Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 12, 2011

The Belarus Formula

Filed under: Belarus,financial crisis,ussr — louisproyect @ 7:44 pm

Yes, I know, the title of this post sounds like it’s a review of one of those spy novels you see in airport newsstands that have something on the back cover like “Soon to be a major motion picture starring Matt Damon…” But this not what it is about. Instead it is about a formulaic way of thinking about Belarus and a whole host of other countries run by dictators that the American ruling class demonizes. In my view a whole section of the left that seems more interested in “anti-imperialism” than socialism tends to give the rulers of such countries more credit than they deserve. If you can’t tell the difference between an Ahmadinejad and a Fidel Castro, then what is the point in calling yourself a socialist?

I was prompted to write this after someone brought an article to my attention from Counterpunch (no surprise there) that elevates Belarus’s President Lukashenko to a status that he does not deserve. The article follows certain guidelines that are essential when you are trying to make the case for someone like him (or Qaddafi, et al).

Titled “Belarus Under Siege“, author Michèle Brand makes some excellent points about U.S. attempts to subvert the government:

In February of this year, citing the recent elections, the US State Department announced an increase of its “democracy assistance” to Belarusian civil society by 30% to $15 million for the year. In 2009, the National Endowment for Democracy gave $2.7 million to finance Belarusian “independent” media, civil society (promoting “democratic ideas and values… and a market economy”), NGOs and political groups. A Wikileaks cable (VILNIUS 000732, dated June 12, 2005) confirmed money smuggling into Belarus on the part of USAID contractors, though such proof is hardly necessary. Also in February, the EU, individual European countries, Canada and the US put together a “war chest” of 87 million euros aiming toward regime change in Belarus.

We need to oppose this kind of meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country. But in the sentences that complete this paragraph, Brand sets herself up as an apologist for authoritarian rule.

With so much money being offered to anyone who wants a job as an activist, it’s not hard to find takers. Youth who run into trouble are offered free education in the West. There is evidence that many of those who partook in the violent acts of the night of December 19th were paid for their participation, by either Western or Russian elements.

What evidence is she talking about? If a government is going to appear credible in such matters, there has to be proof that money exchanged hands. For example, when Cuba arrested a group of people for taking money and marching orders from an American diplomat stationed there, the court heard and saw incontrovertible evidence.

Furthermore, Cuba has laws against receiving funding from the USA or any other foreign country. Does Belarus have the same kind of laws? One wonders if this matters since the Belarus cops are free to arrest people on the flimsiest of grounds as Brand shamelessly admits:

According to Western media, the protests are being violently repressed and protesters arbitrarily arrested. According to Belarusian authorities, participants have been arrested because they were shouting profanities at police and pushing them.

It amazes me that radicals who write for Counterpunch can give any kind of credence to “Belarusian authorities” who grant themselves the right to throw people in jail because they are “shouting profanities” at police or pushing them. Apparently there are two standards, one for use in the U.S. or Britain where such police behavior would be considered a naked assault on free speech but permissible for Belarus or Syria or fill in the blanks.

This is the first element of the Belarus formula: give permission to a country that the imperialists hate or fear to jail dissidents even if they have not committed any crime.

The next important element of the Belarus formula is to draw class distinctions between the protesters and the “silent majority” that supports President Lukashenko. Brand’s presentation of these differences is drawn from the same palette of those who defended the crushing of the “Green Movement” in Iran:

What is clear in the videos is that the crowd [of demonstrators] is well-off… Clearly, the Belarusian working class has reasons not to support the current movements: they are generally satisfied with the policies of President Lukashenko. If the movements are limited to the Western-oriented elite, Western or Russian financed operatives, and youth wanting to have a street party, then they have no future, no matter how many millions the US and others throw at them.

Haven’t we heard all this before? The Chablis-drinking, cellphone-using yuppies from the north of Tehran on one hand and the modest, religiously observant, tea-drinking workers from the southern neighborhoods? In fact, the more I read this kind of “analysis”, the more I am reminded of Richard Nixon or Chicago’s Mayor Daley. This willingness to give a green light to cops to beat the crap out of demonstrators for cursing and the demagogy directed at “effete” middle class liberals who don’t go to church on Sunday (or a mosque on Friday) shows an amazing affinity between those who defend law and order in bourgeois society and those who rally around authoritarian states that happen to find themselves in Washington’s crosshairs. Now, everybody must oppose sanctions, NED subversion, military intervention and all the rest but socialists must understand that workers have different class interests from the Obamas and the Lukashenkos of the world. Socialism is all about working class power, not “condescending saviors” as The Internationale puts it.

