Basically, there are some opposed line and analyses.
Some people think that if a capitalist line comes to power in a socialist country that the class nature of the society is more or less rapidly changed. This is the view of Mao and Maoists who say "the rise to power of revisionism is the rise to power of the capitalist class."
some people think that it is possible to have a revisionist leadership for a long time in a society that remains essentially socialist. (This is a point of view shared by Trots -- who believe that there can be a "
egenerated
workers state" and also various kinds of forces who think the Soviet union
or east germany etc. were revisionist-but-basically-socialist. Such people think
revisionism came to power in the Soviet Union in the thirties or fifties, but
that it took until 1991 to become capitalist.The difference between these two views is rather deep. These views also involve a different view of what socialism is, and a very different analysis of all kinds of historical experiences (like the Czech or Afghan invasions by the Soviet Union, or the rise of Gorbachev, or the Tienanmen Square incident.)
Let me speak for a moment of what the Maoists think:
they think that the Soviet Union was socialist until 1956. Then in a coup (led by Krushchev and backed by Zhukov), capitalist roaders came to power and the dictatorship of the proletariat was overthrown. From there there was a relatively rapid restoration of capitalism, (the transformation of society and the ecnomic imposition of rule-by-profit was certainly complete by 1963)
Maoists tend to think there was never much socialism in countries like Poland or East Germany. Ubricht and Honecker were rather reactionary forces.
Vietnam was a great revolutoinary struggle. the north was liberated under Ho Chi Minh, and efforts were made to set up socialism there, while expanding the national liberation struggle into the south (which was invaded and occupied by the U.S. in 1965.) The struggle of the Vietnamese for independence and liberation was one of the most important and influentials struggles in modern history -- made with great sacrifice and heroism.
Ho took a centrist position during the great struggle over revisionism (which erupted in the world communist movement in 1963) -- he tried not to take a stand, and publicly said it was wrong to analyze that capitalism had been restored in the Soviet Union. this was a major mistake -- and played a terrible role in the subsequent political developments in Vietnam. (Not being able to tell the difference between socialism and capitalism is a big problem.)
After Ho's death, a complete revisionist (Le duan) came to power in vietnam, and non-revolutoinary policies of many kinds came to dominate in Vietnam.
After 1968, the Vietnamese abandoned the Maoist road of protracted peoples war, and adopted more and more a revisionist military doctrine (relying on elite troops, modern weapons and not on the revolutionary masses.)
After the victory over the U.S., Vietnam unfortunately increasingly became part of the Soviet Union's attempt to create a new imperialist empire (even opening up former U.S. military bases for global Soviet naval forces.)
There is more to say, but I'll stop here.
the whole Tienanmen debate is a very revealing one.