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.
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: