The history of the thirty years long struggle of our Party has taught us this: The best guarantee of victory for the revolution is to steep ourselves in Marxism-Leninism, to remain loyal to the interests of the working class and the people, to preserve solidarity and unity within the Party and between all Communist Parties, and all countries of the big socialist family. Our Party has in the past always fulfilled these tasks. In the future, too, our Party will undoubtedly continue to do so.

Ho Chi Minh, “Opening Address at the Third National Congress of the Vietnam Workers’ Party”^[1]

Ours is a Party in power. Each Party member, each cadre must be deeply imbued with revolutionary morality, and show industry, thrift, integrity, uprightness, total dedication to the public interest and complete selflessness. Our Party should preserve absolute purity and prove worthy of its role as the leader and very loyal servant of the people.
…
My ultimate wish is that our entire Party and people, closely joining their efforts, will build a peaceful, reunified, independent, democratic and prosperous Viet Nam, and make a worthy contribution to the world revolution.

Ho Chi Minh’s “Testament”^[2]

Parting with him, we vow to go on devoting all our strength to the realization of the lofty ideal of socialism and communism that he set for our working class and people, as to achieve prosperity for our land and happiness for our countrymen.

“Last Tribute of the Central Committee of the Vietnamese Workers’ Party”^[3]

These words delineate the lofty goals set by Ho Chi Minh and vowed to him by his successors on the Central Committtee (led by Lê Duẩn at the time). Much has been written about Vietnam and the Communist Party of Vietnam during the French Indochina War and the Vietnam War, in its various incarnations as the Indochinese Communist Party, Vietnamese Workers Party, and the Communist Party of Vietnam. But there is a severe lack of work on the Communist Party of Vietnam during the period after reunification, and certainly a lack of work on the practice of Communist Party of Vietnam and its practice throughout its years of existence.

Vietnam was the storm center of world revolution after World War II, radicalizing everyone from government officials to soldiers. The entire world watched as the United States waged a vile imperialist war against a people who wanted their independence and dignity, as well as engaging in campaigns against Laos and Cambodia. Shortly after reunification in 1976, the attention of the world shifted, and by 1979, those who did pay attention to the Vietnamese Revolution - ongoing as it was - were starting to fire polemical shots at the burgeoning government.

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA - a communist organization based at that time on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought^[4] - attacked the Communist Party of Vietnam and accused them of nationalism and a bourgeois outlook. From the article “Vietnam: Miscarriage of the Revolution”, they make this position on the CPV explicit:

Nationalism is a form of bourgeois ideology, the outlook of the capitalist class. And it was this bourgeois ideology, first in the form of nationalism and later as out-and-out revisionism, which infected and ultimately led the leadership of the Vietnamese revolution down a blind alley—with the consequence that even the first stage of the revolution was not accomplished, and Vietnam fell into the willing arms of yet another imperialist power.^[5]

While in the bourgeois intellectual world there are debates about whether the CPV and Ho Chi Minh in particular were truly communist, the reality is that communists themselves should know better. To quote Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Communist Party of China: “no investigation, no right to speak”.^[6] Ho Chi Minh was a thoroughgoing Marxist-Leninist who saw the construction of a communist society as his ultimate goal, despite any errors he may have made along the way. Even after Ho Chi Minh passed, those who would follow him in leadership of the CPV - from Lê Duẩn^[7] to Tô Lâm^[8] - are also thoroughgoing Marxist-Leninists.

Other than polemical attacks such as that, very little in the communist/revolutionary sphere has been made of the Vietnamese practice of Marxism-Leninism outside of the direct warfare period of the Vietnamese Revolution. In fact, even in the bourgeois world, the academic space has largely neglected Vietnam with rare exception. This article will delineate both what Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought and the economic thought that came from it - the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy - are exactly, and give an overall history of the Communist Party of Vietnam from the Fourth Congress to the Fourteenth Congress of Vietnam, held in January 2026.

What’s In A “Thought”? Or, what is Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought?

Correctly and creatively applying Lenin’s principles of a new-type political party Ho Chi Minh had successfully built a communist party in a coIonial country where the majority of the population are peasants. He said: to bring the revolution to success, first of all there must be a revolutionary party which takes Marxism-Leninism as the guiding doctrine. The working class in a coIonial country is small but it is the only class having the mission of leading the revolution. The comlng into being of the Communist Party of Vietnam is the result of the combination of Marxism-Leninism with the workers’ movement and the patriotic movement of Vietnam. That is why, from the very beginnlng, our Party’s nature is that of the working class, the falthful representative of the working people and the whole nation. In view of the reality of the Vietnamese revolution, he paid attention to the diffusion of Marxism-Leninism and to increaslng the capability and quality of Party members. As a result, though the Communist Party of Vietnam was born in a coIonial country and the majority of its members are not industrial workers, the working class nature and the revolutionary vanguard role of the Party is solidly maintained. And precisely through practically leading the revolution, our Party has become the only leader of the Vietnamese people and is considered by the whole people their Party and their only leader.

Lê Khả Phiêu, “Ho Chi Minh Thought Lights Up the Path of our Party and People to the 21st Century”^[9]

The Communist Party of Vietnam proudly declares its adherence to Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought in the Charter of the Communist Party of Vietnam, most recently updated at the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Marxism-Leninism consists of three parts: historical and dialectical materialism, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. For the purpose of this article, those are self-explanatory. But Ho Chi Minh Thought - being understudied by both the revolutionary left and by the bourgeois world - is a mystery to most.

In the Marxist-Leninist tradition, there are multiple ideological tendencies with “Thought” in their name, such as Mao Zedong Thought, Xi Jinping Thought, and Kaysone Phomvihane Thought (formulated by the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party). They don’t represent a break with Marxism-Leninism but rather the application of it to the conditions of the country of origin. Mao Zedong Thought, for example, consists of several concepts, including the Theory of New Democracy, the revolutionary military strategy of Protracted People’s War, and Mao Zedong’s ideas on cultural and ideological work. Mao Zedong himself gave this term to his ideas; it was the Communist Party of China that did so multiple times throughout its history and most famously in 1981 in the Party document entitled, “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China”.^[10] In the case of Ho Chi Minh Thought, the call to synthesize it was issued at the Sixth Congress of the CPV^[11] in 1986 and then ultimately formalized at the Seventh Congress^[12] in 1991.

Ho Chi Minh Thought, like Mao Zedong Thought, is made up of different concepts and principles that Ho Chi Minh utilized throughout the 50 years of his service to the Vietnamese people and their Revolution. Ho Chi Minh Thought, while being the application of Marxism-Leninism to Vietnam, is different from Mao Zedong Thought in that its content is less theoretical, being more of a practical style of Thought. In an interview, when he was asked if he ever considered writing an intellectual treatise about his political thought, he responded jokingly that he would leave theory to Mao Zedong.^[13] Along those lines, Ho Chi Minh Thought is based on the ideas that Uncle Ho himself embodied and fought for:

1. National liberation, independence, and unity^[14]
2. Economic, cultural, and educational construction for the betterment of the people’s lives^[15]
3. Fostering the next revolutionary generation by both seeing to their needs and promoting their leadership in the Party generally and bodies such as youth leagues^[16]
4. The fostering and promotion of revolutionary ethics and fighting against corruption^[17]
5. The concept of “proletarian piety”, that unites the the oppressed people of Vietnam across the classes (proletariat, peasantry, lumpenproletariat) under the banner of support for the working classes^[18][19]
6. The revolutionary building of the People’s Army and their tactics

Ho Chi Minh Thought and Its Contributors in Vietnam and Abroad

President Ho has gathered all the quintessence of the Vietnamese nation. He has also gathered the quintessence of the present-day civilized world and progressive mankind. He once lived in Russia; he studied the October Revolution and Marxism. A greater part of his activities abroad was in China. He had great sympathy for Sun Yat-sen, for the Chinese Revolution and people. He understood the USA, and often praised the national liberation revolution of the US people. He was a long-standing and sentimental friend of France and the French people, and the great French Revolution of 1789. But through President Ho, the quintessence of the world has been Vietnamized and has acquired the appearance, the manner, the language, and even the spirit of Vietnam.

Phạm Văn Đồng, “President Ho Chi Minh, Image of the Nation”^[20]

Ho Chi Minh drew inspiration from multiple sources and it influenced his practice of Marxism-Leninism: his training as a student of Confucian thought, his education in European philosophy and politics, his studies of the life and works of the revolutionary democrat Dr. Sun Yat-sen^[21], the Marxist-Leninist education he received at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East^[22], as well as his peers and comrades in the International Communist Movement such as (though not limited to) Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and (controversially) Nikita Khrushchev. But Ho Chi Minh Thought is not solely made up of just the personal thoughts and ideologies of Ho Chi Minh; it is the sum total of the experiences of the Vietnamese communist leadership crystallized through Ho Chi Minh’s generation and their offspring. This means that those who were his peers during his generation of leadership in the Communist Party of Vietnam - leading Vietnamese communists like General Secretaries Lê Duẩn and Trường Chinh, Prime Minister^[23] Phạm Văn Đồng, General Võ Nguyên Giáp, and Provisional Revolutionary Government Chairman Nguyễn Hữu Thọ - also contributed to Ho Chi Minh Thought.