For Brand, the hostility of the West has everything to do with the social gains made under a benignly paternalistic ruler. This is the third and final element of the formula. It boils down to a defense of dictatorship if and when its UN human development indicators pass muster. Of course, by this criterion, the Soviet bureaucracy deserved the undying support of leftists everywhere, even when it was throwing dissidents in prison for long stretches when not torturing or killing them .

The United States and other Western countries have been attacking the government of President Alexander Lukashenko ever since it refused to follow the path of the other ex-Soviet countries in the 1990s, which famously sold off the state-owned industries to oligarchs, destroyed the social protection system and allowed kleptocratic mafia capitalism to take over. Under Lukashenko, Belarus has developped [sic] gradually into a strong socially-oriented market economy with the highest growth rate in the CIS even during its current financial troubles (according to the CIS Interstate Statistical Committee, between January and April 2011 Belarusian industry grew 12.9% year-on-year), while still maintaining its free health care, job protection, social services, retirement programs, low unemployment, state-subsidized housing and utilities, and high level of education. This is one reason why the country is naturally in the line of fire of the West, whose bankrupt governments are now obsessively telling their citizens that “there is no alternative”: we must drastically decrease or kill pensions and other social programs, fire government employees, flexibilize the work force, privatize education, health care, infrastructure and everything possible, etc. etc. Located just next door to crisis-stricken Europe, Belarus is more than a thorn in its side; it is living proof that European and American neoliberal propaganda is only lies.

While it is beyond the scope of this article to track the ups and downs of the Belarus economy, the current economic crisis appears to be the result of Russian corporate malfeasance, as Brand readily admits:

For the West is not the only source of financing, nor of interventionist pressure. One of the most important ex-candidates was financed by the Russians. While Western pressure is a known quantity in Belarus, Russian attempts at destabilization are relatively new. Russian oligarchs have been ogling the profitable Belarusian state enterprises, and since the government has historically refused to sell them, the Russian kleptocracy has begun to try to topple Lukashenko. The Russian media have begun a concerted campaign against the Belarusian government, airing pro-opposition documentaries and indulging in smearing and misinformation. Russian operatives are now making inroads; on the Minsk-Moscow highway, my Belarusian friend pointed out the expensive Russian cars with tinted black windows heading into Minsk. Russian oil prices have risen sharply — 30% in January — and the price of natural gas imported from Russia has quadrupled in four years. Although the economy has diversified since independence, it is still reliant on importing energy and raw materials for its production. The hike in energy and commodity prices has had a harsh impact in Belarus, where the cost of energy now makes up 78 cents of every dollar of goods produced. High commodity prices explain the trade deficit despite strong industrial and export growth.

Stabbed in the back by the Russians, the Belarus government has turned to the West for assistance and all the negative consequences that go along with it. The IMF is demanding privatization and cutbacks in social services, as one might expect.

The hardships have led to mass protests that the government has repressed with little regard to the niceties of civil rights or due process. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the same pattern taking place in Belarus has taken place already in Libya where IMF-type austerity has led to mass discontent and then a revolutionary movement.

Even under the best of circumstances, a small and economically vulnerable country like Belarus is at the mercy of economic forces it cannot control. When Russia was more favorably disposed to subsidizing the Belarus economy through a crude oil export tariff far below market value, Lukashenko could afford the generous welfare spending that Brand alluded to.

In order to withstand this kind of economic dislocation, governments must have the support of the people. Belarus is not the first country that has suffered from a Russian betrayal. Cuba went through a “special period” in the early 90s after a post-Communist regime decided to throw the socialist country to the mercy of world markets. Whatever future Belarus has as a sovereign nation that can withstand the hammer blows of the market system, the best way to navigate through treacherous waters is by giving the working class the democratic control over the social product. This means transforming the country along socialist lines and looking for allies internationally moving in the same direction. As quixotic as that might seem right now, there are no alternatives.


  1. Yeah, yeah, pretty knee jerk stuff. I remember seeing some of these guys go so far as to send praise to the Chinese and Czech regimes for putting down protests. You’d think those unarmed students had been the Nazis or the KKK. they weren’t.

