The great and historic achievements of the country's renewal cause over the past 35 years were attributed to the fact that we have always remained steadfast in the goal of national independence and socialism. Therefore, the 13th Congress continues to affirm that the strategic goal of building socialism is the right choice, reflecting the consistency of our Party’s revolutionary line, not “illusion”, nor “conservative”.
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.
Yes it is, it is literally the post lmao.
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:
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.
Again, what I have added thus far is:
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.
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.