i have taken the time this morning to read the article. it doesn’t mention class relations even once. it seems to define socialism as “when government does stuff.” i don’t agree with this assessment. while government control over the economy is important for socialist development, it doesn’t automatically make an economy socialist.
for instance if you look at public sector size by % of employment, you will see that there are quite a few countries with higher percentages than Belarus, which are not socialist. And a lot of countries have similar public sector size, and are not socialist.
then, the article (in the paragraph that you quoted) talks about how there are no ruling parties because it maintains stability. to me it is completely revisionist to claim that you can have a dotp without a proletarian party. how else do you organise the working class? just on vibes?
is it your position that a working class party is unnecessary for dotp? because if so, then that is a major deviation from marxism leninism, and to me would need to be supported by a lot of evidence.
Thank you for keeping this conversation productive. Before we go to the basics and after rereading all of your comments again, it seems that our main disagreements are from the following comments(I paraphrase):
Belarus is not socialist because you don’t consider Lukashenko and his team to look like a Marxist Leninist Vanguard party. Due to this perception, you consider that Belarus has no vanguard party at all and no socialism.
Now, let’s go to the basics to have a common framework for both of us. With this, I will use “Critique of the Gotha Program” for my foundation:
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
With this sentence, we know that the most important aspect for a country to be considered socialist is the dictatorship of the proletariat. This leads to the next question: “What form should DOTP take? How should this look like?”
A vanguard party is not what makes a country socialist but the entire workers being able to participate in their development. Just having a vanguard is not DOTP. Just ask yourself how can the teachers, the workers unions, students, the scientist be able to influence their material conditions? Are all these masses of people within the Vanguard party?
One example of a DOTP is China and they explain this when you take the task of investigating the National People’s Congress:
The Constitution describes China as a socialist country governed by a people’s democratic dictatorship that is led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants. The fundamental nature of the state is defined by the people’s democratic dictatorship.
China upholds the unity of democracy and dictatorship to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. On the one hand, all power of the state belongs to the people to ensure that they administer state affairs and manage economic and cultural undertakings and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the Constitution and laws; on the other hand, China takes resolute action against any attempt to subvert the country’s political power or endanger public or state security, to uphold the dignity and order of law and safeguard the interests of the people and the state.
Now, going back to Belarus, they have a similar structure to the NPC of above called “Belarusian People’s Congress”:
The Belarusian People’s Congress has become a special form of grassroots democracy. It is a democratic institution that allows Belarus citizens to more broadly exercise their right to take part in national affairs – not only via elections of various levels and referendums, the operation of the parliament and municipal councils of deputies, through communication with people’s deputies.
The nationwide forum gathered delegates from every region of the country: representatives of all the branches of power, all spheres of the production sector, the private sector, science and education sectors, healthcare and culture, university students and veterans. These respected people – professionals, leaders, who are ready to speak up on topical affairs and make their own proposals – were nominated and elected in labor collectives and during public meetings.
In 2021, Belarus began a large-scale work to introduce amendments and additions to the Basic Law of the country. The Constitutional Commission was set up to prepare the draft. It consisted of 36 people – representatives of government bodies, legal science, public associations, various branches of economy and social sector - honored and prominent people with an active civic position.
In December 2021, the draft of amendments and additions to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus was made public for the national discussion: within three and a half weeks, over 8,900 opinions and proposals were submitted by Belarusians.
If the workers are in power and have the means to control the state, then we can safely conclude that they have socialism. As China usually says:
Democracy is not a decorative ornament, but an instrument for addressing the issues that concern the people. Whether a country is democratic depends on whether its people are truly the masters of the country; whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate extensively; whether they have been given verbal promises in elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are fulfilled after elections; whether there are set political procedures and rules in state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public scrutiny and checks.
That explanation above should take care of the DOTP aspect.
Now, let’s go back to Lukashenko. Belarusian communists support Alexander Lukashenko. In fact, the Communist Party was legalized thanks to Alexander Lukashenko as explained in this interview to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus, Sergei Syrankov. Even though aesthetically he might not be to the liking of Europeans or Western marxists, he did what a Marxist Leninist Vanguard party should have done and for that he has the total support of the Belarus Communist Party and the workers in Belarus. For Belarussians, he and his leadership apply perfectly to what you were requesting from a vanguard working class party. He and his leadership are completely in sync with the policies that the communist party support.
If you know spanish, you can listen to the following timestamps where they go through Lukashenko: 12:10 to 18.
Anyway, hope this clears our disagreements. Take care and cheers.
Yeah I think your position is more clear to me. I don’t particularly think the comparison to China is useful since China actually had a communist party in government. I am just really specific about the party aspect of a socialist state and I don’t think it can be brushed off so easily. Even if lukashenka is supported by the CPB, he is not part of their structure and discipline.
A vanguard party is not what makes a country socialist but the entire workers being able to participate in their development. Just having a vanguard is not DOTP. Just ask yourself how can the teachers, the workers unions, students, the scientist be able to influence their material conditions? Are all these masses of people within the Vanguard party?
A bit provocative question to this may be, can a liberal democratic system be socialist? Because most people (even working class) technically would consider that they influence their conditions by voting. Or participating in local government etc.
On the contrary, it is a useful comparison because it helps to understand the similarities of the two highest representative bodies of people’s power of each country.
Even if lukashenka is supported by the CPB, he is not part of their structure and discipline.
He is not part of them in the traditional way but they have their own unique structures in which they are part of. One example is the meeting on ideological work that happened in September 17th where the CPB participated alongside Lukashenko. Stuff like this just doesn’t happen in liberal democracies.
