Yugoslavia under Tito = capitalist

[Saorsa]

I already believe that Tito was a revisionist and Yugoslavia was essentially capitalist. So let's not waste time arguing that point... what I'm looking for is detailed evidence about Yugoslavia's economy that can shed more light on this issue.

I've already read a fair bit, but I'd be keen for more.

[Proletarian Ultra]

This is 95% irrelevant, but I was doing a marathon of low-budget euro-horror this weekend and came upon a Barbara Steele movie called She Beast. Joint English-Italian-Yugoslav production.

It was utter shite because Barbara Steele was hardly in it. But anyway, the entire premise of the movie was taking the piss at life in the East Bloc, with some shaggy dog story about a witch in a lake thrown on top.

I raise this only because first of all most of the other East Bloc countries were funding their own native film industries, not using cultural development as a source of foreign direct investment. Second, it was totally - though tongue-in-cheek - anti-communist.

Also, if I didn't say so before, it was shite.The Long Hair of Death was a pretty good Steele flick, however. So...um...there you go!

[28350]

This is an abuse of notation!

[Milos]

Yugoslavia was very collectivist and workers had self-managment after '68. That was not essentialy capitalist.

[Cyberwave]

I suggest reading Yugoslav-"Self-Adminstration" by Enver Hoxha. Hell, a lot of Hoxha's writing is spent blasting Tito and other revisionists. I'm sure you'll find an answer there. Marxist Internet Archive has Hoxha's works.

[Tablo]

Tito was largely revisionist, but even if he were a real ML it still would have been shit. Course he was a Capitalist, as are all state-capitalists.

[Kléber]

*yawn*.. Tito was a proud "Marxist-Leninist," was he "revisionist" when his regime expropriated the Yugoslav bourgeoisie years before the "People's Republics" got Stalin's go-ahead to do the same? So when Soviet regime before 1953 gave incentives to managers, allowed millionaires to accumulate wealth in USSR, held back the revolutionary process in Eastern Europe, forbade peoples colonized by Britain and France to rebel, and cut off aid to Greek Communists, that wasn't "revisionist?" "Revisionism" when Lenin used the term had a clear meaning, but in the mouths of some people it seems to mean nothing else than going against Stalin :rolleyes:

[Barry Lyndon]

I don't think Tito was being a "revisionist", he was merely trying to maintain a delicate diplomatic balance, not an easy task when wedged between the Warsaw Pact and Nato. The Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia's existence was always precarious, trading with both the Western and Eastern powers but not aligning itself militarily with either.

Personally, I find the model of socialism in Yugoslavia to a very interesting and unique one, especially with the establishment of workers councils in the towns to oversee production, something that was unheard of in the Stalinist USSR and its Eastern European satellites.

Yes, it is true that there was a private sector(1/5-1/4 of the economy?), and this came to destroy Yugoslavia in the end, especially after Tito died and his successors made the fatal mistake of borrowing large loans from the IMF, which put Yugoslavia at Washington's mercy when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and they had no alternative trading partner.

[it_ain't_me]

I already believe that...Yugoslavia was essentially capitalist.

and this conclusion has nothing to do with tito's foreign policy stance towards the soviet bloc, i suppose? :rolleyes:

[Saorsa]

^ No, it has more to do with the kind of economy Yugoslavia had.

So far, no useful/interesting links for Comrade Alastair.

[Chimurenga.]

Yes, it is true that there was a private sector(1/5-1/4 of the economy?), and this came to destroy Yugoslavia in the end, especially after Tito died and his successors made the fatal mistake of borrowing large loans from the IMF, which put Yugoslavia at Washington's mercy when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and they had no alternative trading partner.

Did Tito make any attempts to break down the private sector or did he just let it exist?

[4 Leaf Clover]

all i can say about economy , is that Tito's idealism created broken economy , which was almost completely autonomous. Yugoslavia produced both material and goods , but it had very little export. In many factories , workers worked on normative system , like make 20 dresses is the norma for complete payment , if you make under you get less money , if you make more , you get more. This often caused products to be of lesser quality.

[thälmann]

if yugoslavia was capitalist or not, is basically only a economic question. the different companys worked for profit and had competition between each of them. it wasnt a planned economie. it was capitalism, and even if the company is owned by workers, it doesnt change it. but there are also other points, the top managers earned often more then 100 as much than an ordinary worker...because of the autonomy, they could do what they want with the money of the factory. that single point didnt make them capitalist, but it shows a tendency.
the wage differences were also a problem in stalins SU,as somebody mentioned before, but not as much as this( 30 as much was the biggest difference.)

[Thirsty Crow]

if but there are also other points, the top managers earned often more then 100 as much than an ordinary worker...because of the autonomy, they could do what they want with the money of the factory. that single point didnt make them capitalist, but it shows a tendency.


This is an important point.
The top managers' position was different in two ways, as you've stated: (much) higher level of income and much higher level of autonomy in decision making, not only on issues such as the distribution of money (i.e. capital) of the factory, but also on the very issue of organization of production.
These managers were mostly high ranking officials of the Party, and the existence of local workers' councils mostly did not counteract the "local sheriffs" (Party officials appointed to a highest rank within the productive unit) who basically had their hands completely free in certain areas, depending on the historical conditions.
So, the situation as I see is the following: certain portion/structures of the CP appropriated surplus value of workers' labour and decided how should it be used. That's, people, state capitalism (alongside the existence of private property!).

[Nolan]

Tito was largely revisionist, but even if he were a real ML it still would have been shit. Course he was a Capitalist, as are all state-capitalists.

How original of you.

[Brother No. 1]

The only thing I've seen aout the Yugoslavian economy was by the Chinese communist party in the 60s, though I dont hold much to it.

I've been trying to find something that leads to there being some form of workers management in Yugoslavia, but so far nothing I've searched up.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

The only thing I've seen aout the Yugoslavian economy was by the Chinese communist party in the 60s, though I dont hold much to it.

I've been trying to find something that leads to there being some form of workers management in Yugoslavia, but so far nothing I've searched up.

Different definitions. You could say that workers' self-management existed under Stalin too if you looked to the unions and believed workers had a say in the 'democratic process'. Some believe that workers' self-management existed under Mao, some say it existed in the DDR with a better system than in Russia. Some believe that workers' self-management existed in all of these different political contexts.

I don't think you can dispute that workers cooperatively shared profits in Yugoslavia, but that doesn't say much. Older workers became owners and as such exploited younger labour, companies in competition with one another, running the economy, instead of collectivised infrastructure, led to the usual problems faced by any national bourgeoisie in any Capitalist state.

[mountainfire]

I already believe that Tito was a revisionist and Yugoslavia was essentially capitalist. So let's not waste time arguing that point... what I'm looking for is detailed evidence about Yugoslavia's economy that can shed more light on this issue.

Isn't it problematic to decide on a conclusion without studying any of the empirical evidence, and then to demand evidence that affirms the a priori conclusion? In any case, by arguing that Yugoslavia was a capitalist society on the basis that it did not exhibit a planned economy, the assumption seems to be that any single country can have a genuinely planned economy and therefore be socialist whilst the rest of the world remains under the control of the bourgeoisie - but this is false, because the pressures of international economic and military competition will always limit the choices of planners in ways that lead to the law of value being imposed even where the forces of market competition are not immediately present, as in so-called planned economies, and this in turn signifies the presence of capitalist relations of production, in light of Marx's view that the law of value is what makes capitalism a distinctive mode of production.

[Brother No. 1]

You could say that workers' self-management existed under Stalin too if you looked to the unions and believed workers had a say in the 'democratic process'. Some believe that workers' self-management existed under Mao, some say it existed in the DDR with a better system than in Russia. Some believe that workers' self-management existed in all of these different political contexts.

Ok, now why don't you answer the threads question instead of giving your own oppion we have little care for.

