Ho Chi Minh

[Dimitri Molotov]

i know there have never been any true marxist/communist places, but was Ho Chi Minh the leader of north vietnam a true marxist? what did vietnam do that contradicted communism?

[Chimurenga.]

i know there have never been any true marxist/communist places, but was Ho Chi Minh the leader of north vietnam a true marxist? what did vietnam do that contradicted communism?

Marxists have been leaders of countries before. Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist-Leninist. Vietnam eventually adopted market socialism and, from the little I know of modern Vietnam, is completely Capitalist now. Even though, the Communist Party is still in power there.

[Robocommie]

Marxists have been leaders of countries before. Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist-Leninist. Vietnam eventually adopted market socialism and, from the little I know of modern Vietnam, is completely Capitalist now. Even though, the Communist Party is still in power there.

They're not completely. They underwent market reforms but they don't have capitalist property laws. From what little I know, it's possible that they're using foreign investment and some capitalist relations to build up their infrastructure before nationalizing everything. They were largely forced into it because their initial attempts using a Soviet model relied far too heavily on foreign aid (from the Soviets) and they didn't have nearly as much to work with, owing to the obliterated state of the economy after all the wars.

[FSL]

At the present time, about 40% of the labor force of Vietnam is employed by the state while the rest are either self-employed or work in joint ventures and private companies.
The economy is growing at a fast pace but so is inequality. The communist party there still has as its aim -oficially at least- socialism but there have reforms in the political sphere as well that do entail dangers, like allowing businessmen in parliament.

In any case, Ho Chi Minh was a marxist and a very militant one considering the life he led.

[Barry Lyndon]

Vietnam is basically like China now, totally overrun with crony capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was a great leader and a great communist, in my opinion one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century, up there with Lenin, Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Tito, Thomas Sankara, Amilcar Cabral, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. He proved that with the right leadership and discipline of a Leninist party, a Third World peasant guerilla army could defeat a superpower. The millions of Vietnamese who labored and sacrificed were of course the main heroes, but the leadership of Ho Chi Minh was the glue that held it all together.
I also admire Ho Chi Minh because he did not live in extravagance and become corrupted by his position of power like many other so-called communists did, but lived a frugal and industrious existence to the end of his life, singlemindedly devoting his time and energy to expelling foreign invaders from his country and fighting fuedalism, backwardness, poverty, disease, and hunger within Vietnamese society.
Even though Vietnam, blockaded and devastated by years of war was bullied into allowing capitalism back in, especially when it faced starvation after the loss of the Soviet ally, the world will never forget that the Vietnamese David crushed the American Goliath. And that in itself is a great victory for the people of the world. It enabled millions of people to lose their fear of the US Empire.
Bac Ho! Long live the heroic victory of the Vietnamese people over US imperialism! Ho Ho Ho Chi Min the NLF is gonna win!

A song called the Ballad of Ho Chi Minh, in both Vietnamese and English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7spvl8x4c&feature=related

[Kléber]

Ho Chi Minh's party assassinated the Vietnamese proletarian leaders in alliance with French colonial police and effectively handed Saigon over to the French recolonization force in 1945. While this opportunist move ensured Ho's control over the national liberation movement, it set the victory back by decades and forced the Viet Minh into the countryside where they would be reliant on foreign aid for victory.

Ta Thu Thau was the real leader of the Vietnamese proletariat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta_Thu_Thau

http://revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/rh0302/ttt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Vietnam%29

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/vietnam/pirani/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no2/hemery.html

http://revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/trotskyism-reviews/revolutionaries-they-could-not-break.html

[Spawn of Stalin]

As has already been stated, yes, he was a Marxist-Leninist and a great man who led a great liberation struggle.

