is vietnam really comie??

i havent heard anything about them nationalizing everything or anything like that so i was wondering what makes them so communist.

The Communist Party of Vietnam is a revisionist party of the Vietnamese national bourgeoisie.

so they are capitalists it seems vietnamese communism died with ho chi minh.. shame..

As a ruling party, the Communist Party of Vietnam always does its best to save the homeland and ensure peace and develope the whole country. In the past, the union of CPV and the people fought together against the French and Americans. Everything it did is for the whole nation and people.
So, now let us review what it has done in recent years.

In 1986, on the 6th National Congress of CPV, the "đổi mới" (renewal) was launched. It was described as a total renovation in socio-economic status of Vietnam. In economy, Vietnam started to open its economy for all people to join, including private and foreign sectors. That's why Vietnam's economy has the 2nd fastest growth in the world. In politics, it opens its relations widely to all countries in the world, regardless of political regimes. We're ready to have peaceful talks with any country in the world, which respects Vietnam as a sovereign nation. In social development, the "xóa đói giảm nghèo" (poverty reduction) has gained good achievements. The number of poor people in Vietnam has reduced rapidly. Last year, 2006, Vietnam successfully held the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum), and this year, we become a full member of WTO.

So, for whom were such actions done? It should be understood that a socialist nation is a nation ruled by only one party, the Communist Party. Vietnam is. The present period (since 1986) is called 'Transitional Period Towards Socialism'. We considered that such a real socialist nation should have a developed economy, and thus the economy must be developed. That we launched the market economy doesn't mean we changed into capitalism, and that communism is dead here. Why? It's because our 'đổi mới' - renewal - is not the perestroika in the former Soviet Union, which failed in 1991 along with its collapse. One of the USSR's wrongdoings was that it allowed multi-party system. But Vietnam doesn't. Our Party is still "a party of the working people which follows Marxism-Leninism, the leader of Vietnam and a union of the peoples in Vietnam".

The socio-economic development has gained good effects. The people are getting richer, although not equally among the whole nation. It's funny that nationalizing eveything means communism? We should understand that socialism and communism is still a long way ahead. During the 1960s, the USSR said that it has become a communist state, but in fact, it ceased to exist in 1991. It's surprised that Lenin, jes, Himself, brought the ideas of 'transitional period', 'market economy' into his New-Economic Policy. But due to the Civil War in Soviet Russia, the NEP was closed and later forgotten by his successors.

Comrade Com Viet,

Thanks for the local perspective on Vietnam. But what I have difficulty coming to terms is the TYPE of "Market economy" propagated by imperialist pits such as ASEAN & the WTO.

Having a market economy run by a vibrant small / medium scale enterprises nationwide manned by communities or by individuals is what's needed in countries like India, Vietnam. But a market economy run thru corporatism and thru MNCs is utterly rabid- this is the type of market economy the WTO + ASEAN practices. Once you embark on corporatism for whatever purpose...it is safe to say any prospect of Socialism or Communism is dead.

Regional blocs such as ASEAN and "free" trade organisations such as the WTO kinda attract corporate market economics, rather than a market economy run by national small & medium scalers working in collaboration w/ the large scale public sectors- which is what would be a TRUE transitional phase (towards Communism). I highly doubt that corporatism is needed as a prequel to Socialism or communism.

True, a transitional phase of the "market economy" may be needed to improve the vibrancy of the national economy, but not the type of market economy that is propagated by ASEAN and the WTO. There are MANY versions of a "market economy" comrade...

I was hoping Vietnam would lead from the front and offer other Asian countries (esp. Laos & Cambodia) another option than joining imperialistic cesspools such as ASEAN, the WTO, the IMF etc, etc. I remember seeing all those pictures with Ho Chi Minh and Nehru. We talked about becoming regional leaders + showing the way for our bretheren in Asia. Look at us now...we are courting the very same imperialistic thugs our founding fathers strove so hard to break away from.

can I dare say, both India as well as Vietnam have failed Nehru & Ho Chi Minh respectively?

On a lighter note, how's Nha Trang doing, I wonder...

My memory is so terrible during these hours, but I'm quite positive that Lenin wrote something about a nation not being able to "flip flop" from feudalism to socialism.

Even though we oppose capitalism, keep in mind that socialism is supposedly the "next state". If the workers are in control, like in states such as Vietnam, changes can be made to loosen the economy to a state controlled market-economy, allowing it to industrialize properly before pulling the strings over it again.