[Crvena-Zastava]

The economy of SFR Yugoslavia was much different [and sometimes opposed to] the Soviet and Eastern Bloc economies, but it was definitely not Capitalist. In fact, I would say that it was a healthy mix between Capitalism and Socialism [i.e Titoism].

We must all note that Yugoslavia's infrastructure was devastated after World War Two, which lead to Soviet style 5 year plans being introduced within Yugoslavia, and there was a lot of voluntary work to help reconstruct the infrastructure. Privately owned shops could only employ up to 4 people, but they eventually became state owned in the 50's. Also, the Tito-Stalin split [As some of you like to call it the informbiro] made SFR Yugoslavia extremely hostile to the Soviet Union, and because of this SFR Yugoslavia was more lenient to the United States and other western countries until relations cooled down when Nikita Kruschev entered power in the USSR.

Socialist Self-Management was implemented in the 50's and 60's, and Worker Councils supported by the Yugoslav Communist Party pretty much kept everything in check. This, comrades, was when SFR Yugoslavia really started to shine. Since the start of the 50's, Yugoslavia's Annual GDP grew by around 6-7% each year, and life in general improved for everyone with free healthcare, schooling etc. From my understanding, the average life expectancy was about 75 years which was relatively good for that era. Being a non-aligned country, SFR Yugoslavia exported a number of goods to both Eastern and Western countries. Even here in Australia you can still find some glassware and tableware with the "Made in Yugoslavia" logo on it.

However, thanks to Reagan's plan to economically destroy Yugoslavia the economy started to falter dramatically, debts grew and worst of all Comrade Tito died in 1980. Overall, SFR Yugoslavia had Capitalist traits, but internally it was a Socialist society.

There is a reason as to why everyone within Yugoslavia cried when Tito died, and it is because he was the most adored leader of the 20th century. I have talked to many people who lived in Former Yugoslavia, and they all say positive things about it. In fact, a close friend of mine sometimes bursts out in tears when he thinks about the life he had back in Yugoslavia, and he has constantly told me how much he wishes he could go back to how it was back when Tito was in power.

Sure, SFR Yugoslavia did incorporate some Capitalist elements with its policies, but I will still call you a liar if you say that SFR Yugoslavia is a disgrace to Socialism in general.

[Ismail]

... but it was definitely not Capitalist. In fact, I would say that it was a healthy mix between Capitalism and Socialism [i.e Titoism].Meaning it was... capitalism. There's no such thing as "market socialism" or a "mixed economy" in Marxist terms. There certainly isn't any such thing as a "healthy mix" between two diametrically opposed economic systems, either.

The fact that we have a Titoist from the former Yugoslavia saying this stuff should already raise alarm bells in the minds of most.


... especially after Tito died and his successors made the fatal mistake of borrowing large loans from the IMF, which put Yugoslavia at Washington's mercy when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and they had no alternative trading partner.It was Tito who borrowed large loans from the IMF. As Hoxha noted in 1978 (while Tito was still living) in his work on Yugoslavia: "Large amounts of capital from the capitalist world in the form of investments, credits and 'aid' have been poured into Yugoslavia and this constitutes a considerable part of the material base of the Yugoslav capitalist-revisionist system. The debts alone amount over 11 billion dollars. Alone from the United States of America, Yugoslavia has received over 7 billion dollars in credits."

Hoxha's work: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm
CCP on Yugoslavia in 1963: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html
Mike Ely on Tito: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars/

As for the claims that Tito was some sort of godsend to the Greek Marxists and that the nefarious STALIN ruined all (Albania under Hoxha, as a note, was particularly supportive of the Greek Marxists), Kostas Mavrakis, a Greek Maoist, noted in 1973 that:

In addition to the mistakes committed by the CPG leadership an external event - 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. However, Tito's 'volte-face' was only serious because the party leadership did not realise it had to rely above all on its own forces.
I don't think Tito was being a "revisionist",He claimed the New Deal was a step towards socialism.

What people seem to forget is that after 1956 the Soviet Union praised Tito. Yugoslavia was essentially pro-Soviet in foreign policy under Khrushchev and onwards, and worked closely with Nasser and India (which was pro-Soviet) as part of the "Non-Aligned Movement" (which also boasted such "non-aligned" leaders as Castro and Kim Il Sung, and even the pro-Soviet Afghan Government claimed to be "non-aligned"). In trade relations, of course, Yugoslavia sold itself out to the West.

As an example of the Soviet revisionists praising Tito, here's Brezhnev in 1971 (http://leninist.biz/en/1972/FLC499/21-Electronic.Equipment.Factory.in.Zemun.Yugoslavia): "Another thing we always remember is that it was in the crucible of the Russian revolution that Comrade Tito started on the path of a revolutionary; today he is known to us all as the organiser and hero of the liberation, revolutionary struggle of the Yugoslav people, the leader of the Communists of Yugoslavia, the head of the Yugoslav socialist state."

Tito was always the "acceptable" "communist" leader. Plenty of European social-democrats from Sweden to Britain praised his "humane" system and drew inspiration from it through the 1950's-80's. That people, even anarchists, seem to fall for the idea that Yugoslavia was actually a semi-workers state even though it imploded upon itself when the bureaucratic and capitalist representatives of each of the nationalities started using demagoguery and sections of the Army to tear Yugoslavia apart once the Warsaw Pact and USSR started falling (depriving "socialist" Yugoslavia of much of its legitimacy) shows how effective Tito's "non-aligned" façade was.

[Zanthorus]

Yugoslavia was very collectivist and workers had self-managment after '68. That was not essentialy capitalist.

As if anyone needed any better arguments against fetishising self-management.

Self-managed capitalism is still capitalism.

[Sir Comradical]

*yawn*.. Tito was a proud "Marxist-Leninist," was he "revisionist" when his regime expropriated the Yugoslav bourgeoisie years before the "People's Republics" got Stalin's go-ahead to do the same? So when Soviet regime before 1953 gave incentives to managers, allowed millionaires to accumulate wealth in USSR, held back the revolutionary process in Eastern Europe, forbade peoples colonized by Britain and France to rebel, and cut off aid to Greek Communists, that wasn't "revisionist?" "Revisionism" when Lenin used the term had a clear meaning, but in the mouths of some people it seems to mean nothing else than going against Stalin :rolleyes:

I suspect this is probably the case with a lot of MLs.

[Sir Comradical]

^ No, it has more to do with the kind of economy Yugoslavia had.

So far, no useful/interesting links for Comrade Alastair.

Do you consider the People's Republic of Poland to be "revisionist"?

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Ok, now why don't you answer the threads question instead of giving your own oppion we have little care for.

Apologies in advance for moving off-topic, but I find this post very rude, does the poster think that this is any way to talk to people?

Quite apart from that, this thread is based on opinion to at least some level; everyone is discussing what they think constitutes socialism and capitalism, this is inescapable and part of your socialist ideology even if you believe your ideology is 100% scientific.

For Comrade Alastair's benefit, if no one else's, I'd recommend he read this: revleft.com/vb/revolution-yugoslavias-people-t113312/index.html

[punisa]

the top managers earned often more then 100 as much than an ordinary worker...

This pretty much sums the reasons why I don't join all these contra-Tito "debates" any more.
Sheer ignorance that gets presented as an absolute truth is being incorporated in every single Tito debate we had.
Its like a continues faulty example being recycled over and over again.

This is a structure that keeps on forming each time:
1) Tito was a capitalist, right? Help me reassure this claim.
2) Yes, these are the "facts" which clearly show that his was a capitalist
3) any sources?
4) Yes, yes.. read some Hoxha.

Anyway, the statement "the top managers earned often more then 100 as much than an ordinary worker" is a lie.
Each company in Yugoslavia had an explicit rule called "1 to 7".
What that meant?
It means that the highest payed employee (a general director, manager etc) could only have the salary 7 times greater as that of the lowest payed employee.
This ruled kept white collar workers in check and nobody became a rich man.

