A Response to Internationalist Voice

edit: Our previous version was using an incorrect definition of "Councilism". This has since been updated.

Our good comrades at the left-communist publication Internationalist Voice (linked below) have recently commented on our program. These comments and criticisms are of great help to both us, and the overall Communist Left, as they assist in furthering, developing and maturing our positions. With that said, we shall now address the concerns brought forth by our comrades.


World Revolution Versus Revolution In One Country

Our Program states that:


“A new revolution by the matured Vietnamese proletariat is necessary to establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”


Unfortunately, there seems to have been a miscommunication. Internationalist Voice has interpreted this as us saying a new proletarian revolution is necessary in Vietnam. Fortunately, this is not what we mean. Rather a new revolution, which has not been seen before in Vietnam, is necessary to establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


The August Revolution which had Vietnam throw off it’s colonial chains was not a proletarian revolution. On the contrary, it was a bourgeois revolution that transitioned Vietnam from backwards feudalism to capitalism. It likewise had Vietnam switch imperialist allegiances from the American bloc to the Eastern Bloc. Capitalism wreaks havoc over Vietnam, however, as it does everywhere. For this reason it must be exorcised with a proletarian revolution. 


Localism Versus Internationalism

Our first blog post states that:


“[Our] main goal is to gather and disseminate information regarding the “Socialist” Republic of Vietnam and the wider Vietnamese diaspora from a thoroughly Marxist point of view.”


Internationalist Voice has taken issue with this, and accused us of localism, which is against internationalism. We, however, do not see an issue with this. If there is a wound on your arm, do you apply disinfectant and a bandaid to your whole arm? No! You must focus on the wound. Likewise with Marxism. There is a distinct lack of analysis on Vietnam, and the left of capital continues to sing its praises. Therefore we shall focus on Vietnam.


And it would be redundant, superfluous even, to cover international subjects. There are already plenty of organizations and networks focusing on the wider activity of the proletariat around the world. The Internationalist Communist Tendency, the Internationalist Communist Current, Internationalist Voice, all these militants have analyzed other parts of the world. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to cover the wider proletariat, and thus will instead focus on what is needed.


The left of capital

Our program states that:


“Marxism-Leninism, the forefather of Ho Chi Minh Thought, is likewise a betrayal of Marxism.”


Internationalist Voice says that this position is “ambiguous”. This is a valid criticism on their part, and our position could stand to be adapted. In their booklet Thirty Years After The Collapse of Stalinism, a supplement to the comments on our program, they state:


“Stalinism was not part of the evolutionary trend of the October Revolution, but its gravedigger. Stalinism celebrated its victory on the ruins of the October Revolution and on the bones of communists whom it had beaten to death. In the name of communism, Stalin threw to the ground the most honourable and the most cherished communists, the creators of the October Revolution.”


Because Stalinism did not follow the trend of Marxism, it would be inaccurate to describe it as a betrayal. Furthermore, it would be more accurate to describe it as a bourgeois current and gravedigger tendency.


The Developments of Communist Left

Our program states:

“The Left-Communist Group of Vietnam is a group [...] based in the Dutch-German current of Council Communism”


Internationalist Voice has a strange position on this. They bring up the Councilist tendency which developed in the Netherlands, when confronted with our statement that we are based in the Dutch-German Council Communist tendency. We are not Councilists, in fact. Councilism is distinct from Council Communism in it's rejection of the need for a class party.


In fact to substitute "Council Communism" for "Councilism" erases a large part of the German Revolution. Theorists such as Anton Pannekoek, who were influential in the Dutch-German Left, were not Councilists. Pro-party Left-Communists like those in the K.A.P.D. existed.


Internationalist Voice later remarks that upon the death of Herman Gorter, someone who was actually a Councilist, the power of the Dutch-German Left faded. This is true, but not because of the death of Gorter. The decline of the Dutch-German Left was brought about by theoretical confusion and political repression by the German Nazis. To say Gorter was the only thing holding the Dutch-German Left places the current on the shoulders of just a few great men.


This concludes our response to Internationalist Voice. We would again like to thank them for their comments, which help further the Communist Left. We hope to further our relationship with them, and other groups in the Communist Left.


Internationalist Voice homepage

https://internationalist.ueuo.com/en/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Interview With A Vietnamese Anarchist

We've recently had the opportunity to interview a Vietnamese Anarchist. Because Vietnam is a police state, we thought it would be best to not ask them too many questions which may be used by the State to incriminate them. Apologies in advance. If you would like to see something specific about Vietnam, please email us. Q: For our readers who are unfamiliar with the philosophy, could you explain what Anarchism is? A: Anarchism is an ideal where the autonomy of the individual is of most importance. Q: What methods of change are preferred by Anarchists? Could there be ballot-box Anarchism? A: Anarchism requires revolution, it's impossible to destroy societal hierarchical classes by submitting yourself to the game of the powerful. Q: And for social organization, how would society look if it was anarchist? A: I think there will be organizations within local communes, which will cooperate together on the basis of mutual assistance and free association. Q: What or who would you say was
Read more

Thesis on the Vietnamese Revolution

  There is a common tendency on the Left of Capital to either critically or uncritically support “socialist” states. While the usual targets of this support usually include Cuba and China, many likewise support the “Socialist” Republic of Vietnam. However, just like the two aforementioned countries, there is nothing socialist about Vietnam. In fact, it is capitalist. And it’s capitalist and bourgeois characteristics were visible from the very onset of its revolution. From Marx, we know that the history of humanity is the history of class warfare, and that each society humans pass through is a class society. We go from primitive communism, to slave society, to feudalism, to capitalism, and now we must go to communism. Likewise, this was the case in Vietnam. However, uneven development meant that Vietnam was still in the feudal stage of society prior to colonization by the French. French colonization did eventually develop capitalism in Vietnam. The proletariat and bourgeoisie materializ
Read more

The Bloated Bureaucracy of Vietnam

  Before we dive into the discussion of the bureaucracy which chokes Vietnam like a boa constrictor, it would be useful for us to define “bureaucracy”. Many Communists throw the word around but do not know what it means. We take our definition from Alexandra Kollontai. Writing for the Workers Opposition, she states: “ Bureaucracy is a direct negation of mass self-activity. [...] Restrictions on initiative are imposed, not only in regard to the activity of the non-party masses [...] The initiative of Party members themselves is restricted. Every independent attempt, every new thought that passes through the censorship of our centre, is considered as ‘heresy’, as a violation of Party discipline, as an attempt to infringe on the prerogatives of the centre, which must ‘foresee’ everything and ‘decree’ everything and anything. If anything is not decreed one must wait, for the time will come when the centre at its leisure will decree. Only then, and within sharply restricted limits, will one
Read more