Not everyone in the western left demonizes countries like the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK, Laos, Nicaragua, Belarus, Palestine, or even countries we are more critical of yet acknowledge the strategic advantage of allyship against western imperialism like the Russian Federation and Iran. However, within the broader western left, even mentioning any kind of understanding or sympathizing with the DPRK will get you immediately seen as an enemy. It’s important to recognize this tendency and its sources so that we can unite everyone that can be genuinely united.
Exactly! These are real struggles we are forced to confront in real life as we organize. Inevitably, anticommunists will wield the demonized caricatures of AES or otherwise anti-imperialist countries like a club against our movements, no matter the actual relation of said caricatures to reality. The “western left” agrees with them, then hurts their own movement, as saying “this time it will be different” is entirely unconvincing.
These movements also fail like TERFs fail, by demonizing potential allies and isolating themselves.
Quasi, not outright I’d say. They hold the strongest to their soviet roots out of any of the post-soviet countries, and maintain more state control than most. They haven’t had the same systemic destruction of their soviet past and systems that the rest of the post-socialist countries have had, with the partial exception of Russia.
They, alongside Russia, are easily 2 of the most likely countries to adopt a socialist economy in the nearish future.
Eh, I consider China to already be a socialist economy broadly, in that the principle aspect of their economy is public ownership, and the backbone is in huge state owned enterprises while small and medium firms are more privately or cooperatively owned, with the working classes in charge of the state. If Russia and Belarus were to turn once again to socialism, they would be most likely to adopt a similar socialist market economy similar to China’s, at first. It’s unlikely that they’d pivot towards a DPRK-style economy where private ownership is relegated to special economic zones like Rason, while the extreme super-majority of production and distribution lies in the hands of the state.
In the long run? To your point, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia and Belarus were more aggressive with collectivization than the PRC, considering they are already heavily sanctioned by western economies and thus driven to a more firm approach to geopolitics than the PRC. China’s strategy cannot be simply copied by any country, it worked for a specific period of time and for specific conditions relevant to China that would not necessarily work for Russia and Belarus.
I’ll maintain my disagreement principally on the grounds that the capitalists alongside capital speculation haven’t been liquidated, and the PRC hasn’t reached the levels of socialist planning and control that the Soviets had established puts their economic system as it currently exists closer to the United States at the peak of WW2 under FDR than any point of the Soviets prior to perestroika. I of course understand they’re taking the runabout way towards a socialist socio-economic system that minimizes human suffering while steadily building up their foundations and every level of the building thereafter of a prosperous society for all, but it still doesn’t change the fact that they’re currently lacking in the areas that have been reached by other communist-ran states.
With regards to the former Soviet socialist states of Russia and Belarus, frankly I hold tempered and modest expectations for them concidering the work that’s been put in by the communist parties there, with my expectations resting greater on Belarus than they do on Russia. I am currently watching and waiting to see what occurs after the Ukraine war primarily, and the eventual retirement and/or death of Putin, to see the direction Russia moves towards in addition to observing the spinal fortitude of the Communist parties that exist within before having any hopes of a socialist state possibly being reborn from the current capitalist system. I think it would be more realistic they continue existing as a capitalist state that’s pushed towards further coupling its economy to the Chinese mixed economic market in the same manner of the mating habits of the deep-sea Anglerfish.
I think what gets overlooked in these discussions is that capital was legally liquidated, but still existed in the soviet union in extensive black markets. The presence of private property wasn’t totally abolished, but was forced under the table and out of sight. Even with the black markets, the soviet economy of course was still more planned and controlled than the PRC’s present form, but it wasn’t a clear cut case of abolishing private property in the USSR.
What matters in determining if a country is socialist or not is if the working class is in control of the state, and public ownership the principle aspect of the economy. Both the PRC and the USSR at all points have fit that understanding (with the exception of the last days of the soviet union), to greater or lesser degrees. It isn’t whether private ownership has been legally abolished, or the ratio of private to public.