    Comment by Tom Cod — July 12, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

  2. There’s also the matter of Israel Shamir turning over supposedly secret documents to the Belarus goverment:

    Yes, it’s from Harry’s Place, but just have a look at least.

    Comment by Jenny — July 12, 2011 @ 10:25 pm

  3. When you talk about ‘ Anti-Imperialism ‘ at the beginning of the article, it reminded me about Workers World. All they talk about is
    Anti-Imperialism. As long as a dictator or ruler of a country says some anti-imperialist rhetoric they defend him as a good guy. So they
    defend Qadafy, Ahmadinejad, etc. Can you be anti-imperialist —against bombing countires but not defend those kind of people
    as good guys ?

    Comment by Carol Brown — July 13, 2011 @ 3:45 am

  4. Keep up the posts on this subject.

    Good work.

    Comment by Renegade Eye — July 13, 2011 @ 4:01 am

  5. “Lubashenko”. Is there some reason you are spelling his name this way?

    Comment by david montoute — July 13, 2011 @ 11:04 am

  6. David, I am getting old (66) and I tend to write my posts in a hurry at work. The other week I referred to Bruce Lesnick when I meant Bruce Ratner in a review of a documentary. I hope my ideas are clearer than my spelling.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 13, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

  7. louis, you commented that “For example, when Cuba arrested a group of people for taking money and marching orders from an American diplomat stationed there, the court heard and saw incontrovertible evidence.

    Furthermore, Cuba has laws against receiving funding from the USA or any other foreign country…”

    Irish journalist Bernie Dwyer did a nice documentary video on this called “The Day Diplomacy Died”- i got one when I saw her on speaking tour, but it’s not on amazon.

    Comment by jp — July 13, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

  8. Good work Louis. The permanent revolution is an anathema to these stalinists. They have turned their opposition to working class democracy into a systematic approach whereby it is simply the rich countries against the rest and whatever the regime in the rest they are given unconditional backing. Even when there is a rebellion as in Egypt they are looking for any force other than the working class to take the lead. One day it was the Army that was going to lead the Egyptians to freedom then next it was the Mulim Brotherhood and if the West intervenes which it is bound to do when it gets the chance the rebellion is immediately abandoned and opposed and blackguarded. The mirror image of these people would be the pro-imperialist, pro-zionist `left’ such as the Shachtmanite AWL. The truth as alway is contradictory and beyond these sectarian ideologues.

    The only thing I would say about Cuba is that the most immanent danger to the Cuban revolution comes, at the moment, not from outside but from the bureaucracy itself. It is introducing reforms that, in the absence of proletarian democracy and an internationalist perspective of which it is a mortal enemy, will inevitably lead to capitalist restoration.

    Comment by David Ellis — July 13, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

  9. I first came to form a favorable opinion of Belarus when I found myself there accidentally in 2001, back before I had a trace of pinko in me. The country struck me as the polar opposite of Russia (and in may ways favorably compared to the neighboring Baltic states; where there was ample evidence of drug use and where at the time were the highest suicide rates in the world); clean, efficient with no (superficial) evidence of poverty, contra were I now live in Brooklyn. Whereas my most profound memory of Russia was beggars on Nevsky Prospekt trying to sell stray dogs, and young teenage girls trying to sell themselves, in front of designer shops and parked black Mercedes G-wagens guarded by AK-47-banishing private security. What also struck about Belarus the utter lack of the things we associate with capitalism; advertising, chain shops and so on. The sole exception a McDonalds in Minsk.

    It is true I was removed from a Lithuania-bound train and sent to Minsk to get a transit visa–my attempt to bribe the board guard failed. But compare this relatively minor inconvenience, as a national from an openly hostile country, to that of the Iranian man separated from his child and held in a Texas dentition center for over six months.

    Whether Belarus counts as a “democracy” by one’s standard or not the country is (by comparison) doing something right which is why the Guardians of Capital in the the West as well as the Russian Federation have–figuratively speaking–put a price on Alex’s head.

    Comment by Peter Ward — July 13, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

  10. Louis, you’re my hero. Having defended the TNC in Libya as democrats you move on to Belarus. Who are the Belarus equivalent of the Libyan TNC? How is the Libyan working class faring under the TNC? Where is the democratic right to national self determination in your scheme of things? How many tons of NATO bombs do you think it will take for Belarus to enjoy democracy like the one in TNC held territory?

