Anarchist views on SFR Yugoslavia

[ContrarianLemming]

I've have been reading about the economy of the socialist federation of yugoslavia and how it strongly differed from it's soviet neighbors....

"The economy of socialist Yugoslavia was much different from the economies of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European communist countries, especially after the Yugoslav-Soviet break-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informbiro) of 1948. Rather than being owned by the state, Yugoslav companies were socially owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) and managed with workers' self-management much like the Israeli kibbutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) and the anarchist communes of Spanish Catalonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia). Unlike the Soviet Union and East European economies, Yugoslavia's socialist economy was not centrally planned."

Anarchist views on this?

[comrade_cyanide444]

This is the exact form of economy I like.... I'm not an anarchist of course, but I like the fact that the workers socially own the factory, instead of one huge bureaucratic power.

Here's my theory: There's a factory. It makes steel. Let's say along comes a revolution.... I do not think that the manager, however wealthy and bourgeois he may be considered, should be kicked out of his factory. Unless he resists any adaption to helping the working class. My theory is that each factory should be given a budget which is determined annually by calculation from the GDP. The workers and the manager should work in the factory collectively, being paid the same wage over time. However, the government takes control of the product and moderates a few loose rules the factory must follow (i.e similar wages, proper work conditions, prevention of embezzlement/corruption). The government takes the raw steel to a factory that works in a similar fashion -- by the workers. So the government has no role in the manufacturing other than moderating wages so that a worker's state is indeed implemented, however, the workers own their own plant and decide how to make things and what to make. The manager merely overlooks that the workers get along and do their job. Any person with a simple sense of understanding of economy would know that the harder they worked in their factory, the more money their country makes, which translates to the GDP being divided in better proportions, implying better wages. Also, the government provides designs on what to manufacture, however R&D can happen on its own, so long as developers and researchers are paid the correct wages. This also provides a way to count the population, as the money would be given to the factory by the government, and in order to divide the money correctly, the number of workers must be counted.

Back to the point: I think that this system implements the good aspects of Leftist anarchism, but still allows a nice structure so the system doesn't "explode". The lack of centralized economy probably meant that workers lived in better conditions because there was less force applied. However, should the workers have refused to work, then the whole nation would be in severe trouble.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have read about Tito very concisely and I have been encouraged by what I read about Yugoslavia. I can't say I know enough to judge anything about it though. They say Tito was a rebel who refused to listen to Stalin.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They say Tito was a rebel who refused to listen to Stalin.

Yes, Tito butted heads with Stalin. He also embarrased Stalin by supporting the communist insurrection in Greece when Stalin would not. And he was also a partisan fighter against the Nazis during WW2, which is certainly admirable.

Despite all of that I don't see how he can be looked upon as anything but a bastard from an anarchist point of view.

As far as the Yugoslavian economy goes, yes it did have a system of worker's councils. But as others on this site have pointed out, the USSR had a similiar system of worker's councils. I'm not sure how different the ones in Yugoslavia were insofar as being more "libertarian" or not. Tito himself wasn't exactly a stalwart of anti-capitalist ideology; William Hitchcock points out in The Struggle for Europe that Yugoslavia was one of the few economic success stories in E. Europe at the time, and was a popular vacation spot for wealthy Western tourists. I'm sure that many of our Marxist-Leninist friends would point to this as a betrayal of socialist ideals in favor of participation in the market economy.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm not an anarchist but I will say that there certainly was a central plan in Yugoslavia to a less considerable degree than in the Soviet Union--moreover Yugoslavia could hardly be compared to Kibbutzim or Catalonia as very similar.


They say Tito was a rebel who refused to listen to Stalin. Partially. The Soviet Union's economic relations with Yugoslavia before 1948 were certainly favorable to the Soviets. This was the case with mostly all of eastern europe, especially in countries that allied with Germany against the Soviet Union; in fact it wasn't until the early 50's that the Soviet's began closing their joint-stock companies in eastern europe that were unfair and such when people in the DDR expressed their dissatisfaction. From then on the USSR had to pretty much buy their friends in eastern europe, by this I mean they had to take on economic relations in trade that was advantageous (in some cases very advantageous) to eastern European socialist states.

