Presently, hostile forces have been using many modes and plots of propaganda to distort and deny the leading role of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the historical mission of the working class, including the argument that “Only the intellectual could be the leaders of the society”. This argument proves to be totally wrong, unscientific and impractical.

After the Party Central Committee (13^th tenure) issued Resolution No. 45-NQ/TW, dated 24 September 2023 on “Continuously building and bringing into play the roles of the intellectual to meet the demands for fast and sustainable national development in the new period”, on the social networks appears an argument that in the context of drastic development of modern science and technology, especially the 4^th Industrial Revolution, “only the intellectual can be the leaders of the society”. This is a disguised argument making people confused and mistaken at first glance because the intellectual are people who have good knowledge and ability, and are needed in any social regime, etc. However, this argument does not aim at that target but mainly lowering the role and historical mission of the working class, and the leading role of the Party towards the State and the whole society. To refute this argument, it is necessary to make dialectical and objective viewpoints avoiding impulsive and one-sided ones. The history has shown that to become the leading forces of society, it is a must to meet the basic demands of being a force which represents the new and advanced production modes in the society; having its own ideology which reflects the socio-political rules; having benefits which represent many types of social classes; having a radically revolutionary spirit; having the highly organisational skills, strict discipline and class solidarity. We should base on these criteria to evaluate whether or not the intellectual have enough conditions to be the leaders of the society.

Firstly, it could be seen that the intellectual are not considered a class, and do not represent any new and advanced production mode. Apparently, material production is always a foundation of the social life; mankind cannot exist and develop without material production. When there is a division of labour into “physical labour and spiritual labour”, there appears the intellectual. Since their birth, the intellectual have had a great role in the history of mankind, but mostly in the mental production.

Since there appeared the class division, the role in leading the society has belonged to the classes which represent the advanced production modes associated with the new production forces and advanced production relations, which are suitable with the movement and development of history. These are “locomotive” classes which have the historical mission to lead the mankind to advance forward; they have been slaveholding class, feudal class, bourgeoisie, and presently working class in proportion to each development period of mankind. Other classes, despite being associated with the new production modes in different levels, but not representing those modes, have not been the leading class of society. They have been serfage, slaves, peasants, etc. Though other social strata have certain roles in specific societies, they have not gained the position of being the leading forces of society.

In fact, the intellectual have appeared early and existed through many historical periods in many production modes. In each historical period and each specific production mode, the intellectual have been considered a class which has certain roles in society, but they are easily dependent on the ruling class. From their position in the division of social workers, as the intellectual do not have any private and direct relationship with the ownership of production means, and do not keep any independent position in the production system, they are not a class and do not represent any production mode. They are a “special class which only consists of all educated people and representatives of mental workers”, mostly produces the spiritual values, and could only prove their real roles and strength when combining with other classes.

Therefore, the 4^th Industrial Revolution or the coming industrial revolutions, however developed they become, could not change the intellectual’s socio-economic status so that they become the owners of the material production process. Perhaps, the intellectual could only actuate the development of the modern production process in the way of increasing the spiritual level in products serving humans’ material and spiritual needs. As the intellectual do not represent the new and advanced production mode, they could not lead the society to build the new mode of production which is more advanced than the old ones.

Party Chief Nguyen Phu Trong meets young Vietnamese intellectuals in France in 2018

Secondly, the intellectual do not have their own ideology, but depend on the ideology of the ruling classes of society. In a class-divided society, a class can only affirm its leading role when processing its own ideology which is independent from those of others. And in this society, “the ideologies of the ruling classes are the ruling ideologies”. Without their own and independent ideology, the intellectual do not have stable ideological stand. However, they have a special ability of building the ideology for the ruling classes of society. As a result, the ruling classes have been paying attention to educating the intellectual to support their ruling policies. Through the history, the landlords, bourgeoisie and working class have successfully mobilised the intellectual, then become the ruling classes of the society, undertaking the historical mission of the epoch. The intellectual, on the other hand, have been a social class which has certain roles in associating and supporting the ruling classes.

Thirdly, due to not representing any mode of production, the intellectual do not represent the interests of many social classes. The intellectual’s interests do not basically connect with other social classes. This does not allow them to mobilise, attract and collect forces from surrounding social classes to struggle for their general interests. As a consequence, the intellectual neither are allowed to organise and unite forces directly and widely, nor have antagonistic interests to the ruling classes. Therefore, in the process of class conflict, and because of the multi-faceted effects of interests, the intellectual have been splitted into different parts to support different classes. As the intellectual represent neither any new production forces nor advanced production relations, they have never started any revolution to abolish the old and backward production relations to build a new one. Owing to this characteristic, the intellectual have not been selected by the history to be the leading forces of the society, building the better modes of production than the old ones.

Fourthly, in today’s era, the intellectual do not have the revolutionary spirit which is as radical as that of the working class in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and capitalism. Since their first appearance, the intellectual have never had their interests being opposed to that of the contemporary ruling class. They, hence, always have an indifferent attitude to the politics.

In a society with class conflict, the intellectual are an intermediary class which connects with other classes, often serves and has the interest connected with general interest of the ruling class, they, hence, easily compromise with the ruling class. Under the capitalist regime, the intellectual were workers who were also exploited, but they were special workers who were educated and used by the bourgeoisie, and parts of them were specially treated by the capitalism. For such characteristics, the intellectual do not have the radically revolutionary spirit as the working class does in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and capitalism. The history has also shown that the intellectual have never been able to replace any classes in leading a social revolution to take place of a social regime by other one.

Looking back at the history of the communist and international worker movement, in the early stage of proletarian revolution, most of the intellectual stood by the bourgeoisie to protect the bourgeois viewpoints and benefits of the bourgeoisie. Afterwards, together with the revolutionary struggles by the people, the intellectual have clearly recognised the working class’s roles and historical mission and found their interest in these struggles. As a result, more and more intellectuals have followed and supported the working class and labourers. Presently, the intellectual have joined in many activities of different fields, including the leadership, management, social organisation, but they have not been the leading forces of the society.

Fifthly, the intellectual are not a force which has good organisation, strict discipline and wide class solidarity. In this regard, V.I. Lenin clearly indicated the differences between proletarians and intellectuals. Accordingly, “all forces, progresses, hopes and expectations of the proletarians come from the organisations, common and planned activities with their comrades”. For intellectuals, “their weapons are their individual knowledge, ability and belief. They could play some roles only when basing on their personal qualities”. Regarding the discipline, as a part of the whole society, the intellectual only comply with the collective reluctantly as being forced, not voluntarily; they only admit that discipline is necessary for the masses, not for themselves.

Therefore, it is clear that the intellectual lack the important and indispensable qualities to become the leading forces of society. One of the causes is that the intellectual were born before the Industrial Revolution and not the product of it, so they did not have the qualities like those of other classes, especially the working class which was the product of the modern industry. Without being fully trained in the environment of the modern industry, the intellectual lack discipline and the ability of uniting and organising themselves and the masses into a strong social force to make the revolution to destroy the old society and build a better one.

Considering the above conditions to become a leading force of society, the intellectual do not met any of these standards. Hence, despite their great roles in social development, the argument that “the intellectual are the leaders of the society” is proved to be unscientific and impractical. Although there may be any arguments on the leading role of the intellectual, they are seen unpersuasive. In fact, these arguments mainly aim at blowing up “the intellectual’s roles”, stimulating and provoking their lust for power in order to deny the role and historical mission of the working class.

Associate Professor, Dr. PHAN TRONG HAO, Central Theoretical Council