star (she)

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.

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.

How is this an argument against anything I’ve said? Belarus is not a socialist state

I don’t disagree with you on these points. I just think it’s a stretch to claim that a country is socialist / ML without a socialist party in power.

Is your argument that belaya rus is secretly an ML party? I don’t really understand where you’re going with this

one comment about a textbook doesn’t prove that belarus is ruled by a communist party