Belarus

[Comrade1]

What is Belarus' signifigance to socialism?

[Savage]

That of any other capitalist state

[The Vegan Marxist]

A mixed economy between socialist and capitalist policies. Though, overall, socialist by a long shot. They're known as the "last Soviet state," so take that for however you want. To get a better understanding of Belarus, I'd recommend you purchasing "The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko's Belarus (http://belarus.110mb.com/bookpage.html)," or otherwise, you can attain useful amounts of information through here:

http://www.belarussolidaritycampaign.co.uk/

[Nolan]

I find replacing Vegan Marxist's posts with "durr hurr" makes them much more helpful since that at least would show his political intelligence at a glance.

One can not "mix" "socialist policy," whatever the fuck that means, and capitalism. You have socialism in the making, or you have capitalism. Belarus is capitalist.

Belarus has no relevance whatsoever to any type of proletarian society. It did at one time, and that steadily dropped over the years until it flat-lined with the rest of the USSR in 91.

[Gorilla]

What is Belarus' signifigance to socialism?

About the same as Sweden's i.e. not much, except it's also a target of imperialism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Is Belarus really "independent" or a satellite of Russia? I mean to what extent are communists really to consider themselves involved in inter-imperialist struggle? Is it a matter of being able to reason whether it will advance the global working class? The living standards of Belarussians? Just revolutionary defeatism? What?

[manic expression]

I find replacing Vegan Marxist's posts with "durr hurr" makes them much more helpful since that at least would show his political intelligence at a glance.

One can not "mix" "socialist policy," whatever the fuck that means, and capitalism. You have socialism in the making, or you have capitalism. Belarus is capitalist.

Belarus has no relevance whatsoever to any type of proletarian society. It did at one time, and that steadily dropped over the years until it flat-lined with the rest of the USSR in 91.
That's hardly true. I don't think many would argue that the NEP in the USSR showed a "mix" of socialist and capitalist dynamics. Of course Belarus is quite different, but it's worth noting that societies can see a "mix" under certain circumstances. The manichean view you're proposing doesn't hold up to complexity.

Also, Belarus is definitely not as capitalist as Sweden. Sweden's capitalist class is far more entrenched, and in the last decade or so has done away with a lot of social democratic policies to put Sweden even further to the right.

I'd say Belarus is a type of society we haven't seen before. IMO, it's something like a modified deformed worker state. The majority of Belarusian workers aren't employed by private industry. A Belarusian capitalist class is legalized, but marginally so...they are in spite of restrictions economically significant but now empowered politically, for they do not control the state. The working class is largely OK with the government (perhaps we could say supportive, but passively so), if only because they know the most likely alternative (Russia-style capitalism) is so bad.

[Wanted Man]

The coat of arms really takes you back.

[Thirsty Crow]

That's hardly true...Maybe you should brush up on your understanding of what exactly constitutes capitalist social relations and how exactly individual nation-states relate to those relations. But I guess that would imply a manichean viewpoint.

As far as Belarus is concerned, the ruling class does not (can not and will not) promote the interests of the global proletariat.

[manic expression]

Maybe you should brush up on your understanding of what exactly constitutes capitalist social relations and how exactly individual nation-states relate to those relations. But I guess that would imply a manichean viewpoint.

As far as Belarus is concerned, the ruling class does not (can not and will not) promote the interests of the global proletariat.
:rolleyes:

This, together with the nationalisation of the land, shows that the New Economic Policy does not change the nature of the workers’ state, although it does substantially alter the methods and forms of socialist development for it permits of economic rivalry between socialism, which is now being built, and capitalism, which is trying to revive by supplying the needs of the vast masses of the peasantry through the medium of the market.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm

Emphasis mine. That took me about 30 seconds to find.

[Thirsty Crow]

OK. But how is this relevant to the issue at hand?
Do you want to argue that Belarus is competing with other capitalist nations, as a socialist country, a workers' state?
Again, you fail to understand the basics of the functioning of capitalism.

[manic expression]

You're not understanding what Lenin wrote. He's saying that within the USSR, the NEP created an economic rivalry between socialism and capitalism. In other words, there was a "mix".

[Thirsty Crow]

You're not understanding what Lenin wrote. He's saying that within the USSR, the NEP created an economic rivalry between socialism and capitalism. In other words, there was a "mix".
Oh, okay.
Then Lenin was wrong. Or more precisely, he was mystifying concrete social relations.

[manic expression]

Oh, okay.
Then Lenin was wrong. Or more precisely, he was mystifying concrete social relations.
Yeah, the guy who was one of the architects of the NEP didn't at all understand what it was. :laugh: "Mystifying", indeed!

But let me get this straight: you're saying the NEP was 100% socialist social relations? Yes or no will do.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, the guy who was one of the architects of the NEP didn't at all understand what it was. :laugh: "Mystifying", indeed!

But let me get this straight: you're saying the NEP was 100% socialist social relations? Yes or no will do.

I didn't say he didn't understand (though that's a possibility), I said he was mystifying certain social realities (economic rivalrly, "mix" etc.).
As far as NEP is concerned, and indeed the whole of the historical political economy of fSU, I don't think one can talk about socialist social relations, but rather a specific management of capitalism.

[manic expression]

Oh, right. So abolishing private property, a centrally planned economy, the absence of a market for large-scale resources or manpower, a state monopoly on foreign trade, etc. had nothing to do with social relations. Cool. Your view isn't manichaen as much as it is puritanical.

[gorillafuck]

They're known as the "last Soviet state," so take that for however you want.By American propagandists...

[redhotpoker]

Belarus is significant because it resisted the "Shock treatment" of the 90's. Lukashanko was elected in 1994, after which he began slowing down and even reversing some privatizations, so while factories and hospitals in Poland and Russia were closing, Belarus increased production. Since 2001 his government has also tried to rebuild a social safety net.