After Tito died, Yugoslavia's socialist model was torn apart by the US.
Big "push" was made to turn Yugoslavia to market oriented system.
There are many de-classified documents that prove this statement, this is just one of them: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-133.htm

I lived in Yugoslavia and remember it very well, I also spent (and I still do) a great deal of time talking to older generations about politics and economy of the former country.
I also developed a personal hobby out of it and have over the years collected many books, documents from the era.

It would pointless to start rebuking all the "arguments" that have accumulated here on the RevLeft, especially when we talk about economy.
My only guess is that it is hard to counter Yugoslavia on any other fronts, mainly because Yugoslavia never invaded another country.
So it comes down to economy which is usually backed by some madmen neighbor country rants.

But as I said before, I don't intend to get dragged into another endless debate which values opinions over evidence.

We will all conclude that all socialist experiments in the 20th century were a failure, correct?
I agree to this logic as well, but if we decide to be a bit childish about and go on to create some sort of a "top 10 socialist attempts up to now", Yugoslavia would be number 1 - miles ahead of all other socialist driven communist-wannabes we all learned to love (or hate), such as USSR, China, N.Korea, Cambodia etc etc etc.

[Brother No. 1]

Mike Ely on Tito: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/...e-balkan-wars/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars/)

Though of your 3 sources Ismail(one of which I said :P) this is not needed. I've read it myself, Mike Ely isnt that reliable on..pratically anything since he calls marxism as 'not a layered cake' which is now taught as a 'religion rather then science'.

Though,ironically, in the 80s while most other Socialist states were in rough times Yugoslavia was in its best.



Do you consider the People's Republic of Poland to be "revisionist"?

Since He's a Maoist, yes. My oppion of it is complicated.



but I find this post very rude, does the poster think that this is any way to talk to people?

You seem to take it as if I'm hurting you personally, which I odd. This is the internt, and what I said was a way to have you get back on topic.

[punisa]

Meaning it was... capitalism. There's no such thing as "market socialism" or a "mixed economy" in Marxist terms.

There was "market socialism" and I lived in it.
Marx? None of the socialist experiments of the 20th century were following Marx, go read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/



The fact that we have a Titoist from the former Yugoslavia saying this stuff should already raise alarm bells in the minds of most.

The fact that we have a Hoxhaist talking about Yugoslavia should put those alarm bells to "extra loud" :lol:



It was Tito who borrowed large loans from the IMF.

Not Tito, not loans and not IMF.



Hoxha's work: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm
CCP on Yugoslavia in 1963: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html
Mike Ely on Tito: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars/

Open all these sources and click "CTRL+F" (find function) and look for the word "IMF"



As for the claims that Tito was some sort of godsend to the Greek Marxists and that the nefarious STALIN ruined all (Albania under Hoxha, as a note, was particularly supportive of the Greek Marxists), Kostas Mavrakis, a Greek Maoist, noted in 1973 that:
He claimed the New Deal was a step towards socialism.

Unfortunately Tito did very little too intervene into these countries, thus connecting him with these processes makes little sense.
Hoxha suffered from a classic symptom of being an isolated kid in classroom and this is the main driving force behind his long rants.



What people seem to forget is that after 1956 the Soviet Union praised Tito. Yugoslavia was essentially pro-Soviet in foreign policy under Khrushchev and onwards, and worked closely with Nasser and India (which was pro-Soviet) as part of the "Non-Aligned Movement" (which also boasted such "non-aligned" leaders as Castro and Kim Il Sung, and even the pro-Soviet Afghan Government claimed to be "non-aligned").

Let me guess, according to you NAM is another capitalist anti-Marxist project.



In trade relations, of course, Yugoslavia sold itself out to the West.

Perhaps the West sold itself to Yugoslavia :lol:
You're missing the point - take a look at today's Balkan countries, this is being in a state of "selling out", foregin corporations own virtually everything, the water, the electricity, the roads, the food supply, the land, communications, media, industry, banks.
Yugoslavia was an independent country that managed to stay clear of the "west" as well as the Soviet vultures.




As an example of the Soviet revisionists praising Tito, here's Brezhnev in 1971 (http://leninist.biz/en/1972/FLC499/21-Electronic.Equipment.Factory.in.Zemun.Yugoslavia): "Another thing we always remember is that it was in the crucible of the Russian revolution that Comrade Tito started on the path of a revolutionary; today he is known to us all as the organiser and hero of the liberation, revolutionary struggle of the Yugoslav people, the leader of the Communists of Yugoslavia, the head of the Yugoslav socialist state."

Good boy Brezhnev.



Tito was always the "acceptable" "communist" leader. Plenty of European social-democrats from Sweden to Britain praised his "humane" system and drew inspiration from it through the 1950's-80's. That people, even anarchists, seem to fall for the idea that Yugoslavia was actually a semi-workers state even though it imploded upon itself when the bureaucratic and capitalist representatives of each of the nationalities started using demagoguery and sections of the Army to tear Yugoslavia apart once the Warsaw Pact and USSR started falling (depriving "socialist" Yugoslavia of much of its legitimacy) shows how effective Tito's "non-aligned" façade was.

I'll tell you this - appreciation for Yugoslavia comes only after you spend enough time researching every other socialist attempt.
The only thing I would change is break up with Stalin as early as 1945. and kick start "market socialism" asap. Perhaps this move would save us from atrocities such as Goli Otok and similar.
Many elements that tore Yugoslavia apart came directly as an outrage once facts about such repression became clear.

I consider "market socialism" as the next logical step towards communism, with dropping "market" some times in the future and then further dropping/and replacing "socialism" with "communism".
I'm not an ideologist hard liner and realize that the majority will not consider this time-line as it seriously deviates Marx in general.

[Milos]

As if anyone needed any better arguments against fetishising self-management.

Self-managed capitalism is still capitalism.

It was way less capitalist than USSR under Stalin anyway.
Capitalism was never yet defeated anywhere, except during the Spanish anarchist revolution 1936 and it was short lived.
I am from ex-Yugoslavia, and nowdays it's essentially capitalist society, back in these times it just wasn't.

[Zanthorus]

It was way less capitalist than USSR under Stalin anyway.

I'd argue that Yugoslavia was more obviously capitalist since there was commodity exchange and therefore an obvious route for the law of value to enforce itself. If I understand correctly the big fuss over yugoslavia was the existence of worker co-operatives. However as Marx argued, co-operatives only "mak[e] the associated labourers into their own capitalist". The existence of co-operatives means the buying and selling of labour-power as a commodity on the market, which means that surplus-labour time took the form of surplus-value and which means the existence of capital as a corrolary. The USSR's economy was planned and the prices of goods were not validated through the market but through the plan, the extraction of surplus-labour time was also performed by the state in accordance with the plan, surplus-labour time did not take the form of surplus-value, so on surface appearances at least we would have to conclude that the USSR was, if not socialist, at least some form of non-capitalist social formation. This is not a good place for debate about the nature of the USSR however.

[Monster]

Hi, comrades,

I have some questions about yougoslavian socialism.

1. What about changing one's place of work under yougoslavian socialism? Let's assume, that a worker from poor and unsuccessful enterprise wants to pass to successful enterprise. Has this enterprise oblige to accept him? Maybe the workers from rich enterprise can suggest him to be engaged, but only without rights to vote, with smaller salary (I know, it wasn't the same salary as in capitalist enterprise, but, I say so for simple)?
2. As I have heard, unemploeyment exist in Yougoslavia (in contrast with Soviet Union). Why? No one enterprise engaged some mens?
3. What was the real competence of worker's council? For instance to solve what to produce, for what price to sell, radically change production (for instance to produce not beer, but juice), to elect and reject bosses and so on.
4. Robert Nozick ir his "Anarchy, State and Utopia" argues, that worker's cooperative couldn't exist (or exist successful), because workers would want to get the fruits of their work as soon, as possible, and they wouldn't care of enterpise's development. Maybe this famous liberal thinker never heard about socialist Yougoslavia :) But really, what if majority of workers don't link personal future with enterprise (for instance, thay are going to resettle to another city, town or even to abroad; retire on a pension or so on), they will not be interested in development. What about this problem?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I think this old Revolutionary Worker article (http://revcom.us/a/v20/1000-1009/1001/kosobk.htm) actually provides a lot of the sort of info you're looking for, Alastair. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide links to the stats and so forth that are mentioned, so you'd have to look those up individually. (Try Googling them, I of course mean.) But this gives you the general idea nonetheless.

