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 materialized, and thereafter class warfare was exported to the colonized nation. Labor actions began to be taken by the proletariat. Strikes were not too uncommon. In fact, the Trotskyists of the International Communist League were already calling for and forming local worker-oriented committees. The coming Vietnamese Revolution absolutely could have had a proletarian character to it. However, the Stalinists, led by Ho Chi Minh, opted to create a bourgeois revolution instead.


Upon loss of authority over Vietnam by France, Ho Chi Minh and his Việt Minh took the opportunity to call upon all Vietnamese to rise up against their French masters. And indeed that is what happened. However, it was an inter-class uprising, as is characteristic of struggles for “National Liberation”, and thus the bourgeoisie and their powers were not restricted. The inter-classist characteristics of the revolution could be seen in three events: the Saigon Commune, Ho’s Proclamation of Independence, and the constitution of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.


The Saigon Commune was, to borrow a phrase from Cajo Brendel, the “proletarian spin-off” of the Vietnamese Revolution. Upon gaining authority in Vietnam, the Việt Minh required that all armed groups hand over the weapons to the Việt Minh to maintain law and order. Not only did this affect armed religious sects like the Cao Dai and Hao Hao, but also the armed workers committees and militias. However, many Trotskyist groups refused to obey the order, fearing a confrontation with the French, who were seeking to retake Vietnam.


Indeed, such a confrontation did happen. A combined French-British force marched into Saigon hoping to reclaim it. Initially they met little resistance. But news of their arrival spread like wildfire, and insurrection became the word of the day. The poorer districts of Saigon put up stiff resistance to the imperialists, and incursions against them were made.


We shall not go into too much detail here. If you wish to read more, we have linked two brief works on the subject below. Needless to say, however, Ho Chi Minh did not support the Commune. Instead of arming the workers or even paying them a good word, Ho and his group called to “starve out” the occupiers. Starve out the occupiers! While the British controlled the ports! It was a tactic to get the British and French to the negotiating table more than it was support for the revolution.


On the second point which we brought up: Ho Chi Minh’s Proclamation of Independence was filled with bourgeois language and inspired by bourgeois revolutionaries. It had no language of communes or workers councils, which was characteristic of all workers revolutions. It opened with an excerpt from America’s own Declaration of Independence. And then went on about rights and liberties, especially those fought for during the French Revolution. Throughout, Ho appealed to the “Vietnamese people” to “fight to the death against all attempts at aggression by the French imperialists”. A “people” which no doubt included the bourgeoisie. And, as the cherry on top, Ho proclaimed the “Democratic Republic of Vietnam”.


If the Republic’s Proclamation of Independence was bad, then the constitution of the Democratic Republic was worse. Some key articles showing it’s non-proletarian nature included:


Article 1
“All national powers belong to the entire Vietnamese people regardless of race, gender, economic conditions, social class, and religion” (our emphasis)

Article 12
“The right to private property is guaranteed.”


It is these things, among others, which show the bourgeois nature of the Vietnamese Revolution. Now the present state of Vietnam, which flaunts itself as a “Socialist Republic”, is deeply embedded in the international capitalist system. Her bourgeoisie are of the world bourgeoisie. It is only with a fresh revolution, one that is thoroughly proletariat, that the working class of Vietnam, and the world, will be able to cast off the chains of capitalism! For a proletarian revolution in Vietnam! Against state capitalism!


Further Reading

https://www.leftvoice.org/the-saigon-commune-against-imperialism-and-stalinism

https://libcom.org/files/1945%20The%20Saigon%20commune.pdf

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

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

Lessons From Vietnam

  The 1930s-1940s proved to be a period of intense social upheaval and proletarian action in colonial Vietnam. Faced with the Stalinist class-collaborationists of the Viet Minh, and the colonial empire of France, the proletariat in Vietnam tried to forge its own communist path. Proletarian elements grouped around the League of Internationalist Communists tried to push this path along, and help the proletariat realize it’s force as a distinct class. Although the struggle ended in victory for the bourgeoisie, and the League had most of its members liquidated by the Viet Minh, drawing lessons from the period is still crucial. That is what we have set out to do in this piece. The Proletariat as the Revolutionary Class The most immediate lesson one can draw from the period is that the proletariat is the only revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch. It was the industrial and rural parts of the proletariat which formed the embryos of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Notable among these
Read more