Talk:Anarchism in Vietnam

No evidence of Anarchist Movement
As it stands, this articles provides no support for its repeated assertion that in colonial Vietnam there was an "anarchist movement".

At best, it suggests that two key anti-colonial figures may been influenced by anarchists or anarchist ideas: Phan Bội Châu and Nguyễn An Ninh. In the case of Phan Bội Châu the link seems to be a matter of association--familiarity in exile with Japanese anarchists--and the embrace of "propaganda of the deed" which is hardly a unique or distinctive anarchist idea. For Nguyễn An Ninh and his "secret society", whose political orientation was something of an enigma even to his friends, it is Ninh's essay Order and Anarchy "quoting such authors as Rabindranath Tagore and Leo Tolstoy", niether of whom were anarchists. Ninh may well have expressed a sympathy for anarchism, but then Ninh appeared to sympathise with many political ideas and movements. Critically, these included those of the Communist Party of Nguyễn Ái Quốc (Ho Chi Minh) for whom, as the articles notes, anarchism was dangerous "nonsense". In the April 1939 Cochinchina Colonial council elections, Ninh agreed to have his name put forward on the party's "Democratic Platform". This was in opposition to the "Workers and Peasants" slate of the Trotskyists who, in calling for workers' control and popular committees could claim some actual affinity with anarchism, and who indeed were supported by one of the few anti-colonial figures who explicitly identified as an anarchist, Trinh Hung Ngau.

Unfortunately, this well intentioned article misleads the reader. Unless it can actually identify an organised, consciously anarchist grouping, it needs to remove the explicit references to an "anarchist movement". Regards

ManfredHugh (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @ManfredHugh: Thank you for catching this! Per your comments, I checked the article's principle source and found no reference to an "anarchist movement" there, so I have removed and replaced mentions of it in the text. Let me know if you think there's anything else about this article that can be improved. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but the article still begins:
 * "Anarchism in Vietnam as a political movement started in the early twentieth century, as Vietnamese radicals became exposed to strands of anarchism in Japan, China and France. Its most recognizable proponents were Phan Bội Châu and Nguyễn An Ninh."
 * These assertions are not supported by any of the sources cited: that there was anarchist political movement in early 20th century Vietnam, and that Phan Bội Châu and Nguyễn An Ninh were its proponents.ManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ManfredHugh: I just rewrote the lead. Hopefully it should be more accurate now. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Article has nothing to say
This entire article is padded up by going over the entire history of the Vietnamese nationalist movement without anything specific to say about it's supposed anarchist movement in Vietnam which it claimed emerged with Phan Bội Châu anh Nguyễn An Ninh, the former a republican and the latter a communist fellow-traveller, both of which are well documented in its own sources for this article. This article appears to think terrorism ("propaganda of the deed") is literally all required to call anything an anarchist movement when it started the story with the monarchist-gentry rebels fighting the French. There is literally no useful information in this article that can justify it's existence. Quangsp (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * On balance, I think this is sadly true. There is no reference to any colonial-era activist, such as Trinh Hung Ngau (there may well have been others), who can be clearly identified, and who identified themselves, as anarchist. As it stands, "Anarchism in Vietnam" seems to be almost entirely wish projection. ManfredHugh (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have either of you read the source (Ho Tai 1992)? It discusses the influence of anarchism on Phan and Nguyen extensively, especially when it comes to the latter. I'm happy to discuss how to cut down on the padding (I'll admit I sometimes find myself over-contextualising) and how to bring it closer to what is described in the source, but to claim the article is "almost entirely wish projection" or that it contains "literally no useful information" is just insulting.
 * If you think this article warrants deletion, then feel free to put up an AfD. But if you want to use the talk page to improve the article, please provide some constructive criticism for how, because I'm not sure what to do with this right now. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, if you find that Ho Tai has a credible discussion as to how anarchism influenced Phan Bội Châu and Nguyễn An Ninh (although this is still short of identifying them as anarchists) GREAT--draw on in the article and share it with the readers. But as it is, the article simply makes an assertion which is not good enough since both figures clearly had other political influences and affiliations. ManfredHugh (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is shared with the readers from Ho Tai doesn't really amount to case for anarchism being a defining influence for either Chau or Ninh. You refer to "anarchist positions on anti-imperialism and direct action"--but you would need to explain what these "positions" are, and how they were reflected what Chau and Ninh said or did, for clearly anti-imperialism and direct action (propaganda by the deed) are not in themselves uniquely or distinctly anarchist.
 * Ninh was an "individualist anarchist"? How do we arrive at this conclusion? And if so what was he doing in the communist (Stalinist-Trotskyist) La Lutte grouping, or standing for the CPV's "Democratic Front"?
 * And then you have got this extraordinary statement in the lead: "The spread of anarchism through Vietnam was responsible for an increase in violence against the colonial authorities". This isn't supported in the article and how could you support such as a sweeping assertion when so many other factors and circumstances can be plausibly linked to violent anti-colonial struggle? What sources, which historians, have reached this conclusion? Regards ManfredHugh (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)