destruction of much of the country, as well as millions of deaths. However, the heroic Vietnamese resistance led by Ho Chi Minh fought back against Western imperialism. Unfortunately, Ho Chi Minh did not live to see American imperialism defeated, but the Vietnamese liberation was groundbreaking nonetheless.

Because of the impoverished state of Vietnam even before the massive devastation of the country by imperialism, the current state of socialist Vietnam is moving towards market reforms. With market reforms comes increased inequality, but this does not mean that the country or the Communist Party of Vietnam is "revisionist" or "capitalist". It is the duty of all revolutionaries to militantly defend the gains of socialist Vietnam, to stand with the Communist Party of Vietnam against imperialism in its attempt to build socialism and stand in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their struggle for self-determination and socialism.

Of course, countries like Vietnam need to be supported against dominant blocs of imperialism. But could you explain what exactly characterizes them as communist revolutionaries ?

[RED DAVE]

Of course, countries like Vietnam need to be supported against dominant blocs of imperialism. But could you explain what exactly characterizes them as communist revolutionaries ?My sentiments exactly.

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As I've stated numerous times, I'm not the type of person to embrace the elitist phrases of Tony Cliff and his ideological supporters and even if I was, merely stating a term does not make it true by any means. Try again.

You're really dodging the question there.

In your previous post you present us with two choices - blame Socialism for the failures of Socialism, or blame 'imperialism' for the failures of Socialism.

I understand that it is painful to turn on ones own. However, when one has turned away from Socialism, it is necessary to either clip their wings, or fialing that thoroughly discard them.

I think that many Socialists, in the midst of ideological battle, get locked into the phoney 'ideological wars'; they will defend what is called 'Socialism', or what was 'Socialist' in the past, against 'imperialism', 'Capitalism' and 'bourgeois counter-revolution'. In reality, the choice is not so black and white. Indeed, it is to the detriment of the working class - in terms of their emancipation currently, and their development in the future - that our ideological mindset should be as simple as 'Socialist - defend, Imperialist - attack'.

The nugget here is that we should not be scared to break with what was Socialist and has diverged, as has clearly happened in Vietnam, China etc. It may satisfy some beastial, primal urge inside some to see the hegemony of 'Communism' or the 'Communist Party' in these countries, and to see the most decadent symbols of Capitalism and imperialism squirm, however in reality it is clear that this is not always for the benefit of the working class currently or in the future. I'm not sure I can see China or Vietnam demolishing their current system of a market economy, monetary exchange and wage-labour any time soon. Thus, to me that signals that they are either not Socialist, or that their Socialist methods are failing/have failed and need to be re-worked.

[el_chavista]

I wonder whether "Heiss93" has already written an article about "the Marxist-Leninist Foundations of the Doi Moi market socialism" as he did about Deng Xiaoping on http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1139631&postcount=1 :lol:

[el_chavista]

I found this article (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230) that seems to be interesting:

ORIGINAL FRENCH ARTICLE: Vietnam : « doi-moi » et crise mondiale (http://www.humanite.fr/2009-06-10_Tribune-libre_Vietnam-doi-moi-et-crise-mondiale)
by Paul Fromonteil, Vice President (French Communist Party), Poitou-Charente Region, France