[Blackscare]

^ No, it has more to do with the kind of economy Yugoslavia had.

So far, no useful/interesting links for Comrade Alastair.


Well you do realize that if you make a thread that says "Yugoslavia = capitalist" and then say "I don't want any debate on this subject", you're kind of setting yourself up to not be listened to, right?


Had you titled the thread something less controversial, maybe this would be more "productive" in your eyes.

[Crvena-Zastava]

Well you do realize that if you make a thread that says "Yugoslavia = capitalist" and then say "I don't want any debate on this subject", you're kind of setting yourself up to not be listened to, right?


Had you titled the thread something less controversial, maybe this would be more "productive" in your eyes.

Agreed, I probably would not have spent as much time making that post of mine.


Meaning it was... capitalism. There's no such thing as "market socialism" or a "mixed economy" in Marxist terms. There certainly isn't any such thing as a "healthy mix" between two diametrically opposed economic systems, either.

No, haven't I explained that it wasn't a Capitalist society? Please, if you try to suggest thatSFR Yugoslavia was a nation comparable [When it comes to economic handling] to present-day western nations such as the United States, France or Australia then you might as well try insisting that dogs are actually a breed of cat.

Also, I am not a Marxist.

[Zanthorus]

No, haven't I explained that it wasn't a Capitalist society? Please, if you try to suggest thatSFR Yugoslavia was a nation comparable [When it comes to economic handling] to present-day western nations such as the United States, France or Australia then you might as well try insisting that dogs are actually a breed of cat.

Comparability isn't the issue here. "Socialist" Yugoslavia may well have been more progressive in many issues than various western states, but the issue at hand is the issue of the process of production of capital. Capitalism isn't about more or less progressive policies but a process in which money is used to buy labour-power, means of production and raw materials which is then combined in the production process to create a new commodity with a greater value than it's constituents which is then sold on for an amount of money greater than the original sum advanced, the difference between the two being surplus-value. This new sum of money is then re-invested and the whole process can begin again. This process exists wether or not the management of enterprises is done by the cigar smoking factory owner or the recallable workplace delegate. Abolishing capitalism is not just a question of changing management.


Also, I am not a Marxist.

That much is certainly clear.

[Crvena-Zastava]

You must have misunderstood me, I wasn't saying that you can compare SFR Yugoslavia with western nations, I was saying that it would be ludicrous to say that they were similar societies.

I have talked to many people from SFR Yugoslavia, and they all agree that life was much different back there than it is in modern Western nations.

[punisa]

Comparability isn't the issue here. "Socialist" Yugoslavia may well have been more progressive in many issues than various western states, but the issue at hand is the issue of the process of production of capital. Capitalism isn't about more or less progressive policies but a process in which money is used to buy labour-power, means of production and raw materials which is then combined in the production process to create a new commodity with a greater value than it's constituents which is then sold on for an amount of money greater than the original sum advanced, the difference between the two being surplus-value. This new sum of money is then re-invested and the whole process can begin again. This process exists wether or not the management of enterprises is done by the cigar smoking factory owner or the recallable workplace delegate. Abolishing capitalism is not just a question of changing management.

Looks as if we started playing with words here.
When the topic title states that Yugoslavia was a capitalist country it does so only to provoke a reaction.
If one wants to show the facts why Yugoslavia was not following in the footsteps of Marx, they could simply call it for what is was "market socialism". Stating it was capitalist is sheer ignorance.

Market is not capitalism (otherwise it would be called "Marketism")
Market is one of the elements incorporated into capitalism.
Capitalism = capital.
The whole philosophy behind it is to accumulate capital.

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are publicly owned, managed, and administered and the market is utilized to distribute resources and economic output.

[Zanthorus]

Looks as if we started playing with words here.
When the topic title states that Yugoslavia was a capitalist country it does so only to provoke a reaction.
If one wants to show the facts why Yugoslavia was not following in the footsteps of Marx, they could simply call it for what is was "market socialism". Stating it was capitalist is sheer ignorance.

No it is not, Yugoslavia was a country in which capital, self-expanding value, existed. This is not a difficult concept. Slapping the label "market socialism" other something doesn't change much.


Market is not capitalism (otherwise it would be called "Marketism")

And I never said it was.


Capitalism = capital.

And what are the prerequisites of capital? Commodity exchange and specifically the ability to buy and sell human labour-power. Which existed in your so-called "market socialism".


Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are publicly owned, managed, and administered and the market is utilized to distribute resources and economic output.

Oh, you mean state-capitalism then?

[4 Leaf Clover]

I don't think Tito was being a "revisionist", he was merely trying to maintain a delicate diplomatic balance, not an easy task when wedged between the Warsaw Pact and Nato. The Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia's existence was always precarious, trading with both the Western and Eastern powers but not aligning itself militarily with either.

Personally, I find the model of socialism in Yugoslavia to a very interesting and unique one, especially with the establishment of workers councils in the towns to oversee production, something that was unheard of in the Stalinist USSR and its Eastern European satellites.

Yes, it is true that there was a private sector(1/5-1/4 of the economy?), and this came to destroy Yugoslavia in the end, especially after Tito died and his successors made the fatal mistake of borrowing large loans from the IMF, which put Yugoslavia at Washington's mercy when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and they had no alternative trading partner.

Yugoslavia's socialism was indeed a failing one. For a communist and anti-imperialist, wedging between communist forces and western forces is betrayal

especially for someone like Tito , who's mouth were full of anti-imperialism and liberalization of Africa from neo-colonization , but then , he accepted and defended his territories from communists ? ... using the funds from the same imperialists and colonialists. Its widely known how Tito wasted western help , building underground airports and similar toys

splitting from unified communist block is betrayal commrades , especially seccessing your country economy and opening your borders for dirty capital from NATO forces.

[4 Leaf Clover]

And what are the prerequisites of capital? Commodity exchange and specifically the ability to buy and sell human labour-power.

difference is , socialist productive forces do not create surpulus value , and the value cant be used to buy labour power, because labour power , uses the value

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Tito was very very brazenly capitalist undoubtedly. In 1956 Tito encouraged local administrations to foster private capital by its taxation and other policies. The IVth Congress of the League of Communists of Croatia declaring that "competition, the seeking of profits, speculation and the like" were viable sources of development. In 1961 the League of Communists of Yugoslavia decreed that private individuals have the right to purchase foreign exchange. In 1963 the LCY embodied the policy of developing private capitalism in its constitution. According to provisions of the constitution, private individuals in Yugoslavia may found enterprises and hire labour; in fact, some private businesses were allowed to employ up to 500-600 workers and thousands of such businesses flourished according to the Official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia of 1963. Just reading old Yugoslav books and articles and comparing them to Marx's Capital will show you just how badly Tito deviated from the socialist path.

If we're serious about building socialism, we can't be pragmatic about it... we need to be seriously looking at what socialism actually IS, not what we want it to be, and make sure to not repeat the errors of the past that would lead us back to the capitalist road. To be true to Marxism is NOT idealistic... as Lenin said: "The theory of Marx is all-powerful because it is true", and by staying true to what Marxism actually SAYS we can dare to scale the heights and overcome ANY obstacles.

[punisa]

some private businesses were allowed to employ up to 500-600 workers and thousands of such businesses flourished according to the Official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia of 1963.