In this sense, Tito and the Yugoslavian government certainly did "rebel" against the Soviet hegemonic economic relations, by splitting with them in 1948. The Soviet Union and eastern European states blocked trade with Yugoslavia in an embargo--this threatened the collapse of their economy in a very serious way because they were dependent on trade between eastern Europe, just like everyone else. This was a trivial development and it pretty much set the course for Yugoslavia, they became what some call a "buffer" between the US and USSR. It is also the point where many would claim that the economy of the most militant and promising new socialist state in Europe began to degenerate.

They had to mobilize international and domestic support to preserve the government under Tito. This meant reversing collectivization and taking pressure off the peasantry, which was not good in hindsight. It also meant adopting a system of worker's councils, which is not inherently bad, but the councils eventually came to make basic policies for enterprise production and trade relations independently, thereby undercutting the central plan and in good part restoring market principles to the Yugoslav economy. I feel it is obvious that there were and still are many problems with this kind of "market socialism".....

[comrade_cyanide444]

Yes, the Soviet-Yugoslav split was a big one, and I think the emergence of a completely new doctrine of Communism... Didn't Albania (Under Hoxha, I believe) split association with USSR as well and make an attempt to align itself with Mao?

I'm pretty sure that almost all of Eastern Europe during WW2 except Romania and the Nazi-aligned states was pro-Soviet, and remained that way. Marshall Tito arose in a different environment than USSR. For one thing, Yugoslavia was a nation with a whole bunch of different ethnicities, so he had to please everyone very broadly.

If you take a look at a lot of the military technology Yugoslavia has, you can see that it basically took designs from the Soviets in 1947 and after the split in 1948, developed new designs using the same overall mechanism...

[mykittyhasaboner]

He also embarrased Stalin by supporting the communist insurrection in Greece when Stalin would not.
The Greek partisans were certainly supported by the Soviet Union as well as Yugoslavia. In 1948 the split between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union also meant inter-party hostilities in Greece, for the same reason. Yugoslavia, faced with isolation and possible collapse of their economy had to suddenly change their foreign relations policy away from the SU and the socialist camp in general and this meant stopping aid to partisans in Greece who more or less sided with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure, but I believe the Soviets supported Greek partisans till they were defeated, they certainly did for a longer period of time than Yugoslavia did.

[Ismail]

I don't particularly like Mike Ely, but I agree with his analysis: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars/


The Titoites broke the Yugoslav economy into small independent units. In agriculture, early experiments in collectivization were reversed–by 1957 virtually all the farms were in private hands. Nationalized industry was “privatized.” Individual factories were officially operating under “workers’ self-management.” But the policy was set by directors, and the real control was exercised by the market mechanism of capitalism. Without socialist planning, profit decided where investments flowed, what was produced, and who got to work. In reality “worker self-management” meant that wages were tied to factory profits–they were a form of piecework. Factories, industries and whole regions were competing with each other and profit was in command. And, more importantly, the proletariat did not have state power. It was impossible for them to revolutionize society....

Under the weight of growing debt to the West, the Titoites carried out new “reforms” in 1965. They moved to make their currency convertible to Western currencies–so that investments could more easily flow in and profits could more easily flow out. After 1968, foreign capitalists could invest directly in the private sector. Yugoslavia became the first revisionist country to set up a stock market. These innovations of the capitalist road are now being carried out in the rest of Eastern Europe.

Yugoslav proletarians were sent off as cheap labor for northern Europe–they basically became an “export commodity.” By 1971, over a million Yugoslavs were immigrant workers, over half of them in West Germany.

According to World Bank statistics, the wealthiest 5 percent of Yugoslav households earned 25 percent of the national income in the 1970s, while the poorest 20 percent of the population earned less than 7 percent. This was one of the most extreme income gaps in Europe–in fact, according to the World Bank, even India’s income distribution gap was not as big!

The northern nations of Yugoslavia–Slovenia and Croatia–were more highly developed industrially and agriculturally. The three southern national areas–Macedonia, Montenegro, and the Albanian region of Kosovo–were far more undeveloped and poor. Serbia, the largest national grouping, is in between North and South and is also a relatively poor area. These divisions within Yugoslavia got even more acute because of the capitalistdevelopment pursued by Yugoslavia. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Over decades, this created a powerful basis for antagonism between the nationalities of the country and for the growth of reactionary nationalism.