Now that said, from what I see there is no working class control over industry or public life.

Lukashanko is just an old Sovietist

[Le Socialiste]

Belarus is an authoritarian, capitalistic state that happens to fall under Russian influence. It has been little more than a satellite in recent years for Russia than anything else. The ruling class maintains some of the old vestiges of Soviet rule, but does not represent or seek to carry out the will of the Belarussian proletariat.

[Red_Struggle]

That's hardly true. I don't think many would argue that the NEP in the USSR showed a "mix" of socialist and capitalist dynamics.

For the record, the NEP didn't privatize anything that was previously nationalized. Grain and most of the countryside was left in the hands of the kulaks.


I'd say Belarus is a type of society we haven't seen before.

How so? Although most of its industry is nationalized, socialist production relations are not utilized and privatization of anything in a "socialist" state is unacceptable. We've seen this before.

Not saying you considered Belarus to be socialist. Just saying.

[Nolan]

The NEP, the thing every revisionist runs to to justify their pet programs.


I don't think many would argue that the NEP in the USSR showed a "mix" of socialist and capitalist dynamics.


In other words, there was a "mix".

So which is it?

The USSR under Lenin was a dictatorship of the proletariat which implemented the NEP in light of the end of "war communism" and significant peasant resistance to the state. It was a matter of avoiding collapse.

Belarus is a state which doesn't even espouse Marxist ideology. The difference with, say, Russia is that it never went through the neoliberal shock treatment. That's it.

Also, Red Struggle is correct. Belarus has been privatizing things like everyone else despite keeping more state capitalism than the other ex Soviet republics.


what is remarkable in looking back on this turn in Soviet policy -- which has been sketched only very briefly here -- is the utter and complete frankness with which Lenin advanced it and characterized it. "Freedom to exchange implies freedom for capitalism. We say this openly and emphasize it. We do not conceal it in the least. Things would go very hard with us if we attempted to conceal it." (CW, Vol. 32, p. 490) Some 40 years later, in a wholly different historical context, when a wholly different Soviet party leadership undertook a far more sweeping restoration of the freedom to trade," and a far more profound reorganization of state enterprises "on a commercial capitalist basis," this frankness was gone, replaced by a stultifying, crushing hypocrisy.
Lenin's clarity and frankness about the significance of NEP testified to the fact that throughout this limited and temporary restoration of capitalism in the USSR, the proletariat remained the ruling class. The state capitalism that the NEP temporarily fostered was not the state capitalism found in bourgeois economics texts, in which the bourgeois holders of economic power collectively subordinate the state and state property to their interests. On the contrary, the proletarian political power subjected the bourgeoisie to its interests. No matter how great the freedom given to the bourgeoisie in economic matters, the proletarian power always kept the reins in its own hands and loosened or tightened them in accordance with its own economic and political policies.
The NEP period of Soviet history comprised three broad phases: the retreat in the direction of capitalism, the consolidation and the new offensive toward socialism. All three phases, and not only the retreat, formed part of the NEP design. Taken as a whole, NEP was the policy of transforming the capitalist (and even precapitalist)

page 17
economic foundation of the USSR into a socialist foundation; it was the policy of laying "the economic foundation for the political gains of the Soviet state" (CW, Vol. 33, p. 73); it was the policy of transition during the period when "capitalism has been smashed but socialism has not yet been built." (CW, Vol. 30, p. 513) As Lenin said in one of his last speeches, in November 1922, "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (CW, Vol. 33, p. 443)
It was Lenin himself, in March 1922, who called a halt to the "retreat" that was the first phase of NEP. It fell to his successors to decide how to consolidate, and when and how to pass on to the general offensive against the capitalist elements.
In all respects the easiest part of the battle during the second and third phases of NEP was the elimination of the private merchants and small manufacturers from the scene. From the mid-1920s on, the share of the country's total trade in the hands of private companies declined, while the share of the state increased. By 1932, the hated private traders, who were called NEPmen, were all but gone. In manufacturing, where about one-eighth of the country's workers in 1923 were employed by private enterprise, the private share had been reduced in 1932 to less than 1 percent. (See the periodic reports of the Soviet State Planning Commission, presented at party congresses by Stalin, [Works, Vols. 12 and 13] and the modern revisionist Outline History of the Soviet Working Class by Y. S. Borisova et. al., Moscow 1973.)



The NEP was a systematic retreat and regrouping in the face of disaster under an anti-revisionist leadership.

Comparing the NEP to Belarus or the Gorbachev era USSR is spinning a massive just-so story that compares two unrelated things with the purpose of making us to have good faith in non-marxists. There is no proletarian dictatorship.

[Spartacus.]

Belarus is a state which doesn't even espouse Marxist ideology.


I don't remember that there exist such thing as Marxist "ideology"... Last time I checked, Marxism was a science, not a religion, cult or something similar that needs to be "promoted" by the state. Besides, if you actually analyze the objective situation you will see that "socialist" regimes that were promoting Marxism as a doctrine and justification for party bureacracy domination over working class were thoroughly revisionist and anti-Marxist. The fact that Belarus doesn't promote Marxism is not a sign that it is not studied, especially by the members of the Communist party of Belarus which are part of the ruling coalition.



Also, Red Struggle is correct. Belarus has been privatizing things like everyone else despite keeping more state capitalism than the other ex Soviet republics.


