In its war with China Vietnam tries to justify its stand on the grounds that it is a “socialist” country. This is used to justify its aggression against Cambodia and Laos and as a cover for it acting on behalf of Russian imperialist interests. It is therefore not surprising to see that Russia and its whole imperialist block would try to mask Vietnam as a socialist country – just as they mask themselves as socialists.
What disturbs us deeply is that certain forces that claim to understand that the Soviet Union has become a capitalist and imperialist country, who claim to understand the role of Soviet social-imperialism in the world also uphold Vietnam as a socialist country or at least a country where there is socialist construction being carried out. This position can do nothing but confuse the working class about the nature of socialism and capitalism. The demagogy of the modern revisionists on this subject has done enough damage. Workers are not ignorant and stupid, as some might believe, they know that Vietnam is controlled by the Soviet Union, they know about the treaty they signed, they know that Vietnam is a member of COMECON, the Soviet Union’s “common market.” To not denounce Vietnam as a country going down the capitalist road, let alone to say it has anything to do with socialism is to do a great service to modern revisionism.
It is therefore the duty of all genuine Marxist-Leninists to denounce this centrist conciliation and to expose the real nature of the Vietnamese economy. It is hard for many to accept that after supporting Vietnam in its national liberation struggle against US imperialism that it is not walking down the socialist road, that its leadership has sold out to different imperialists. But these are the facts. Facts that true Bolsheviks and the revolutionary proletariat are not afraid to face up to.
It is difficult to imagine how people can think that the Soviet Union is imperialist, but that it is supporting and assisting the construction of socialism in Vietnam. If we examine, however, the real content of what the Soviet Union and Vietnam say about “socialism” in Vietnam we can see what is really being built.
In an article about socialism in Vietnam the Russian revisionists say that one way to eliminate capitalism is to expropriate and nationalize the means of production. They then go on to say: “Another means to the elimination of private capitalist ownership is its gradual transformation through the various forms of state capitalism. This method... was... used in a number of socialist countries including the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.” (International Affairs, no. 9, 1978, p. 25)
Le Duan admits that Vietnam is “in the process of transition from a society, whose economy is dominated by small scale commodity production” (ibid., p. 23). So we have a country that is dominated by small scale commodity production and a certain development of state capitalism and this we are to believe is socialism. Socialism it isn’t, but it is also not on the road to socialism.
The revisionists tell us that “The basic form of the transformation of industry in the south has been the joint state-capitalist enterprise” (ibid., p. 26). The revisionists then explain how the basic problem of Vietnam’s economy is that trade capital (commercial capital) is stultifying the economy because a large percentage of the population earns its living this way. Vietnam has labeled these “traders” as “the most reactionary section of the bourgeoisie. ” Then we are told how this problem is being taken care of.
On March 23, 1978, a campaign was begun in the South to transform capitalist trade and put the trader’s capital into the sphere of production. In Ho Chi Minh City, representatives of 30,000 families engaged in capitalist forms of trade were invited to state institutions where the appropriate resolution of the city people’s committee was explained to them and they were recommended to put their capital into the production sphere. (Ibid., p. 27)
This invitation to merchant capitalists to become industrial capitalists apparently did not achieve the desired results because: “On April 5, 1978, a government decision was made public on supplementary measures to stimulate the participation of the capitalist traders in the sphere of production. They are permitted to engage in entrepreneurial activity in agricultural, fishing, forestry, and in manufacturing industries.
Farmer traders could use money raised from the sale of goods to the state for participation in the joint state-capitalist and cooperative enterprises. Those entrepreneurs who had recently moved into production were given temporary tax concessions....