Really? Then it won't be a problem for you to name a few of these companies?



splitting from unified communist block is betrayal commrades , especially seccessing your country economy and opening your borders for dirty capital from NATO forces.
Yes... long live the iron curtain :rolleyes:

Exactly the opening of the borders was in fact one of the reason why Tito's socialism was the most democratic one.
Did the masses in the east like being cut away from the rest of the world? Did they reach such "class consciousness"?
When will people learn, you cannot have socialism (especially not communism) if its not backed up by the masses? Well you can, but there is nothing social about it - its dictatorship and a tyranny, exactly what USSR was.

[punisa]

And what are the prerequisites of capital? Commodity exchange and specifically the ability to buy and sell human labour-power. Which existed in your so-called "market socialism".

That's your definition, mine is as follows:
capitalism is the absolute power of the tiny minority to exploit the large majority.
That is the problem with capitalism and the main reason why I'd prefer for it to be gone.
The things you mention such as the commodity exchange and labor value exchange are just economic forces you may or may not enforce during the transitional system.
But the system must be transitional, otherwise its useless.
Many comrades here scream "Yugoslav stock exchange !" - as if it was some kind of comic book villain raping the working class.

Yugoslavia was a country that valued people's happiness over socialist theory and in that segment it succeed.
It was connected to the world and people were proud of it.
It never claimed it was the leader of the world revolution, but it valued highly its capacity to make its decisions and breaking off with Stalin was the best thing that happened during Yugoslavia's existence.

Sure, now decades later we can take a retrospective look and talk about all the things it never was and never became.
Bottom line is that from a period between Stalin's death (1953) and Tito's death (1980.) it was probably the best country in a world to live in, everything else is theory, but this is a fact.

[Brother No. 1]

Exactly the opening of the borders was in fact one of the reason why Tito's socialism was the most democratic one.

I do not, at all logic, see how opening the borders makes "his" Socialism more democratic. In all case in point, it was a stupid move. This meant that the Imperialist powers could just make trade deals freely, or send 'aid' to defend them from the 'bad commies'.



Did the masses in the east like being cut away from the rest of the world?

..Which is why my Dad, who was in Communist poland, had traveled Europe during the 70s?



When will people learn, you cannot have socialism (especially not communism) if its not backed up by the masses?

Which is why people miss such states like the Peoples Republic of Poland or on why Hungary is turning into Fascist sympathizers now that liberalism is literally degrading in Eastern Europe?


Well you can, but there is nothing social about it - its dictatorship and a tyranny, exactly what USSR was.

So, somehow, tito was the glorious communist leader but his glorious socialist state was overshadowed by the 'evil and tolitarian' USSR which was increasing morality rates, overall vacination, education and other various departments? Tell me again, How is the 'new russia'? Is it any less 'dictorial' in your eyes then the evil USSR?

[punisa]

I do not, at all logic, see how opening the borders makes "his" Socialism more democratic. In all case in point, it was a stupid move.

It is rather logical actually - if people want to travel freely and you enable them, that makes it democratic.



..Which is why my Dad, who was in Communist poland, had traveled Europe during the 70s?

I know very well what "traveling" was like behind the iron curtain.
Sure, some restrictions were lifted in the 70's, but you could travel only to certain countries and only in limited time span.
This is not comparable with Yugoslavia, as you could freely go wherever on earth you wanna go and whenever you wanna go.

This reminds of another self-management story. Enterprises usually spent the surplus profits on such things.
I remember the story of a factory in Yugoslavia that produced printing machines (or something along those lines) and ended the business year with greater export then forecast.
The surplus profit was spent on 2 full weeks vacation for all the workers and their families in a hotel in Hawaii.

Such examples made even the capitalist countries jealous.
I remember one West German family who spent every summer vacation in Yugoslavia.
The guy spoke about Yugoslav workers in the West Germany.
His co-worker was a Yugoslav, they were both highly educated and held a similar job position.
The only difference was that the person from Yugoslavia managed to build himself a house and also a vacation home by the sea, while he and his family were drowning in mortgages, debts and other c(r)appie burdens.

The wild stories how Yugoslav workers were exploited in the West are laughable.
I guess Yugoslavs were all suffering from a mass delusional masochism at the time.



Which is why people miss such states like the Peoples Republic of Poland

Is that why Poland recently enforced anti-communist laws?

"Poland's president has approved legislation that allows for people to be fined or even imprisoned for possessing or buying communist symbols, two decades after communist rule ended."
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/poland-bans-communist-symbols-20091128-jxbb.html



So, somehow, tito was the glorious communist leader but his glorious socialist state was overshadowed by the 'evil and tolitarian' USSR which was increasing morality rates, overall vacination, education and other various departments? Tell me again, How is the 'new russia'? Is it any less 'dictorial' in your eyes then the evil USSR?

USSR was not a bogeyman, but it had a tendency to turn Yugoslavia into one of its satellites and use it primarily on the grounds of good military strategic positioning.
Yugoslav people liberated their country with their own blood and were not going to give up their sovereignty that easily.
But let's be realistic, this was always the region of soldiers - but Yugoslavs were still no match for the red army. So was there any other way to keep Stalin in check and not seek help from the west?

Tito was not the "glorious communist leader", but when Stalin requested obedience he was crazy enough to say "NO".

[Kayser_Soso]

It is rather logical actually - if people want to travel freely and you enable them, that makes it democratic.

Uh....no, no it doesn't. Freedom of travel does not mean democracy.




This reminds of another self-management story. Enterprises usually spent the surplus profits on such things.
I remember the story of a factory in Yugoslavia that produced printing machines (or something along those lines) and ended the business year with greater export then forecast.
The surplus profit was spent on 2 full weeks vacation for all the workers and their families in a hotel in Hawaii.

Anecdotal evidence do not show the whole picture.




The wild stories how Yugoslav workers were exploited in the West are laughable.
I guess Yugoslavs were all suffering from a mass delusional masochism at the time.

They may have received higher wages outside the country, but for the Westerners, they were good as cheap labor. It was win-win for Tito, it let pressure off as workers sent money back to their families.





USSR was not a bogeyman, but it had a tendency to turn Yugoslavia into one of its satellites and use it primarily on the grounds of good military strategic positioning.

This was true of the Khruschev regime, which ironically made the first steps toward better relations with Tito. Tito's brand of capitalism disguised as socialism was very useful to people like Khruschev, Brezhnev, and later even Mao, so they could build their own state capitalism.



Yugoslav people liberated their country with their own blood and were not going to give up their sovereignty that easily.

You must be thinking of Albania, because the Red Army marched into Belgrade in October of 1944. Only Greece and Albania liberated themselves without outside help.


So was there any other way to keep Stalin in check and not seek help from the west?

There is no evidence that Stalin was trying to take over Yugoslavia or any other Western territory, thus necessitating holding him "in check." Interesting that Titoites are still gleefully doing the work of capitalists, repeating their memes.



Tito was not the "glorious communist leader", but when Stalin requested obedience he was crazy enough to say "NO".

Do you have a transcript of this dialog? Didn't think so.


Titoism led to corruption, splitting of the socialist camp, support for right wing dictators, and ultimately the fall of 20th century socialism(as a lot of revisionism got practical inspiration from Tito). Self-management was a joke. Under this system, people could "hire" up to five "assistants." These assistants could do the same, and eventually one man could have a whole factory worth of employees, in capitalist fashion. Yugoslavia had terrible wealth distribution, which is one of the reasons why some people preferred to leave the country.

[ContrarianLemming]

^ No, it has more to do with the kind of economy Yugoslavia had.

So far, no useful/interesting links for Comrade Alastair.

a worker run one?

[ContrarianLemming]

As if anyone needed any better arguments against fetishising self-management.

Self-managed capitalism is still capitalism.

Maybe I'm wrong but..isn't the definition of socialism workers control?

[Kayser_Soso]

Maybe I'm wrong but..isn't the definition of socialism workers control?