It is true that it is state-capitalism, but it is still far better than neo-liberal hell-holles like Ukraine. Currently it is serving as a viable alternative to neo-liberal capitalism and as such it is worth supporting and upholding. Btw; where did you get the idea that Belarus has been privatizing anything in the recent times? In fact, the process has been reversed. Since he came to power in 1994, Lukachenko has actually nationalized quite a lot of private corporations and now they account for 80% of economy. They have even kept the old Soviet collective farms in place. :)

[manic expression]

The NEP, the thing every revisionist runs to to justify their pet programs.
The NEP, the thing every puritan runs away from to justify their excessive sectarianism. But that's an improvement over sectarianism for sectarianism's sake, no?


So which is it?

The USSR under Lenin was a dictatorship of the proletariat which implemented the NEP in light of the end of "war communism" and significant peasant resistance to the state. It was a matter of avoiding collapse.

Belarus is a state which doesn't even espouse Marxist ideology. The difference with, say, Russia is that it never went through the neoliberal shock treatment. That's it.

Also, Red Struggle is correct. Belarus has been privatizing things like everyone else despite keeping more state capitalism than the other ex Soviet republics.This is all a very nice way of saying that yes, the Soviet Union during the NEP saw a "mix" of capitalist and socialist dynamics. We've already seen Lenin, one of the architects of the NEP, describe it exactly as such. Nolan can hee and haw about state ideology all he likes, but the point of material conditions has nothing to do with this. Were Nolan interested in a materialist analysis, perhaps this could at least be admitted.

And there were market reforms in the country even before 1994.


The NEP was a systematic retreat and regrouping in the face of disaster under an anti-revisionist leadership.

Comparing the NEP to Belarus or the Gorbachev era USSR is spinning a massive just-so story that compares two unrelated things with the purpose of making us to have good faith in non-marxists. There is no proletarian dictatorship.:rolleyes: Agreed, there is no proletarian dictatorship in Belarus today. Now that we have that scintillating revelation out of the way, perhaps you can bring yourself to discuss the matter at hand: can or cannot societies see a "mix" of socialist and capitalist elements? Lenin has answered that in the affirmative...I'll leave you to argue with him.


How so? Although most of its industry is nationalized, socialist production relations are not utilized and privatization of anything in a "socialist" state is unacceptable. We've seen this before.

Not saying you considered Belarus to be socialist. Just saying.
Fair points, but this gets to the issue at hand, I feel. The capitalist class, while holding economic sway (although its legalized existence is reliant on the state), does not hold state power. Further, it is very strongly restricted by a state it does not control. Call it what you will, but calling it "capitalist" without any reservations or qualifications doesn't square with the facts.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So much fail in this thread. I say that not as a troll artist, but as somebody who prides historical accuracy.

Lukashenko resisted 'shock treatment' not from a Gorbachevite/pro-NATO line, but from a political desire for power. He has, since the 1990s and well into the 2000s and 2010s, carried out a series of privatisations. That he is, economically speaking, slightly less free-marketeering in his Capitalist outlook than the NATO-US allied countries, is no reason to talk of the 'last soviet state' or some bastion of anti-imperialism.

Add the fact that he is an absolute anti-worker, anti-democrat and you have a particularly unsupportable mix. No elections, no worker control over the economy, no Socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

So much fail in this thread. I say that not as a troll artist, but as somebody who prides historical accuracy.

Lukashenko resisted 'shock treatment' not from a Gorbachevite/pro-NATO line, but from a political desire for power. He has, since the 1990s and well into the 2000s and 2010s, carried out a series of privatisations. That he is, economically speaking, slightly less free-marketeering in his Capitalist outlook than the NATO-US allied countries, is no reason to talk of the 'last soviet state' or some bastion of anti-imperialism.

Add the fact that he is an absolute anti-worker, anti-democrat and you have a particularly unsupportable mix. No elections, no worker control over the economy, no Socialism.
But you've got to admit, the fact that he does not represent the interests of capitalists going berserk makes him an ally of the working class!

[Gorilla]

Luka may not be a socialist but he is still a pretty awesome dude.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/96/244180684_e90e9adefb_o.jpg
Photographic proof.

[manic expression]

as somebody who prides historical accuracy.

No elections
Um, what?

[bailey_187]

defenders of Belarus: is it a socialist state?

yes or no

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Um, what?

Apologies.

'Bourgeois-style, periodically sparse, rigged elections only' would have been more accurate.

[Crux]

Question for all those faux anti-imperialists on here, how exactly are you not social democrats? So easily impressed by a little bit of state owned industry, so blind to the actual struggle of the working class.

[Crux]

Also: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=153491

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Question for all those faux anti-imperialists on here, how exactly are you not social democrats? So easily impressed by a little bit of state owned industry, so blind to the actual struggle of the working class.

Because they cannot connect theoretical masturbation with its real-life effects.

'State-managed' sounds better than 'free market supply and demand', and many will not bother to contend with the negative connotations of the former, even in notorious nations like Libya and Belarus. I'm sure there are worse places to live than Belarus, but that it isn't a Friedmanite free-for-all, and more importantly, that it annoys the western liberal democrats, does not make it any more Socialist.

You identify a concept that is so fucking frustrating, and you identify a mindset that many people are in, that is absolutely stuck in 20th century, cold war, defensive mentality. Time to move on.

[Crux]

Because they cannot connect theoretical masturbation with its real-life effects.

'State-managed' sounds better than 'free market supply and demand', and many will not bother to contend with the negative connotations of the former, even in notorious nations like Libya and Belarus. I'm sure there are worse places to live than Belarus, but that it isn't a Friedmanite free-for-all, and more importantly, that it annoys the western liberal democrats, does not make it any more Socialist.

You identify a concept that is so fucking frustrating, and you identify a mindset that many people are in, that is absolutely stuck in 20th century, cold war, defensive mentality. Time to move on.
Yes, how would we take the struggle forward without becoming servile apologists to despots. :rolleyes: Also comparing the economy of Belarus to NEP shows a monumental ignorance of Soviet history and of course the present economy in Belarus, but this has already been adressed.