With regards to the current situation in Vietnam, I would have to say I have more faith in Vietnam to build socialism than I do China. The capitalist elements in the Chinese party are far greater than those of the Vietnamese party. Both claim to be using the markets solely to develop industry, increase living standards, etc. My personal opinion is that the Vietnamese are mostly sincere in this claim, while there are a lot of Chinese "Communists" who basically just want to get rich. But of course, there are still militant Communist elements in both parties, no doubt about that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Both claim to be using the markets solely to develop industry, increase living standards, etc.
What is their rationale for such a claim?:confused:

[Kléber]

What is their rationale for such a claim?:confused:
I have yet to see a Marxist explanation of the right of CPV members to own economic enterprises of any size. But here is what the Vietnamese bureaucracy has to say in its own defense:

http://english.vovnews.vn/Home/Doi-Moi-process-raises-Vietnams-intl-profile/20102/112859.vov

http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/details_e.asp?Object=29152838&News_ID=18459436

http://www.cpv.org.vn/cpv/Modules/News/NewsDetail.aspx?co_id=30107&cn_id=144322#vu2hc8qFte0Q

[RadioRaheem84]

socialist-oriented market economy

I read no actual explanation of what this is. Seems like Dengist blather though.

[ArrowLance]

i know there have never been any true marxist/communist places

Sure there have been, unless you are using some incredibly strict idea of what a marxist/communist place is. To me a place is communist (that is a communist state) if they are promoting the goals of communism, chiefly socialism and democracy. And a place is marxist if they adhere to marxist principles.

I feel there have been several examples of these places in history and still today. To list a few there was the Soviet Union, PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, and Cuba still remains.

[Robocommie]

What is their rationale for such a claim?:confused:

The idea is, that in the same way capitalism built industry in England, Germany, and the US, they want to try and use capitalism to build it in Vietnam. Basically, coax foreign investment into Vietnam and get what they can out of it, before kicking them out, since they're still in charge of the country.

[Dimitri Molotov]

would you consider Vietnam a true Marxist place? was ho chi minh a dictator?

[Barry Lyndon]

Ho Chi Minh's party assassinated the Vietnamese proletarian leaders in alliance with French colonial police and effectively handed Saigon over to the French recolonization force in 1945. While this opportunist move ensured Ho's control over the national liberation movement, it set the victory back by decades and forced the Viet Minh into the countryside where they would be reliant on foreign aid for victory.

Ta Thu Thau was the real leader of the Vietnamese proletariat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta_Thu_Thau

http://revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/rh0302/ttt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Vietnam%29

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/vietnam/pirani/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no2/hemery.html

http://revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/trotskyism-reviews/revolutionaries-they-could-not-break.html

I am aware that there was political violence between the Trotskyists and the non-Trotskyist Communist factions in the mid-1940's. And the repression of the Trotskyists was wrong, there should have been a united front against colonialism. But I have not recalled it being claimed, even in extremely sectarian Trotskyist articles, that Ho Chi Minh himself played any direct role in such repression. He did make some anti-Trotskyist statements, but the sad reality was that the Viet Minh needed Soviet support if it was to have any chance of defeating the French in a upcoming war, so that was why Ho Chi Minh probably felt he needed to say such things. One can read statements even by Tito in some of his earlier political statements.

Also, it is my understanding that the Trotskyists were almost exclusively organized in the cities among the urban working class. Given that Vietnam 1946 was even more backwards and agrarian then Russia was in 1917, I cannot possibly see how they could have become a nationwide political force like the Viet Minh did, who were organized amongst the far more numerous peasants in the countryside.

I also think this charge that Ho Chi Minh was in alliance with the French colonial authorities and just 'gave' Hanoi to the French military is preposterous. The Viet Minh left partly because they were militarily driven out by the French, like they retreated from Haiphong before the French navy's bombardment of the city in 1946, and also because Ho Chi Minh also made the calculation that his forces could more easily wear down the French in countryside guerilla warfare.

What annoys me about so many dogmatic Trotskyist analyses is that where there is a setback and defeat for Communists, they can see only Stalinist treachery. It's as if all the 'Stalinists' ever did was sit around and think of ways to destroy revolution wherever they were, there is no room for human error, unfavorable circumstances, the brute force of capitalist repression, or (shock horrors!), the mistakes of the Trotskyists themselves. There are many real examples of Stalinist betrayals(Spain 1937, China 1927), but Vietnam, in my view is not one of them.