Lukashenko's Vulgar Marxism

A natural question arises.

Why do some authoritarian regimes, such as those in China and Singapore, promote economic growth, while others, such as those in Russia and Belarus, do not? The main difference between the economic policies of Belarus and China lies in their attitudes toward the role of market mechanisms and the private sector.

Vulgar Marxism

Recently, at various meetings and conferences, Alexander Lukashenko has often repeated the same idea. He says that the economy is the most important thing, everything else will fall into place, but if there is no effective economy, then the threat of war, dependence on other countries, and other problems increase. How one thing is connected to the other is not entirely clear.

But Lukashenko, according to his worldview, remains a Marxist. And according to Marxist theory, the economy determines all sociopolitical processes. And if we interpret this concept in a simplistic way, we can conclude that poverty is the most important prerequisite for revolution.

But, as historical experience has repeatedly shown, there is no direct link between living standards and revolution. For example, the urban middle class played a significant role in the 2020 protests in Belarus. And Lukashenko was even surprised: why would IT specialists be involved—they have high salaries, after all.

“The End of History,” Announced in Advance

On the other hand, 20–30 years ago, a widely held concept in Western humanities was that only liberal democracy and a market economy foster economic prosperity. Conversely, dictatorships and command-and-control models were seen as hindering economic growth. Moreover, liberal democracy and the market were viewed as inextricably linked phenomena. The collapse of the USSR and the “world socialist system,” which had lost the competition to capitalism, as well as the massive economic failure of Maoist China, confirmed this concept. The American philosopher Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous book *The End of History and the Last Man*, which became a classic illustration of this theory.

However, China’s drive toward modernization under the leadership of the Communist Party, as well as the evident successes of Vietnam and Singapore—where authoritarian regimes prevail—have not completely refuted this concept, but have cast doubt on it. It has become clear that a market economy can yield significant achievements even without democracy. China’s experience shows that market-based economic modernization actually strengthens dictatorship.

Different Types of Autocracies

And this raises a natural question: Why do some authoritarian regimes (China, Singapore) promote economic growth, while others (Russia, Belarus) do not? There are many possible answers to this question. For example, one explanation is that the reason lies in cultural characteristics. The countries that have demonstrated success in economic modernization belong to what some researchers call the “rice civilization” of Southeast Asia.

It is quite possible that culture and traditions do indeed play an important role. However, for some reason, belonging to the same “rice civilization” does not contribute to economic development in North Korea. Therefore, economic policy and the attitude toward the market are decisive factors here. China, for example, began to develop rapidly only after it abandoned the Maoist version of barracks socialism and embarked on market reforms.

Returning to Belarus, it is worth noting that the Belarusian economy has effectively stagnated over the past decade and a half. On average, since 2011, it has grown by about 1% per year. From 2021 to 2025, the Belarusian economy grew by only 7%, while the global economy grew by more than 19% during that period.

Attitude Toward Business

The main difference between Belarus’s economic policy and China’s lies in their attitudes toward the role of market mechanisms and the private sector. In China, the authorities pay close attention to business, support the private sector, and consider it one of the main drivers of the economy.

The social model established in Belarus is largely based on the Soviet ideological legacy, ideas of social justice, the protection of the population, and the dominant role of the state. From the very beginning of his presidency, Lukashenko relied on social outsiders—people who did not fit into the reform process and feared it (pensioners, collective farm workers, and employees of unprofitable state-owned enterprises). His legitimacy was largely based on the myth that Belarus had built a society without the wealthy.

“I did not hand out state property; I did not create oligarchs,” Lukashenko proudly repeats.

Lukashenko’s wariness toward business stems from the fact that business strives for independence, is not controlled by the state, and is not dependent on it. Lukashenko fears the emergence of oligarchs who, at a certain stage, will begin to convert economic power into political influence. In other words, from Lukashenko’s perspective, the free market poses a threat to his absolute power. He has clearly realized that a dominant public sector in the economy is the optimal model for retaining power. It is difficult to manage private business manually, and Lukashenko cannot imagine the process of establishing power without such manual control.

Agricultural Policy

Interestingly, Lukashenko constantly cites China’s experience as a model but interprets it in his own way. For example, speaking at a meeting in the already difficult year of 1998, he stated:

“Who has achieved the greatest and fastest growth in agricultural production on the planet? China, where there is no official private land ownership.”

But the fact is that the rapid growth of agricultural production in China occurred only after—and as a result of—the reforms that dissolved the people’s communes, granted peasant families land for long-term use, and significantly increased their economic independence. The experience of China’s agrarian reform has become a textbook example in the global literature of the effectiveness of introducing market mechanisms into socialist agriculture. And the Chinese themselves are the first to emphasize this.

Different Responses to the Crisis

It is also worth noting the different responses of the Chinese and Belarusian authorities to the crisis and mass public discontent. In 1989, the Chinese Communists violently suppressed mass protests in Beijing and other cities, using troops and armored vehicles. After a period of slowed reform, the Chinese leadership refocused on accelerating market reforms in the early 1990s. Economic growth in the following decades significantly raised the standard of living for the population.

In Belarus, the response to the crisis and protests took the form of large-scale repression, as well as increased pressure on businesses, since a significant portion of private-sector employees participated in the protests.

As a result, China’s authoritarian modernization has yielded far better economic results, while the Belarusian economy is growing slowly.

Valery Karbalevich, “Radio Svaboda”

You can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL97116022020000000216711123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail charter97@gmail.com