[Roach]

The NEP, the thing every puritan runs away from to justify their excessive sectarianism. But that's an improvement over sectarianism for sectarianism's sake, no?

Since 1968 tankies use this pathetic excuse of ''sectarianism'' to justify their own existence, the self-declared only true voice of anti-imperialism likes to consider itself above us mortals, since we must obey the rigthfull heirs of the Soviet Union, all criticism is false if it does not accept their right to the throne. The Euro-Communist parties did not need that scum, just look at Alvaro Cunhal, he seems so angry that he must be right, the PCB didnt need Pedro Pomar, Mauricio Grabois, João Amazonas, it doesnt mean anything if they fought the Brazilian military dictatorship while PCB leadership was hiding in Moscow

What do they do when the throne is usurped by social-democrats like Gorbachev? Go back to their origins in a vague Marxism-Leninism that compensates its lack of substance with a really loud rethoric about anti-imperialism, but regardless of Maoism, of Enver Hoxha, of Ceauscesco, of Euro-Communism and 1991, they are still the Heirs of Soviet Socialism, with its unquestionable authority and sovereignty over all working-class.

BREZHNEVITES: BECAUSE WHO NEEDS CONSISTENCY...
http://www.dn.pt/storage/DN/2011/big/ng1465554.jpg?type=big&pos=0
...WHEN YOU CAN LOOK ANGRY.

[manic expression]

Since 1968 tankies use this pathetic excuse of ''sectarianism'' to justify their own existence, the self-declared only true voice of anti-imperialism likes to consider itself above us mortals, since we must obey the rigthfull heirs of the Soviet Union, all criticism is false if it does not accept their right to the throne. The Euro-Communist parties did not need that scum, just look at Alvaro Cunhal, he seems so angry that he must be right, the PCB didnt need Pedro Pomar, Mauricio Grabois, João Amazonas, it doesnt mean anything if they fought the Brazilian military dictatorship while PCB leadership was hiding in Moscow

What do they do when the throne is usurped by social-democrats like Gorbachev? Go back to their origins in a vague Marxism-Leninism that compensates its lack of substance with a really loud rethoric about anti-imperialis, but regardless of Maoism, of Enver Hoxha, of Ceauscesco, of Euro-Communism and 1991, they are still the Heirs of Soviet Socialism, with its unquestionable authority and sovereignty over all working-class
OK, that makes no sense. And now with that picture, it makes even less. Aimless rambling one of your Easter traditions, is it?


Question for all those faux anti-imperialists on here, how exactly are you not social democrats? So easily impressed by a little bit of state owned industry, so blind to the actual struggle of the working class.
Social democrats promote a state controlled by the capitalist class. Belarus is no such state. And it's not a matter of saying "Wow, Belarus is a shining model of socialism", it's about recognizing facts for what they are.

By the way, how do you define "a little bit"? Is "a little bit" supposed to mean 50%? In that case, I'd say your post is at least "a little bit" wrong.

[Thirsty Crow]

Social democrats promote a state controlled by the capitalist class. Belarus is no such state. And it's not a matter of saying "Wow, Belarus is a shining model of socialism", it's about recognizing facts for what they are.

And how would you argue that the actual control over the state apparatus (one that is engaged in administering an economy completely engulfed and dependant n capitalsit world market) is wielded by the working class?
Is this really your position, that state ownership of certain industries equals workers' control over the state and the economy itself?

[manic expression]

And how would you argue that the actual control over the state apparatus (one that is engaged in administering an economy completely engulfed and dependant n capitalsit world market) is wielded by the working class?
It isn't. I see the state as a unique type of deformed worker state. In my estimation, neither the capitalist class nor the working class hold state power at present.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How can it be a deformed workers' state if the working class don't/didn't hold economic/political power?

If neither the Capitalists nor the Workers hold power, who does?

[Thirsty Crow]

It isn't. I see the state as a unique type of deformed worker state. In my estimation, neither the capitalist class nor the working class hold state power at present.
Then, pardon my language, who the fuck controls the state? Giant turtles? God?

And forgive the offtopic, but here people can see the utter bankruptcy of the term "deformed workers' state", as well as the implied analysis behind the term.

[Crux]

Social democrats promote a state controlled by the capitalist class. Belarus is no such state. And it's not a matter of saying "Wow, Belarus is a shining model of socialism", it's about recognizing facts for what they are.

If this is about facts how can you claim that Belarus is, in fact, not a capitalist state? By what criteria? This is not about puritanism, this is about some very, very basic stuff. States ruled by despots with a large state-controlled sector is nothing new at all.

[Crux]

Then, pardon my language, who the fuck controls the state? Giant turtles? God?

And forgive the offtopic, but here people can see the utter bankruptcy of the term "deformed workers' state", as well as the implied analysis behind the term.
OT: I think trotsky makes some rather compelling arguments in In defence of Marxism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/index.htm)

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm vaguely aware of his arguments, but wouldn't want to go into it here.

What I really intended to communicate is that "deformed workers' state" is a very flexible term which enables individuals to spout total nonsense. I might have worded it a bit too "extreme".

[Gorilla]

Question for all those faux anti-imperialists on here, how exactly are you not social democrats? So easily impressed by a little bit of state owned industry, so blind to the actual struggle of the working class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you CWI types regularly see socialized medicine in Western Europe as something worth defending.

Why is it correct to struggle militantly for the British NHS, if nationalized industry in Belarus is just a riotously droll joke?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't think anyone regarded nationalised industry in Belarus as a joke. Nationalized industry in and of itself doesn't mean socialism, when PEMEX in Mexicio was state owned it was just as capitalist as now, the nationalisation of the "commanding heights" of the British economy didn't mean socialism. In the US AIG and GM are nationalised essentially, its still profoundly capitalist.