The military strategies and tactics of Ho Chi Minh Thought were originally inspired by those of Mao Zedong and Generals Zhu De and Peng Dehuai of the Eighth Route Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War^[24] and then adapted to the conditions of Vietnam by Ho Chi Minh in his work Guerilla Tactics, Võ Nguyên Giáp in a number of directives and documents like People’s War, People’s Army, and Trường Chinh in his 1947 work The Resistance Will Win. This serves as an example of how Ho Chi Minh’s comrades-in-arms contributed to the solidification of Ho Chi Minh Thought as an ideological tendency.

Another influence is Nikita Khrushchev: a major flashpoint in the International Communist Movement whose tenure as First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union marks a period of serious division in communist history. Nikita Khrushchev’s most infamous and most divisive act as First Secretary was the attack on Joseph Stalin and his legacy at the 20th Congress of the CPSU.

The cult of the individual has caused the employment of faulty principles in party work and in economic activity; it brought about rude violation of internal party and Soviet democracy, sterile administration, deviations of all sorts, covering up the shortcomings and varnishing of reality. Our nation gave birth to many flatterers and specialists in false optimism and deceit.

Nikita Khrushchev, “On the Cult of the Individual and Its Consequences (Special Report to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Closed Session, February 24-25 1956)”^[25]

The full report on the “cult of the individual” went along these lines, but it was namely this particular segment that Ho Chi Minh had vigorously agreed with. In an affirmation of the 20th Congress in general, he wrote an article in Pravda calling for ideological unity among the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the world. In it, he agreed with the assessment of Joseph Stalin and signaled the willingness of the Communist Party of Vietnam to enter a campaign of de-Stalinization (which would result in the liquidation of the left-wing of the CPV^[26]).

It is crystal clear that once victorious, socialism can never tolerate the personality cult and its harmful consequences. The energetic measures taken by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to do away with the personality cult and its consequence set a brilliant example of unprecedented boldness in history. The strict implementation of these measures in no way weakens but consolidates ideological solidarity among builders of communism, centered around the leading nucleus faithful to Lenin.
…
By severely criticizing Stalin’s errors and by launching a resolute struggle against the personality cult, the 20th Congress of the CPSU has set us a brilliant example of political boldness and deep confidence in the people. The Vietnam Workers’ Party considers the criticism of the personality cult as an eloquent proof of strength, and a great victory of the CPSU and of the world revolutionary movement.

Ho Chi Minh, “Consolidation and Development of Ideological Unity Among Marxist-Leninist Countries”^[27]

The Communist Party of Vietnam wholly and completely absorbed the Special Report into its practice, erasing the legacy of Joseph Stalin from its ranks. Even the modern textbooks used in Vietnam - such as Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism - remove Stalin from the history of Marxism-Leninism, despite having been the synthesizer of it.

Similarly, both Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Party of Vietnam integrated Khrushchev’s concepts of “Peaceful Coexistence” and the “Socialist State of the Whole People” into the practice of Ho Chi Minh Thought. The concept of “Peaceful Coexistence” was first introduced in Khrushchev’s “Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 20th Party Congress”, though it was not fully delineated and defined much deeper by him until later. That said, his description of what “Peaceful Coexistence” is still mostly self-explanatory:

Comrades, I should like to dwell on some fundamental questions concerning present-day international development, which determine not only the present course of events, but also the prospects for the future. These questions are the peaceful coexistence of the two systems, the possibility of preventing wars in the present era, and the forms of transition to socialism in different countries. Let us examine these questions in brief. The peaceful coexistence of the two systems. The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems has always been and remains the general line of our country’s foreign policy. It has been alleged that the Soviet Union advances the principle of peaceful coexistence merely out of tactical considerations, considerations of expediency. Yet it is common knowledge that we have always, from the very first years of Soviet power, stood with equal firmness for peaceful coexistence. Hence, it is not a tactical move, but a fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy.
…
When we say that the socialist system will win in the competition between the two systems—the capitalist and the socialist—this by no means signifies that its victory will be achieved through armed interference by the socialist countries in the internal affairs of the capitalist countries. Our certainty of the victory of communism is based on the fact that the socialist mode of production possesses decisive advantages over the capitalist mode of production.

Nikita Khrushchev, “Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress”^[28]

Ho Chi Minh himself hailed “Peaceful Coexistence” as a theory in his Pravda editorial, the same one that denounced Joseph Stalin.

The important theoretical principles set forth by the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, on the possibility of preventing war in the present phase, on the multiform character of the transitional period towards socialism in various countries, all these principles have contributed to the consolidation of the forces of peace, democracy, and socialism throughout the world.

Ho Chi Minh, “Consolidation and Development of Ideological Unity Among Marxist-Leninist Parties”^[29]

Despite this, the adaptation of “Peaceful Coexistence” into the practice of Ho Chi Minh Thought was slower and over a gradual period of time. It overtly came into the foreign policy of the Party after the 6th Congress, with General Secretary Nguyễn Văn Linh writing an article for the journal World Marxist Review: Problems of Peace and Socialism affirming the dedication of the Vietnamese communists to the position.

Our Party has been making an active contribution to strengthening the unity of the international communist and working class movement on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and has been developing the fraternal parties’ cooperation in the struggle for peace, national independence, democracy, and socialism.

We have given consistent and complete support to the people’s liberation movement for national independence and against imperialism, colonialism, and racism. We fully approve the noble aims of the Non-Aligned Movement and have been doing our utmost to promote further development.

The CPV has given vigorous support to the heroic struggle of the working class and the peoples of the industrialized capitalist countries against oppression and exploitation by monopoly capitalism, for peace, democracy, full employment, and higher living standards.

The Vietnamese Communists stand for the policy of peaceful coexistence between states with different political and social systems, and support the Soviet Union’s tireless efforts for eliminating nuclear weapons, and creating a comprehensive international security system ranging over the military, political, economic, and social spheres.

Nguyễn Văn Linh, “An Important Step in Renovation”^[30]

While the twilight years of the Soviet Union were when the policy of Peaceful Coexistence was most overtly integrated into Vietnamese practice, the Vietnamese were forced into a position of having to further integrate Peaceful Coexistence into its practice after the counter-revolutions of 1991.

Nikita Khrushchev’s second contribution to Vietnamese Marxist practice was the concept of the “Socialist State of the Whole People”. The idea of a state of the whole people is summed up as the idea that the exploiting classes have been destroyed; therefore society (in the USSR) was classless, and the state was no longer a proletarian dictatorship, but a socialist democracy of all peoples. Khrushchev introduced this concept during the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, with grand declarations of the transition of Soviet society into one where all peoples were free of exploitation.

The basic distinctions between mental and physical labor are being eradicated on the basis of technical progress and the higher cultural and technical standards of the working people. Today the labor of the worker and the collective farmer, armed with advanced technology and knowledge, combines elements of both physical and mental work. Forty percent of the country’s workers and over 23 percent of its collective farmers now have a secondary or higher education. Nowadays it is often difficult to distinguish the front-rank worker from the engineer, the front-rank collective farmer from the agronomist. Thus, class relations in our country have now entered a new stage of their development.

Proletarian democracy is becoming socialist democracy of the whole people. We note with great satisfaction that we are nearing the goal set by Lenin: to enlist all citizens without exception in the work of governing the state. Tens of millions of Soviet people take an active part in the administration of the country through the Soviets and their committees, through the elected bodies of the cooperatives, the trade unions, the Komsomol, and other mass organizations, and perform public duties.

Nikita Khrushchev, “Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”^[31]

This concept of a “Socialist State of the Whole People” was further developed by Leonid Brezhnev, Khrushchev’s successor as General Secretary. By 1971, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev had assessed that they were directly building communism and had resolved to build it in the 9th Five Year Plan.^[32] He argued that the declaration of the Soviet Union as a “Socialist State of the Whole People” was the next necessary step in this process.^[33] This line of thought was reflected in the 1977 Constitution of the CPSU, which replaced the Stalin-era Constitution of 1936.

As our experience has shown, the gradual development of the state of proletarian dictatorship into a state of the whole people is one of the results of the complete triumph of socialist social relations. The Soviet Union today is a natural, inevitable stage in the development of the state born of the October Revolution - a stage characteristic of mature socialism. Consequently, the tasks of the state institutions, their structure, functions, and work procedure should conform to the stage attained in the development of society.