Of course, over time the state’s goal is to collectivize production and distribution. I don’t think we disagree there. However, I think such direct comparisons of the ratios of such and such countries as an indication of whether or not a country is meaningfully “socialist” at a nominal level isn’t quite right.
As for Russia and Belarus, I do agree that Belarus is likely closer. I think the greatest reason why they would adopt a model closer to China’s is moreso because of compatibility with the Chinese economy, and that perhaps they would collectivize at similar rates, for better and worse.
I would say that we should make sure to carefully make a distinction between saying capital existed in a continuous form in the Soviet Union as the black market vs observing that it was the exchange of illegal commodities smuggled in. I do suppose that does unto itself form a sort of capitalist market as its the importation of commodities from capital states in pursuit of profit, yet the existence of a illegal commodity market doesn’t mean capital existed within the Soviet Union. The illegal commodity markets did not form a distinctive expropriating class that could influence the governance of the State as you mentioned in your second paragraph. The distinction also holds fairly true for China as well due to the fact that capitalists may exist within the state’s economic system they are kept on an extremely tight lease by the party to ensure they do not collaborate amongst themselves and with international finance capital to organize themselves into their own class. Key difference for me stands on the fact that they still exist and are allowed to exert their influence on the decision processes of the state. This may be limited to the individual level instead of a class level, yet it demarcated a clear difference for the Soviet Union during the transition from the NEP to a planned economy and I would argue that key point aught be considered the one of the sections in the line in the ground that demarcates a socialist economy from a mixed economy. Of course all in all this is more of an academic discussion at the end of the day because we’re not the ones that planned the Soviet economy nor the ones planning the Chinese economy thus I think there’s plenty of holes in my understanding of how they would draw concrete and definite delineations among the stages of socialist construction.
I agree, this is purely academic. I don’t think you’re wrong, per se, this is largely a semantical argument. Beyond the mercantilist commodity markets, there was also cooperative ownership in the agricultural sector. No socialist economy has ever been “pure,” even the DPRK has private ownership in special economic zones like Rason. That’s why I put an emphasis on looking at which aspect of the economy is principle, and which class is dominant.
China’s Socialist Market Economy is quite different from the soviet model. In some ways, it’s lagging behind even the Maoist era when it comes to societal guarantees. At the same time, I do believe that we have to understand that the path they’ve chosen has largely worked out heavily in favor of the PRC, and allowed them to surpass the USSR in other areas.
I believe when we try to identify socialism as what the soviets did, we are making an error (not saying you do that). We need to apply dialectical materialism consistently towards how we view socialist states and their progress.
It’s a low bar, but they’re more socialist than any nordic country at least. Lukashenko’s said nothing better than Marxism-Leninism so far has been invented in or after (?) a discussion with Dugin (yeah, I know). He’s, like, begrudgingly socialist because he’s at least smart enough to see how fucking stupid liberals and liberalism are. Belarus also has lower poverty rates than anywhere in Europe last I checked.
For example, the Faculty of Humanities and Language Communications. It used to be called simply the Faculty of Philology, but after several new specialties emerged, the name was changed on the advice of scientists. “We sometimes try to play smart where there is absolutely no need for that, trying hard to stay on trend, not be retrogrades. We need to stay simple, to be understandable for people,” [Lukashenko] said.
In this regard, he pointed out that in his time after the collapse of the USSR people shied away from such words as ideology or propaganda. But there is nothing wrong with them. “Aren’t we agitating for something? I always campaign you to do this or that,” Aleksandr Lukashenko said.
Valentina Bogatyreva gifted the new textbook “Modern Political Economy” to the president.
“What place does the Marxist-Leninist ideology occupy in this modern political economy?” the head of state said.
“The primary one,” [Bogatyreva] replied.
“Have you decided to go back to it?” Aleksandr Lukashenko wondered.
Poverty measured by the upper middle-income poverty line of $6.85 in 2017PPP remained low in Belarus, at around 1 to 2 percent of the
population between 2018 and 2020. Based on the national poverty line (the minimum subsistence budget), poverty declined from 3.9 percent in
2022 to 3.6 percent in 2023.