    Comment by lextheimpaler — July 13, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

  11. How is the Libyan working class faring under the TNC?

    What kind of fucking idiot are you? I have never posted a single word in support of the TNC. Unless you think that the fact that I pointed out that Qaddafi and Berlusconi were great pals means I back the TNC? What a bunch of morons that hang around the left.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 13, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

  12. “If you can’t tell the difference between an Ahmadinejad and a Fidel Castro, then what is the point in calling yourself a socialist?”

    That is usually a problem of the anti anti imperialist left in my experience. They say Castro is an unlelected dictator just like all the others. So why you think this is a view of the anti imperialist left confuses me. I say it is a lie.

    Comment by Steve — July 13, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

  13. “a whole section of the left that seems more interested in ‘anti-imperialism’ than socialism…If you can’t tell the difference between an Ahmadinejad and a Fidel Castro, then what is the point in calling yourself a socialist?”

    With regards to imperialism against socialist countries and imperialism against non-socialist countries – what socialist countries? I was just reading today about more market reforms in Cuba, with the private real estate business now coming to Cuba. Vietnam has been undergoing the same kinds of moves toward capitalism. The U.S. does not see either of these countries as a threat, and will not be invading or bombing either any time soon. There really are no socialist countries to be worried about imperialism toward, all imperialism today is toward mostly non-socialist countries.

    Saying anti-imperialists can’t tell Ahmadinejad from Castro is also absurd. This is an old game anyhow. You were in a Trotskyist group that said the USSR was not socialist. So this bar you’re raising up for when it’s OK to be anti-imperialist is never raised high enough. You can’t be against imperialism toward Ahmadinejad since Iran isn’t socialist. Years back, you couldn’t be against imperialism against the USSR in many Trot sects, because the USSR was supposedly not socialist. There are even the Third Campists who supported a US victory over the USSR. It’s like Paul Berman saying the Sandinistas were not socialists. So it’s a song I’ve heard before – Iran is not worthy of freedom from imperialism because it is not socialist, but if Iran made moves in certain directions and became the People’s Republic of Iran, then, just as enormous hostility would be raised by not only Israel, the US, Europe and surrounding countries, and Iran’s internal bourgeoisie, the same intellectuals in their salons in Europe and the US would be saying Iran was not really socialist, or was not socialist enough, and was still not worthy of defense.

    Then there’s the question of how people are spending their time. The US has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and has sanctioned Iran and has made threatening moves toward it while it bombs Libya. What do you spend your time doing? Attacking those on the left who are trying to wind down this imperialism. Why should I do this? So George Soros will invite me to one of his cocktail parties, since I’d then be clean enough to be seen with? So the white union construction workers who had the pro Iraq-war rally in Manhattan in 2003 will like me more for a few days? I’ll pass.

    Comment by Adelson Velsky Landis — July 13, 2011 @ 8:17 pm

  14. So George Soros will invite me to one of his cocktail parties, since I’d then be clean enough to be seen with?

    Boy, are you ever barking up the wrong tree. Clearly you started reading this blog five minutes ago.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 13, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

  15. “What kind of fucking idiot are you?” The run of the mill kind, nothing special. Thanks for asking. “I have never posted a single word in support of the TNC.” True, you supported the Libyan “democratic” revolution which unfortunately vomited the TNC. Oh well accidents happen. I’ll only point out to you that its not the first time that such accident occurred. The whole late 19th century European imperialist era was predicated on such noble intent being fouled up by practice. Being the astute “Unrepentant Marxist” you already know that. Louis, don’t get angry, we’re all just playing.

    Comment by lextheimpaler — July 14, 2011 @ 3:37 am

  16. True, you supported the Libyan “democratic” revolution which unfortunately vomited the TNC.

    Nice to see a formulation only made possible by a life-long study of the Grundrisse.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 14, 2011 @ 4:09 am

  17. “In order to withstand this kind of economic dislocation, governments must have the support of the people.”

    I don’t know about that. North Korea went through the same or worse when the Socialist Bloc fell. I don’t think anyone would argue that the DPRK’s ruling regime has anywhere near the popular support that Fidel did, but yet here we are decades later and both the DPRK and Cuba are still standing (though both are making strong overtures to capitalism).

    Comment by Cliff — February 27, 2013 @ 7:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: