Since coming into being, Marxism has experienced many ups and downs, but it stands firm amidst attacks by ideological enemies of different colour. In recent years, there has been an anti-Marxist campaign to various extent launched in forums and newspapers in western countries and Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union, and even in Vietnam.

First, they produce comments “cautiously” criticising arguments and pointing out some shortcomings of Marxism. They criticise the fundamental principles of Marxism, considering it something of past history, which no longer keeps up with the development of the current era. They then reject Marxism in the end.

Smearing socialism and criticising Marxism continues at full steam, and the number of people involved in the campaign seems to be increasing accordingly. In addition to the ideological enemies of Marxism and non-Marxist persons in international workers’ movements, it is surprising that several figures, who regard themselves as loyalists to Marxism, are now turning their backs on Marxism by strongly criticising and making slanderous charges against Marxist-Leninism. Some people who do not understand or study Karl Marx even come out strong against him.

Why so? Is Marxism outdated?

The fact is that Marxism is confronted with serious challenges. In fact, there are several arguments different from our traditional points of view and Marx’s predictions. However, all the arguments have their causes and can be explained. Some issues have direct causes, but there are also deep-rooted causes hidden in Marxism itself.

The new phenomena of modern capitalism and socialism are considered direct causes leading to a denial of Marxism. On the one hand, the capitalism that Marx said would be annihilated still exists. On the other hand, socialism, which was founded on the principles of Marxist-Leninism, has proved ineffective, and collapsed in the former Soviet Union and many Eastern European countries.

First of all, we weigh up the pros and cons of modern capitalism. Marx said in its existence and development, capitalism would experience a period in which differences between productive forces and productive relationships will reach a climax and the “relationship cover” of capitalism will burst. Marx confirmed that this could be done when capitalism attains the acme of development. But in fact, the pinnacle has not come, and Marx himself did not fix the time when capitalism would collapse.

It’s worth mentioning that while studying capitalism to reach these arguments, Marx abstracted and considered capital production methodology as a unique way to rule. The establishment and development of socialism has become a major counterweight to capitalism, particularly as the latter lost its unequalled position. Therefore, capitalism cannot develop spontaneously, but has readjusted itself. During this process, capitalism successfully applied the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, including solutions for socialism. Accordingly, capitalism temporarily lessened underlying differences in its body. Once again, capitalism created prerequisites, elements of the new production modes and the establishment of new industrial foundation, from which socialism could be built up. These prerequisites are: regulating production at a certain level in the entire society, the re-distribution mechanism, the system of insurance and social welfare funds, the participation of civil workers and management work, and the promotion of democracy among mass organisations. Capitalism accidentally or forcibly carried out these issues, therefore it is safe to say that capitalism is bracing for negation itself.

Regarding the socialist crisis, there are many elements leading to difficulties and the tragedy of socialism. The appearance and building of socialism did not take place as Marx thought. In fact, socialism does not result from a negation of capitalism. It was carried out in underdeveloped capital countries and countries where the proletarians gained power, but lacked the necessary technical infrastructure for socialism. Marx did not think that socialism paralleled capitalism or that it started at a lower level than capitalism in West Europe.

When talking about socialism and communism, Marxist scholars showed their cautions. Fredric Angels once said, “I think that the so-called socialism is not a complete society at the beginning. Like other social regimes, it should take into account social changes and regular build-ups.”

Lenin’s work, entitled “The political legacy”, has especially important significance towards the development of Marxist viewpoints. The work concludes that: “All our viewpoints on socialism changed basically.”

To catch up with and take over capitalism in the race, socialism should be highly proactive and conscious, firmly grasp specific historical characteristics and effectively absorb socio-economic development rules to identify development strategies. However, socialism in the former Soviet Union and East European countries was built inflexibly and not in line with the rule. After realising the errors of socialism, these countries implemented a reform process. Instead of finding solutions to consolidate and/or strengthen it, these countries spoiled all they had built before. Consequently, the inferiority of socialism against capitalism was attributed to dogmatism of Marxism, but not Marxism itself. The rapid collapse of socialism in the former Soviet Union and East Europe was partly due to the direct errors of the reform process, but not the Marxist doctrine itself.

Regarding subjective elements, it is the error of successors developing Marxist-Leninism. Like any scientific doctrine, due to historic constraints, Marxist scholars came up with incorrect arguments. For example, when studying capitalism, Marx found its evolution and development rule, but he underestimated capitalism’s possibility to evolve. Reading Marxist doctrine, capitalism’s differences seem to grow, and all social progress carried out in the capital regime seems to counter capitalism. In fact, it is a one-way argument, which is strange even to the Marxist methodology.

Other examples included the stance of Karl Marx and Fredric Angels and later Lenin on the commodity relationship and market mechanism. They did not spare a place for commodity production after capitalism is annihilated. Lenin followed Marx’s path, but failed. The “communism at war” policy left behind heavy consequences on Russia’s economy at the time.

That fact proved that in the first stage of socialism, the market economy dealt itself numerous socio-economic relations, which could not be replaced by measures through concentrated bureaucracy. Lenin said this mistake and initiated the famous “New Economic Policy” instead.

It’s worth mentioning the self-criticism of communists. Lenin was a prominent Marxist in absorbing it in two ways: criticism and self-criticism to perfect the doctrine. As a doctrine, it should be revised. The consideration and self-criticism of Marxism is completely different from, or even runs counter to revisionism. Revisionism attempted to abolish rules and wanted to deform Marxism. Meanwhile, self-criticism only aimed to make Marxism perfect.

In the history of international workers’ movements, workers’ parties which did not gain the ruling power produced stronger self-criticism than ruling parties. It should have been the task of communist builders. One of the factors behind which ruling parties are not active in revising Marxism and criticising themselves is that they are becoming more scared of revision than dogmatism. In fact, dogmatism is quite dangerous, because it stays inside a shell and makes Marxism inflexibility.

There are also other causes. Several workers’ parties are satisfied with Marxism, therefore they underestimate theoretical work, assimilate between the theoretical work and political work, and pay little attention to absorbing new things.

All the above-mentioned errors and causes make Marxism lose its activeness and if nothing is changed, Marxism will become outdated and will not explain the new issues required by reality.

To this end, we should pay special attention to theoretical work. Reality requires a breakthrough in Marxist theory. Marxist principles can only be preserved and enriched in a creative way in the current circumstances on the basis of new sci-tech advances, correct assessments of global changes, criticism and inheritance of non-Marxist doctrines, and the selective absorption of creativity from other progressive movements.

The ideological flag and theory of our Party and President Ho Chi Minh is to raise Marxist-Leninism high. Marxism is considered the most valuable doctrine of humankind and the spiritual core of socialism. Marxist-Leninism helped build and boost the socialist movement to a worthy position in the development of humankind’s society. Marxism does not act for us, but provides us with an appropriate analytical method and vision, a correct political strategy to reform society and successfully apply the achievements of the Renewal process to all areas of life and the long-term process of socialist construction in Vietnam.

By Vu Van Hien
Member of the Party Central Committee
VOV director general