Why General Secretary Tô Lâm is Reviving the ‘Socialist Ward’ Model in Việt Nam

The 20th century was defined by grand political projects presented as miniature versions of the future. 

In the Soviet Union, Stalin built “Socialist Cities” (Sotsgorod) to create an ideal living environment for the new socialist person. [1] Similarly, in China, Mao Zedong transformed Dazhai into a symbol of collectivization and self-reliance. [2]

However, history rarely follows the original script. Many Sotsgorod-style industrial cities faced severe environmental and quality-of-life issues. [3] Dazhai has also become a subject of intense debate regarding the stark contrast between its propagandized image and its actual functioning. [4] 

These models became source material for historians studying the vast gap between political ambition and practical implementation.

While one might assume that constructing model administrative units belonged strictly to the utopian visions of Plato or Thomas More, a familiar concept unexpectedly reappeared in Việt Nam in mid-2026. 

General Secretary Tô Lâm directed the creation of a “socialist commune and ward” model in Hà Nội. [5] The city subsequently translated this proposal into 54 specific criteria, selecting pilot localities with populations reaching hundreds of thousands of residents. [6]

The most important issue is not whether Hà Nội can fulfill all 54 criteria. A much more compelling question is why the grand political projects of the previous century are being repackaged and resurrected in 2026.

Must It Still Be “Socialist?”

As Hà Nội begins defining this model through dozens of quantitative indicators, a question arises: Why not simply call it a “smart city,” a “model ward,” or a local governance reform program? 

The answer lies in the unique position that the concept of socialism occupies within Việt Nam’s political framework.

An ordinary “smart city” project is subject to debate regarding its cost-effectiveness or public satisfaction. However, a project labeled “socialist” operates on a different level. It is not merely an administrative program but an initiative carrying profound symbolic significance.

For decades, the construction of socialism has been the foundational objective of the national political system. Hence, attaching the word “socialist” to any specific initiative immediately grants it a political weight that extends far beyond standard governance. 

In this context, the name of the project is arguably just as important as its practical implementation.

From a Distant Horizon to a 54-Point KPI Framework

For many years, socialism in Việt Nam was commonly described as a long-term objective. 

Many still remember former General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng’s well-known statement in 2013 that even by the end of this century, it could not yet be definitively stated what a completed socialist society in Việt Nam would actually look like. [7] 

Although made in a specific context, this remark reflected a broader reality in which people portrayed socialism as a destination far beyond the horizon.

General Secretary Tô Lâm, however, appears to have chosen a different approach. 

In recent speeches, he has argued that Việt Nam could complete its transitional period toward socialism by 2045. Earlier formulations suggested a journey stretching across multiple generations, but this 2045 target resembles a project with a concrete completion date.

Once a goal has a deadline, it inevitably requires metrics. This necessity helps explain why Hà Nội is attempting to transform a highly abstract concept into 54 specific criteria that can be counted, assessed, and reported on at various stages.

Viewed in this light, these criteria are not merely a local governance tool; they represent an effort to convert a political ideal into a measurable set of administrative indicators. [8] 

As a result, socialism is no longer a simple philosophical destination, as it is gradually being transformed into a KPI framework with a specific implementation plan.

A Tradition of Theoretical Construction

Throughout history, generations of Vietnamese leaders have sought to both govern the country and theoretically justify the nation’s trajectory to validate their chosen path. Following reunification, General Secretary Lê Duẩn championed the concept of “collective mastery” as a major theoretical advancement in the socialist construction of Việt Nam. [9]

However, like many political doctrines, it remained difficult to fully comprehend, even for esteemed philosophers such as Trần Đức Thảo. [10] The ensuing debates between intellectuals and the state’s theoretical establishment highlighted a recurring theme: political power inherently seeks to construct and defend its own ideological foundation.

With the advent of the Đổi Mới era, this drive for grand ideological frameworks gradually yielded to pragmatism. Urgent priorities like economic development, foreign investment, and international integration superseded abstract philosophical debates. 

Nevertheless, the underlying need to articulate a distinct “Vietnamese model” never completely disappeared.

The Harvard Professor

This context may explain why General Secretary Tô Lâm’s recent account of an exchange with a Harvard University professor attracted such attention. [11] 

What stands out in that anecdote is not who prevailed in the academic debate, but the underlying message. According to Tô Lâm, Việt Nam operates a distinctive development model and actively seeks to systematize it into a coherent theoretical framework. [12]

Viewed from this perspective, the “socialist commune and ward” initiative represents much more than a local governance tool. It is part of a broader effort to answer a question that has persisted for decades: What does socialism under modern Vietnamese conditions actually look like? [13]

Unlike earlier generations, the state is no longer presenting this answer through multi-volume theoretical works spanning thousands of pages. [14] [15] Instead, it is expressed through quantifiable indicators, evaluation criteria, population databases, digital platforms, and measurable governance models. 

If the 20th century attempted to explain socialism through the language of philosophy, the 2026 version is attempting to explain it through the language of KPIs.

From Xiong’an to Hà Nội

Another piece of the puzzle is difficult to ignore: General Secretary Tô Lâm’s visit to Xiong’an in early 2026. [16] For China, Xiong’an transcends the concept of a mere new city; it serves as a massive laboratory for next-generation urban governance. Here, daily municipal operations seamlessly integrate big data, digital platforms, and artificial intelligence.

While it would be premature to declare Hà Nội’s “socialist commune and ward” model a direct replica of Xiong’an, the simultaneous emphasis on digital governance, population databases, electronic identification, and quantitative evaluation systems inevitably invites comparison. [17]

If Stalin’s Sotsgorod used concrete and blast furnaces, the model projects of the 21st century evidently use data and algorithms. 

The building materials have undoubtedly changed, but the remaining question is whether the underlying logic has changed alongside them.

The Emergence of “Tô Lâm Thought”

This development leads to perhaps the most intriguing question of the entire narrative.

Throughout the history of socialist states, high-level political ambition has frequently been accompanied by the desire to establish a lasting theoretical legacy. Just as Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping codified their respective ideologies, Xi Jinping currently champions “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” which is officially enshrined in both the Communist Party charter and the Constitution. [18]

This has led some observers to ask whether Việt Nam is witnessing a similar ideological effort on its own scale. If the year 2045 serves as the ultimate destination, the “new era” operates as the central slogan, and the “socialist commune and ward” functions as the initial pilot model, then this initiative clearly transcends ordinary local governance. [19]

Instead, it resembles an experiment to test whether 21st-century socialism can be defined by data, algorithms, and KPI tables rather than multi-volume theoretical treatises.

If this experiment proves successful, it inevitably raises the ultimate question: Could these local models provide the practical evidence needed to support a new, codified interpretation of socialism directly associated with Tô Lâm?

Will History Repeat?

Sotsgorod was once presented as the definitive future of urban life, just as Dazhai was portrayed as the future of the countryside. Although some model projects succeed, history consistently demonstrates that observers judge such initiatives by their grand promises long before they evaluate their results.

Hà Nội’s “socialist commune and ward” model will inevitably face a similar test. 

Will this framework represent a genuine advance in local governance, or is it merely the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to transform a political ideal into a concrete administrative model?

The answer will not be found within political speeches, campaign slogans, or sets of criteria. Instead, it will be discovered in the actual, day-to-day operations of the localities serving as living laboratories for this idea in the years ahead.

---

Uyển Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on June 10, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.