Nationalisation in Belarus should be defended but as a step towards placing industry under public ownership, which is a different thing entirely.

Its unclear to what extent Belarus can be regarded as a "deformed worker's state". Lukashenko privatised just like everyone else but he slowed the process down.A lot would depend on how the economy is run, who runs it, and what is it run for. Who is extracting the surplus value? The "nationalised" economy may be closer to a form of crony capitalism, with well connected business people doing well.

[Crux]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you CWI types regularly see socialized medicine in Western Europe as something worth defending.

Why is it correct to struggle militantly for the British NHS, if nationalized industry in Belarus is just a riotously droll joke?
Lenina answered pretty well. And this of course again causes me to ask the same thing as before: are you social democrats?
In sweden we defend what is left of the wellfare state, but we also offer an alternative, and would so even at the height of the wellfare state, namely socialism.

[Gorilla]

Lenina answered pretty well. And this of course again causes me to ask the same thing as before: are you social democrats?
In sweden we defend what is left of the wellfare state, but we also offer an alternative, and would so even at the height of the wellfare state, namely socialism.

Well I can't answer for the other faux anti-imperialists on this thread but I personally as a faux anti-imperialist do not consider Belarus to be socialist but do consider its remaining welfare state institutions to be worth defending. As for Lukashenko himself, I am sure he would be privatizing everything that wasn't nailed down if it weren't for the state of class relations in Belarus and the militancy of Byelorussian workers.

But I also don't see him as A New Hitler, and I think the campaign to paint him as such is part of international capital's onslaught against resistance to privatization etc.

[Sword and Shield]

Belarus's economy is much closer to socialist than capitalist. The Belarussian opposition would have Belarus turn into a neoliberal shithole like the rest of Eastern Europe. We need to support Lukashenko's struggle against these neoliberal Western puppets for that reason.

[pranabjyoti]

I just want to ask only one question. If Luka is another capitalist head of state, then why the imperialist backed media is against him?
I hope I got a proper answer.

[CleverTitle]

I just want to ask only one question. If Luka is another capitalist head of state, then why the imperialist backed media is against him?
I hope I got a proper answer.

You're right. I hear that Ahmadinejad guy is pretty cool also.

This 'with us or against us' attitude is super dumb. Just because they don't serve the US doesn't mean we need to be their cheerleaders.

[Jose Gracchus]

Remember kids, only Anglo-America-Western Europe counts as imperialist countries. There is no BRIC block, remember. Belarus is just a satellite of another imperial capitalist power, Russia.

[Crux]

I just want to ask only one question. If Luka is another capitalist head of state, then why the imperialist backed media is against him?
I hope I got a proper answer.
Because of inter-imperialist rivalties between mainly russia, china and the EU, the US.

[manic expression]

How can it be a deformed workers' state if the working class don't/didn't hold economic/political power?

If neither the Capitalists nor the Workers hold power, who does?


Then, pardon my language, who the fuck controls the state? Giant turtles? God?
Deformed worker states don't see the working class holding state power. The analysis was that the bureaucracy conquered political control. I would say that the Belarusian state is vaguely comparable to that in that the state is not controlled by either the capitalist or working classes, but by a left-leaning bonapartist-esque state. Again, throwing around terms is difficult because I don't think Belarus falls into any neat, simple category. Whatever label we use, though, it must be recognized that while the workers do not control the Belarusian state, it is quite clear that the capitalist class does not either. That puts a big dent in any argument that Belarus is "capitalist".


If this is about facts how can you claim that Belarus is, in fact, not a capitalist state? By what criteria? This is not about puritanism, this is about some very, very basic stuff. States ruled by despots with a large state-controlled sector is nothing new at all.
By the criteria that the capitalist class' existence rests on the state allowing it to. The Belarusian capitalists are not calling the shots in Minsk unless it's business decisions. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.


Remember kids, only Anglo-America-Western Europe counts as imperialist countries. There is no BRIC block, remember. Belarus is just a satellite of another imperial capitalist power, Russia.
Perhaps you can also tell the kids that Belarus bears no resemblance to an imperialist society. That fact would sadly ruin your Belarus-Bashing Fest 2011, though.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I just want to ask only one question. If Luka is another capitalist head of state, then why the imperialist backed media is against him?
I hope I got a proper answer.

So going by your logic, anybody feuding with a Capitalist is an anti-Capitalist who should be supported by the left? Get real.

[bailey_187]

I just want to ask only one question. If Luka is another capitalist head of state, then why the imperialist backed media is against him?
I hope I got a proper answer.

Because capitalist states dont always get along? WW1? WW2? c'mon son

[Spartacus.]

Remember kids, only Anglo-America-Western Europe counts as imperialist countries. There is no BRIC block, remember. Belarus is just a satellite of another imperial capitalist power, Russia.


If Belarus is only a satellite of Russia, could you explain me how much of the economy of Belarus is controled by Russian imperialists? After all, a good sign that one country is imperialist puppet is the fact that its economic enterprises are owned and controlled by the foreign investors. If that is true, than a majority of Belarussian economy is in the similar situation as those of Mexico, Colombia and Peru, in which commanding heights are US-owned, making them dependent on US capital. The only problem with your theory is the fact that 80% of economy of Belarus is under public control, profits (it's still a state-capitalism) are used for funding public welfare programs for workers and not for enrichment of foreign investors, making Belarus the most unusual puppet-state the world has ever seen. :lol:

[Sasha]

to be fair, the belarusian economy would completly collapse if it wouldnt get extremly cheap naturalgas, well below marketprices, from russia.
but since russia is dependend on belarus for the transport of said gas and out of geo-political motives you could better say its an "they both keep each other hostage" situation than an puppet-puppetmaster one

[Rafiq]

I just want to ask only one question. If Luka is another capitalist head of state, then why the imperialist backed media is against him?
I hope I got a proper answer.

