belarus: a beacon of hope after the dissolution of the ussr
How likely is it that the Communist Party of Belarus could take power after the president, given that roughly 5% of the population belongs to the party?
What if I told you that Belarus is socialist and it kept the old system after USSR dissolved. To read more about it, the Chinese marxist, Cheng Enfu, has an a study of Belarus’s economic system -> https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169%2Fworlrevipoliecon.11.4.0428
Also, you can read more about their proletarian democracy from their website regarding the Belarusian People’s congress -> https://president.gov.by/en/gosudarstvo/citizen-participation/state-and-local-assemblies/all-belarusian-peoples
The Belarusian People’s Congress is the highest representative body of people’s power of the Republic of Belarus, which determines the strategic areas of development of society and the state, ensures the inviolability of the constitutional system, the continuity of generations, and civil accord. https://president.gov.by/en/gosudarstvo/citizen-participation/state-and-local-assemblies/all-belarusian-peoples
Also, Here’s a Bloomberg article lamenting how it works.
In spanish, we also have https://xcancel.com/ActualidadBel/ that explains their work and labor rights. In case you are curious about something specific, you can ask them questions.
Thanks, I was giving it a read. Belarus’ economy is genuinely impressive. But do you think a Marxist-Leninist ruling party could realistically come to power in Belarus to guide the Belarusian proletariat toward communism?
Well, are you sure that they are not Marxist Leninist? If so, how could you explain this video:
Summary:
-
☝🏼Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko expressed interest in the new textbook on political economy for university students.
-
"What place does Marxism-Leninism occupy in this textbook on modern political economy? ", Lukashenko asks.
-
Belarusian economist answers: “The first and most important place!✊🏼”
Conversations like this will be a dream for plenty of people in the ex soviet countries that ditched socialism.
one comment about a textbook doesn’t prove that belarus is ruled by a communist party
In what other country have you heard of putting Marxism-Leninism as the first and most important place on political economy for university students?
If that is not an enough clue, there are more actions that they have taken such as:
- Fighting historical revisionism that is rampant in ex soviet countries
- Denazification schools
- Anti-Sovietism and Anti-communism slander is not state policy
Edit. For anyone that want a thorough break down of Belarus DOTP, I wrote more about it here -> https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9576137
Is your argument that belaya rus is secretly an ML party? I don’t really understand where you’re going with this
My point is don’t dismiss or look down on the actions and policies which is what has a direct impact on the people. Also, take into consideration the history of that country and the fact that they were betrayed by the vanguard party(CPSU) until the collapse of the USSR.
Belarus maintaining their socialist system after the chaos of the 90s is not possible under a liberal or under an unprincipled “marxist” that actively supported Glasnost and Peretroiska(Gorbachevs).
This part from Cheng Enfu helps clear my past point:
Second, an efficient state governance system featured by “vertical management” should be established. There is no ruling party in Belarus, and parliamentary groups do not play any decisive role in parliamentary elections. As a “witness” to the horrors accompanying the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lukashenko has a novel and unique understanding of the role of political parties, arguing that political parties should be organized from the top down with generally clear political opinions and a complete organizational system, mainly engaged in political struggles with their initial goal to gain power, and govern according to their programs. The differences between different political parties are mainly in the choice of the country’s development path and system. The establishment of state power in Belarus makes it unnecessary to engage in tedious discussions on these issues, as partisan arguments can only exacerbate political divisions and be of no benefit to improve the efficiency of state institutions or ensure social justice. On this basis, a system of “vertical management” has been established in Belarus, in which the president can intervene in grass-roots work at any time. Lukashenko also advocates that government officials must have the experience of serving in local communities, the economy must be managed by economists, the health sector must be administrated by medical experts, the Ministry of Education must be led by people with university management experience, and all leaders must be professionals in order to improve the level of management and governing efficiency.
Lukashenko has made it so that civil servants and public officials are forbidden to go into business. They must work in their own positions during their working hours and are given no time to do business, otherwise conflicts of interest and corruption may arise (Lukashenko 2006). Lukashenko also sets an example by applying these rules to himself and those close to him. He says that he has been a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union(…)
Source -> https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169%2Fworlrevipoliecon.11.4.0428 (Must read. The marxist economist Cheng Enfu did a good job with this study)
-
As they aren’t listed in our current AES countries of the world, I think they’re missing that essential element of having a communist vanguard party and a clear goal of achieving communism.