No, but in any case, workers did not actually control their factories in Yugoslavia. They might have had a say in the running of things from time to time, but this was true to one degree or another in every so-called or genuinely socialist regime.

[ContrarianLemming]

No

Whats socialism? I get the feeling your definition is going to be problematic for anarchists :p

In the case of Tito's yugoslavia, I have no strong opinion on it, and I don't really care either, it's a bad example to use in debate, mired up in contradictions or complications, and useless with red fascists, who claim it was infact capitalist.

[Crvena-Zastava]

Anecdotal evidence do not show the whole picture.

Perhaps not, but people who worked in factories in Yugoslavia generally had it better than the people who worked in the factories in the West or Soviet Union


They may have received higher wages outside the country, but for the Westerners, they were good as cheap labor. It was win-win for Tito, it let pressure off as workers sent money back to their families.

What are you talking about? A lot of Yugoslav doctors, lawyers etc went who were educated within Yugoslavia came to Western countries and ended up receiving better pay than other westerners because of better qualifications. My own doctor was educated in Yugoslavia, and he worked in England before he came to Australia and he is widely regarded as one of the finest doctors within the city [Which is saying something, because I live in Canberra, the nations capital].

You are probably confusing Yugoslavs with Chinese immigrants.



This was true of the Khruschev regime, which ironically made the first steps toward better relations with Tito. Tito's brand of capitalism disguised as socialism was very useful to people like Khruschev, Brezhnev, and later even Mao, so they could build their own state capitalism.

:rolleyes:

Typical.


You must be thinking of Albania, because the Red Army marched into Belgrade in October of 1944. Only Greece and Albania liberated themselves without outside help.

The Yugoslav Partisans were the main force in pushing out the Germans, not the Soviet Red Army. In fact, a big factor to why SFR Yugoslavia didn't become a Soviet Puppet State was that the Red Army had very limited involvement within Yugoslavia, and thus had little ability to affect the nation as such.



There is no evidence that Stalin was trying to take over Yugoslavia or any other Western territory, thus necessitating holding him "in check." Interesting that Titoites are still gleefully doing the work of capitalists, repeating their memes.

He wasn't trying to take over Yugoslavia, he tried to make it a puppet state that was willing to do his bidding. Luckily, it didn't work and Yugoslavia ended up much better off without him.


Do you have a transcript of this dialog? Didn't think so.

Its called Informbiro.

[punisa]

Uh....no, no it doesn't. Freedom of travel does not mean democracy.

Not in that sense of the term, but you can say that banning travel is un-democratic, or against the will of the people.



They may have received higher wages outside the country, but for the Westerners, they were good as cheap labor. It was win-win for Tito, it let pressure off as workers sent money back to their families.

I agree. It was a win-win situation and that is beyond any doubt.



You must be thinking of Albania, because the Red Army marched into Belgrade in October of 1944. Only Greece and Albania liberated themselves without outside help.

Yes, this was the joint action of partisans and Red Army (headed by Marshall Fyodor Tolbukhin) aka as the Belgrade offensive.
Yugoslavia is much more then Belgrade and saying that this offensive somehow takes away the point that Yugoslavia was liberated by Yugoslavs is not true.
There were RAF pilots in the Adriatic too, but that doesn't mean they played a crucial role.




There is no evidence that Stalin was trying to take over Yugoslavia or any other Western territory, thus necessitating holding him "in check." Interesting that Titoites are still gleefully doing the work of capitalists, repeating their memes.

Sure he didn't, uncle Joe loved Yugoslavia just the way is it, right.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement)



Titoism led to corruption, splitting of the socialist camp, support for right wing dictators, and ultimately the fall of 20th century socialism(as a lot of revisionism got practical inspiration from Tito).

Really? I heard the recent earthquake in Haiti is also his doings.



Self-management was a joke. Under this system, people could "hire" up to five "assistants." These assistants could do the same, and eventually one man could have a whole factory worth of employees, in capitalist fashion.

I said it before and I'll say it again (although its becoming boring already): name me some of these factories.



Yugoslavia had terrible wealth distribution, which is one of the reasons why some people preferred to leave the country.
Sure, and where exactly did these people go seeking "the paradise of the wealth distribution"? Did they emigrate to the USSR perhaps? China? Albania? Hmm... maybe, the US? The glorious wealth distribution oasis :rolleyes:
People that did emigrate did so mainly for the political reasons (read: personal nationalism fetish)

[Kayser_Soso]

First of all, some info about capitalism in Yugoslavia, based on information directly from the Tito government:

According to the official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia, 1963 published in Belgrade, there are over 115,000 privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia. But in fact the owners of many of these private enterprises are not "craftsmen" but typical private capitalists.

The Tito clique admits that although the law allows private owners to employ a maximum of five workers each, there are some who employ ten or twenty times as many and even some who employ "five to six hundred workers".[1] And the annual turnover of some private enterprises is over 100 million dinars.[2]

Politika disclosed on December 7, 1961 that in many cases these private entrepreneurs are actually "big entrepreneurs". It says:

It is difficult to ascertain how wide the net of these private entrepreneurs spreads and how many workers they have. According to the law, they are entitled to keep five workers who are supposed to help them in their work. But to those who know the ins and outs of the matter, these five persons are actually contractors who in turn have their own


[1] M. Todorovic, "The Struggle on Two Fronts", Nasha Stvarnost, March issue, 1954.
[2] Vesnik u sredu, December 27, 1961.

'sub-contractors'. . . . As a rule, these contractors no longer engage in labour but only give orders, make plans and conclude contracts, travelling by car from one enterprise to another.

From the profits made by these entrepreneurs, one can see that they are one hundred per cent capitalists. Svet reported on December 8, 1961 that "the net income of some private handicraftsmen reaches one million dinars per month", and the Belgrade Vecernje novosti said on December 20, 1961 that in Belgrade "last year 116 owners of private enterprises each received an income of more than 10 million dinars". Some entrepreneurs "received an income of about 70 million dinars" in one year, which is nearly U.S.$100,000 according to the official rate of exchange.

In Yugoslav cities not only are there private industrial enterprises, private service establishments, private commerce, private housing estates and private transport business, there are also usurers, who are known as "private bankers". These usurers operate openly and even advertise their business in the newspapers; one such advertisement runs as follows: "A loan of 300,000 dinars for three months offered. 400,000 dinars to be returned. Security necessary."[1]

So tell me this, if workers were really running their own factories, how the hell were some people making such profits and huge salaries? Were the workers voluntarily voting to give such salaries to individuals? Doubtful.


Perhaps not, but people who worked in factories in Yugoslavia generally had it better than the people who worked in the factories in the West or Soviet Union

No, they did not, in a number of ways. And that's if they were working in factories. It says nothing about agricultural workers.

The "general agricultural co-operatives" and the "agricultural farms" hire and exploit a large number of long-term and temporary workers. According to data in The Statistical Year-Book of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia of 1962, long-term workers hired by the "cooperatives" alone totalled more than 100,000 in 1961. A large number of temporary workers were also employed. As disclosed by Rad on December 1, 1962, hired labourers "are very often subject to the crudest exploitation (the working day may be as long as 15 hours), and usually their personal income is extremely low".




What are you talking about? A lot of Yugoslav doctors, lawyers etc went who were educated within Yugoslavia came to Western countries and ended up receiving better pay than other westerners because of better qualifications. My own doctor was educated in Yugoslavia, and he worked in England before he came to Australia and he is widely regarded as one of the finest doctors within the city [Which is saying something, because I live in Canberra, the nations capital].

Again, this means nothing. By this logic I should accept every argument against Communism coming from someone who says "my family + people I knew experienced X in Y."



You are probably confusing Yugoslavs with Chinese immigrants.

No, I am not. Many worked as builders or in other lower wage jobs. It begs the question- why couldn't they find a decent wage in Yugoslavia?