Belarus’ economy expanded by 3.9 percent in 2023, rebounding from a contraction of 4.7 percent in 2022. Households’ real disposable income
rose by 6.3 percent in 2023, bouncing back from a 3.6 percent decline in 2022. Although employment fell by 1 percent year-on-year, this was
balanced by an 11 percent increase in real wages and a 3.8 percent increase in real pensions.
Not everyone in the western left demonizes countries like the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK, Laos, Nicaragua, Belarus, Palestine, or even countries we are more critical of yet acknowledge the strategic advantage of allyship against western imperialism like the Russian Federation and Iran. However, within the broader western left, even mentioning any kind of understanding or sympathizing with the DPRK will get you immediately seen as an enemy. It’s important to recognize this tendency and its sources so that we can unite everyone that can be genuinely united.
I’m a simple girl. I see a cowbee comment I upvote. You have taught me a lot and your reading list is top tier.
Thank you so much, comrade!
Yeah that’s true. If I mention that I don’t think Kim Jong Un is literally Satan people get all mad.
Exactly! These are real struggles we are forced to confront in real life as we organize. Inevitably, anticommunists will wield the demonized caricatures of AES or otherwise anti-imperialist countries like a club against our movements, no matter the actual relation of said caricatures to reality. The “western left” agrees with them, then hurts their own movement, as saying “this time it will be different” is entirely unconvincing.
These movements also fail like TERFs fail, by demonizing potential allies and isolating themselves.
Belarus? are they socialist?
Quasi, not outright I’d say. They hold the strongest to their soviet roots out of any of the post-soviet countries, and maintain more state control than most. They haven’t had the same systemic destruction of their soviet past and systems that the rest of the post-socialist countries have had, with the partial exception of Russia.
They, alongside Russia, are easily 2 of the most likely countries to adopt a socialist economy in the nearish future.
Chinaheads going
rn frfr
Eh, I consider China to already be a socialist economy broadly, in that the principle aspect of their economy is public ownership, and the backbone is in huge state owned enterprises while small and medium firms are more privately or cooperatively owned, with the working classes in charge of the state. If Russia and Belarus were to turn once again to socialism, they would be most likely to adopt a similar socialist market economy similar to China’s, at first. It’s unlikely that they’d pivot towards a DPRK-style economy where private ownership is relegated to special economic zones like Rason, while the extreme super-majority of production and distribution lies in the hands of the state.
In the long run? To your point, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia and Belarus were more aggressive with collectivization than the PRC, considering they are already heavily sanctioned by western economies and thus driven to a more firm approach to geopolitics than the PRC. China’s strategy cannot be simply copied by any country, it worked for a specific period of time and for specific conditions relevant to China that would not necessarily work for Russia and Belarus.
I’ll maintain my disagreement principally on the grounds that the capitalists alongside capital speculation haven’t been liquidated, and the PRC hasn’t reached the levels of socialist planning and control that the Soviets had established puts their economic system as it currently exists closer to the United States at the peak of WW2 under FDR than any point of the Soviets prior to perestroika. I of course understand they’re taking the runabout way towards a socialist socio-economic system that minimizes human suffering while steadily building up their foundations and every level of the building thereafter of a prosperous society for all, but it still doesn’t change the fact that they’re currently lacking in the areas that have been reached by other communist-ran states.
With regards to the former Soviet socialist states of Russia and Belarus, frankly I hold tempered and modest expectations for them concidering the work that’s been put in by the communist parties there, with my expectations resting greater on Belarus than they do on Russia. I am currently watching and waiting to see what occurs after the Ukraine war primarily, and the eventual retirement and/or death of Putin, to see the direction Russia moves towards in addition to observing the spinal fortitude of the Communist parties that exist within before having any hopes of a socialist state possibly being reborn from the current capitalist system. I think it would be more realistic they continue existing as a capitalist state that’s pushed towards further coupling its economy to the Chinese mixed economic market in the same manner of the mating habits of the deep-sea Anglerfish.