If you read Samir Amin’s Russia & the Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism he talks abt how the Soviet mode of production persisted after the collapse of the USSR so you saw a lot of the community structures and food sources etc lingering despite the violence of privatization
Isn’t Belarus like an authoritarian regime like RF rn? Lukashenkon using power to stay in that said power with communist party being nothing more than controlled opposition (like well in RF), genuinely asking bc sources such as much more known to me as Rudoy and Kagarlitsky present facts against any possibilities of socialism existing in both said countries without new revolution
First of all, accusations of authoritarianism are a meaningless one at this point, every socialist state that has ever existed has also been accused of being authoritarian. Pro imperialists use this word to demonize both past and present socialist states and dismiss any argument in support of these state. By contrast, you will never hear this accusation being used in the same way against Western regimes or Western backed regimes in the Global South. For instance, why is the Keir Starver regime not accused of being authoritarian when they are persecuting people for opposing a genocide?
Secondly, all states are “authoritarian” by definition. A state holds the monopoly on violence in its territory. Whether any form of authority and organization can be called a state is a matter of semantics. Contrasting this to the West, authority in Belarus are used in the benefit for the people. If you are seriously interested in Belarus, I recommend you to investigate them and their policies through https://xcancel.com/ActualidadBel/ .
Authority is indeed a buzzword, however in that case it is about excessive authority (let’s say) presence in government system of Lukashenko and Putin, they are not socialist, their interests lies in being at the top of corrupt post-soviet systems that were designed to be that way, I from CIS myself and every of 15 “free republic™” seems just a different flavour of catalist exploitation, that’s why i ask for clarification about possible socialism
You’re not far off there, however, we tend to support Russia, Belarus, etc despite their current economic governance. It goes much further than just political alignment; anti-imperialism is something that is equally as valuable in the current world dominated by the West and it’s economic hegemony.
Russia defending against NATO expansion, exhausting the resources of a burgeoning Nazi state and it’s collaborators is generally anti-imperialist.
It’s why posts like these are made, to point out that political elements within this countries we do support or applaud for their efforts; even if we don’t always agree with them entirely.
I think you need to challenge that liberal bias that you currently hold. The way you talk about these two gov’t reminds me of the Miami “Cubans” that hold very strong bias against Cuba while ignoring that they are actively being hunted down by ICE in the “Free” and “Democratic” USA. No clarification or source that I share will be able to help if you still hold strong liberalism.
If you are new to marxism, you can check this guide done by one of our comrades -> https://lemmy.ml/post/22417306
and I absolutely recommend this book to dispel liberalism and anticommunist bias:
I am not new, i want to say that i as the guy from CIS itself has a tendency to research more, and have russia speaking sources of current communists as Rudoy and Kagarlitsky that clearly suffer from Putin’s regime for example.
Changing one imperalist to another is not an answer and while i get that it is a ww1 situation, i don’t see much of agitation about both sides (Nato, ODKB) losing, more like pure anti NATO narrative without criticism towards what happens to be anti western imperalism (this time it being post-soviet capitalists, exploiting USSRs legacy to the profit of the ones at the top)
You keep using the words regime and imperialism in bad faith which is very common thing from liberals. To avoid rewriting what other comrades have explained, the imperialism accusation against Russia has been discussed before in Lemmygrad:
- Is Russia imperialist?
- Introductory post about NATO’s war in Ukraine If you want to open a new discussion about it, please do so in the community c/askLemmygrad so more comrades join in.
As for the regime accusation, liberals love accusing non western non aligned countries with that cheap label while ignoring their own countries crimes. From my standpoint, within the ex soviet countries(now capitalist), there are better examples of what a regime does. The worst offender of this is Ukraine governed by the Banderites. From the CIS, we have Uzbekistan or Moldova. Hell, even worse examples of regimes(outside the CIS) are the Keir Starmer regime, the US regime, the German regime and all of the Western countries that banned communist parties and studies. Those offender have even go well beyond to engage in historical revisionism, fascism whitewashing and anti soviet propaganda financed by the Western imperialists.
Once again, it is important to challenge that liberal bias that you currently hold and see the proponents of liberalism, which is the West and their bootlickers, for what they really are.
