I’m trying to wrap my head around the whole communism thing here. Economically, Vietnam has a distinctly capitalist vibe, although it favors small-scale entrepreneurism over late-stage capitalism’s megafauna. That certainly seems like an improvement over our system. There’s a strong social safety net, undergirded by the belief that it’s the state’s responsibility to care for its citizens who can’t care for themselves. Also an improvement over our grudging tolerance for freeloaders. There’s a stronger element of central planning to the economy than we favor, but that’s a distinction of degree, not kind. When our government offers incentives to buy an electric vehicle, for example, or take on an expensive mortgage, it’s engaging in central planning of the economy. We just bury that shit in the tax code.

Taken in total, Vietnam’s economic system feels like Western capitalism with some of the Darwinian struggle for survival shaved off. It’s tough to argue that that’s an inherently bad thing. You can debate the particulars, but it hardly seems like a system that threatens our way of life.

Where capital C Communism is felt most strongly here is in the political system, rather than the economic structure, and in a post-colonial nationalism that is the primary justification for that political system. Much like in Cuba, the single-party system is a bulwark against Western fuckery. That’s not a convenient justification, that’s a fact. Multiple political parties would permit dark money to flow in from Western actors who have an economic stake in a compliant government. We may not be blockading Vietnam, as we are Cuba, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t fuck it in a heartbeat if we could.

Economically, the difference between the US and Vietnam is a values-based fork in the capitalist road. We favor rugged individualism, and we’re happy to let you die to prove the point, while Vietnam favors the collective good. That’s on Vietnam’s side of the ledger, in my book. But what about the distinctions between our multi-party free-for-all and Vietnam’s authoritarian one-party rule? It’s not clear that we win that duel, either.

The purported virtues of our system are: transparency – the ability to see and understand how our government functions and makes decisions; accountability – a free press that exposes our government’s failings, allowing voters to hold politicians responsible for their actions; and competition – a marketplace of ideas that allows debate and an informed electorate.

That all seems positively quaint now, doesn’t it? Transparency and accountability have always been in conflict, with government trying to shield its inner workings from prying eyes. That’s been turned up to 11 lately, but it’s hardly new. And we seem out of the habit of holding politicians accountable for their sins. As for the marketplace of ideas, there hasn’t been any genuine conflict since FDR, with both Democrats and Republicans alike faithfully representing the donor class. An oligarchy that cosplays as a Free Market is still an oligarchy.

So how about the evils of Communism? Vietnam’s government criminalizes dissent and has no free press. It is notably corrupt, both at the petty greasing-palms level and at the senior abuse-of-power level. And it makes decisions that have broad impact without input or oversight.

We’ve had the luxury here, as we did in Cuba, of having more access to locals than in many of our destinations. We’ve been able to have pretty frank conversations with our host’s daughter, An Binh, and our guide in Lan Ha Bay, Ryan. An Binh and her mother have been by twice to cook us traditional meals, and on their second visit we asked An Binh if she was comfortable discussing her government. She was.

We asked her about the whole notion of dissent or disagreement, and she seemed genuinely puzzled. Her position was that her government was responsibly acting in its citizen’s interest, so there was no need to disagree or protest. The government passed the laws and it was every citizen’s duty to obey them. Failing to do so is, and she had to look the word up to make sure she got the right English word, reactionary.

There’s a number of ways to look at that belief. You could claim that “Vietnam is just an obedient culture,” but a) there’s no metric you could use to validate that statement, and b) it’s pretty fucking reductive. Like “China has been ruled by emperors for centuries, they’re used to being told what to do.” Kind of insulting, so I’m not inclined to go there. It would be like claiming that the current situation in the US is because “we’re just a lawless culture.” Maybe, kinda, but also, shut the fuck up.

You could claim that it’s the result of lifelong educational indoctrination, and the use of the specific term “reactionary” gets you at least part of the way to that explanation. But it’s not like we don’t use our educational system to indoctrinate the young with specific values. In fact, we fight over what those values should be all the time.

You could chalk it up to a genuine credulousness, but that doesn’t square with the rest of An Binh. She’s a bright, articulate young woman with a good head on her shoulders. I’m hesitant to lob “credulous” in her direction.

Which leaves one with, à la Occam’s Razor, that she was expressing a genuine, considered belief. I’m inclined towards this explanation, as we pushed back gently, explaining that US politicians often acted in self-interest, rather than for the good of their citizens, and that’s why we needed a free press and the right to protest.

We also asked about urban renewal and relocation. Some of the denser parts of the cities lack adequate public services and can only be brought up to safe, modern standards through demolition and rebuilding. Residents get relocated, and we asked An Binh about the tradeoff between the individual right to stay with their communities vs. the state’s right to rebuild according to plan. She explained that in those situations families were compensated, and if you thought your compensation was unfair you could petition for an increase, and even be represented by a lawyer.

But at no point did An Binh question the right of the state to take actions it deems fit for the greater good. And, again, we do the exact same thing. Eminent domain.

Our other data point was our Lan Ha Bay guide, Ryan. We had a discussion with him about the government’s mandated changes to the historic floating village way of life. He was less “everything they do is for our benefit” and more “they make the rules, what are you gonna do?” There’s a little daylight between his position and An Binh’s, but certainly not enough to drive a protest through. We suspect the difference is that Ryan, as a member of the floating village community, has felt the impact of the state’s decisions in ways decidedly less abstract than An Binh, who’s college educated and solidly middle class.

When you look at the scoreboard it’s hard to give a definitive W to the US of A. We have a theoretically vibrant information economy, whose openness makes it prone to propaganda and exploitation. Vietnam has state-owned media that serves as an organ for government propaganda. If that’s not a tie, it’s 51-49 for the US.

Vietnam jails protesters and dissenters, and we practice extraordinary rendition on the street. That’s just a straight-up tie. And, “Yeah, but we just started” is a pretty lame defense.

Economically, we have late-stage capitalism’s death grip on our institutions, while Vietnam has a centrally planned economy. I think that’s a point for the visitors. Also a point, I think, for their stronger commitment to their social safety net. Their system has holes, but so does ours.

Vietnam is noted for its corruption. Thank goodness that never happens in the US. Tie.

Vietnam has single-party rule and the US has multiple parties. But do we? Really? Sure, right now there’s a bigger gap between the Anarchist Party and the Institutionalist Party than we normally enjoy, but over the last almost 100 years they’ve oscillated mildly around an agreed upon middle. If it’s not an actual tie, it’s another 51-49 win for the US.

That scoreboard just isn’t the smackdown we’ve been promised in the Manichean struggle of Light over Dark. It’s just another system, another way of solving problems, the political manifestation of a difference in values.

At the end of the day, while I actually prefer Vietnam’s values over ours, I’m not sure I’d want to live under Vietnam’s system. But I also don’t want to live under ours, as currently configured. The benefits of free speech, a free press, and the right to assemble and protest may seem a little abstract these days, but they’re also the tools we’ll use to put out democracy’s dumpster fire. So I’m kind of attached to them.

I also wouldn’t care to live under a monarchy or a theocracy. But we’ve spent time in both, and they each have something to offer, to teach us about how different approaches can lead to solutions that seem out of our reach. It’s not like demonizing the other has gotten us anywhere useful. Perhaps it’s time to listen instead.