Leonid Brezhnev, “On the Draft Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Results of the Nationwide Discussion of the Draft”^[34]

The Vietnamization of the concept of the “Socialist State of the Whole People” resulted in the CPV’s idea of the “socialist state of the people, by the people, and for the people” built in alliance with the working class, peasantry, intelligentsia, and the remaining national bourgeoisie. The idea of a “socialist state of the people, by the people, and for the people” would first come up in the theoretical journals or newspapers of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union, such as Communist Review (Tạp chí Cộng sản), People (Nhân Dân), People’s Army Newspaper (Quân đội Nhân Dân Báo), and Youth (Tuổi Trẻ), as aspirational goals or explanations of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam even was but then it became solidified in both the first “Political Program for National Construction in the Period of Transition to Socialism” (adopted at the 7th Congress in 1991)^[35] and then the Constitution of 1992.^[36]

Ho Chi Minh Thought: A Theoretical System Adapting to All Conditions

Whenever the revolution shifted to a new strategic phase, he always reminded us to readjust the Party and to make it up to the new requirement of tasks. In his Testament, he foresaw the phenomena to be remedied in the Party after the victory of the resistance war but it is regrettable that we have not fully abided by his recommendations, that we have let individualism appear and develop with worrying manifestations.
…
Ho Chi Minh creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism in the specific conditions of the Vietnamese Revolution. The 7th Congress of the Party for the first time correctly affirmed the position of Ho Chi Minh Thought in the lines and policies of the Vietnamese Revolution: Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought are the ideological foundation, the compass of the Party’s actions. This is the accurate summing up and a new development in the theoretical thinking of our Party.

Lê Khả Phiêu, “Ho Chi Minh Thought and the Path of the Vietnamese Revolution”^[37]

Ho Chi Minh Thought is often compared to its ideological relative - Mao Zedong Thought - because of the overlap in their vision and guidance of revolutions in Eastern countries that were semi-colonial and semi-feudal. The Confucian education Ho Chi Minh received was similar to Mao Zedong’s, and the Vietnamese revolutionary military tactics came from the Eighth Route Army. Even concepts like the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy were premised on the work of Chinese Marxist economic theorists like Xue Muqiao, who pioneered the Theory of Underdeveloped Socialism (or Immature Socialism).^[38] This is largely unavoidable, as the course of history and the conditions of the period were very similar in both countries.

This pattern of Vietnamese Communism being influenced by the activities and theories of the socialist countries it was both physically and politically close to isn’t new, and started before Ho Chi Minh Thought had been called for, or even desired. For example, the Vietnamese “Nhân Văn-Giai Phẩm Affair” bore a remarkable resemblance to the Hundred Flowers Campaign in 1956^[39] that permitted many varying forms of art, culture, and intellectual criticism of the Party and the subsequent Anti-Rightist Campaign that took place between 1957-1959, which was intended to stop counter-revolutionary elements seeking to undermine socialist construction in China.^[40] The Vietnamese communists also drew from the experiences of the Soviets, whom they were also politically close to. Prior to Đổi Mới, both the anti-corruption reforms and the attempted reinvigoration of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in terms of organization and theory, begun by Yuri Andropov,^[41][42] were highly influential on the Communist Party of Vietnam. Three years before his death, Lê Duẩn directly declared the need for a strengthening of the ideological strength of the Party and called for it to arm its cadre with the knowledge of Marxism-Leninism and improve its application to the situation in Vietnam.^[43] Unfortunately, just as with Yuri Andropov’s death, the death of Lê Duẩn cut short the reinvigoration of Marxist-Leninist theory in the CPV. However, the Vietnamization of the anti-corruption policies and campaigns - whose results could be seen in both the news articles of periodicals like People’s Army Newspaper and People and whose theoretical and political end results were discussed in Communist Review - were continued.

The major difference between Ho Chi Minh Thought and Mao Zedong Thought in terms of the practice of the CPV and CPC is that Mao Zedong Thought demands far more ideological training of cadres and centers fidelity to the principles of the Marxist-Leninist fundamentals, despite also calling for the Sinicization of Marxism,^[44] while Ho Chi Minh Thought has always stressed what Lê Khả Phiêu called “creativity and practicality”^[45] which, in other words, can be described as pragmatism.

This “creativity and practicality” is emblematized in the description of what Ho Chi Minh Thought is to the Party’s ideological and theoretical workers. It is described by the Party as an “open theoretical system”, which they define as a theory that is “always moving, developing, supplemented, and constantly improved to suit new contexts”.^[46] This allows Ho Chi Minh Thought - both to its strength when the CPV needs to adapt to new conditions and to its detriment regarding issues like privatization - to be very flexible. This is why concepts like Đổi Mới (Renovation or Renewal) and the economic system of the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy are considered elements of Ho Chi Minh Thought despite Ho Chi Minh not having developed them himself, and despite how those who were his comrades-in-arms in that generation of Vietnamese communism would have opposed them. A prime example of this is the opposition of figures like Lê Duẩn, who promoted reforms in the work of the party and did push for some degree of economic reforms akin to Andropov’s but opposed the idea of economic liberalization (though he died before Đổi Mới had been instituted).

There are efforts on the part of the Communist Party of Vietnam to align Đổi Mới specifically with Ho Chi Minh’s personal ideas on revolution. For example, a quote from Ho Chi Minh’s book Revolutionary Path, “Revolution is the destruction of the old and its replacement with the new, and it is the destruction of the bad, and its replacement with the good”^[47], is used as the basis to link Ho Chi Minh himself with Đổi Mới.

In the practice of the Communist Party of China, when new concepts, applications, and ideas are introduced to their practice of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, the Central Committee looks at those additions to their practice and develops them into their own concepts that are simultaneously a part of their practice but separate from Mao Zedong Thought. For example, Deng Xiaoping Theory is the theory of building a modern socialist state and contains concepts like “One Country, Two Systems”^[48], the “Four Cardinal Principles”^[49], and includes the wisdom of having defended the idea that practice is the sole criterion of truth.^[50] Deng Xiaoping Theory was formulated by the CPC as the representative idea of that generation of communist leadership. Xi Jinping Thought, containing the truths of 21st-Century socialist construction, is similar. Concepts such as the “Four Pronged Comprehensive Strategy” and “Four Consciousnesses” address strategic planning and maintaining a proper class standpoint. These are just individual parts of the whole of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

The Vietnamese practice of Marxism-Leninism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, is not the same. The modern concepts added to Ho Chi Minh Thought - be they the Đổi Mới restructuring of General Secretary Nguyễn Văn Linh (1986-1991), the completion of the transition to the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy overseen by General Secretary Nông Đức Mạnh (2001-2011), the “Blazing Furnace” anti-corruption campaign and the “Bamboo Diplomacy” of General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng (2011-2024) - are still considered a part Ho Chi Minh Thought, rather than treated seen as separate introductions to Vietnamese Marxism-Leninism. This is the way that Ho Chi Minh Thought operates: when the CPV has new additions to its practice, it adds them to Ho Chi Minh Thought rather than dividing them between generations of leadership as the Communist Party of China does (or not demarcating them as new additions to the practice of Marxism-Leninism in the way that the Communist Party of Cuba does).

Đổi Mới and the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy: The Economic and Political Heartbeat of the Modernized Communist Party of Vietnam

In order to overcome the shortcomings and improve the situation, our Party must, first of all, effect a change in conceptions and a renewal of thinking. We must correctly realize and act in conformity with the system of objective laws, of which the specific laws of socialism will have an ever stronger impact on the general development trend of our society.

Trường Chinh, “Political Report of the Central Committee to the 6th Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam”^[51]

Understanding why the Communist Party of Vietnam took the course of Đổi Mới and the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy requires understanding the history of the Communist Party of Vietnam itself and the development of its ideology from after the period of reunification. Vietnam had been in rebellion against French colonizers (be it either directly or through individualized resistance) since the late 1800s^[52], the Japanese during the Second World War, and the United States since 1965; plus it only defeated the “Republic of Vietnam” in 1975. Then in 1977, only two years after reunification, Pol Pot - the Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea - absurdly claimed that Vietnam, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and the United States were working in tandem to overthrow the Khmer Rouge.^[53] Despite efforts to stop the war from breaking out^[54], in April 1978^[55] Vietnam was dragged into a war against the Khmer Rouge that lasted until 1989.

This was almost a century of strife and war, and it took a huge toll on their economic rebuilding: the North had been built up by way of socialist construction, but the southern regions were lagging behind severely. Even as the Communist Party of Vietnam, South Vietnam National Liberation Front, and the Vietnam Fatherland Front had all prepared for the liberation of southern Vietnam and socialist construction there, it was not enough. The northern regions of Vietnam had been building towards the goal of collective mastery for years, but this was not the case for the southern regions, which had been purposely underdeveloped by the French colonialists and the United States puppet government.^[56] Eventually, the strain of this unequal development across the country and having to recover from war after war pushed Vietnam to its limits. The Communist Party of Vietnam had no choice but to act.

Even before the official implementation of Đổi Mới, issues had been observed, and plans were made to address them.