Quote:

My memory is so terrible during these hours, but I'm quite positive that Lenin wrote something about a nation not being able to "flip flop" from feudalism to socialism.

Even though we oppose capitalism, keep in mind that socialism is supposedly the "next state". If the workers are in control, like in states such as Vietnam, changes can be made to loosen the economy to a state controlled market-economy, allowing it to industrialize properly before pulling the strings over it again.

I'm not arguing that in many cases, a market economy transitional phase is needed, I'm endorsing that view actually. But NOT the "market" economy that's run thru corporatism. When you start endorsing corporatism, you've just endorsed a more sophisticated version of feudalism.

Markets are meant to make the various segments of your economy more vibrant & active. How does corporatism do that???? A free market consisting of lots of small / medium scalers operating under a competitive model? Yes, that increases vibrancy. A corporate market DICTATING and ENTRAPPING the economy run by oligarchs and monopolists? I dunno...if that does ANY good to a developing economy, other than filling the purses of the bureaucrats & the politicians w/ backsheesh.

All I hope is that Vietnam does not take its "NEP" to unrealistic extremes the way China has done. The working class of Vietnam has fought too hard and struggled too much for their nation to be sold out.

Quote:

The working class of Vietnam has fought too hard and struggled too much for their nation to be sold out.

My thoughts EXACTLY....

The instant I start seeing leaders swap the rugged garb for the Italian suit, I can't help but get a bit nervous, though.

Eh, I would merely wear a military garb with four pockets. Either way, why shouldn't they wear italian suits? They made the capitalists an offer they couldn't refuse: Give me this country now or I'll shoot the shit out of your capitalist class in a clap of red thunder!

When I have visited Viet Nam, I saw numerous western chains, ie. KFC, Pizza Hut, etc.

I'd like an explanation of just how allowing Western conglomerates into the nation is serving the best interests of the people of Viet Nam. The Vietnamese people are just as capable of providing the services offered by these Western bourgeousie without tainting them.

When Viet Nam is labeled by Western "financial" publications as one of the top ten upcoming places to "invest in," you know they're headed down the wrong path.

Quote:

Eh, I would merely wear a military garb with four pockets. Either way, why shouldn't they wear italian suits?

COmrade, I wasn't speaking directly. Here's what I meant...

Quote:

When Viet Nam is labeled by Western "financial" publications as one of the top ten upcoming places to "invest in," you know they're headed down the wrong path.

Comrade CloutierFan02 put things very nicely.

Vietnam was a very impoverished, poor country of the semi-feudal, agrarian type, completely the opposite that Marx and Engels wrote about when they discussed creating the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Hence, Vietnam was bound to do more things in the real world, and less out of textbooks. Vietnam's Doi Moi is absolutely necessary in their present situation. Over the past 20 years, Vietnam has seen marvelous economic growth, with the continuation and improvement of the welfare system and people's benefits in all People's Communes. It is estimated, by the Communist Party of Vietnam, that they will be industrialized by 2020, and if this is the case, I would expect them to move out of the Primary Stage of Socialism, as they have always said they would upon industrialization. The kind of advanced Socialism you are speaking of, possible only in a country of an industrialized nature, will be seen in about a decade-and-a-half in Vietnam.

But corporate sector economics & neo liberal economics dominates modern Vietnam & this mode of economics has only been known to weaken the PDS eventually and kill it. That's something I do think about as far as Vietnam goes.

Maybe the Communist Party has real concern for Vietnam. I wouldn't say the nation's corporate houses & MNCs operating in Vietnam share similar goals.

Indeed, but do not forget that in Vietnam, the dominant economic mode is still Collective Ownership, which takes the leading role. State-Owned Enterprises, Co-operatives and Joint-Ventures (ventures made jointly by Foreign Capitalists and Co-operatives, or jointly by SOEs and Foreign Capitalists) make up 90% of the business of Vietnam.

In Volume 5 of his selected works, Mao Zedong makes the point that this is the kind of State-Capitalism necessary for some time, amongst the 90%, it goes to further liberating the productive forces, welfare for the people, as well as strengthening Socialism in-general. 10% might go to the Capitalists, but that is very necessary at this stage of development.

Keep in mind that in New Democracy as a whole, the Proletariat and Peasantry make up the truly progressive classes, the Petty-Bourgeoisie and National Bourgeoisie are progressive only in-context, seeing as they want to liberate their country from Foreign powers, but they want to do so only for their own, Capitalist benefit. The middle and upper peasants rank amongst the Petty-Bourgeoisie and certainly maintain their attitudes, Vietnam itself is a country which has in-the-main, escaped Feudalism, but it is still vastly agrarian, for the advancement out of New Democracy led by the Proletariat and into what is truly a Socialist mechanism of production (they are currently State-Capitalist of a Proletarian character), they need to make compromises with the Petty-Bourgeoisie as well as National Bourgeoisie.

