However, in addition to those hearts in the Party and the nation’s destiny, there are out-of-tune voices here and there, demanding the revision of the national development path. They drummed up their arguments such as “Marxist-Leninism has finished its historical role”, “the inception of this doctrine in Vietnam was a mistake”, “the Communist Party of Vietnam selected the wrong way” and that “it is necessary to re-identify the national development path”. All aim to reject Vietnam’s choice to develop socialism. What is the truth?

First of all, we must say that these viewpoints are wrong as they show hostility towards the Vietnam nation. The wrongfulness is reflected in historical and logical aspects.

If we look back at history when the French colonialists invaded Vietnam, we can see plots behind such arguments. History has it that on September 1, 1858, under the pretext of protecting western missionaries who were oppressed by the Nguyen dynasty, French colonialists started attacking Vietnam. The Nguyen dynasty’s recession accidentally helped French colonialists establish their domination over Vietnam. Hundreds of uprisings of patriotic movements such as Duy Tan Movement by Phan Boi Chau broke out, but failed to gain victory. These movements failed because they lacked correct revolutionary guidelines.

The situation lasted until President Ho Chi Minh, while seeking national salvation abroad, uncovered Marxist-Leninism, in which he found the road to liberate the nation. He later disseminated this great doctrine widely among patriotic movements, and as a result, the Communist Party of Vietnam was founded to carry out the historical mission of leading the Vietnamese revolution to complete victory. A genuine political party with revolutionary and scientific guidelines was founded to drive Vietnam’s national liberation movement to the orbit of a global proletarian revolution.

On the theoretical aspect, the selection of socialism in Vietnam is a completely correct decision. In the last decade of the 20^th century, when socialism in the former Soviet Union and East Europe collapsed, anti-socialist forces loudly demanded renunciation of the Marxist-Leninism doctrine in socio-economic structures. The rejection meant the denial of the path to develop socialism in nations. They cried out that the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and East Europe sounded the death knell of socialism. But the fact is that the renewal process in the remaining socialist countries in the past years has proved that this was the collapse of only one type of socialism. This did not mean that the Marxist-Leninism doctrine on socio-economic structures was outdated because no doctrine can replace it in the present.

More than a decade ago, US scholar Alvin Toffer was widely known for his theory “three waves of civilisation” which was described by bourgeois ideologists as a scientific doctrine which could replace Marxist-Leninism thinking on socio-economic structures. In his doctrine, Toffer thought that the development of humankind originated from the economic element. He divided the history of humankind into “three waves of civilisation”, namely agricultural civilisation, industrial civilisation and intellectual civilisation, which replaced one another, and he considered them criteria to divide historical periods.

Instead of viewing the development process of humankind as the development and replacement of socio-economic structures created by the evolution and dialectical impact of production forces, production relations and superstructure, the “three waves of civilisation” theory merely focused on the economic field. This was not a new concept because it had been clearly analysed by Karl Marx and Frederic Angel in their socio-economic doctrine.

Toffer also presented a bulk of arguments, which were considered “new and diverse” to make clear predictions of classical scholars about Marx-Leninism regarding turning points in the development of science and technology. However, his arguments were not new at all. More than 100 years ago, Marx forecast that science and technology would become a direct production force and this is a fact of life today. 

All this explains that no scientific theory can replace Marxist doctrine on socio-economic structures, taking into account the rules of evolution and development of humankind, although we are entering the era of knowledge-based economies.

Meanwhile, we wondered whether we were wrong when we implemented the transitional period to develop socialism and by-passed the stage of capitalist development. The history of humankind witnessed several changes in socio-economic structures from a low to high level. Therefore, Vietnam’s decision to build socialism and communism by by-passing capitalism can be explained. This was the creative absorption of Karl Marx’s ideology of “shortening and reducing birth-pangs” in the development process of each country. The answer to this problem, according to V.I. Lenin, is to utilise capitalism, implement the open-door and integration policy, expand external economic relations, attract foreign investment and receive and apply foreign technology.

To integrate into the region and the world, Vietnam pursues the policy of “befriending and being a reliable partner of all countries in the international community, striving for peace, independence and development”. The process has enabled Vietnam to develop its internal strength, while making full use of external resources to help the nation overcome the challenges of the era. This is the key to allow us to successfully implement the “transitional period”, remove embargo tariffs, build confidence and develop the socialist-oriented market economy.

Vietnamese people, with their traditions of patriotism and steadfastness against foreign invaders, industriousness, diligence, intelligence and creativity in labour, and tolerance, will certainly realise these majestic things and build confidence among foreign friends. The achievements of the renewal process in the past 20 years have testified to this fact.

Of course, while implementing the transitional period, we made mistakes which were unavoidable because socialism is a great test-run project, and like many great scientific projects, success never comes after the first trial. In addition, this trial was being undertaken in a solely agricultural country, which features the basic characteristics and existence of the rural co-operative model with sluggishness and underdevelopment in terms of production forces, alongside the closed communal production relationship model.

It is certain that Vietnam will meet numerous difficulties in the transitional period, but this does not mean we cannot overcome these challenges to realise the heavy tasks ahead.

The Vietnamese revolution is led by a genuine Marxist party, which only serves the interests of the nation and people. That Party knows how to stir up national patriotism and revolutionary heroism in the past struggle for national liberation and the current national construction process. It also knows how to self-criticise and correct mistakes and wrong doings to map out guidelines for the renewal process and create a turning point in the cause of national construction, staving off risks and persistently embarking on the chosen path to socialism. Under the leadership of such a party, the process of building socialism in Vietnam will be a success, despite difficulties and challenges.

The achievements of the past 20 years of implementing the renewal process have testified to Vietnam’s correct decision to build socialism in the country to confirm the essence and intellect of our party. This has been recognised by not only Vietnamese people but also foreign countries and organisations, including Vietnam’s new friends. Several countries, which never showed their goodwill towards Vietnam, all have looked at our socialist regime with respect and admiration. Our friends have recognised the achievements of the renewal process in the past 20 years, but are also confident of the country’s brighter future.

We should continue to embark on the national development policy towards socialism. No force can change that choice.