I wrote:
> >.... in what sense was that [Vietnamese] revolution "proletarian"? were
> wage-workers (proletarians) organized in a workers' political party and
> democratically-run unions in state power? I doubt it.<
Louis answers:
>It was proletarian in the sense that the goal of the revolution was to
>build socialism.
the kind of socialism built depends on which groups have the power in the
process of building it. Which groups had the power? the CP?
>If Ho Chi-Minh (or Mao) had waited in Social Democratic fashion for a
>proletariat to emerge as a class, the country would still be
>politically ruled from outside. As it stands now, it is only ruled
>economically.
I wasn't asking them to wait, nor is it my job, as a resident of the major
imperialist power and the major anti-Vietnamese force, to ask for such
things. (BTW, the Social Democrats are sometimes right, so that using that
tag doesn't scare me.)
I just don't see that revolution as "proletarian" unless the organized
proletariat has a lot of power in creating that revolution. We should use
words carefully, since clear thinking is necessary to the left's escape
from its Big Funk in this era of the neo-Liberal moral plague.
I simply see that revolution as a nationalist revolution pushing for
economic development (because of the failure of capitalism to develop such
countries and the constant wars by France, the US, and China against
Vietnam), rather than being a classical Marxian proletarian revolution. The
nature of that "development" is defined by who's got the power. In some
phases of the Vietnamese history (as I understand it) workers and peasants
had some say in determining the nature of development. But since the war
ended, the power of the workers and peasants has slowly faded, so that the
ruling party-state has slowly succumbed to the continuing pressure from the
US, IMF, etc. rather than politically mobilizing people against that
pressure. The party-state seems more interested in preserving its own
power. (Of course, not being an expert on Vietnam, I look forward to
getting more information on this question.)
> >Maybe the ideology of the CP of Vietnam could be called "proletarian,"
> since if I remember correctly that party adheres to "Marxism," originally
> a pro-proletarian vision. But not only has the term "Marxism" been abused
> a lot (e.g., by Stalin) but doesn't it go against historical materialism
> to define a revolution by the official ideological tag that its leaders use? <
>The people of Vietnam, following all revolutions in the 1917 vein, created
>a state that is in transition between capitalism and socialism, but it was
>by no means guaranteed that it would move forward in a unilinear fashion
>as history has sadly demonstrated.
_which_ people of Vietnam? obviously some more than others. Those who had
the most power in creating that state are likely to get the most benefits
from that state.
"all" revolutions in the 1917 vein? does that include the Khmer Rouge
revolution? that revolution also involved Marxian rhetoric (though it was
profoundly anti-Marxian in practice, as I believe you agree).
Also, we should note the Vietnamese revolution was quite different from
that of Russia in 1917, which did have elements of being "a classical
Marxian proletarian revolution."
I don't know anyone who professes the theory that history moves forward in
a "unilinear fashion." Do you? He or she must be lonely in this belief.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