If it was so wonderful, why is it that so many ethnic groups had concluded by the 80s that they were being screwed by the government? Could it have anything to do with the vast difference in wealth and standards of living throughout the country?



:rolleyes:

Typical.

This is not an argument.




The Yugoslav Partisans were the main force in pushing out the Germans, not the Soviet Red Army. In fact, a big factor to why SFR Yugoslavia didn't become a Soviet Puppet State was that the Red Army had very limited involvement within Yugoslavia, and thus had little ability to affect the nation as such.

The other states were not "puppet" states either until the Khruschev clique started installing their own leaders in those nations. The Red Army never set foot in Albania yet they stayed with the USSR until it was apparent that they were totally revisionist.





He wasn't trying to take over Yugoslavia, he tried to make it a puppet state that was willing to do his bidding. Luckily, it didn't work and Yugoslavia ended up much better off without him.

You have the transcripts of this conversation somewhere, right? The fact is that Yugoslavia took plenty of money to do the bidding of capitalism. This is proven not only by the results but by the West's own records.

For one thing, if Yugoslavia was such a wonderful socialist society, why was the west pumping so much money into it? That seems to be taking the whole thing about "creating one's own gravediggers" to the extreme.

Lastly, I think there are several tens of thousands of dead people who, were they alive, would disagree with your claim that Yugoslavia was better off following Tito's path.






Its called Informbiro.

No, no it's not. I want evidence that Stalin "requested obedience."

[Kayser_Soso]

Not in that sense of the term, but you can say that banning travel is un-democratic, or against the will of the people.

It has nothing to do with democracy. If it is necessary for whatever reason, it must be a fact. It is an unfortunately reality of revolution.




There were RAF pilots in the Adriatic too, but that doesn't mean they played a crucial role.

Actually it was the British and American involvement that caused the problems which would lead to the mess in 1948.




Sure he didn't, uncle Joe loved Yugoslavia just the way is it, right.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement)

Wikipedia, great. This has nothing to do with the discussion and clearly was not the basis for post-war Europe. Are you going to say that the UK, for example, had 20% influence in Hungary after the war? Preposterous.



Really? I heard the recent earthquake in Haiti is also his doings.


Nice way to fail at disputing everything I said here.



I said it before and I'll say it again (although its becoming boring already): name me some of these factories.

Name me some of these factories where the workers were in control. The burden of proof is on you. I have already cited sources derived directly from SFRY's own published information, showing vast differences in individual wealth, exploitation of hired labor, and so on. You guys have a long way to go to explain why a "socialist nation" not only superior to all others but in some ways superior to the west- collapsed in an explosion of war and genocide.



Sure, and where exactly did these people go seeking "the paradise of the wealth distribution"? Did they emigrate to the USSR perhaps? China? Albania? Hmm... maybe, the US? The glorious wealth distribution oasis :rolleyes:
People that did emigrate did so mainly for the political reasons (read: personal nationalism fetish)

Strawman argument and fail. And why couldn't the government do much of anything against this "personal nationalism fetish"? Seems to me that a truly socialist state would be able to transcend petty national and ethnic differences.

[4 Leaf Clover]

once yugoslavia turned against unified communist block with the help of capitalists block , ends all talk about yugoslavia being authentic socialist state , lets not speak about marxism and ideology

the best indicator of how "developed" yugoslav working conditions and industry was ,is its export

[punisa]

I have already cited sources derived directly from SFRY's own published information, showing vast differences in individual wealth, exploitation of hired labor, and so on.

No dear comrade, what you just cited is taken directly from "Communist Party of China: IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY?" (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html)
For all I know - this is a classic example of Chinese propaganda.

Response to this Chinese attacks (from Edvard Kardelj, Tito's second in command): http://ia331328.us.archive.org/2/items/socialismandwara012744mbp/socialismandwara012744mbp.pdf

You try really hard to get your point across, but lack reliable resources to do so.

[Kayser_Soso]

No dear comrade, what you just cited is taken directly from "Communist Party of China: IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY?" (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html)
For all I know - this is a classic example of Chinese propaganda.

Response to this Chinese attacks (from Edvard Kardelj, Tito's second in command): http://ia331328.us.archive.org/2/items/socialismandwara012744mbp/socialismandwara012744mbp.pdf

You try really hard to get your point across, but lack reliable resources to do so.

But this Chinese document cites sources directly from sources published by Belgrade. The fact that they are in a Chinese document means nothing.

[punisa]

But this Chinese document cites sources directly from sources published by Belgrade. The fact that they are in a Chinese document means nothing.
Nothing left to do then to track down these sources, I'll do my best.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Nothing left to do then to track down these sources, I'll do my best.

Yes, please, I suggest you look at the Official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia of 1963. It's in my university library and it actually lists some the "workers self-managed" private enterprises.

[Brother No. 1]

Is that why Poland recently enforced anti-communist laws?


"Poland's president has approved legislation that allows for people to be fined or even imprisoned for possessing or buying communist symbols, two decades after communist rule ended."
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/bre...1128-jxbb.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/poland-bans-communist-symbols-20091128-jxbb.html)

oh gee wiz remember Solidarity, and how they were an xenophobic, racist, nationalist party? Or how Eastern Europe is basically a degradin pile of liberalism slowly going into Fascism?

The reason to make anti-communist laws is simply to dis-encourage any resistance to this new republic or just to say "well the COMMUNISTS were the BAD PEOPLE" even though the Polish economy just ploped down on its ass even since the fall of the People's Republic. Anyways did you forget that in 2004 so many poles left poland (some thousands) that it made the entire lifetime 'get aways' in the DDR seem as if only 12 actually left? Yes,yes the Poland now is such a great state since the fall of those evil communists. :rolleyes:



It is rather logical actually - if people want to travel freely and you enable them, that makes it democratic.

So any socialist nation (oh wait they're all dictorial now except Yugoslavia..) that does not enable people to freely go to another nation this makes them less democratic? But then, what kind of people? The intellectuals? The workers? The counter-revolutionaries? It is a vauge thing 'people' is.



USSR was not a bogeyman, but it had a tendency to turn Yugoslavia into one of its satellites and use it primarily on the grounds of good military strategic positioning.

Must be why Albania had a military presence since it was a satellite?:rolleyes: Actually I thought that afer 1948 most Soviet military left Polan. (Rovossosky did not leave and lead the Polish Army untill he found that he couldnt rely on Nikata to correct Poland's policies)


[qupte]Sure, some restrictions were lifted in the 70's, but you could travel only to certain countries and only in limited time span.
This is not comparable with Yugoslavia, as you could freely go wherever on earth you wanna go and whenever you wanna go.[/quote]

Oh wait didnt you say that they couldnt travel? So now you have to travel 'anywhere on earth' to be a true democracy!:lol:



So was there any other way to keep Stalin in check and not seek help from the west?

Must be why in "Soviet Civilization, Vol. 2" it says that after the war Stalin mainly focused on rebuilding the country (and Nikata took over that department and did a fair job in that). what evidence is there to claim Stalin would really want to invade Yugoslavia? It'd be like saying "Stalin WANTED to invade the UK\US\West Germany\etc."

[punisa]

Stalin would really want to invade Yugoslavia?

Maybe he did maybe he did not, perhaps not in the military sense, but he wanted Yugoslavia to be an subordinate to Moscow.
Just as today's Croatia is subordinate to Washington, sure there is no US army present on the ground, but the entire political elite does whatever they are told to do.

Let's be sensible for a minute - we can't argue that Stalin was ready to let Yugoslavia be on its own and completely independent from the east bloc.
In the end Yugoslavia was heavily influenced by Moscow and Washington at the same time, this is a fact and we are not trying to conceal it.
But such arrangements also allowed Tito and Yugoslav communist party to make numerous choices on their own.

