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/