Investment flows where the profits are greatest. The industrial northern nations developed rapidly after 1945, while the poorer southern republics stagnated. When the 1990s started, per capita production in Slovenia was three times as high as it was in poorer regions like Macedonia. By 1970 the per capita income of the average Slovene was over six times that of the average Kosovar. Kosovo lives in Third World conditions–comparable to Bolivia or Morocco–while in Slovenia the standard of living is closer to that of neighboring Austria.

The villages in the poorer peasant regions of the south emptied. People went north for lousy jobs and barrack-like living conditions as “guest workers”–within the supposedly “equal” Yugoslav federation. These “guest workers” make up 15 to 20 percent of the Slovenian workforce and are treated like dirt...

In the 1980s the conflicts intensified because of classic “IMF crisis.” Yugoslavia sank deeply into debt to the International Monetary Fund and other international imperialist lenders–to the tune of $1.8 billion. The lenders demanded that capitalist Yugoslavia take “austerity” measures to pay back the debt, and this inflamed the conflict in the country.
Many Western social-democrats admired Yugoslavia because it was "market socialism." Tito also said that the New Deal in the US was socialistic. Plenty of social-democratic parties had members who looked upon Yugoslavia with respect because they too wanted similar "market socialist" systems for their own capitalist countries. "Workers self-management" was phraseology.

Both Marxists and Anarchists should see Tito's Yugoslavia for what it was: a capitalist state with a social-democratic veneer. After Stalin died Khrushchev met with Tito and declared Yugoslavia socialist; criticized prior policy as "unfortunate," etc., so the image of Tito as some sort of defiant socialist valiantly standing up to the Soviet Union is bunk.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yes, the Soviet-Yugoslav split was a big one, and I think the emergence of a completely new doctrine of Communism... Didn't Albania (Under Hoxha, I believe) split association with USSR as well and make an attempt to align itself with Mao?

Well Yugoslavia didn't represent a "new doctrine of communism", they just had a different method of economic management, one that was largely open to market principles and all the problems that come with that.


I'm pretty sure that almost all of Eastern Europe during WW2 except Romania and the Nazi-aligned states was pro-Soviet, and remained that way. Marshall Tito arose in a different environment than USSR. For one thing, Yugoslavia was a nation with a whole bunch of different ethnicities, so he had to please everyone very broadly.

This is the case in a lot of eastern European countries, though it's absolutely true in the case of Yugoslavia. The question was not really about ethnicity though, but economic relations. The Yugoslav government was at odds with with the West at first about shooting down American planes and the issue of Trieste, but then they were forced to break with the Soviet Union over their hegemonic use of joint stock companies which practically dominated Yugoslav trade through the Danube as well as air traffic.



If you take a look at a lot of the military technology Yugoslavia has, you can see that it basically took designs from the Soviets in 1947 and after the split in 1948, developed new designs using the same overall mechanism...

Of course, why change a good design? ;) The Yugoslav military did have some of their own designs though.

[Ismail]

They had to mobilize international and domestic support to preserve the government under Tito. This meant reversing collectivization and taking pressure off the peasantry, which was not good in hindsight.One of the reasons the Cominform was annoyed was because Tito wasn't actually collectivizing that much at all.


Yes, Tito butted heads with Stalin. He also embarrased Stalin by supporting the communist insurrection in Greece when Stalin would notAs mykittyhasaboner noted, Tito stopped supporting the Greeks too once deals were made with the British.

On Trotskyism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73NB.html) by a Greek Maoist named Kostas Mavrakis, has a section on the civil war in Greece:

Tito's defection - contributed to the Democratic Army's rapid defeat. In 1946 Tito had promised considerable assistance to Zachariades and had encouraged him to embark on an armed struggle, in contrast to Stalin who proved sceptical about the Greek communists' chances of success. After his break with the Comintern Tito stopped his aid and in July 1949 he closed the frontier completely, which had the immediate effect of removing from the Democratic Army 4,000 reserves quartered in Yugoslavia, to which must be added the 2,500 maquisards who were in Bulgaria and the 2,500 who were fighting in eastern Macedonia and Thrace. In fact, as the Axios Valley between the Yugoslavian frontier and the Gulf of Salonika was easily guarded, the troops which we have just mentioned could only have linked up with the main body of the Democratic Army at the time of the decisive battle by passing through Yugoslavia. Tito's defection thus deprived the Army of a third of its forces.So much for the glorious Tito who valiantly aided the Greek Communists "in spite of Stalin's views."