I am not trying to hypocritically accuse scary-scary russia of being omnipresent bas guy and hence western nazis good, no. What im trying to say is Lemmygrad critically uses RF as a “counter-weight” (as one of answer on first link suggests) or, it is somewhow thinks that Belarus and/or Russia will be a beacon of socialism (not happening) or even worse that they are “everything good, against bad west”
Now, the way you answered my question, from my perspective is you suppose that i am some kind of stupid left-liberal, that does not see the whole picture of current hegemony of the west, and that what i did not like. Now, what i wanted to say is that we, as the communists should be of course using infighting of fascists, capitalists etc to achieve our own goals, however there shouldn’t be any hopes about RF, Belarus or any other entity that is not socialist/communist presenting some kind of “acceptable alternative” that we will bow our head to
I’m pretty sure Parenti actively disparages Lukashenko specifically in BS&R. Calling him an apologist for hitler at one point iirc.
I found the quote in chapter 6 of the book:
In 1996, Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko, a self-professed admirer of Adolph Hitler s organizational skills, shut down the independent newspapers and radio stations and decreed the opposition parliament defunct. Lukashenko was awarded absolute power in a referendum that claimed an inflated turnout, with no one knowing how many ballots were printed or how they were counted. Some opposition leaders fled for their lives. “Once a rich Soviet republic that produced tractors and TVs, Belarus is now [a] basket case” with a third of the population living “in deep poverty” (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 12/4/96).
-pg 97 paragraph 2
Damn, I missed that part when I read it and a Rare L to Parenti. Thanks for pointing this out. It is still a good book to dispel cheap anticommunist rhetoric but maybe there are other books that do a better job in attacking liberalism for beginners 🤔
Funnily enough, Belarus still has their state factory for tractors up and running. They didn’t lose most of their manufacturing compared to the other ex soviet states that fell to neoliberalism. This goes to show how dangerous is to be misinformed as an author.
Considering how soon after the collapse this was I’d say it’s forgiven to hold a pessimistic view of any post soveit leader who didn’t explicitly declare themselves a communist.
He makes similiar remarks about China’s reform and opening up if I’m not mistaken. The whole period was undeniably a dismal time for the international communist movement, and it’s hard imagine someone coming to our current perspective after appreciating the gravity of capitlist victory.
I don’t find it hard to believe Belarus would have been plunged into poverty, the entire soveit trade network collapsed, any country in those conditions would be desolate as can be seen with the entire post soveit world.
Yeah, in Parenti’s defense it’s fair to be skeptical in the 90s. Shit was bleak and there was a lack of clarity going on amidst all the neolib disinfo and triumphalism.
The whole period was undeniably a dismal time for the international communist movement, and it’s hard imagine someone coming to our current perspective after appreciating the gravity of capitlist victory.
Very true. This may explain his views. Thanks for sharing this!
What metric determines how “excessive” authority is? Who determines how much authority is too much? What does it look like to exceed one’s authority? Is “excessive” authority inherently bad or is that conditional on how it’s used?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KguCywYHg_g&pp=ygUd0KDRg9C00L7QuSDQm9GD0LrQsNGI0LXQvdC60L4%3D there is an explanation i watched. Should have english subtitles
Tldr: beating up anything that opposes current capitalism, including communists (actual revolutionary, not the one of controled opposition like KPRF), hence Lukashenko and his regime couldn’t be a beacon of socialism, he just happens to be using aesthetics with some anti-western narrative to his own profit
Any intelligent regime is going to repress factions that pose a threat to its stability.
Belarus is on the border of NATO. It can’t afford instability for the West to exploit. This is why Lukashenko is involved in Ukraine, why he’s so close to Russia, and why he didn’t join the invasion when his generals threatened to rebel.
I sympathize with my comrades in Belarus but agitating against their government while NATO still exists right on their front door is a misguided decision. KPRF understands this.
Agree, but what does “KRPF understand this” should mean? I don’t see Zuganov being any kind of serious communist after decades of him being a bootlicker of a current regime
And yes, it is obvious that any regime will repress dissidents, the question is, regime of who - DotP repressing reactionaries or capitalists beating any kind of workers movement
Zuganov is one man. A powerful man, sure, but still only one. He isn’t the party as a whole.
I don’t know enough about Zuganov to comment on his commitment to Marxism but I sincerely doubt he’s the only one with power in the party and that none of the 160,000 or so members can do anything to remove him if they think he’s doing a bad job so I can only assume they agree with the direction he’s taken the party.
And when it comes to working against United Russia and working with United Russia while the more based option is to oppose it the smarter move is to work with them and not create instability for the U.S. to exploit.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