Our party and state are fully concerned about the living conditions of the people. During the past five years, our country’s population grew by another 6 million persons
…
The standard of living of the majority of farmers has improved from the standpoint of food and shelter but there are still some farmers who lack food and who are still experiencing other shortages in their everyday lives, particularly in areas that have been hit by many natural disasters and in remote, wilderness areas. The living conditions of cadres, manual workers, civil servants, and the armed forces have worsened. Real wages have declined. Essential goods frequently cannot be supplied.

Generally speaking, the standard of living is unstable. Millions of laborers, including hundreds of thousands of people reaching work age in the cities, are unemployed. The majority of persons who have a job do not have enough work. Many legitimate material and cultural needs are not being met. Our major mistake is that we have allowed unfair distribution to continue to become widespread. Cadres, manual workers, civil servants, the armed forces, and honest laborers - the pillars of socialism - are encountering the most difficulties in their daily lives. Meanwhile, the number of merchants is too high and many persons are earning a high income. People who earn their livings illegally and persons who steal have a much higher standard of living than persons who support themselves through their own honest labor.

Le Can, “Our Situation and Tasks”^[57]

This article by Le Can, a communist and member of the CPV, came four months before the 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam, where Đổi Mới was devised and implemented. Not only were the economic conditions at the local, regional, and national scale within Vietnam weighing on the CPV, but so were the world economic and political conditions. The Soviet Union was experiencing severe economic stagnation that forced it to cut back on the aid it sent to the other socialist countries, Vietnam included. Additionally, the political sabotage of the USSR by the new General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, had already been set into motion.^[58]

In the spirit of preparation for the 6th Party Congress, every revolutionary was giving their all. General Secretary Trường Chinh was giving many addresses to the public and to the CPV Central Committee to build the spirit of the Congress up and to prepare people for the necessity of political and economic reforms, and party members both seen as high-ranking and low were writing articles for newspapers and theoretical journals, all operating under the two watchwords of reform and self-criticism. The October issue of Communist Review in 1986 was focused on documents preparing for the 6th Congress. Questions of Party self-criticism, organizational tasks, economic reforms, and businesses under socialism were discussed.

In our society, the press is the voice of the party and also of the people. The press is a bridge that links the party with the people. The press is strong only when its opinions have become public opinions that widely support and defend what is right, new, progressive and positive and struggle uncompromisingly against what is wrong, outmoded and negative in the process of inplementing party policies and lines. Public opinion constitutes a great strength. To create this great strength through press opinions, there is nothing faster, more sensitive, and sharper than conducting criticism and self-criticism openly and widely with a public-minded spirit in the press.

Conducting criticism and self-criticism in the press is a form of democratic activity very necessary for the progress of our party, state, and people. This is a method aimed at developing the people's collective mastery and insuring that all party and state viewpoints, policies and lines are thoroughly disseminated in all fields of activity and all aspects of life.

“Editorial: Broaden the Scope and Improve the Quality of Criticism and Self-Criticism in the Press”^[59]

While the primary goals and concerns of the 6th Congress were in the economic sphere because of how dire the situation had become, they also chose to use the Congress as an opportunity to “take score” for the Party over the past years of its leadership and evaluate the things that had gone correctly, could have gone better, and had failed. One of the non-economic points of weakness was the development of cadres and their training in Marxism-Leninism.^[60][61] None of these non-economic weaknesses - be they regarding the training of cadres, the building of the cultural sphere, or official corruption - existed independently of the economic sphere. They were impacting the Vietnamese economy and the daily lives of the people.

A major contributing factor to the Vietnamese economy’s sluggishness and developmental issues was the lack of a long-term economic vision and plan. An article in the October 1986 issue of Communist Review noted that it was important to “take into consideration the goals of the country’s long-term economic development strategy” and that it was a serious error for the CPV to have had two Five Year Plans occur without an actual, long-term economic strategy.^[62] In the same article containing this criticism, Nguyen The Uan argued that the primary goal of the 6th Congress of the CPV should be to develop this economic plan.

“In my opinion, of foremost and most decisive significance is the need for a long-term economic development program, one that encompasses at least the next 15 to 20 years, a program that establishes the strategic goals and key problems that must be met and resolved. This long-term economic development program must be consistent with the development capabilities of the country and take into consideration participation in international specialization and cooperation, most importantly with the fraternal socialist countries.”^[63]

The desires of this member of the CPV were aligned with the leader of the CPV at the time. General Secretary Trường Chinh was calling for a renewal in economic thinking, in the party’s work style, and in the organization of the Party. He pressed this consistently in the addresses he’d been giving in the run-up to the 6th Congress.

To implement the party’s line set by the 4th and 5th Party Congresses, the process of socialist revolution in our country demand from us renewal in many aspects: renewal of our way of thinking, especially economic thinking, renewal of our work style, renewal of our organization and our cadres. The 6th Party Congress shall have to meet that demand.

Trường Chinh, “Firmly Grasp the Three Great Lessons and Successfully Implement the Two Strategic Tasks”^[64]

This term “renewal” would be transformed into what we now know as the Đổi Mới policies. In English, Đổi Mới means “renewal” or “renovation”.

In both bourgeois and socialist/Marxist sources, Đổi Mới is treated only as the economic reforms that took place after the 6th Congress and resulted in the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy (which would not be identified as such until the 9th Congress). However, Đổi Mới is so much more than that. It’s not simply economic reform, but also reforms in the cultural, political, and diplomatic spheres.

In the view of the CPV, the key link to addressing the political issues within Vietnam was the improvement of cadres. Without properly educated and trained cadres, things can go wrong. They may even fail to catch corruption in government officials! By the time of the 6th Congress of the CPV, the world communist movement had already started to learn what happens when cadres are not properly trained and when the successors of the revolution have not been fostered for the future. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had been experiencing this directly. After the death of Leonid Brezhnev in 1982, the CPSU’s aging leadership had twice picked near-death elders to be General Secretary: Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. Even Brezhnev himself was ailing throughout his tenure, essentially playing no functional role in the CPSU’s party life after 1976 due to a stroke.^[65] Yuri Andropov was a Marxist-Leninist with expert-level understanding of theory and even understood the practical issues facing the USSR and wanted to address them, but his ailing health led to him dying in less than two years after becoming General Secretary.

The Đổi Mới reforms are an all-round system of change in Vietnam and its Communist Party. Economically, it created the economic system they have today with long-term planning and strategic goals. Cuturally, it demanded a new socialist culture reflecting the character of the people of Vietnam.^[66] Politically, it called for the strengthening of the cadres and proper education of the youth. They also called for the removal of any cadres whose interests were based only on their own enrichment and who neglected the people, calling them “not worthy of being in the Party”.^[67]

Đổi Mới was developed by the Communist Part of Vietnam during a period where other reforms or so-called reforms were taking place in the socialist camp. In China, the Boluan Fanzheng period that was addressing the verdicts of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and sometimes rehabilitating denounced figures like Liu Shaoqi^[68] was ending and the Reform and Opening Up period was beginning. In the Soviet Union, the period of Perestroika was beginning and starting to corrode the world’s first socialist state from within while wrapping itself in the language and phrases of socialism.^[69] It’s easy to think that Đổi Mới was just the Vietnamese Perestroika or the Vietnamese Reform and Opening Up, like some Western communists I’ve spoken to do. Yet Đổi Mới derives more from the history of Vietnam and the Vietnamese revolution than from anything else and is not merely a clone of either Perestroika or Reform and Opening Up.^[70] If anything, the leading theoreticians and economists of the Communist Party of Vietnam were experts at combining their experience of the world socialist camp in building socialism and their own experience and practice in Vietnam. The question of how to build socialism and the mechanism by which to do it has always been one fraught with challenges, and many ruling communist parties had different solutions. For example, one attempt to answer the question of how to build socialism came in the form of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria’s New System of Economic Management.^[71]

Prior to the advent of Đổi Mới, the Communist Party of Vietnam did not have a roadmap for the future but from the 6th Congress of the CPV and on, this changed. As a result of the resolutions of the 6th Congress, the period between the 6th and 7th Congresses were spent both attempting to put into effect the resolutions of the 6th Congress in the immediate period but also to prepare two very important concepts for the future of the Communist Party of Vietnam: the codification of Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought and the Political Programme for National Construction in the Period of the Transition to Socialism.