*cough* Ahmadinejad *cough*

*cough* Omar el-bashir *cough*

[pranabjyoti]

Just a few difference with Ahmedinejad and Basir. First one is leading the country based on religion based ideology and IMO, it's far better than bustard US kepts like Saudi Arab, Qatar, Kuwait and other emirates of middle east.
Second one is basically military based.
Luka doesn't belong to any of that category.

[Jose Gracchus]

This isn't 1955, it isn't the faux-socialisms of the East against the all-powerful depredations of the West, led by the U.S. Capitalist international society is becoming multi-polar again, there are lesser capitalist imperialist states besides the U.S.-UK axis, and the Europeans. Is Russia not a capitalist state? How can it not, in a material sense, behave imperialistically? What's the materialist basis for it supporting these "semi"-somehow-not-capitalist states, where the working class is not just not in power, but the State does not even make sops to the working class as a political force? Social welfare isn't socialism, even if it is better than the alternative.

But this just scratches the surface for people with these politics - I've heard that Chavez is building socialism faster than the Bolsheviks, that Libya is a kind of African socialism based on domestic ideology, ad nauseum.

[pranabjyoti]

The problem is the black and white, either "socialist" or "capitalist" attitude. Most just don't understand that there may be gray zones in between. The basic question is in which direction it is more leaning?

[Rafiq]

Just a few difference with Ahmedinejad and Basir. First one is leading the country based on religion based ideology and IMO, it's far better than bustard US kepts like Saudi Arab, Qatar, Kuwait and other emirates of middle east.
Second one is basically military based.
Luka doesn't belong to any of that category.


Both are heads of Capitalist states, and, guess what, the Bourgeois media doesn't like them!

Lies! They must be heads of Socialist people's Republics! The Media hates them!

:rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

The problem is the black and white, either "socialist" or "capitalist" attitude. Most just don't understand that there may be gray zones in between. The basic question is in which direction it is more leaning?

In a Marxian sense, you better bet your balls it's a black and white situation!

The Working class is either in power or it isn't,

Next...

[Qayin]

Fuck the Belarus state.

After watching them repress the demonstrations after the rigged elections whoever claims to be a leftist yet supports this bullshit is insane.

[Thirsty Crow]

In a Marxian sense, you better bet your balls it's a black and white situation!

The Working class is either in power or it isn't,

Next...
Firstly, while I support this analytical framework (which will be assessed as "dogmatic" and "puritanical" by people with a soft spot for class collaboration, even if they conceive such an alliance as a purely tactical move), I think two things should be mentioned here:

1) what specific organs of rule does the working class use in realizing the project of elimination of all classes (this holds only if we conclude that the working class is in power)

2) if the working class is not in power, then we should ask ourselves what room is there for the development of workers' independant organizations (both directly economic and political - unions and parties/political orgs) and how does the state relate to existing workers' organizations (the question of co-optation of militant struggle, the question of repression, the question of international relations etc etc.)

From this standpoint we should assess the situation in Belarus. Personally, I don't think that there is any kind of an institutionalized support for the militant, independant organizations of workers themselves.


Deformed worker states don't see the working class holding state power. The analysis was that the bureaucracy conquered political control. I would say that the Belarusian state is vaguely comparable to that in that the state is not controlled by either the capitalist or working classes, but by a left-leaning bonapartist-esque state. Again, throwing around terms is difficult because I don't think Belarus falls into any neat, simple category. Whatever label we use, though, it must be recognized that while the workers do not control the Belarusian state, it is quite clear that the capitalist class does not either. That puts a big dent in any argument that Belarus is "capitalist".

But how does the bureaucracy function? As an effective capitalist, that is, "macro-manager" of capital accumulation or as a class aiming at the global abolition of the capitalist system?
In other words, there might be more than one capitalist class (recall Marx's observations regarding Proudhon's mutualism and workers' cooperatives functioning within the capitalist world market).

Moreover, judging by the principles on which you base your analysis, you would be forced to support the so called "market socialist" model (which, in my opinion, can not and will not eliminate the material basis for class formation).

Now, you could argue in favour of a thesis that the Belarus state indeed advances the cause of the global proletariat.
If you'd do that, you'd also have to provide evidence.

[Gorilla]

Fuck the Belarus state.

After watching them repress the demonstrations after the rigged elections whoever claims to be a leftist yet supports this bullshit is insane.

Even the opposition in Belarus recognizes that Lukashenko is the most popular politician in the country. They have problems getting on TV etc. and there may have been some ballot-stuffing to exaggerate the margin of victory, but no one who knows anything about Belarus thinks that Lukashenko wouldn't have won that election by a large margin even under League of Women Voters standards.

It is a mistake to think that every nonviolent protest movement represents majority will, or even democratic values cf. Georgia's "Rose Revolution".

If you really want to see an example of vote-stealing look at Sali Berisha's Albania, but then no one ever talks about that.

[manic expression]

In a Marxian sense, you better bet your balls it's a black and white situation!

The Working class is either in power or it isn't,

Next...
Karl Marx disagrees (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm), so I have to say you're wrong. But you can forget about your wager.


But how does the bureaucracy function? As an effective capitalist, that is, "macro-manager" of capital accumulation or as a class aiming at the global abolition of the capitalist system?
In other words, there might be more than one capitalist class (recall Marx's observations regarding Proudhon's mutualism and workers' cooperatives functioning within the capitalist world market).
So who directly profits, through the ownership of privatized production as capitalists are wont to do, from this "capital accumulation"? Right, no one. Personal enrichment in such a state is through abuse of power, not through de jure or even de facto capitalist profit.