The transformation of private capitalist and the participation of traders in the sphere of production have been carried out in the interest of the overwhelming majority of the population of South Vietnam.(Ibid., p. 27)
What is happening has nothing to do with socialism. It is the transformation of mercantile capitalism to industrial capitalism. Le Duan says that “the central task is socialist industrialization” but the word socialist is quite irrelevant because there is private ownership of the means of production and labour power is a commodity. The economy runs on the basis of capitalist laws. Le Duan says “we must make proper use of market, prices, wages and credit.... We must attach importance to both use-value and value and make a judicious application of the law of value.” (This Nation and Socialism are One, Vanguard Books, p. 183) These laws operate in a situation where there is private ownership of the means of production as Le Duan says: “Private enterprises may be turned into joint state-private ones, or they may be allowed to continue in existence and encouraged to serve socialism.” (!!) (Ibid., p. 184)
What is happening in the South of Vietnam is no transition to socialism; the same capitalist relations prevail in the North. Stalin said “the law of value cannot under our system function as the regulator of production” (Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 21) and he explains what it would mean if it did. It would mean that preference would be given to light industries because they are more profitable and that the production of articles of consumption would be favoured. Le Duan says: “we must strive to promote the growth of agriculture and light industry, and promptly make the first leap forward in these fields; each advance of heavy industry must aim at furthering agriculture and light industry.” (The Vietnamese Revolution, Hanoi 1970, p. 107) He also says “we must develop light industry, increase the production of consumer goods at a quick rate.” (ibid., p. 112) And this development of light industry “should comprise not only state-owned enterprises but also a LARGE number of collective enterprises” (ibid.), i.e. private property.
It is no secret that the Vietnamese run their economy on capitalist laws, they openly admit it. They just try to say it builds “socialism.” “We must step up planning work while judiciously utilizing market relations and make wider application of cost accounting.” (Ibid., p. 132)
Our State... should skilfully combine the plan with the market.
The practice of economic building in other socialist countries as well as in our own proves that in economic management, we must correctly utilize such levers as price, wages, profit and credit and fully enforce the regime of cost accounting and the socialist mode of doing business. (Ibid., p. 135)
So Vietnam openly admits that its economy is run by the same laws as Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe – the “socialist” mode of doing business. How can anyone who claims to understand the capitalist nature of the revisionist countries have any illusions about Vietnam?
Le Duan continues to make it perfectly clear how the Vietnamese economy is run on capitalist economic laws for the purpose of making profits
A judicious and rational DEVELOPMENT of the commodity-money relationship coupled with a redivision of labour and the technical revolution will become a positive factor in promoting the growth of production and organizing a new life. Therefore to bring into play the law of value, practice cost accounting and use these levers: price, profit, wages and credit, are extremely important economic problems. The law of value and the practice of cost accounting make it possible to gauge economic effectiveness of economic and technical measures, check up the quality of work in each enterprise, region, branch, and at each level, mobilize all latent economic possibilities and encourage innovations, thrift and industriousness in the interest of the state and the nation.... We must, not only on a national scale but even within each branch, at each level and in each basic economic unit, accumulate profits for enlarged reproduction, and all branches, levels and units MUST show definite progress after each cycle of production. ... We must in so far as is possible make profits in each branch and each period. (Ibid., pp. 136-37)
As Stalin said “the law of value can be a regulator of production under capitalism” (op. cit., p. 23) and this is exactly what Vietnam has – capitalism. In Vietnam they do the opposite of what the socialist Soviet Union of Stalin did. Stalin says “profitableness is considered not from the standpoint of individual industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question.” (Ibid., p. 24) Under socialism the economy is built for the long term benefit of the people. It is under capitalism that the capitalists base their economic activity on the question of this year’s profit.