Vietnam: “Doi moi” and the World Crisis

Translated Saturday 13 June 2009, by Guy Langloy (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?auteur263)
The world is shifting its base. In Asia, Latin America and other continents, the devastating effects of this historical crisis of capitalism do not necessarily lead to pessimism, but rather quite the opposite. There are economies that are not only resisting but also innovating in bold new ways. For example, let us consider Vietnam.
Having been in charge of exchanges and cooperation between the Poitou-Charente region of France and Vietnam for the last fifteen years, I have had the opportunity intimately to know a country that, in spite of forty years of war, has been able to record an amazing growth. I was able to measure in each aspect of its economy the degree of its progress and to examine the nature of persisting or emerging problems. As a Communist, I found of particular interest the fact that long before the collapse of the so-called East European “socialist” countries, Vietnam had already embarked in a search for new perspectives: “Doi moi” or Policy of Renewal [1 (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230#nb1)].
Vietnam has evolved in a spectacular fashion. The growth rate is close to 7% and standard of living has doubled. National policy is based on a “socialist oriented market economy” whose objective is to meet the pressing needs of education, employment and social progress for a population that has grown from forty million to eighty and will reach one hundred million in the future. However needs increase faster than growth itself. They stimulate development while creating new contradictions…
Vietnam has not bled its agriculture by placing it under the domination of financial institutions. Old inequalities persist and new ones develop even if the UNDP [2 (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230#nb2)] report recognized that Vietnam is one of the rare countries in the world where poverty is receding. Bangladesh and Madagascar offer a stark contrast. It is amazing that the media has been silent on this subject.
We are at the opposite end of liberalism. Political choices come within the scope of globalization but do not follow the legitimizing theories of capitalism regarding the liberalization of capital transfers or the privatization of common goods. The market is a means not an end. New questions emerge with accrued importance: on one hand secure a durable development that is not wasteful of natural resources, on the other hand give new dimensions to the relationship between the State, society and individuals.
This development program was of course affected by the financial world crisis. A 23% inflation rate over 2008 has threatened the standard of living of the people. Local media has reported that 14 enterprises employing 4000 workers may close in Ho-Chi-Minh City. This obviously has an impact on the objectives and tendencies of the development policy. However, it must be noted that the march forward has not been stopped. The growth rate has stabilized at 6.2%, rice production has surpassed the harvest of 2007 by 2.6 million tons. Although the trade deficit had deepened, it was compensated by a strong growth in investments: the creation of new jobs was therefore possible. The Stock Market dropped but did not affect industrial development. Economy and trade are stabilized.
Even if the world crisis reaches new heights that could impact Vietnam, we are very far from global tendencies. Why? First, Vietnam made political choices that do not feed into the mechanism of the crisis. It was affected by it but did not create it. It even has means to protect itself from it. Vietnam needs foreign investments but its base is its domestic market. It has kept a global power over its economy and finance.
Its trump cards are political: the socialist oriented market economy is helping the country stay its course in spite of planetary turmoil. After the meeting of the Central Committee of the Vietnamese Communist Party, the Prime Minister described in October the measures taken to counter inflation and trade deficit: a reduction in public expenditures, a raise of the interest rate but not at the expense of living standards, the anti-poverty campaign and rural development.
The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific [3 (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230#nb3)] and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in their latest annual reports confirm the opinion of the World Bank President: Vietnam is “an example of success in the history of development” and should be switched into the category of countries with medium incomes.
Within the context of this historical crisis of capitalism, the re-emergence of old civilizations such as China, India and Vietnam is an important event for the future development of our humanity. Human values can only have a universal dimension when they integrate the inputs of all the peoples on this planet.

[1 (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230#nh1)] The policy of renewal (Doi Moi) was decided in 1986 at the VIth Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party after the difficult period that followed reunification and independence. The question was to meet the goals of development and participation in world affairs.
[2 (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230#nh2)] United Nations Development Program
[3 (http://humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1230#nh3)] ESCAP: United Nations Regional Commission

[h9socialist]

In 1967, Che said "We must produce two, three, many Vietnams!" If he could see Vietnam today, he might add a few qualifiers to his statement.

This may not please some Comrades, but "Third Worldism" was often a way for bureaucratic ruling classes to enlist the masses into docility so as to stimulate industrial growth. In other words, I am accusing many third world leftist governments of being committed only to rhetorical socialism. Once they saw a place in the capitalist global economy, they went for it. Tragically, they became the labor contractors for transnational capitalism. All under red banners with hammer and sickle logos. Karl Marx would have been mortified.

If you read Comandante Guevara's description of real revolutionaries and revolutionary movements, it's impossible to include Vietnam or China among them -- at least in this century so far.