[comrade_cyanide444]

Many Western social-democrats admired Yugoslavia because it was "market socialism." Tito also said that the New Deal in the US was socialistic. Plenty of social-democratic parties had members who looked upon Yugoslavia with respect because they too wanted similar "market socialist" systems for their own capitalist countries.

Both Marxists and Anarchists should see Tito's Yugoslavia for what it was: a capitalist state with a social-democratic veneer. After Stalin died Khrushchev met with Tito and declared Yugoslavia socialist; criticized prior policy as "unfortunate," etc., so the image of Tito as some sort of defiant socialist valiantly standing up to the Soviet Union is bunk.



I can see your point there.... But it's not really capitalist in the sense that not all aspects of capitalism were present. It is regrettable that Yugoslavia headed towards Capitalism; I think that Yugoslavia would've been fine if they used that worker-owned system if all the workers were paid the same.

[punisa]

since I'm not an anarchist, I don't think I can add much to this discussion.
As for what I think and a visual representation of relationship between Stalin and Tito, I present you my avatar :D:D:D

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm not sure, but I believe the Soviets supported Greek partisans till they were defeated, they certainly did for a longer period of time than Yugoslavia did.

If that's true then I stand corrected. I seem to remember reading somewhere though that Tito sent aid to Greece after Stalin stopped.

[Lenin II]

As far as the Yugoslavian economy goes, yes it did have a system of worker's councils. But as others on this site have pointed out, the USSR had a similiar system of worker's councils. I'm not sure how different the ones in Yugoslavia were insofar as being more "libertarian" or not. Tito himself wasn't exactly a stalwart of anti-capitalist ideology; William Hitchcock points out in The Struggle for Europe that Yugoslavia was one of the few economic success stories in E. Europe at the time, and was a popular vacation spot for wealthy Western tourists. I'm sure that many of our Marxist-Leninist friends would point to this as a betrayal of socialist ideals in favor of participation in the market economy. Yes, our foolish Marxist-Leninist friends, condemning capitalism.

[Ismail]

I can see your point there.... But it's not really capitalist in the sense that not all aspects of capitalism were present.It was capitalist in the sense that the bourgeoisie owned the means of production and that the society was led by the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. A few concessions to workers do not make it "socialist" anymore than 1980's Sweden was "socialist."

Furthermore, as Žižek (I can't believe I'm citing him) once said:

From the 1970s onwards, the third stage, a new figure of the “spirit of capitalism” is emerging: capitalism abandoned the hierarchical Fordist structure of the production process and developed a network-based form of organization founded on employee initiative and autonomy in the workplace. Instead of hierarchical-centralized chain of command, we get networks with a multitude of participants, organizing work in the form of teams or projects, intent on customer satisfaction, and a general mobilization of workers thanks to their leaders’ vision. In this way, capitalism is transformed and legitimized as an egalitarian project: by way of accentuating auto-poetic interaction and spontaneous self-organization, it even usurped the far Left’s rhetoric of workers’ self-management and turned it from an anti-capitalist to a capitalist slogan.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, our foolish Marxist-Leninist friends, condemning capitalism.

What the fuck are you on about?

Read much into things? :rolleyes:

[comrade_cyanide444]

But... I'm not calling the Yugoslav SFR Socialist... Their attempts to Socialism were admirable however.

[Wanted Man]

Well, this should answer the question:


I don't particularly like Mike Ely, but I agree with his analysis: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars/

Hmm, let's see: privatisation on a large scale, market mechanism, businesses run by managers rather than workers, decisions made according to profit, cheap labour for imperialist countries, strong class distinctions which only sharpened over time, poorer regions deliberately kept poor; and all this enforced by a powerful state that was perfectly willing to disappear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_otok) its opponents to a barren island for forced labour.

Yeah, sounds pretty anarchist all right!


But... I'm not calling the Yugoslav SFR Socialist... Their attempts to Socialism were admirable however.

Because...

Anyway, let's avoid reality. Let's look at things through the eyes of a Balkan version of Ostalgie; we had everything, we lived in luxury (thanks to dealings with the imperialists that effectively ruined any economical and political prospects for future generations; in other words, thinking only in terms of short-term profit, just like all regular capitalist countries), and we were independent (apart from that whole thing of being Washington's loyal agent in the east)! Yeah, let's.