Now, you could argue in favour of a thesis that the Belarus state indeed advances the cause of the global proletariat.
If you'd do that, you'd also have to provide evidence.I argue that the Belarusian state is far better than the most likely present alternative, and that socialists should identify the material conditions of Belarus instead of running to comfortable platitudes. A perfect example of this is how you're now proposing that there are two capitalist classes who are apparently at odds with one another. Where is your argument except in the abstract? I'm talking about a state that is not controlled by the capitalist class and a state that has resisted privatization to the benefit of the workers. That's what we have to confront.

[Spartacus.]

Even the opposition in Belarus recognizes that Lukashenko is the most popular politician in the country. They have problems getting on TV etc. and there may have been some ballot-stuffing to exaggerate the margin of victory, but no one who knows anything about Belarus thinks that Lukashenko wouldn't have won that election by a large margin even under League of Women Voters standards.

It is a mistake to think that every nonviolent protest movement represents majority will, or even democratic values cf. Georgia's "Rose Revolution".

If you really want to see an example of vote-stealing look at Sali Berisha's Albania, but then no one ever talks about that.


I agree. :) It's funny how all kind of people call themselves "Communists", and yet they are unable to distinguish even the crudest imperialist propaganda from reality. Poor fellow probably saw a report about Belarus on FoxNews and thought that the pride of Goebbels in US must speak the true. In reality, the protests consisted of a few thousand US-paid mercenaries that wrecked havoc on the streets of Minsk, attacked police to provoke an incident and after several minor confrontations with them, after few dozens of them got detained for a couple of days, started crying about dictatorship in Belarus. :D



Laying aside US government double standards, there are a number of reasons to believe the 2006 presidential vote in Belarus was free and fair. All the polls, including the opposition’s IRI-paid poll, anticipated a Lukashenko victory as a virtual certainty. This reflected Lukashenko’s enormous popularity, something even members of the opposition acknowledge. [17] “Even his fiercest opponents don’t question the accuracy of independent polls that rate him the most popular politician in the country.” [18]
Lukashenko’s popularity derives from policies which favour the working class over Western investors. He has,

“presided over a continual increase in real wages for several years…He has also cut (the value added tax), brought down inflation, halved the number of people in poverty” and created “the fairest distribution of incomes of any country in the region.” [19]
Belarus’ egalitarianism has been a particular irritant to the US government. While the Lukashenko government’s income-redistribution policies have maintained a narrow gap between the rich and poor, they have also reduced the attractiveness of Belarus to the US corporate rich as a venue for profitable investment. With a choice of serving ordinary Belarusians or catering to corporate America, Lukashenko chose the former and incurred the wrath of the latter.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/west-takes-aim-at-belarus%e2%80%99-pro-social-policies/

Another good article about Belarus from Stephen Gowans:

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/a-model-social-state/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just to bring some balance here, we do have to give Lukashenko some credit for his slowing of privatisations from his initial election in 1994. That probably spared the Belarusians - along with their already high living standard - the worst of the IMF/Washington 'shock therapy' consequences.

It's difficult to defend what he's done since, though. Sort of un-democratic State Social Democracy. The human factor has probably come in and the guy can't relinquish power or modify his rule.

[Spartacus.]

It's difficult to defend what he's done since, though. Sort of un-democratic State Social Democracy. The human factor has probably come in and the guy can't relinquish power or modify his rule.


What makes Belarus un-democratic? And could you name your model of "democracy" that they should follow? Perhaps US? :rolleyes:

Btw; if you bother yourself to check links that I have posted, you will see that Lukashenko is, even by opposition members admission, by far the most popular politician in country. Clearly, that is a sign of him being a totalitarian dictator worse than Hitler. After all, in normal "democratic" countries the politicians are usually despised by their own people, so something there is definitely not right... :)

[Thirsty Crow]

What makes Belarus un-democratic?The fact that it is a country knee deep within the capitalist world market. A capitalist state, in other words. Worse still, any kind of left opposition, god forbid communist politics, does not stand a chance when this fanatstic social democrat leadership is concerned.

It's funny how people can call themselves "Communist" and disregard the most blatant facts about a capitalist state. It's almost as if they act like errand boys of an "anti-imperialist" faction of the bourgeoisie.

[Sword and Shield]

Remember kids, only Anglo-America-Western Europe counts as imperialist countries. There is no BRIC block, remember. Belarus is just a satellite of another imperial capitalist power, Russia.

Belarus follows an independent foreign policy. That's why Russia has been critical of Lukashenko for years now. You're stuck in 2008 or something. Apparently you even supported Obama back then. :laugh:

[Lyev]

I can understand how a mode of production isn't definite, say, if there is a sort of overlap of feudal and capitalist social relations -- like in 1930s Russia -- but unless dual power exists (which there certainly is not in Belarus), then can you really have a 'mixture' of socialism and capitalism? That's a pretty incoherent idea. Put simply: proletarians either control their workplaces or they don't. Was Britain under Attlee's Labour some kind of 'mixture' of 'socialism' and capitalism? I don't think so... I mean, there is a certain sense in which this concept makes a bit of sense, but only with a half-baked, social-democratic-style understanding of socialism. A 'socialist' policy often refers to nationalisation etc. within bourgeois political analysis.

[Return to the Source]

I think Manic_Expression's thinking is on the right track when he posted this quote from Lenin's Role and Functions of the Trade Unions Under The New Economic Policy:

"The New Economic Policy introduces a number of important changes in the position of the proletariat and, consequently, in that of the trade unions. The great bulk of the means of production in industry and the transport system remains in the hands of the proletarian state. This, together with the nationalisation of the land, shows that the New Economic Policy does not change the nature of the workers’ state, although it does substantially alter the methods and forms of socialist development for it permits of economic rivalry between socialism, which is now being built, and capitalism, which is trying to revive by supplying the needs of the vast masses of the peasantry through the medium of the market."
This doesn't adequately describe Belarus, but it demonstrates that elements of a capitalist system of production can exist under and within the framework of a proletarian state.