The 7th Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam was held in June 1991 and saw the acceptance of Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought as the official ideological line of the Communist Party of Vietnam.^[72] After the fall of most of the socialist camp, this Congress was of the utmost importance and was being closely watched by both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat of the world to see if Vietnam would be the next to fall to capitalist counter-revolution. It confidently affirmed it would remain on the socialist road. To further that goal, the Political Programme was necessary in order to summarize the experiences of the Communist Party of Vietnam, define what stage Vietnam was at in its development, and set down benchmarks to aim for in the future. In the 1991 version of the Political Programme, the Communist Party of Vietnam affirmed that Vietnam was on the road of non-capitalist development and building towards a “socialist-oriented mixed commodity economy” and abolishing the centrally-planned economy it previously had.^[73] The 2011 revision of the Political Programme shifted this terminology to the current Socialist-Oriented Market Economy.^[74]

Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought and Đổi Mới: Building an Advanced Socialist Society and Fighting Corruption

Our Party emphasized that culture must be placed on par with economic, political, and social issues. We must make clear that an advanced Vietnamese culture imbued with national identity is characterized by a nationalism, humanity, democracy, and scientific knowledge. The key point of cultural building is to build people with human dignity and healthy lifestyle, among others. In this Resolution, our Party has determined the new tasks of building culture in politics and economy, developing the cultural industries and improving the cultural market.

Nguyễn Phú Trọng, “Building a Modern Vietnamese Culture Imbued with National Identity”^[75]

Đổi Mới was never just limited to economic reform; it was supposed to be an all-round set of sweeping changes that addressed a number of concerns that the Vietnamese people and the Vietnamese Revolution faced. One of these concerns was culture, both in terms of the morality and unity of the people and in terms of art like literature, music, and film.

Ho Chi Minh consistently wrote about the need for positive, enriching human culture and how socialism could build towards that goal. One of his most heavily cited works, “On Revolutionary Morality”, still serves today as a work of required study for cadres of the CPV. It challenged reactionary mindsets like individualism, acknowledging that in a socialist society they encourage corruption and counter-revolution.

Born and brought up in the old society, we all carry within ourselves, to varying extent, traces of that society in our thinking and habits. The worst and most dangerous vestige of the old society is individualism. Individualism runs counter to revolutionary morality. The least remaining trace of it will develop at the first opportunity, smother revolutionary virtues and prevent us from wholeheartedly struggling for the revolutionary cause. Individualism is something very deceitful and perfidious; it skilfully induces one to backslide. And everybody knows that it is easier to backslide than to progress. That is why it is very dangerous.

Ho Chi Minh, “On Revolutionary Morality”^[76]

It attacked backwards ideas, habits, and customs from the old, pre-revolution culture. Ho Chi Minh wrote other articles along these lines, such as “Elevate Revolutionary Ethics, Make A Clean Sweep of Individualism” which was written for the 39th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of Vietnam (then the Vietnam Workers Party).^[77] These teachings of Ho Chi Minh on corruption and ethics serve as the basis for the modern-day approach of the CPV to handle issues of official corruption, as well as reactionary elements in the Party and the general population.

These teachings on revolutionary ethics served as the heart of several campaigns to root out corruption, with the late General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng engaging in some of the most intense of these anti-corruption campaigns. In 2021, he said in a speech that corruption has been “step by step, controlled and on the path to being diminished” and that because of that, there was more stability in government, increased socio-economic development, and more faith in the government and Communist Party of Vietnam.^[78]

For years prior to Đổi Mới, the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam (going back even to the years when it was the Indochinese Communist Party) was working towards reinforcing the culture of Vietnam by protecting it from French colonial infiltration but also trying to instill socialist values in Vietnamese society. In his work “The Outline of Vietnamese Culture” Trường Chinh called for what he termed the “Vietnamization, scientification, and massification” of culture in Vietnam,^[79] and because of the progress the Communist Party of Vietnam has made in the years after that writing, such goals have been achieved.

General Secretary Lê Khả Phiêu, who led the Communist Party of Vietnam at the time of the turn of the millennium (1997 to 2001), focused on the development of the social sciences and on the development of children. He acknowledged that the children of Vietnam are its future.

One of the fundamental viewpoints governing the line of the Communist Party of Vietnam is to regard man both as an objective and a motive force in the socialist-oriented development of the country. Children are young shoots, a source of happiness for the family, and the future of the nation. They will be the continuators of the construction and defence of the motherland. However when not yet fully developed, physically and mentally, they are vulnerable to harm. The protection care and education for them are always a special Concern of paramount importance of the Vietnamese Party and State. This does not only represent the sentiment and the morality of our nation; this is also the political responsibility of the Party, administration, mass organizations, a task of each citizen, each family and the whole society.

Lê Khả Phiêu, “The Protection, Care For, and Education of Our Children Are the Work of the Entire People”^[80]

After the self-criticism from between the 5th and 6th Congresses, specifically about the failure to make long-term plans, more careful effort was put into planning the future, including planning the future development of the youth of Vietnam. The emphasis that Đổi Mới has on building for the future and planning out how to advance both economically and culturally may be its strongest feature.

Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought: Two Steps Forward and One Step Back?

It certainly would not be right to refrain from criticism, look on while wrong ideas spread unchecked and allow them to monopolize the field. Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but efforts should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic criticism settles nothing.
…
At the same time as we criticize dogmatism, we must direct our attention to criticizing revisionism. Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack “dogmatism”. But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people’s democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction.

Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”^[81]

Marxism-Leninism is meant to be a living revolutionary science, and that means that as one gets more information about the world and as conditions change, so must ones application of Marxism-Leninism. The Communist Party of Vietnam has embraced this approach. Yet within Marxism-Leninism there have been revisionists who have wanted to restore capitalism using the terminology of Marxism - for example, Mikhail Gorbachev, who led the Soviet Union for several years only to help anti-communists destroy the USSR.^[82]

Another example, this time from China, was a revisionist who would be halted before his plans were successful: the former Premier of China and former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Zhao Ziyang. Ziyang used the language of Marxism-Leninism to undermine the Communist Party of China and the People’s Republic of China around the period of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident.^[83] While his initial goal was bourgeois liberalization, he then adopted the goal of completely overthrowing the vanguard party, the Communist Party of China.^[84]

Unfortunately, there is a tendency among the left (especially in the imperialist countries) to accuse the remaining socialist countries of being capitalist-revisionist and be done with it. Vietnam came under polemical attack in 1979 by the Revolutonary Communist Party USA for having joined the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and for engaging in a defensive war^[85] against Democratic Kampuchea and Khmer Rouge.^[86][87] Several other organizations around the world engaged in similar criticisms at that time, with criticism piling up as time went on.

Revisionism is an incredible danger to both communist parties that organize in capitalist countries and wait to engage in revolution, as well as to communist parties that are in power. Revisionism takes the revolutionary ideas of Marxism-Leninism, strips them out, and replaces them with counter-revolutionary ideas. Revisionism should be unmasked and corrected when it appears.

However, there is something that almost acts like a flip side to revisionism, and that is the creative application of Marxism-Leninism to the conditions that one faces. The late Lê Duẩn - a veteran revolutionary communist and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam - openly stated that the “essence of Marxism is creativeness”^[88], deriving this from the fact Marxism isn’t a dogma but a guide to action.

Knowing these facts on revisionism and creative application, we have to undergo a thorough examination and investigation into whether or not Ho Chi Minh Thought is a reactionary revision of Marxism-Leninism, or if it’s truly just a creative application of Marxism-Leninism to Vietnamese conditions. In other words, we have to analyze both its correct sides and its incorrect ones.

Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought’s greatest strength is the fact that it can adapt to the conditions of the times very rapidly, providing the people of Vietnam with a vanguard party that knows how to react to conditions that would halt most other countries and their leadership in their tracks.

For example, Vietnam was at one point dependent on the Soviet Union and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (also known as CMEA or COMECON).^[89] When the Soviet Union and much of the socialist camp, including the most powerful CMEA participants, fell, it lost vital support but was able to avoid collapsing into capitalist restoration because of the CPV’s leadership. In fact, during the period of the collapse of the Soviet Union and most of the socialist camp, articles in Vietnamese journals - like Communist Review - contained analyses of the situation as it was happening. They acknowledged that a contributor to the collapse was that some of the leading Parties could not adapt to the situation, instead choosing to rigidly cling to the lines of years past.^[90]

The Vietnamese revolutionaries also saw that these changing conditions in the early 1990s were going to lead to even stronger ideological attacks against their growing nation. This, in combination with the goal of making the cadres of the CPV strong and well-trained, led them to engage in a campaign to make their cadres more educated in Marxism-Leninism and to make them more prepared to think creatively (something that had been lacking prior to Đổi Mới, according to Nguyễn Phú Trọng).^[91]

Another strength of Ho Chi Minh Thought is the fact that it places a great deal of emphasis on the morality of the cadres of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh personally put a lot of thought into preventing corruption and fighting it when it would show up. The way he did this was to connect the corruption of the feudal and colonial periods in Vietnam to the experiences of the people. He did this especially well in his writing “On Revolutionary Morality”.

In the old society, the feudal landlords, capitalists and imperialists mercilessly oppressed and exploited the other social strata, especially the workers and peasants. They plundered the common property produced by society, turned it into their own private property and lived in clover. But they kept ranting about “virtue”, “freedom”, “democracy”.

Refusing to endure this oppression and exploitation forever, the workers, peasants and other toiling people have risen up and made the revolution in order to liberate themselves and transform the wicked old society into a fine new one, in which all labouring people would live happily, and from which the exploitation of man by man would be banned.

Ho Chi Minh, “On Revolutionary Morality”^[92]

This allowed for campaigns opposing corruption to take root very deeply in society, even in the modern period. This is another strong point for Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought, because it takes in Ho’s teachings on corruption to heart. In the modern era, the CPV officials in charge of ensuring that the lower-ranked cadre are properly educated and vetted to ensure no corruption takes root under their watch, and Ho Chi Minh Thought is central to this. Several resolutions of the Communist Party of Vietnam have required Party members at all levels to study the writings of Ho Chi Minh on revolutionary morality and its importance to the revolution.^[93] The ability to turn on a dime in the face of a changing world, the strong emphasis on cadre development, and the emphasis on revolutionary morality are easily some of the best strengths of Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought.

Ho Chi Minh Thought has many great points, including and especially its emphasis on revolutionary morality, but it also has serious errors. On a philosophical level, the chief error that Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought makes is in its adoption of the errors of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. In no area is this more obvious than the retelling of the history of Marxism-Leninism as an ideological current. It erases the historical fact that Lenin didn’t call himself a Leninist nor did he call his ideology Leninism. It erases that it was Joseph Stalin who synthesized those terms.^[94]

When Ho Chi Minh supported the report attacking Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, it signaled that the Communist Party of Vietnam would negate Stalin’s contributions and nullify him. The CPV isn’t the only communist party to have taken these positions; we know that the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party and other European parties did so as well.^[95] The issue with this isn’t just that to negate Stalin is to negate his contributions, but also that it adopts the mistaken ideas of Khrushchev and his successors. One such incorrect idea of Khrushchev is the concept of “Peaceful Coexistence”.

The concept of “Peaceful Coexistence”, developed by Khrushchev, largely abandons the proletarian internationalism that Lenin stood for and called on all of us to act on. While on the surface, it does make a good point that revolution cannot be exported, at the same time it denies the reality that capitalism will have to be defeated through world revolution.

The principle of peaceful coexistence signifies a renunciation of interference in the internal affairs of other countries with the object of altering their political system or mode of life, or for any other motives.
…
As for the social system in a country, that is the domestic affair of its people. We have always stood, and stand today, for non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. We have always abided, and shall abide, by this standpoint. The question, for example, of what system shall exist in the United States or in other capitalist countries cannot be decided by other peoples or states. This question can and will be decided only by the American people themselves, only by the people of each country. The existence of the Soviet Union and of the other socialist countries is a real fact. It is also a real fact that the United States of America and the other capitalist countries live in different social conditions, in the conditions of capitalism. Then let us recognise this real situation and proceed from it in order not to go against reality, against life itself. Let us not try to change this situation by interference from without, by means of war on the part of some states against other states.

Nikita Khrushchev, “On Peaceful Coexistence”^[96]

Admittedly, Khrushchev’s successor, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, did alter this policy and engage in more proletarian internationalism than Khrushchev did, but it was the Khrushchevite form that Vietnam essentially engages in. We see this abandonment of proletarian internationalism in modern-day Vietnam’s foreign policy. While it’s understandable that it cannot act in the same way that the Soviet Union did, this doesn’t change that Vietnam has still committed serious errors along those lines and has harmed the working class in doing so.

The most egregious of these violations involves its relationship with Israel, supporting the genocidal regime of the Zionists and the machine it wields against the Palestinians. It happily engages in trade with a country that regularly engages in war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the spirit of its foreign policy goals. In an article in Communist Review, written by Nguyen Thi Hoa, it is claimed that Vietnam does not “take sides” but instead chooses “righteousness and justice”.^[97] From what can be seen, righteousness and justice are not the primary motivators of their foreign policy. Certainly not proletarian solidarity. It’s pragmatism.

Another area of the Vietnamese practice of Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought where there can be serious issues is in the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy. While there are differences between the Socialist-Oriented Market Economy of Vietnam and the Socialist Market Economy of China, both are conceived on similar theoretical bases: that the building of socialism will take a long time, is itself a long period in history, and the underdeveloped countries will take longer to get to socialism. Marxist theoretician and economist Xue Muqiao was the first to develop this idea, the “Theory of Underdeveloped Socialism”, and other Marxist theoreticians and economists who pioneered the Chinese Socialist Market Economy, such as Yu Guangyuan,^[98] agreed with it.

Such as within China’s Socialist Market Economy, the Vietnamese Socialist-Oriented Market Economy carries with it the risk of those who would try to push for bourgeois liberalization. Deng Xiaoping, who oversaw the development of China’s Socialist Market Economy, consistently warned against bourgeois liberalization.^[99] Vietnam has been privatizing much of the state-owned properties, which has resulted in unsafe and inhospitable working conditions. Vietnam is deepening its ties to the Asian market^[100], which means it must be on the lookout for those who want the Party and nation to take the capitalist road.

Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought and all that can be learned from it are a swift two steps ahead for both Vietnam and the International Communist Movement, but its errors are a step back. Mao Zedong once said that if his work was said to consist of 70% achievements and 30% mistakes, then he would be alright with that and satisfied if the next generations would give him that 70%-30% rating.^[101] This is the rating that Ho Chi Minh Thought should have.

Conclusion: Ho Chi Minh Thought Has Both Correct Points and Errors, We Should Learn From Both

The Congress documents set forth enormous and important tasks; tasks that are both urgent and of long-term strategic significance; reflecting the unity of will of the entire Party, the entire people, and the entire army; and a determination to achieve the lofty goals stated in the Political Report: Maintaining a peaceful and stable environment; achieving rapid and sustainable national development and firmly protecting the Fatherland; comprehensively improving and enhancing the people's lives; achieving strategic autonomy, self-reliance, and confident progress in the new era of the nation; successfully realizing the goal of becoming a developing country with modern industry and high middle income by 2030; realizing the vision of becoming a developed country with high income by 2045, for a peaceful, independent, democratic, prosperous, civilized, happy Vietnam, steadily advancing towards socialism.

Tô Lâm, “Closing Speech at the 14th National Congress”^[102]

The Congresses of any Communist Party, especially those in power, are major events, but some are more historical than others. The 14th Party Congress of the CPV is historical in its own right, even just for being the first Congress after the death of General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng, a General Secretary who was a theoretical powerhouse and rose almost to the height of Ho Chi Minh in terms of his contribution to the Vietnamese practice of Marxism-Leninism. There’s another reason for it to be historically important, however: it sets the stage for Vietnam to take its next step in non-capitalist development along the socialist path. In a world where the capitalists want to appear to be growing stronger, it is incredibly important to acknowledge when the strongholds of socialism succeed without them.

Marxism-Leninism-Ho Chi Minh Thought has both correct points and mistaken ones, sometimes engaging in Khrushchevite revisionism - such as in its negation of Stalin, its acceptance of the Socialist State of the Whole People (written in a new way), and in Peaceful Coexistence - but it also has very important theoretical points inherited from Ho Chi Minh himself that need to be appropriately studied and appreciated. A built-in method of fighting corruption can be found in Ho Chi Minh’s ethical and moral writings.

In order to turn all our cadres and Party members into meritorious revolutionary fighters, our Party should strive to imbue them with the ideals of Communism, the Party’s line and policies, the tasks and morals of Party members. Criticism and self-criticism should be seriously practised in the Party. Frank criticism of cadres and Party members by the people should be welcomed and encouraged. The life of the Party cell should follow the rules. Party discipline should be just and strict. Party control should be rigorous.

Ho Chi Minh, “Elevate Revolutinary Ethics, Make a Clean Sweep of Individualism”^[103]

In addition to Uncle Ho’s approach to fighting corruption, his writings also address the question of how to keep party officials responsible to the people, keeping the people as masters of the revolution and the revolutionary situation.

No revolutionary’s education is complete without studying Ho Chi Minh’s writings. From his early 1920s writings on the terror of French colonialism and the terror of the Ku Klux Klan in America, which teach us that the terror unleashed upon the oppressed cannot go without a response, to all of the anti-imperialist writings until his death that not just expressed the wishes of the Vietnamese themselves to overthrow the imperialists but also olidarity with other colonial regions, all of his work is absolutely necessary education for revolutionaries. Ho Chi Minh Thought has correct points to it, as well as errors, but it is a necessary body of revolutionary knowledge to study for communists around the world.