I think what gets overlooked in these discussions is that capital was legally liquidated, but still existed in the soviet union in extensive black markets. The presence of private property wasn’t totally abolished, but was forced under the table and out of sight. Even with the black markets, the soviet economy of course was still more planned and controlled than the PRC’s present form, but it wasn’t a clear cut case of abolishing private property in the USSR.
What matters in determining if a country is socialist or not is if the working class is in control of the state, and public ownership the principle aspect of the economy. Both the PRC and the USSR at all points have fit that understanding (with the exception of the last days of the soviet union), to greater or lesser degrees. It isn’t whether private ownership has been legally abolished, or the ratio of private to public.
Of course, over time the state’s goal is to collectivize production and distribution. I don’t think we disagree there. However, I think such direct comparisons of the ratios of such and such countries as an indication of whether or not a country is meaningfully “socialist” at a nominal level isn’t quite right.
As for Russia and Belarus, I do agree that Belarus is likely closer. I think the greatest reason why they would adopt a model closer to China’s is moreso because of compatibility with the Chinese economy, and that perhaps they would collectivize at similar rates, for better and worse.
I would say that we should make sure to carefully make a distinction between saying capital existed in a continuous form in the Soviet Union as the black market vs observing that it was the exchange of illegal commodities smuggled in. I do suppose that does unto itself form a sort of capitalist market as its the importation of commodities from capital states in pursuit of profit, yet the existence of a illegal commodity market doesn’t mean capital existed within the Soviet Union. The illegal commodity markets did not form a distinctive expropriating class that could influence the governance of the State as you mentioned in your second paragraph. The distinction also holds fairly true for China as well due to the fact that capitalists may exist within the state’s economic system they are kept on an extremely tight lease by the party to ensure they do not collaborate amongst themselves and with international finance capital to organize themselves into their own class. Key difference for me stands on the fact that they still exist and are allowed to exert their influence on the decision processes of the state. This may be limited to the individual level instead of a class level, yet it demarcated a clear difference for the Soviet Union during the transition from the NEP to a planned economy and I would argue that key point aught be considered the one of the sections in the line in the ground that demarcates a socialist economy from a mixed economy. Of course all in all this is more of an academic discussion at the end of the day because we’re not the ones that planned the Soviet economy nor the ones planning the Chinese economy thus I think there’s plenty of holes in my understanding of how they would draw concrete and definite delineations among the stages of socialist construction.
I agree, this is purely academic. I don’t think you’re wrong, per se, this is largely a semantical argument. Beyond the mercantilist commodity markets, there was also cooperative ownership in the agricultural sector. No socialist economy has ever been “pure,” even the DPRK has private ownership in special economic zones like Rason. That’s why I put an emphasis on looking at which aspect of the economy is principle, and which class is dominant.
China’s Socialist Market Economy is quite different from the soviet model. In some ways, it’s lagging behind even the Maoist era when it comes to societal guarantees. At the same time, I do believe that we have to understand that the path they’ve chosen has largely worked out heavily in favor of the PRC, and allowed them to surpass the USSR in other areas.
I believe when we try to identify socialism as what the soviets did, we are making an error (not saying you do that). We need to apply dialectical materialism consistently towards how we view socialist states and their progress.
It’s a low bar, but they’re more socialist than any nordic country at least. Lukashenko’s said nothing better than Marxism-Leninism so far has been invented in or after (?) a discussion with Dugin (yeah, I know). He’s, like, begrudgingly socialist because he’s at least smart enough to see how fucking stupid liberals and liberalism are. Belarus also has lower poverty rates than anywhere in Europe last I checked.
https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-given-modern-political-economy-textbook-based-on-marxist-leninist-theory-161020-2024/
Edit: World bank says:
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099947501032542551/pdf/IDU-57055ce4-7394-4338-8405-8ce221c2ae1a.pdf