Belarus: Deformed Workers' State?

[Fourth Internationalist]

To the adherents of the deformed workers' state theory: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are all often considered deformed workers' state. Belarus is a country in Eastern Europe that has a mostly state-controlled economy and is said to remain "Soviet-styled". Other than that, I am not very familiar with the country. Is Belarus a deformed workers' state, why or why not?

[Comrade Chernov]

I know very little about Belarus, but it does retain many Soviet institutions (the KGB being a prime example). Its president, however, runs as an Independent, as do most of the politicians in its parliament, so I'm not sure to what extent Socialism is involved in its politics so much as its economics.

[tuwix]

The "deformed workers' state" is Trotsky's term reffering to the Soviet Union and suggesting that Soviet Russia was in som time workers' state. But actually it never was. During Lenin's time Russia were his dictatorship toward world revolution. And to describe Stalin's 'achievements' in terms of wotker's tate is just waste of time.

And Belarus is just dictatorship with some remnants of the Soviet Union. There is more remnants than in Russia, but it is not soviet state in any way.

[Ocean Seal]

There cannot really be any more deformed workers states. They require a social imperialist hub. One which no longer exists. They have nothing to form around and are thoroughly dependent on the imperialist powers. They must run their countries like a well oiled machine.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The "deformed workers' state" is Trotsky's term reffering to the Soviet Union and suggesting that Soviet Russia was in som time workers' state.

No, that would be a degenerated workers' state. He never used the term deformed workers' state which is different from a degenerated workers state.

Again this question is to those who accept the deformed workers state theory, not for off topic anti-Leninst talk.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a mixed economy. Lukashenko has done a lot of privatising in the 21st century. It's also a dictatorship, not a workers' state.

I'll give you that it's deformed, though. It's a classic case that some people will defend it because, in some of its more authoritarian features, it harks back to the Soviet Union.

[Art Vandelay]

The argument that the theory of the deformed workers state is implicit in Trotsky's degenerated workers state is false. For a worker's state to be a worker's state, there needs to be a working class revolution. The theory of the deformed worker's state stems from a misunderstanding of Trotsky and the fetishization of nationalization.

[Sasha]

the concept of the deformed workerstate is an even more ludicrous position than "normal" anti-imp'ism, congrats to the Trots for being stupider than the stalinoids for a change.
though i guess they need just need more excuses for cuddling up to bourgeois dictatorships than the competition, so maybe its a plus in some warped way.

[Fourth Internationalist]

the concept of the deformed workerstate is an even more ludicrous position than "normal" anti-imp'ism, congrats to the Trots for being stupider than the stalinoids for a change.
though i guess they need just need more excuses for cuddling up to bourgeois dictatorships than the competition, so maybe its a plus in some warped way.

Advocating political revolutions to overthrow the beauracracies in those countries to restore working class power is very much the opposite of "cuddling up" to the regimes.

[Sasha]

Like its ever about "advocating political revolutions to overthrow the burocracies" instead of picking sides in bourgeois factional conflict..

[Art Vandelay]

the concept of the deformed workerstate is an even more ludicrous position than "normal" anti-imp'ism, congrats to the Trots for being stupider than the stalinoids for a change.
though i guess they need just need more excuses for cuddling up to bourgeois dictatorships than the competition, so maybe its a plus in some warped way.

You're an admin, act like one. This isn't an acceptable response to a thread in learning.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Like its ever about "advocating political revolutions to overthrow the burocracies" instead of picking sides in bourgeois factional conflict..
Except it is about that. No, we don't want the US for example invading a deformed workers state. If you view the dws as capitalist, fine. Even then, you should be against conflict, and offer critical support to the victimised country. I mean, an invasion, sanctions, and other stuff against North Korea, Iran, etc. are hurting people. We should support those people by fighting against imperialism. Not by giving uncritical support to a beaurocratic government, but by advocating for socialism, having solidarity with the masses in those countries, and trying to get our own governments to stop what they're doing. This isn't "cuddling up" to "bourgeois dictators" in any way, shape, or form.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To the adherents of the deformed workers' state theory: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are all often considered deformed workers' state. Belarus is a country in Eastern Europe that has a mostly state-controlled economy and is said to remain "Soviet-styled". Other than that, I am not very familiar with the country. Is Belarus a deformed workers' state, why or why not?

I am not that familiar with the Belorussian economy, but as far as I can tell, while a lot of the economy is state-owned, the industrial and financial core of the economy seems to be owned partly by a native bourgeoisie (unlike China's overseas bourgeoisie). And there was obviously a capitalist counterrevolution in the nineties.


The argument that the theory of the deformed workers state is implicit in Trotsky's degenerated workers state is false. For a worker's state to be a worker's state, there needs to be a working class revolution. The theory of the deformed worker's state stems from a misunderstanding of Trotsky and the fetishization of nationalization.

How is it, then, that only a few very confused Grantists claim that, for example, Syria was a deformed workers' state at some point? I think you are right about the necessity of a workers' revolution - but it doesn't have to be a domestic revolution. I think you are missing the connection between deformed workers' state - the glacis states, if you will, and the impulses originating in the proletarian economic forms in Russia.


Like its ever about "advocating political revolutions to overthrow the burocracies" instead of picking sides in bourgeois factional conflict..

Right, when the ICL sent their cadres into the Soviet Union and Democratic Germany to agitate against capitalist restoration and for a proletarian revolution - which got some of them killed - that was "picking sides in a bourgeois factional conflict".

[Art Vandelay]

How is it, then, that only a few very confused Grantists claim that, for example, Syria was a deformed workers' state at some point? I think you are right about the necessity of a workers' revolution - but it doesn't have to be a domestic revolution. I think you are missing the connection between deformed workers' state - the glacis states, if you will, and the impulses originating in the proletarian economic forms in Russia.

Revolution by conquest is not a valid tactic for spreading proletarian revolution. The fact that Bolsheviks were sliding into revolution by conquest as early as 1920 (Poland, Georgia) were early signs of the revolutions degeneration.

[Brutus]

Advocating political revolutions to overthrow the beauracracies in those countries to restore working class power is very much the opposite of "cuddling up" to the regimes.

Restore? The working class had no power originally in the "deformed workers' states".

[Fourth Internationalist]

Restore? The working class had no power originally in the "deformed workers' states".

You know what I mean.