1. Ho Chi Minh, “Opening Address at the Third National Congress of the Vietnam Workers’ Party”, in Third National Congress of the Vietnam Workers’ Party, vol. 1 (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961)

   ↩

2. Ho Chi Minh, “President Ho Chi Minh’s Testament”, in President Ho Chi Minh’s Testament, ed. Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1989)

   ↩

3. Central Committee of the Vietnamese Workers’ Party, “Last Tribute of the Vietnamese Workers’ Party”, in President Ho Chi Minh’s Testament, ed. Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1989)

   ↩

4. The term “Maoism” was coined later on.

   ↩

5. Unknown, “Vietnam: Miscarriage of the Revolution”, in Revolution vol. 4, #7-8, July/August 1979, (Chicago: Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA)

   ↩

6. Mao Zedong, “Oppose Book Worship”, in Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, vol. 6, (Secunderabad: Kranti Publications, 1990)

   ↩

7. Lê Duẩn was the 7th General Secertary of the CPV serving between 1960 when the title was First Secretary to his death in 1986

   ↩

8. Tô Lâm is the current General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, serving since the death of Nguyễn Phú Trọng in July 2024

   ↩

9. Lê Khả Phiêu, “Ho Chi Minh Lights Up the Path of our Party and People to the 21st Century”, in Ho Chi Minh Thought Will Light Our Path Forever, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2001), pages 136-137

   ↩

10. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China” in Resolution on CPC History (1949-81) (First Edition), (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1981), pages 56-73

    ↩

11. Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, “Resolution”, in 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1987), pages 204-207

    ↩

12. Nguyễn Văn Linh, “To Continue Taking the Cause of Renovation Forward Along the Socialist Path”, in Communist Party of Vietnam 7th National Congress: Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1991), pages 24-26

    ↩

13. William J. Duiker, “Introduction”, in Ho Chi Minh: A Life, (New York: Hyperion, 2001), page 5

    ↩

14. Sr. Lt. Col. Nguyen Van Khuong and Maj. Nguyen Doc Cuong, “Rejecting the Argument That “In Essence, Ho Chi Minh’s Ideology is Nationalism””, in National Defense Journal, (Hanoi: Ministry of National Defense of Vietnam, 2023)

    ↩

15. Mạch Quang Thắng, “Undeniable Values of Ho Chi Minh Thought”, in National Defense Journal, (Hanoi: Ministry of National Defense of Vietnam, 2015)

    ↩

16. Nguyễn Đình Hòa, “Ho Chi Minh’s Thought on Education and Training of Future Revolutionary Generations”, in Communist Review, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 2007)

    ↩

17. Vũ Trọng Lâm, “Enhanching Education and Training in Revolutionary Morality for Cadres, Party Members Following Ho Chi Minh Thought in Current Stage”, in Communist Review, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 2023)

    ↩

18. Nguyễn Viết Thông ed., “Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism”, in Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism, Part 1: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodololgy of Marxism-Leninism (First English Edition), translated by Luna Nguyen, (Hanoi: Sự Thật National Political Publishing House, 2023), page 5

    ↩

19. Lê Minh Phương and Nguyễn Hương Hạnh, “Characteristics of the Party’s Ethics Building in Ho Chi Minh Thought”, in Political Theory Journal, (Hanoi: Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, 2025)

    ↩

20. Phạm Văn Đồng, “President Ho Chi Minh, Image of the Nation” in Ho Chi Minh Thought Will Light Our Path Forever, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2001), page 19

    ↩

21. William J. Duiker, “The Fiery Stallion”, in Ho Chi Minh: A Life, (New York: Hyperion, 2001), page 74

    ↩

22. Yevgeny Kobelev, “The Country of Trailblazers”, in Ho Chi Minh, (Moscow: Progress Publishers) page 68

    ↩

23. Former title was the Chairman of Council of Ministers

    ↩

24. Edward C. O’Dowd, “Ho Chi Minh and the origins of the Vietnamese doctrine of guerrilla tactics”, in Small Wars & Insurgencies vol. 24, no. 3, (Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor and Francis, 2013), page 565

    ↩

25. Nikita Khrushchev, “On the Cult of the Individual and Its Consequences (Special Report to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Closed Session, February 24-25 1956)”, in The Documents of the Great Debate (Feb. 1956 - Jun. 1963) In Three Volumes, vol. 1, (Saharanpur: Atararashtriya Prakashan, 2005), page 262

    ↩

26. Valley of Pomars Study Group, “Interview with Serve the People (Vietnam): Communists in a Revisionist Country”

    ↩

27. Ho Chi Minh, “Consolidation and Development of Ideological Unity Among Marxist-Leninist Countries”, in Selected Works, vol. 4, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962), pages 181 and 186

    ↩

28. Nikita Khrushchev, “Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress”, in On Peaceful Coexistence: A Collection, (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961), pages 5-7

    ↩

29. Ho Chi Minh, “Consolidation and Development of Ideological Unity Among Marxist-Leninist Countries”, in Selected Works, vol. 4, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962), page 180

    ↩

30. Nguyễn Văn Linh, “An Important Step in Renovation”, in World Marxist Review: Problems of Peace and Socialism vol. 30, no. 5, (Toronto: Progress Books, 1987), page 31

    ↩

31. Nikita Khrushchev, “Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”, in Documents of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, vol. 1, (New York: Cross Currents Press, 1961), page 133

    ↩

32. Alexei Kosygin, “Directives of the 24th Congress of the CPSU for the Five-Year Economic Development Plan of the USSR for 1971-1975”, in 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, March 30-April 9, 1971 Documents, (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1971) page 202

    ↩

33. Leonid Brezhnev, “Lenin’s Cause Lives On and Triumphs”, in Following Lenin’s Course: Speeches and Articles, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), page 278

    ↩

34. Leonid Brezhnev, “On the Draft Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Results of the Nationwide Discussion of the Draft”, in On the Draft Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Results of the Nationwide Discussion of the Draft, (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1977), page 26

    ↩

35. Communist Party of Vietnam, “Political Program for National Construction in the Period of Transition to Socialism”, in Communist Party of Vietnam 7th National Congress: Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1991), page 47

    ↩

36. “Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1992”, in The Constitutions of Vietnam 1946-1959-1980-1992, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 1995), page 155

    ↩

37. Lê Khả Phiêu, “Ho Chi Minh Thought and the Path of the Vietnamese Revolution”, in Vietnam Entering the 21st Century: Selected Speeches and Writings of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2001), pages 206 and 210

    ↩

38. Xue Muqiao, China’s Socialist Economy 1st ed., (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1981), page vi

    ↩

39. Lu Dingyi, “Let A Hundred Flowers Blossom, Let A Hundred Schools of Thought Contend!”, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1964), page 2

    ↩

40. Yu Sui-an, “Seeking the Source of Rightist-Opportunist Ideology”, in Selected Translations On Rightist Opportunism in Communist China, (Arlington, VA: Joint Publications Research Service, 1959), page 15

    ↩

41. Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenney, “5. Turning Point, 1987-88” in Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union 1917-1991, (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2010), pages 152-153

    ↩

42. Yuri Andropov, “Speech at the CPSU Central Committee Plenary Meeting”, in Analysis of the Existing Situation and Landmarks for the Future, (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1983)

    ↩

43. Lê Duẩn, “Political Report of the Central Committee to the Fifth Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam”, in Communist Party of Vietnam 5th National Congress: Political Report, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1982) pages 153-154

    ↩

44. Mao Zedong, “On the New Stage: The New Stage in the Development of the National War of Resistance Against Japan and the Anti-Japanese National United Front (Report to the Enlarged Sixth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, from October 12 to October 14, 1938)”, in Mao’s Road to Power: Revolutionary Writings 1912-1949, vol. VI: The New Stage, August 1937-1938, Stuart R. Schram, ed., (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004), page 539

    ↩

45. Lê Khả Phiêu, “Training of Knowledgeable Cadres is a Basic Task of the Party (Address at the Celebration of 50 Years of Tradition of the Ho Chi Minh Political Academy, September 20, 1999)”, in Vietnam Entering the 21st Century: Selected Speeches and Writings of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2001), page171

    ↩

46. Tran Hai Minh, “Ho Chi Minh Thought is an Open System Always Requiring Research, Creative Application and Development in Practice” in Political Theory (English Version) vol. 46, (Hanoi: Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, 2025)

    ↩

47. Ho Chi Minh, “The Revolutionary Path”, in Ho Chi Minh Thought (n.p: Red Prints Publishing), page 12

    ↩

48. Wu Jie, ““One Country, Two Systems”: A Great Contemporary Concept That Fills A Gap in History and Reaches Beyond the Horizon”, in On Deng Xiaoping Thought, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1996), pages 84-88

    ↩

49. Wu Jie, “Take Economic Development as the Central Task and Pursue the Reform and Opening Up Program While Adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles”, in On Deng Xiaoping Thought, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1996), pages 131-135

    ↩

50. Deng Xiaoping, “Emancipate the Mind, Seek Truth from Facts, and Unite as One in Looking to the Future”, in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, vol. 2 (1975-1982), 2nd ed. (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1995), page 152-153

    ↩

51. Trường Chinh, “Political Report” in 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam (15-18 December 1986) Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1987), page 30

