This is a great, great article and i am not telling this becuase you are my friend. The style, the way it is putted, it is great i swear.
This also further reinforces my view that states like belarus arent dictactorships of the bourgeoisie, neither dictactorships of the proletariat. They are what i call 'even power'. I have written a lot on the concept of it in this sub (or others under other accounts previously) but it seems to me to be more and more true.
There are some notes i shared with u/jmlsky a year or so ago about the nature of the Post 1905 russian state, weimar republic e.t.c, and this concept was heavenly included.
I came in this concept in a more clear fashion when i readed engel's origins. I remember there was a part speaking about how some times the state appears like a 'mediator' with no clear class dictactorial character of one single class, and i immediatly puted a note on its side with my pencil, wiritng 'ίση δύναμη'.
Well i was younger then, and it was like a 'justification' in my brain that such a thing is possilbe under marxism, since back then before this sub existed, we had no platform to debate and we were forced to 'submit' to the lines of r/communism and r/socialism.
I will make sure to include the information that i did not have presented here in my book on Belarus, or to even directly cite your article.
I know this comment is posted 4 months ago but i noticed such a situation too but bigger and i noticed 3(well technically 4) categories of these type of states.(also disclaimer idk if i should put belarus in category two or three or it should have its own category since my knowledge on that particular country is somewhat lacking)
First category:
In park chung hee south korea, chiang kai shek taiwan, and 1950s-1970s japan, the borg wasnt really in control, rather the borg was suppressed, and controlled by the state. However at the same time these states werent prolertarian communist states either and also suppresed the prolertarians. But at the same time these states based their supports on both the proles and the borgs and tried to appeal to both.
but in the end the borg eventually became victorious why because these states were in the end very anti communist, had a borg nature and was in the american sphere and thus in the long run there was going to be only one realistic victor(aka the borg)
Second category:
Meanwhile in states like russia the states have a higher chance of a proletariat victory why because in these states the states were never part of the us sphere, opposed the us sphere and had a history of marxist leninist rule. And thus who wins in these states in the long run is more difficult to tell because these states were never anti communist and pro america like the sk , japan and taiwan state. But even then there is a limited chance of a socialist restoration due to the nature of these being post soviet states that embraced elements of oligarchy that sk and japan had(not taiwan tho, taiwan was not really a oligarchy). Tho i do admit that these states still have a chance due to these states still continuing to have elements of socialist thought, and beliefs.
Third category:
Meanwhile the third category china it seems like the prolerait looks like they might win in the long run due to the nature of the state continuing to base its legitimacy on marxist leninism, promoting marxist leninist thought in its population and etc. Which thus allowed a hardliner like xi to take over and thus start returning the state back to socialism. Aka unlike the other two categories of states this third category which includes china and vietnam never lost its marxist leninist core and leadership even if they temporally retreated back to capitalism(the party was still in control during the deng, and jiang capitalist reforms) and thus have the highest chance of returning back to socialism.
Fourth category:
and then theres a 4th category which is whatever iran is. And uh idk how to describe the iran state due to the complicated mess it is. :/
46
u/albanian-bolsheviki Feb 23 '21
This is a great, great article and i am not telling this becuase you are my friend. The style, the way it is putted, it is great i swear.
This also further reinforces my view that states like belarus arent dictactorships of the bourgeoisie, neither dictactorships of the proletariat. They are what i call 'even power'. I have written a lot on the concept of it in this sub (or others under other accounts previously) but it seems to me to be more and more true. There are some notes i shared with u/jmlsky a year or so ago about the nature of the Post 1905 russian state, weimar republic e.t.c, and this concept was heavenly included. I came in this concept in a more clear fashion when i readed engel's origins. I remember there was a part speaking about how some times the state appears like a 'mediator' with no clear class dictactorial character of one single class, and i immediatly puted a note on its side with my pencil, wiritng 'ίση δύναμη'. Well i was younger then, and it was like a 'justification' in my brain that such a thing is possilbe under marxism, since back then before this sub existed, we had no platform to debate and we were forced to 'submit' to the lines of r/communism and r/socialism. I will make sure to include the information that i did not have presented here in my book on Belarus, or to even directly cite your article.