It's pretty foolish that people are quoting authors from the early 20th century--quotes written during the inception of the first socialist state in history--to try and definitively analyze an anomaly that resisted the restoration of capitalism at the end of the 20th century. There really isn't a thorough Marxist-Leninist evaluation of Belarus. We need one, because it's qualitatively different than a nationalist-bourgeois state like Iran, but clearly it didn't retain socialism like Cuba or the DPRK after the fall of the USSR.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What makes Belarus un-democratic? And could you name your model of "democracy" that they should follow? Perhaps US? :rolleyes:

Btw; if you bother yourself to check links that I have posted, you will see that Lukashenko is, even by opposition members admission, by far the most popular politician in country. Clearly, that is a sign of him being a totalitarian dictator worse than Hitler. After all, in normal "democratic" countries the politicians are usually despised by their own people, so something there is definitely not right... :)

He once said that he reduced his margin of victory to satisfy western observers.

If he can do that, then that tells you all you need to know about his hold on power. That he takes part in irregular, bourgeois (ironically, US-style, somewhat) elections are little more than a facade. That he is not the arch-Capitalist, is merely a distraction.

I'm not saying he's some evil guy or the arch-Capitalist or Judas or whatever, i'm simply pointing out that he is not a Socialist, and I don't really see what sort of Marxist analysis it is to say 'oh but he's more Socialist than Capitalist so he's good and not evil'. I mean, c'mon, can we not just objectively analyse Belarus?

State managed economy, half nationalised - but not worker controlled! - and half private sector, the latter growing. No evidence of any political democracy, maturity or consciousness being encouraged amongst the working class. So, you could conclude, this man is a Capitalist. Not necessarily the George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher archetypal **** of a Capitalist, but he has normalised Capitalist economic relations in Belarus. That it is more Social Democratic than the free market travesty that is most of Eastern Europe is irrelevant in the most part, as Social Democracy is simply a centre-left leaning of Capitalism, NOT a road to Socialism.

[pranabjyoti]

He once said that he reduced his margin of victory to satisfy western observers.
Most probably he is just joking.

[Chambered Word]

I don't always use RevLeft for political debate. Threads like this fulfill entertainment purposes as well.

[Jose Gracchus]

Guess people are always looking for a capitalist state to cheer lead. I can't believe people are extract out-of-context remarks about NEP under the Soviet state as somehow legitimizing Belarus as capitalism "under the framework of a proletarian state."

And the idea that Belarus is a benevolent autarky which exists totally independent of Russia is idiotic. No small state does not naturally fall into the sphere of an imperial power, especially today. It is also simple materialism: Belarus is a capitalist state. The working class is not in power. Do Marxists leave no room in their analysis for populist regimes? Certainly we should not cheer lead the Open Society Institute's desire to dismantle this semi-authoritarian social democracy, in favor of a neoliberal "liberal democracy" to the benefit of pro-Western elites. But we should not start calling every state that irritates the State Department "socialist" by definition.

[Sword and Shield]

Guess people are always looking for a capitalist state to cheer lead. I can't believe people are extract out-of-context remarks about NEP under the Soviet state as somehow legitimizing Belarus as capitalism "under the framework of a proletarian state."

And the idea that Belarus is a benevolent autarky which exists totally independent of Russia is idiotic. No small state does not naturally fall into the sphere of an imperial power, especially today. It is also simple materialism: Belarus is a capitalist state. The working class is not in power. Do Marxists leave no room in their analysis for populist regimes? Certainly we should not cheer lead the Open Society Institute's desire to dismantle this semi-authoritarian social democracy, in favor of a neoliberal "liberal democracy" to the benefit of pro-Western elites. But we should not start calling every state that irritates the State Department "socialist" by definition.

I could be wrong but I don't recall any of us calling Belarus socialist. I believe most of us said it was a deformed workers state or a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

[Return to the Source]

Sword and Shield is right: No one's claiming that Belarus is a socialist country, and no one's saying that Lenin's Role and Functions of the Trade Unions Under The New Economic Policy adequately describes present-day Belarus. In fact, I explicitly said, "This doesn't adequately describe Belarus."

When people talk about populist bourgeois states, I think of Iran. Belarus is qualitatively different, even from the perspective that most of the House of Representative members are unaffiliated with any political party and instead represent labor collectives, industrial workplaces, and town councils. More than half of the Belarusian economy is still state-owned and most of the social programs from the Soviet era are still intact.

Belarus isn't a socialist country, like Cuba or the DPRK, but I don't think it's a bourgeois state in the way Marxist-Leninists use the term. That it trades with Russia really doesn't tell us anything about the class character of the state, given that most socialist countries traded with capitalist countries at one time or another.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I could be wrong but I don't recall any of us calling Belarus socialist. I believe most of us said it was a deformed workers state or a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Erm, sorry, what does that even mean?

How can something be a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism?

It either has Socialist relations - the working class control the means of production, democratically - or it does not. It would have to have generally the former in order to be a deformed workers' state.

If something is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism, that generally screams 'Capitalist economic relations with some Welfarism' to me. Whilst, we must concede, this is the lesser evil when it comes to a choice between populist welfarism and a US-style free market, it is still Capitalism, however you square it.

A populist leader can implement as many reforms for the working class as they want, but it will still never be Socialism. We must be absolutely clear on this point. Socialism is revolution, by the workers, not reform on their behalf.