    ↩

52. Thanh Lương, “The Period of French Domination”, in A Short History of Vietnam, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), page 35

    ↩

53. Pol Pot, “Conversation with Hua Guofeng”, in Selected Works of Pol Pot, (Ann Arbor, MI: Red Justice Press, 2025), page 102

    ↩

54. Hoang Nguyen, “Peking’s Shadow Over Angkor”, in Kampuchea Dossier 2, (Hanoi: Vietnam Courier, 1978), pages 13-15

    ↩

55. Unknown, “Chronology”, in Kampuchea Dossier 2., (Hanoi: Vietnam Courier, 1978), page 104

    ↩

56. Lê Duẩn, “Bring Into Full Play the Right to Collective Mastery”, in On the Right to Collective Mastery, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1980), pages 9-10

    ↩

57. Le Can, “Our Situation and Tasks” in Communist Review, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 1986)

    ↩

58. Mikhail Gorbachev, “The Party”, in Political Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 27th Party Congress, (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1986), pages 95-101

    ↩

59. Editors, “Editorial: Broaden the Scope and Improve the Quality of Criticism and Self-Criticism in the Press”, in Communist Review no. 10, October 1986, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 1986)

    ↩

60. Tran Tan, “Toward the 6th Congress of the Party: The Improvement of the Quality of Party Members in the Hanoi Party Organization”, in Communist Review no. 9, September 1986, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 1986)

    ↩

61. Bui Hong Viet, “Toward the 6th Congress of the Party: To Improve the Quality of the Elementary and Advanced Training of Key Cadres on the Advanced Level”, in Communist Review no. 9, September 1986, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 1986)

    ↩

62. Nguyen The Uan, “Toward the 6th Congress of the Party: Some Thoughts on Socialist National Economic Planning” in Communist Review no. 10, October 1986, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 1986)

    ↩

63. Nguyen The Uan, “Toward the 6th Congress of the Party: Some Thoughts on Socialist National Economic Planning”

    ↩

64. Trường Chinh, “Firmly Grasp the Three Great Lessons and Successfully Implement the Two Strategic Tasks”, in In Preparation for the 6th Party Congress (Addresses), (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1986)

    ↩

65. Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenney, “Two Trends in Soviet Politics”, in Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union, (New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2010), page 42

    ↩

66. Trường Chinh, “Resolution”, in 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam: Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1987) pages 197-198

    ↩

67. Trường Chinh, “Resolution”, in 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam: Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1987) page 205

    ↩

68. Deng Xiaoping, “Posthumous Rehabilitation of Liu Shaoqi”, in The People’s Republic of China 1979-1984: A Documentary Survey, vol. 1, edited by Harold C. Hinton, (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1986) pages 65-67

    ↩

69. Mikhail Gorbachev, “Perestroika: Origins, Essence, Revolutionary Character” in Perestroika: New Thinking For Ourselves and the World, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987) pages 32-35

    ↩

70. Hà Đăng, “What is Đổi Mới? From Where Did It Start?”, in Việt Nam: Twenty Years of Renewal, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2007) pages 2-6

    ↩

71. Emil Khristov, “The New System of Economic Management in Bulgaria”, in Economic Reforms in the Socialist Countries, (Prague: Peace and Socialism Publishers, 1967)

    ↩

72. Nguyễn Văn Linh, “To Continue Taking the Cause of Renovation Forward Along the Socialist Path”, in Communist Party of Vietnam 7th National Congress: Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1991), pages 24-25

    ↩

73. “Political Programme for National Construction in the Period of the Transition to Socialism”, in Communist Party of Vietnam 7th National Congress: Documents, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1991), pages 54-55

    ↩

74. “Political Program for National Construction During the Period of Transition to Socialism” in Documents of the 11th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2011), pages 8-9

    ↩

75. Nguyễn Phú Trọng, “Building a Modern Vietnamese Culture Imbued with National Identity”, in Theory and Practice of Socialism in Vietnam, (Hanoi: Sự Thật National Political Publishing House, 2023), page 180

    ↩

76. Ho Chi Minh, “On Revolutionary Morality”, in Ho Chi Minh Selected Writings (1920-1969), (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1973), page 197

    ↩

77. Ho Chi Minh, “Elevate Revolutionary Ethics, Make A Clean Sweep of Individualism”, in Ho Chi Minh Selected Writings (1920-1969), (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1973), page 352

    ↩

78. Nguyễn Phú Trọng, “Internal Affairs Bureaus: “Sharp Swords” and “Solid Shields” to Defend Our Country and Maintain Law and Order”, in Theory and Practice of Socialism in Vietnam, (Hanoi: Sự Thật National Political Publishing House, 2023), page 137

    ↩

79. Trường Chinh, “The Outline of Vietnamese Culture”, in Building A People’s Art: Selected Works of Trường Chinh and Tố Hữu, (Unknown: Iskra Books, 2024), page 6

    ↩

80. Lê Khả Phiêu, “The Protection, Care For, and Education of Our Children Are the Work of the Entire People”, in Vietnam Entering the 21st Century, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2001), page 57

    ↩

81. Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”, in Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tsetung (First Edition), (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1967), page 377

    ↩

82. Armando Liwanag, “The Process of Capitalist Restoration”, in Stand for Socialism Against Modern Revisionism, (Utrecht: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), pages 55-60

    ↩

83. Li Zhengting, “Uphold Democratic Centralism, Safeguard the Party’s Solidarity and Unity”, in Qiushi no. 14, (Beijing: Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 1989

    ↩

84. Hua Chao, “Make a Full Appraisal of the Disastrous Effect and Harmfulness of Bourgeois Liberalization”, in Qiushi no. 18, (Beijing: Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 1989)

    ↩

85. Vu Can, “Kampuchea: The Dark Years”, in Kampuchea Dossier no. 3, (Hanoi: Vietnam Courier, 1979)

    ↩

86. Hoang Nguyen, “The Heart of the Matter”, in Kampuchea Dossier no. 1, (Hanoi: Vietnam Courier, 1978)

    ↩

87. Unknown, “Vietnam: Miscarriage of the Revolution”, in Revolution vol. 4, #7-8, July/August 1979, (Chicago: Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA)

    ↩

88. Lê Duẩn, “Hold High the Revolutionary Banner of Creative Marxism, Lead Our Revolutionary Cause to Complete Victory”, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1964)

    ↩

89. Yuri Konstantinov, “Integration and Global Problems”, in CMEA: New Prospects, (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1984)

    ↩

90. Nguyen Dinh Phu, “Has Communism Come To An End?”, in Communist Review no. 10, (Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam, 1991)

    ↩

91. Nguyễn Phú Trọng, “Viewpoints and Lessons of Experience from Cadre Building in the Period of Renewal”, in Renewal in Vietnam: Theory and Reality, (Hanoi: Thế Giới Publishers, 2015), page 286

    ↩

92. Ho Chi Minh, “On Revolutionary Morality”, in Ho Chi Minh Selected Writings (1920-1969), Revised Edition, (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1973), page 196

    ↩

93. Vo Van Thuong, “The Ideological Work in Association with Preventing and Repelling Degradation in Morality and Lifestyle in New Context”, in Communist Review, (Hanoi: Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, 2020)

    ↩

94. Nguyễn Viết Thông ed., “Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism”, in Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism, Part 1: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodololgy of Marxism-Leninism (First English Edition), translated by Luna Nguyen, (Hanoi: Sự Thật National Political Publishing House, 2023), pages 1-37

    ↩

95. Mao Zedong, “Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China”, in Selected Works of Mao Tsetung vol. 5, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1977), page 341

    ↩

96. Nikita Khrushchev, “On Peaceful Coexistence”, in On Peaceful Coexistence: A Collection, (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961), pages 80 and 99

    ↩

97. Nguyen Thi Hoa, “Why Doesn’t Vietnam “Take Sides” in its Foreign Policy?”, in Communist Review, (Hanoi: Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

    ↩

98. Yu Guangyuan, “The Economy in the Primary Stage of Socialism”, in Chinese Economists on Economic Reform - Collected Works of Yu Guangyuan, (New York: Routledge, 2014), page 88

    ↩

99. Deng Xiaoping, “Take A Clear-Cut Stand Against Bourgeois Liberalization”, in Fundamental Issues in Present-Day China, (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1987), pages 161-166

    ↩

100. Unknown, “Vietnam, Thailand forge closer links for a resilient and sustainable ASEAN”, in Voice of Vietnam, (Hanoi: Voice of Vietnam)

     ↩

101. Deng Xiaoping, “The “Two Whatevers” Do Not Accord With Marxism”, in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, vol. 2 (Second Edition), (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1995) page 51

     ↩

102. Tô Lâm, “Closing Speech at the 14th National Congress”

     ↩

103. Ho Chi Minh, “Elevate Revolutionary Ethics, Make A Clean Sweep of Individualism”, in Ho Chi Minh Selected Writings (1920-1969), (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1973), page 353

     ↩