A bit provocative question to this may be, can a liberal democratic system be socialist? Because most people (even working class) technically would consider that they influence their conditions by voting. Or participating in local government etc.
We both know plenty of examples of what a liberal democracy is and how it can never be socialist. In the case of Belarus, it just doesn’t fit in that mold of “liberal democracy” while the US and European countries like the UK, Germany, Spain do fit perfectly.
i have taken the time this morning to read the article. it doesn’t mention class relations even once. it seems to define socialism as “when government does stuff.” i don’t agree with this assessment. while government control over the economy is important for socialist development, it doesn’t automatically make an economy socialist.
for instance if you look at public sector size by % of employment, you will see that there are quite a few countries with higher percentages than Belarus, which are not socialist. And a lot of countries have similar public sector size, and are not socialist.
then, the article (in the paragraph that you quoted) talks about how there are no ruling parties because it maintains stability. to me it is completely revisionist to claim that you can have a dotp without a proletarian party. how else do you organise the working class? just on vibes?
is it your position that a working class party is unnecessary for dotp? because if so, then that is a major deviation from marxism leninism, and to me would need to be supported by a lot of evidence.
Thank you for keeping this conversation productive. Before we go to the basics and after rereading all of your comments again, it seems that our main disagreements are from the following comments(I paraphrase):
Now, let’s go to the basics to have a common framework for both of us. With this, I will use “Critique of the Gotha Program” for my foundation:
With this sentence, we know that the most important aspect for a country to be considered socialist is the dictatorship of the proletariat. This leads to the next question: “What form should DOTP take? How should this look like?”
A vanguard party is not what makes a country socialist but the entire workers being able to participate in their development. Just having a vanguard is not DOTP. Just ask yourself how can the teachers, the workers unions, students, the scientist be able to influence their material conditions? Are all these masses of people within the Vanguard party?
One example of a DOTP is China and they explain this when you take the task of investigating the National People’s Congress:
The Constitution describes China as a socialist country governed by a people’s democratic dictatorship that is led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants. The fundamental nature of the state is defined by the people’s democratic dictatorship.
China upholds the unity of democracy and dictatorship to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country. On the one hand, all power of the state belongs to the people to ensure that they administer state affairs and manage economic and cultural undertakings and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the Constitution and laws; on the other hand, China takes resolute action against any attempt to subvert the country’s political power or endanger public or state security, to uphold the dignity and order of law and safeguard the interests of the people and the state.
Now, going back to Belarus, they have a similar structure to the NPC of above called “Belarusian People’s Congress”:
The Belarusian People’s Congress has become a special form of grassroots democracy. It is a democratic institution that allows Belarus citizens to more broadly exercise their right to take part in national affairs – not only via elections of various levels and referendums, the operation of the parliament and municipal councils of deputies, through communication with people’s deputies.
The nationwide forum gathered delegates from every region of the country: representatives of all the branches of power, all spheres of the production sector, the private sector, science and education sectors, healthcare and culture, university students and veterans. These respected people – professionals, leaders, who are ready to speak up on topical affairs and make their own proposals – were nominated and elected in labor collectives and during public meetings.
In 2021, Belarus began a large-scale work to introduce amendments and additions to the Basic Law of the country. The Constitutional Commission was set up to prepare the draft. It consisted of 36 people – representatives of government bodies, legal science, public associations, various branches of economy and social sector - honored and prominent people with an active civic position.
In December 2021, the draft of amendments and additions to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus was made public for the national discussion: within three and a half weeks, over 8,900 opinions and proposals were submitted by Belarusians.
If the workers are in power and have the means to control the state, then we can safely conclude that they have socialism. As China usually says:
That explanation above should take care of the DOTP aspect.
Now, let’s go back to Lukashenko. Belarusian communists support Alexander Lukashenko. In fact, the Communist Party was legalized thanks to Alexander Lukashenko as explained in this interview to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus, Sergei Syrankov. Even though aesthetically he might not be to the liking of Europeans or Western marxists, he did what a Marxist Leninist Vanguard party should have done and for that he has the total support of the Belarus Communist Party and the workers in Belarus. For Belarussians, he and his leadership apply perfectly to what you were requesting from a vanguard working class party. He and his leadership are completely in sync with the policies that the communist party support.
If you know spanish, you can listen to the following timestamps where they go through Lukashenko: 12:10 to 18.
Anyway, hope this clears our disagreements. Take care and cheers.
Yeah I think your position is more clear to me. I don’t particularly think the comparison to China is useful since China actually had a communist party in government. I am just really specific about the party aspect of a socialist state and I don’t think it can be brushed off so easily. Even if lukashenka is supported by the CPB, he is not part of their structure and discipline.
A bit provocative question to this may be, can a liberal democratic system be socialist? Because most people (even working class) technically would consider that they influence their conditions by voting. Or participating in local government etc.
On the contrary, it is a useful comparison because it helps to understand the similarities of the two highest representative bodies of people’s power of each country.
He is not part of them in the traditional way but they have their own unique structures in which they are part of. One example is the meeting on ideological work that happened in September 17th where the CPB participated alongside Lukashenko. Stuff like this just doesn’t happen in liberal democracies.
We both know plenty of examples of what a liberal democracy is and how it can never be socialist. In the case of Belarus, it just doesn’t fit in that mold of “liberal democracy” while the US and European countries like the UK, Germany, Spain do fit perfectly.
A perfect example of liberal democracy is the US where a multivariate analysis proves that average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. Voting does not improve the material conditions of the working class in liberal democracies.
Meanwhile in Belarus: