I'm planning to be socialist oriented by 2044 but good luck to them anyway
By the way, I'm not the only person worried about how Vietnam will be able to deal with climate change, right? I'm almost afraid there won't be a Vietnam by 2045
I like Vietnam and all but putting out a goal to be socialist oriented by 2045 is about as laughable as China's goal to be a socialist society by 2050
Why, exactly, is it "laughable" to set goals and organizing your society toward achieving these goals?
You cannot snap your fingers and change class relations. It's not surprising that this perspective is predominant in places where communists cannot even establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.
I doubt you are a member of a communist party that has any plan to build socialism, or even a workers' state, in your country.
How has Vietnam done in achieving their benchmarks? Have they met their benchmarks for short and long-term development thus far?
China has. And yet, the ludicrous & chauvinistic myth they are misrepresenting their long-term plans persists with no evidence. I presume this is the case for Vietnam as well.
I also don’t know what ‘socialist orientated’ means.
Maybe you should read their plan.
The article clearly states the benchmarks of the 13th Party Congress, which is to achieve a medium income per capita by 2030 & a high income per capita by 2045. At which point, the primary objective of the Party will move away from developing the productive capabilities, and towards socialism.
I presume their definition of socialism is "lower-phase communism", as defined in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme - a society in which the productive forces are commandeered by a state led by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the state begins the process of abolishing itself.
It's entirely possible that forces most resistant to building the higher phase of communism - the Party bureaucrats - will perform a hostile takeover of the Party around 2045. That happened in the USSR the mid-1950's shortly after the Party laid out the plan for constructing higher-stage communism.
However, that has no bearing on Vietnam's current plan for development, which sounds completely reasonable and builds from their work since 1991, as per that article.
If you want to understand the specifics, you should reach out of @LunaOi_VN on Twitter. She may have an English translation of the 13th Party Congress. She released a video on the opening of the Party Congress already [1]
But that's what mazdak said. It doesn't explain what "socialist oriented" means. It does say that they are planning to reach certain benchmarks but it really doesn't say anything about what "socialist oriented" really means.
This is not a Party Congress document. It is a few-hundred word summary released by a newspaper affiliated with the Vietnamese military. If you want to talk specifics of the Congress, you would need to read the Congress documents.
"Socialism" for Marxist-Leninist parties has clear definition: the central ownership of major productive forces by a state led by a dictatorship of the proletariat. I would presume, having not read the Congress documents myself, that "socialist-oriented" means transitioning from private ownership of enterprise to state ownership of enterprise.
But, again, I have not researched the 13 Party Congress documents nor the degree to which previous Party Congresses have reached their objectives. I expect anyone with serious criticisms to have carried out both these tasks already. If you cannot recite the references to "socialist-oriented" in the Congress documents, then you have not done your due diligence on this topic.
All I have said so far is that the Communist Party of China has successfully met or exceeded their plans for social development since 1979. OP grouped China and Vietnam together, so I am doing the same and presuming Vietnam's has met their plans for social development during their age of building towards socialism . Therefore, claiming their current objectives are "laughable" is routed in ignorance and chauvinism.
This is not a Party Congress document.
Τhis IS what we are talking about here however.
“Socialism” for Marxist-Leninist parties has clear definition
Does it though?
But, again, I have not researched the 13 Party Congress documents nor the degree to which previous Party Congresses have reached their objectives. I expect anyone with serious criticisms to have carried out both these tasks already. If you cannot recite the references to “socialist-oriented” in the Congress documents, then you have not done your due diligence on this topic.
This really reads like you are putting arbitrary conditions for discussion to happen so that your position is the correct one by default. You acted like it was somewhere in this article. It clearly isn't. The question was, what does "socialist oriented" mean? Because it really isn't that "well defined", the word has been abused so hard that it really is difficult to figure out what it really means.
Τhis IS what we are talking about here however.
No. It is not.
you acted like it was somewhere in this article.
No. I did not. Please reread this exchange:
I also don’t know what ‘socialist orientated’ means.
Maybe you should read their plan.
If you don't know what a phrase means, you should learn what it means, rather than revel in your own ignorance.
Your problem is with an English-language Vietnamese military journal not defining "socialist-oriented."
This really reads like you are putting arbitrary conditions for discussion to happen so that your position is the correct one by default.
Yes, my positions of "don't speak on shit you haven't researched" & "claiming that communist parties are lying in their plans without evidence is chauvinistic" are correct. I will defend that against any criticism.
No. It is not.
Yes it is, it is literally the post lmao.
If you don’t know what a phrase means, you should learn what it means, rather than revel in your own ignorance.
The issue is not that people don't know the dikshionary definishon, smartass. Since you are so above the other people here, go on, stop being an asshole and lift our ignorance. There is skepticism about "socialist oriented" simply being a buzzword, which is what it tends to be used for.
Some journal saying Viet Nam is gonna be "socialist oriented" by 2045 doesn't mean shit on its own if there is no additional detail to that. That's the point. It's very simple. If you don't have anything to add then there is no reason for you to be in this discussion. As it stands, it is an empty claim, especially when it refers to stuff that will supposedly happen in about a quarter of a century.
If you look it up, there is very little in the way of "socialism" brought up. There's a lot of stuff about Viet Nam becoming a developed high income nation by then etc. Cool, but that's not socialism. Read this: https://vietnamnews.vn/politics-laws/863007/viet-nam-aims-to-become-a-socialist-oriented-developed-nation-by-mid-21st-century.html
The only "details" on socialism come up here:
Another goal is to carry out synchronised measures to soon perfect the socialist-oriented market mechanism; improve governance and management capacity and efficiency; better handle the relationship between the State, market and society, and between businesses and the public; and resolve bottlenecks that hamper the growth of the country, especially institutions and policies.
The "socialist-oriented market mechanism".
The whole thing reads like an EU resolution or something. This isn't news at all. They're not planning to push the "socialism" button in 2045. One can only hope they will make improvements in their course but there is no particularly encouraging signs of that in either article. It's just more of the same.
Some journal saying Viet Nam is gonna be “socialist oriented” by 2045 doesn’t mean shit on its own if there is no additional detail to that. That’s the point. It’s very simple. If you don’t have anything to add then there is no reason for you to be in this discussion.
Again, what I have added thus far is:
- The communist parties of Vietnam and China have met every single deadline they have set for themselves during their transitional periods towards socialism.
- Presuming they are lying about their transition to socialism with no evidence is ignorant and chauvinistic.
I feel that's all I'm qualified to add to the conversation having only read one introductory textbook on Marxism in modern China (which is following a similar developmental process as Vietnam), a few articles released on their 13th Party Congress, and the opening speech from Tran Quoc Vuong.
As it stands, it is an empty claim, especially when it refers to stuff that will supposedly happen in about a quarter of a century.
You can say this about any benchmark these countries set. China aiming for a GNP per capita of $800 by 2000 was an "empty claim" in 1979. China aiming to end extreme poverty by 2020 was an "empty claim" in 2010. Their plan for the future does not happen when they announce it.
I feel the onus is on detractors to prove that these communist parties are intentionally deceiving the masses about their objectives. I have only seen evidence to the contrary.
So, literally none.
The Communist Party of China have exceeded their benchmarks for development thus far.
The target GNP per capita by 2000 outlined in the 15th CPC Congress was $800. China reached $2800 by 2000. The target for poverty alleviation in China was achieved six months earlier despite a global pandemic.
I'm less informed about the specifics of Vietnam's benchmarks, but it seems comparable to China.
“Oh yeah China, your gonna do it by 2050? Well guess what, we’re gonna beat you by FIVE YEARS FUCKER!”
