Vietnamese Regime

[Susurrus]

What was the political character of North Vietnam, and later the whole of it? Was it socialist? State capitalist? If so, was it more similar to PRC or USSR?

I ask because apparently Noam Chomsky of all people lauded North Vietnamese socialism, here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1970/aug/13/a-special-supplement-in-north-vietnam/

[Prometeo liberado]

“To tighten the belt,” to reduce all inessential expenditures and to resolutely commit capital for accumulation, is a dominant necessity, and testifies to a high level of political understanding with respect to the construction of socialism.

I'm not about get into a Chomsky rant here. So I won't, but the the Vietnamese are clearly going down, and have been for some time, that all too well traveled road of "market socialism". We all know how that will end.

[Zealot]

Truong Chinh become the general secretary in 1986 and eventually came to be receptive of reformist ideas since the country was becoming isolated both politically and economically. He was succeeded (or rather, replaced) by Nguyen Van Linh who was a known reactionary and at one time Le Duan purged him from the Politburo but was re-instated. Van Linh led the Doi Moi (renovation) market reforms along with a sweeping leadership change and a few years before his death publicly apologised for the doi moi campaign and criticised the corrupt bureaucracy.

[daft punk]

Well, income inequality in Vietnam is moderately high on a global scale, about the same as the USA. The people are very poor, GDP is very low. No it is not socialist.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well, the communists in Vietnam had 2 states essentially. There was the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (which was North Vietnam after the Vietnamese kicked out the French colonial authorities and military) and then there is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (which is the state the communists made after uniting the country and the current state).

I consider Vietnam to be a state capitalist society as it remains and now is looking more like the Chinese version of "market socialism". There are sweatshops, dangerous working conditions, massive income inequality, etc.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the state made when the country was split, did some good things that helped the people of Vietnam (such as ending the generational debts of peasants to landlords and other exploiters, equalizing pay, reducing poverty, etc.) and then some bad (silencing any and all opposition, executions of opponents, etc.) The DRV made some pretty big gains and accomplishments considering the harsh circumstances it faced. As far as whether it was more Chinese or Russian, well that is a hard question. Some leaders, such as Vo Nguyen Giap wanted to side closer with the Soviets (although he would eventually support siding with neither) and some leaders wanted closer ties to China. Vietnam would go through different stages in it's history being closer to one of the countries.

In the 1970's China would invade Vietnam in retaliation for Vietnam's taking down of Pol Pot in Cambodia. Since then, relations between the two countries have been hostile.

Overall, there is things to be learned from the experience of the Vietnamese in their struggle against imperialism and trying to help the poor and build socialism in those difficult times, but overall it is a failure and Vietnam is NOT socialist.

Also, I am highly skeptical of Chomsky when he speaks of Vietnam because Chomsky stated the NLF was an independent peasant organization in the south which is historically wrong. The NLF had autonomy, but overall answered to the North Vietnamese leaders.

[Caj]

Well, income inequality in Vietnam is moderately high on a global scale, about the same as the USA. The people are very poor, GDP is very low. No it is not socialist.

Non-sequitur. Vietnam wouldn't be socialist even if there was income equality, low poverty levels, and a high GDP.

[l'Enfermé]

Also, I am highly skeptical of Chomsky when he speaks of Vietnam because Chomsky stated the NLF was an independent peasant organization in the south which is historically wrong. The NLF had autonomy, but overall answered to the North Vietnamese leaders.
No, it's pretty much correct. You're repeating the American propaganda like: "Guys, the South Vietnamese are not revolting against the puppet government we imposed upon them, no, it's just atheist communist saboteurs from North Vietnam who have infiltrated the South and take orders from Hanoi!". The NFL(Viet Cong, btw, is a propaganda term invented by the Americans, it basically stands for "Commie traitors to Vietnam" or something) was at first an independent peasant organization resisting American colonialists. They're slanderer as being puppets of Hanoi because most of the core members when it was founded were North Vietnamese who resettled in South Vietnam in the mid 50s and who received military training in North Vietnam.

Though it did basically become subjugated to Hanoi, but only after the Tet Offensive which basically destroyed it as a capable fighting force(from then on North Vietnamese troops became the "main" force in fighting the South Vietnamese)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Vietnam was aligned with the USSR and it was a revisionist socialist nation from the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, until it became completely capitalist with the introduction of Doi Moi in 1986.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No, it's pretty much correct. You're repeating the American propaganda like: "Guys, the South Vietnamese are not revolting against the puppet government we imposed upon them, no, it's just atheist communist saboteurs from North Vietnam who have infiltrated the South and take orders from Hanoi!". The NFL(Viet Cong, btw, is a propaganda term invented by the Americans, it basically stands for "Commie traitors to Vietnam" or something) was at first an independent peasant organization resisting American colonialists. They're slanderer as being puppets of Hanoi because most of the core members when it was founded were North Vietnamese who resettled in South Vietnam in the mid 50s and who received military training in North Vietnam.

Though it did basically become subjugated to Hanoi, but only after the Tet Offensive which basically destroyed it as a capable fighting force(from then on North Vietnamese troops became the "main" force in fighting the South Vietnamese)

You either misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear. I agree with you. I have heard Chomsky claim that the NLF had always remained independent of Northern rule, which as you have stated is false. That doesn't mean the U.S. invasion is justified by any means.

[l'Enfermé]

You either misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear. I agree with you. I have heard Chomsky claim that the NLF had always remained independent of Northern rule, which as you have stated is false. That doesn't mean the U.S. invasion is justified by any means.
My bad then.

[l'Enfermé]

Non-sequitur. Vietnam wouldn't be socialist even if there was income equality, low poverty levels, and a high GDP.
I think what daft punk is saying that some of Socialism's characteristics is things like total egalitarianism and a high level of economic development, and that's obviously not the case in Vietnam. Socialism brings emancipation and abundance, not poverty and extreme inequality, like in Vietnam.

[manic expression]

I think what daft punk is saying that some of Socialism's characteristics is things like total egalitarianism and a high level of economic development, and that's obviously not the case in Vietnam. Socialism brings emancipation and abundance, not poverty and extreme inequality, like in Vietnam.
Socialism brings what it will...liberation does not follow such a direct path to abundance, such a concept is an idealist perception of revolution.

[gorillafuck]

Vietnam was the same as all other marxist-leninist governments in it's general character. and it sided with the Soviet Union against China.