Marxism and Division in Vietnamese Historiography (1945-1975): Theory, Practice, and Omission

The previous emphasis on shared scholarly ground must not obscure the profound and often violent political divisions that defined the era. Beyond the historiographical commonalities, Vietnam was a society at war, with deeply entrenched antagonisms. In the south, and among diaspora communities from the central and northern regions, communism was bitterly criticized; Ho Chi Minh was frequently demonized as a traitor and a puppet of Moscow and Beijing. Conversely, in the north and within the southern insurgency, Ngo Dinh Diem and his successors were caricatured as lackeys of American imperialism, blamed for sabotaging reunification and unleashing devastating warfare upon the landscape and populace. This ideological chasm was reflected in historiography, as scholars in Hanoi refused to recognize southern politics as a legitimate response to decolonization.

The role of Marxist theory within these competing historiographies was complex and often superficial. Most southern scholars were openly hostile to rewriting history through a Marxist paradigm. A notable exception was Nguyễn Thế Anh, the south's most distinguished historian, who expressed openness to Marxist methodologies. In the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), historians were formally obligated to write within an explicit Marxist-Leninist framework, saturating their discourse with references to Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. However, in practice, they demonstrated a stunning reluctance to identify class conflict as the engine of historical change. Instead, they consistently emphasized national unity against foreign aggressors as the central driving force of Vietnamese history, subordinating Marxist class analysis to a nationalist narrative.

The practical challenge of producing a new Marxist national history is exemplified by the long struggle to complete Lịch Sử Việt Nam (History of Vietnam). Pioneering historian Trần Huy Liệu and his comrades envisioned this definitive project during the war against France. However, the subsequent and more devastating conflict with the United States delayed its realization for decades. Despite prolific publication rates, Trần Huy Liệu, as head of the Institute of History, repeatedly had to report the project's incompletion to the party central committee until his death in 1969. The first volume, beginning with the Văn Lang kingdom, finally appeared in 1971, with the second volume concluding in 1985, over thirty years after its initial conception.

While bibliographies in this national history and countless other works are replete with citations of Marxist classics, the structure and substance of the narrative are not genuinely dependent on Marxist theories of history. The citations often served a doctrinal rather than an analytical function. A more substantive, though less explicitly cited, influence came from the field of political economy, to which Marx contributed centrally. Historians extensively examined landholding patterns, agricultural production, and colonial exploitation, framing economic history as a indictment of French rule and a justification for revolutionary change. This focus, however, was tightly circumscribed by state objectives.

Consequently, post-1945 Vietnamese historical writing overwhelmingly emphasized the state, formal politics, and state-sanctioned economic histories. Topics amenable to quantitative or social history analysis but falling outside official narratives were systematically neglected. For instance, the commercialization of sex in colonial times or the economic histories of non-normative groups—such as women, ethnic minorities, or political dissidents—have been minimally explored or entirely ignored. Economic history was relevant only when it concluded with an indictment of colonialism or an aggrandizement of the revolutionary party, revealing the ultimate subordination of historiography, including its Marxist veneer, to the needs of state legitimacy and nationalist unity.

Đổi Mới and Vietnamese Historiography: Renovation, Constraints, and New Global Perspectives

The term Đổi Mới, meaning "renovation," marks the transformative economic reforms launched at the Sixth National Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1986. This policy shifted initiative from state planners to private entrepreneurs, household businesses, and foreign-capital joint ventures, profoundly reshaping Vietnam's economy. The historiographical implications of Đổi Mới, however, are decidedly mixed, creating a complex landscape of continuity, cautious change, and new scholarly frontiers. While the economy liberalized, the party's control over historical narrative remained a paramount concern, leading to uneven intellectual openness.

In many respects, the significance of Đổi Mới for history-writing has been slight. The 20th century is still narrated in ways that privilege the Vietnamese Communist Party's leadership and the enduring mantra of resistance against foreign aggression. Numerous topics remain effectively forbidden through unspoken consensus rather than formal decree. Open discussion of the violent excesses of land reform in the 1950s is prohibited, as is critical examination of re-education camps. The taboo against any criticism of Ho Chi Minh remains absolute, extending to challenging official hagiography; suggesting he fathered a biological son, for instance, constitutes a serious offense. These boundaries demonstrate the limits of intellectual renovation.

In other cases, the consequences of Đổi Mới are complex and indirect. The policy's rapid economic expansion has triggered massive urbanization, razing historic urban blocks and countryside for modern development. In response, preservationists have weaponized Đổi Mới's own economic logic, framing communal halls, pagodas, and clan houses as valuable cultural capital to be protected. Similarly, rituals like ancestor worship, once suppressed, are now promoted as part of Vietnam's heritage. This has rehabilitated the study of family histories (gia phả) and ancestral tablets, reintegrating traditional social practices into the acceptable national narrative under a modern, economic rationale.

This preservationist impulse is complemented by new popular history ventures like Tạp chí Xưa và Nay (Past and Present Journal). With colorful graphics and concise articles, it reaches a broad audience, fostering nostalgic attachment to the physical past. However, its editor Dương Trung Quốc's ties to the state's Institute of History underscore that this popular appeal is not a challenge to official narratives. Furthermore, reinvented traditions like the Hung Kings' festival are now celebrated nationwide in "more sophisticated," state-sanctioned forms designed to build "civilized" lives and reinforce the party's cultural dominance, not to revive autonomous local practices.

To an unprecedented degree, Đổi Mới has facilitated international scholarly exchange. Institutions like the Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies in Hanoi collaborate globally, translating classical Chinese and Nôm texts into modern Vietnamese, deepening understanding of the Confucian legacy. Research on Vietnam's international maritime trade has flourished through such collaborations. This global interaction has been pivotal in revising historiography, most notably regarding the Nguyễn dynasty, once simplistically condemned for the French conquest. Historians now employ a global framework, situating Nguyễn failures amid broader 19th-century imperial pressures from Britain, Russia, Japan, and the United States, making their plight appear part of a normal global pattern rather than a unique betrayal.

Thus, within the powerful, enduring constraints of party censorship, Đổi Mới has created apertures. Historians now explore a wider range of topics using global and comparative perspectives, reassessing once-maligned eras and engaging with diaspora scholars. The policy has enabled the instrumental repackaging of tradition for state goals and permitted methodological modernization. Yet, the foundational narratives of party legitimacy and revolutionary triumph remain strictly guarded, ensuring that historiographical renovation operates within clearly demarcated ideological bounds.