Stalin makes clear what capitalist production is: “Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of the means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.” (Ibid., pp. 13-14)
Are the means of production concentrated in private hands in Vietnam? The answer to this has to be a categorical yes. Let us first look at industrial means of production and then at the agricultural means of production. Industry is dominated by light industry that is owned by private capitalists, state-private capital joint ventures, collectives and artisans. These are all private ownership of the means of production. Heavy industry is dominated by industries that are based on the export of capital from the Soviet Union. There are 94 major industries of this sort concentrated in Hydro electric power coal mining, gas and oil, and industrial agriculture for export to the Soviet Union. This is certainly private. But what of the state sector that is controlled by the Vietnamese government? By the revisionists own admission this is state capitalism. There is no state socialist planning and control as Le Duan says “each region will build and manage its own economy.” (op. cit., p. 129) He further states that: “For the provinces to have all necessary conditions for developing their economies, we must, besides delegating to them managerial responsibilities in the economic, cultural, and educational fields, ensure for them adequate manpower, resources, finances, and a market.” (Ibid., p. 130)
And within these regions Le Duan speaks of “guaranteeing the various management echelons... the right to allocate labour money and resources with a view to fully exploiting all potentialities and successfully accomplishing all production tasks” (ibid., p. 14) i.e., making profits by exploiting the working class.
So it is these enterprises that in reality control and in essence own the means of production because it is the managers that have the means of production concentrated in their hands in order to make profits for their own benefit and for the accumulation of capital. The Vietnamese state merely does what any good capitalist state does – help the bourgeoisie make profits.
Agriculture is dominated by small peasant production and those collectives that exist own their own means of production i.e., machinery. This is a private sector of the economy. Vietnam has the same economic features as the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union Khrushchev abolished the State economic ministries and gave the means of production to the regions and to the individual enterprises. He also abolished the machine and tractor stations and sold the agricultural means of production to the collective farm i.e., into private hands. So clearly in Vietnam as in all the revisionist countries even the state sector is capitalist production.
As to the second feature of capitalist production, the sale of labour power as a commodity, it should already be clear this is true in Vietnam. As we have seen it is the management of the enterprises that have “the right to allocate labour.” Furthermore there is a large campaign in Vietnam, as there has been in every capitalist country, trying to industrialize to increase the pool of labour available as a commodity. This is called a “re-division of labour among various branches of the economy.”
How to increase labour productivity and free part of the agricultural labour force from its old occupations? How to use this FREED LABOUR in the most advantageous way? Such problems, which crop up every day, can ONLY be grasped and solved in time by individual co-operatives and localities. (ibid., p. 124)
And the purpose of this “freed labour” is as in all capitalist countries to make surplus value to allow the accumulation of capital. “In accordance with the new orientation in production, transfer part of the agricultural labour force to industrial development, gradually DIMINISH NECESSARY LABOUR AND INCREASE SURPLUS LABOUR, THE ONLY SOURCE OF ACCUMULATION.” (Ibid., p. 104)
The Vietnamese economy is capitalist production in all spheres, it is dominated by mercantile, industrial and foreign capital. There is even a growing sector of bank capital. As Le Duan says “the financial and banking services must not only collect capital but also create conditions for its quicker accumulation and concentration” (ibid., p. 138), the “noble” tasks of banks the world over.
Of course, the capitalist economy of Vietnam is not led by a party of the proletariat. Despite the name, Communist Party of Vietnam, it is a party of the bourgeoisie that is ridden with factions. As Ho Chi Minh said in his “last will and testament.” “Within the party the best way to consolidate and develop unity is to practice LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.” The Vietnamese party is a revisionist party that is united around bourgeois nationalism that uses Marxism-Leninism as a mask. As Le Duan said in his funeral oration for Ho Chi Minh: o ’INSPIRED BY ARDENT PATRIOTISM, President Ho Chi Minh came early to Marxism-Leninism.”
In his will Ho Chi Minh came up with a rare bit of honesty. “My ultimate desire is that all our party and all our people, closely united in combat, will raise up a Vietnam that is peaceful, unified, independent, democratic, and prosperous.”
As to socialism, it is only a way to deceive the working class into creating more surplus value for the “patriotic” bourgeoisie of Vietnam.
Vietnam has a backward capitalist economy that is dominated by Russian imperialism and any attempt to cover this up is a criminal activity against the international proletariat and serves to cover up for Russian imperialist aggression and allows the imperialist camp to promote the myth that socialism is involved in the war in Indochina.