Lenin pointed this out when he said "We are not yet civilized enough for Socialism". He pointed out the Petty-Bourgeoisie nature of the Middle and Upper Peasants and the need to compromise and create State-Capitalism of a more Proletarian character and under Collective leadership as a means to advancing into Socialism proper. Hence, the NEP.

Quote:

Indeed, but do not forget that in Vietnam, the dominant economic mode is still Collective Ownership, which takes the leading role. State-Owned Enterprises, Co-operatives and Joint-Ventures (ventures made jointly by Foreign Capitalists and Co-operatives, or jointly by SOEs and Foreign Capitalists) make up 90% of the business of Vietnam.

Don't let public sector infrastructure size fool you. The steel authority of India is still the "largest" steel making entity in the nation, going by asset size.

The steel authority of Ind. is still the nations largest steel making entity, going by ur barometers. But in reality, it only acts as a mediator - a Purchase Order issuer to corporate / MNCs.

And "state capitalism" is by no means "corporatism." State capitalism means encouraging commercial activity nationally. It does not mean rechanneling national income.

I do have deep respect for Vietnam & its leaders, but I just can't come to terms with okaying corporatism. If you look at the dynamics of the state run industries- they are just run as job work units for MNCs.

A job work unit is a "fast patch" way to run an industry. Especially a national industry. Again- I've nothing against the state facilitating commerce nationally but most certainly not corporatism.

The Vietnamese are Capitalists, run by the Bourgeoisie which was able to largely co-opt and subdue the Revolutionary forces in the aftermath of Ho Chi Minh's death. By the reunification they were more focused on expanding their own chauvanistic influence as a lackey of the Soviet Social-Imperialists than spreading Socialism and this is most noted in their agreements with Laos, effectively making it subserviant, and their invasion of Socialist Kampuchea.

Today, they boast of the brilliance of the "Socialist Market", but where is the Socialism? Standards of living aren't a sign of Socialism per se, after all, the US lives at a great standard of living. Their ownership is not even formed primarily by ownership of the whole poeple, rather it is private ownership being encouraged. Collectivism is not encouraged, but providing goods and services for Western Imperialism is.

You can't become communist directly from a feudal society. Come on. Remember Marx? Capitalism is a necessary stage of development. When there is no urban proletariat, and no centralization of means of production (never mind extensive mechanization) what communism can we be talking about?

Quote:

The Vietnamese are Capitalists, run by the Bourgeoisie which was able to largely co-opt and subdue the Revolutionary forces in the aftermath of Ho Chi Minh's death. By the reunification they were more focused on expanding their own chauvinistic influence as a lackey of the Soviet Social-Imperialists than spreading Socialism and this is most noted in their agreements with Laos, effectively making it subservient, and their invasion of Socialist Kampuchea.

Today, they boast of the brilliance of the "Socialist Market," but where is the Socialism? Standards of living aren't a sign of Socialism per se, after all, the US lives at a great standard of living. Their ownership is not even formed primarily by ownership of the whole people, rather it is private ownership being encouraged. Collectivism is not encouraged, but providing goods and services for Western Imperialism is.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, all countries that were allied or traded with the Soviet Union saw major economic breakdown.
They all turned to the last economic superpower; The United States.
The United States would not trade with such countries due to the fact that they were a Socialist State, or a Dictatorship. When most of the countries went into Market Socialism, the United States opened trade.
The only country that I would say that you may call purely capitalist is China.
Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos all still maintain the Socialist views from they're founding leader. In North Korea, all people are supplied with homes and free furniture. In Vietnam, You are also given the choice of furniture and a home. However, due to the market socialist laws, you may pick your own job instead of the government issuing the job that you are best at.

I do not say I support these laws of Vietnam, I much prefer the pure socialist viewpoints that were spoken by Ho Chi Minh, when Vietnam was at it's most powerful time militarily wise, and could've easily taken over Myanmar/Burma or claim land in the Philippines, which would give the city much more IPUs and Economic strives due to the rich supply of Rubber and Salt in the area.

However, now because Vietnam can't establish their Socialist Past, they will fall into what China is today. A labelled socialist government, with a true capitalist economy.

Vietnam isn't really Communist anymore. But it has more neutral sympathy towards the idea of Communism today.