If there was a perfect world, both powers (US and USSR) would let Yugoslavia be, unfortunately it was never like that.
The bloody war that violently tore Yugoslavia into pieces was again constructed by the foreign interference.
Once the powerhouse USSR was gone, US (and others) moved in for the kill.
They quickly assisted right wing lunatics' rise to power and the result is over 100,000 dead, population displaced and the mass robbery conducted by the privileged few who are today wealthy beyond imagination.

[Milos]

If SFR Yugoslavia was such evil capitalist country, why we here have PRIVATISATION madness right now, all since Yugoslavia's end?

[Kayser_Soso]

Maybe he did maybe he did not, perhaps not in the military sense, but he wanted Yugoslavia to be an subordinate to Moscow.
Just as today's Croatia is subordinate to Washington, sure there is no US army present on the ground, but the entire political elite does whatever they are told to do.

Let's be sensible for a minute - we can't argue that Stalin was ready to let Yugoslavia be on its own and completely independent from the east bloc.
In the end Yugoslavia was heavily influenced by Moscow and Washington at the same time, this is a fact and we are not trying to conceal it.
But such arrangements also allowed Tito and Yugoslav communist party to make numerous choices on their own.

If there was a perfect world, both powers (US and USSR) would let Yugoslavia be, unfortunately it was never like that.
The bloody war that violently tore Yugoslavia into pieces was again constructed by the foreign interference.
Once the powerhouse USSR was gone, US (and others) moved in for the kill.
They quickly assisted right wing lunatics' rise to power and the result is over 100,000 dead, population displaced and the mass robbery conducted by the privileged few who are today wealthy beyond imagination.

Your ability to read Stalin's mind decades after his death is uncanny. Were you born with this gift or did you have to develop it?

I'm terribly sorry but unless you are actually telepathically channeling Stalin, what you are saying goes against plenty of evidence as to his ideas about foreign policy post-war. These are laid out in detail in Stalin's Wars by Geoffery Roberts. The individual parties in the people's democracies tightened their grip on power and gravitated toward the Soviet Union mainly because the West almost immediately began a campaign of subversion and sabotage against those countries. Even as this went on(as early as 1944 with Greece), Stalin remained quite naive about the good faith of the UK and US. The latter two engaged in this subversion because their leadership believed the USSR would never allow these countries to decide their own fate. They acted first, and it became a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Kayser_Soso]

If SFR Yugoslavia was such evil capitalist country, why we here have PRIVATISATION madness right now, all since Yugoslavia's end?


You, as an anarchist, have surely heard of the term "state capitalism", right? The thing about Yugoslavia is that as capitalistic as it was, when you're a businessman, any regulation is anathema. This is why all sorts of "third way" approaches to the problem of capitalism don't work. If you slap regulations on the ruling class, eventually they begin to envy their class compatriots around the world.

[Milos]

You, as an anarchist, have surely heard of the term "state capitalism", right?

Sure, but this isn't really the topic about anarchism. For me, capitalism still existed in all socialist/communist states and Yugoslavia wasn't exception. At least in theory, there the state had to serve the purpose to regulate capitalism, rather than to defend and expand it as it was the case with typical capitalist states.


The thing about Yugoslavia is that as capitalistic as it was, when you're a businessman, any regulation is anathema. This is why all sorts of "third way" approaches to the problem of capitalism don't work. If you slap regulations on the ruling class, eventually they begin to envy their class compatriots around the world.

Yes, but I don't really understand how to see it as an answer to my question.

I just wonder how some people here claim that SFR Yugoslavia was inherently capitalist while privatisation happened after the end of SFR Yugoslavia? It isn't very logical. Working rights and conditions were obviously way better back then than now, and even many of nowdays liberals and right-wing here in ex-Yugoslavia won't deny that as far as I've noticed.

[Kayser_Soso]

Sure, but this isn't really the topic about anarchism. For me, capitalism still existed in all socialist/communist states and Yugoslavia wasn't exception. At least in theory, there the state had to serve the purpose to regulate capitalism, rather than to defend and expand it as it was the case with typical capitalist states.



Yes, but I don't really understand how to see it as an answer to my question.

I just wonder how some people here claim that SFR Yugoslavia was inherently capitalist while privatisation happened after the end of SFR Yugoslavia? It isn't very logical. Working rights and conditions were obviously way better back then than now, and even many of nowdays liberals and right-wing here in ex-Yugoslavia won't deny that as far as I've noticed.

The main reason is because socialism is not necessarily nationalization or even employee-owned businesses. If it were, we could conclude that several Western countries either were or have been socialist for quite some time.

[punisa]

The main reason is because socialism is not necessarily nationalization or even employee-owned businesses. If it were, we could conclude that several Western countries either were or have been socialist for quite some time.

Look, you gave your humble opinion, but what you are trying to do here is nonsense.
The actual transition to capitalism was a cold shower for all us that lived in YU.
We know darn well what capitalism brought upon us and the shitty lives we are now forced to live.
Yugoslavia was not a capitalist country and we cant be fooled into believing that.
And no - it was nothing like social welfare states if the west either.
Personal experience my friend, personal experience - no source or theory can challange that.

[Kayser_Soso]

Look, you gave your humble opinion, but what you are trying to do here is nonsense.
The actual transition to capitalism was a cold shower for all us that lived in YU.
We know darn well what capitalism brought upon us and the shitty lives we are now forced to live.
Yugoslavia was not a capitalist country and we cant be fooled into believing that.
And no - it was nothing like social welfare states if the west either.
Personal experience my friend, personal experience - no source or theory can challange that.

Actually sources CAN challenge that. Why do you think pharmaceutical companies run double blind experiments? Why do you think surveys need to be based on representative samples? Personal experience in these cases count for little. If personal experience were so important, we could find dozens of people who could personally attest to the greatness of life in Nazi Germany, South Vietnam, Nationalist China, Tsarist Russia, etc. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, nothing more.

[Brother No. 1]

Maybe he did maybe he did not perhaps not in the military sense

Then doesnt that make the 'Soviet threat' thing..dead? Since, you're sayng now that Stalin wouldnt invade the nation in a military sense. What an ideology threat?



but he wanted Yugoslavia to be an subordinate to Moscow.

I love this remark on how Stalin is just wanting complete domination even though he'd have little influence he he actually wanted to and had to deal with the Western Powers before even thinking about 'making an attempt' to 'subdue' Yugoslavia. But wait...he never did.:lol:



we can't argue that Stalin was ready to let Yugoslavia be on its own and completely independent from the east bloc.

Lets be reasonable, why the word 'independent'? Did Yugoslavia not want to be with the Communist movement, rather wanting to make its own movement? I see no point if that.

[RED DAVE]

Look, you gave your humble opinion, but what you are trying to do here is nonsense.
The actual transition to capitalism was a cold shower for all us that lived in YU.
We know darn well what capitalism brought upon us and the shitty lives we are now forced to live.
Yugoslavia was not a capitalist country and we cant be fooled into believing that.
And no - it was nothing like social welfare states if the west either.
Personal experience my friend, personal experience - no source or theory can challange that.In my opinion, and that of many, Yugoslavia was state capitalism.

Can you discuss the forms and prevalence of workers control of industry, from the workplace on up?

RED DAVE

[punisa]

In my opinion, and that of many, Yugoslavia was state capitalism.

Can you discuss the forms and prevalence of workers control of industry, from the workplace on up?

RED DAVE

If you repeat something over and over again, it will eventually become true, agree?
I have a 6 volume collection from Edvard Kardelj which describes in details the implementation of w.s.management in Yugoslavia.
Unfortunately, the whole material is +5000 pages and it will take me some time (months) to get behind everything.
But I understand your question and I'll see what I can snoop out later this week.
I'd like if we all build up some knowledge on the topic, as it seems that too many subjective comments have been made thus far (I blame topic title for that issue)

If you comrades are willing to discuss further, I recommend this read and we can comment on it.

Workers Manage Factories in Yugoslavia (Josip Broz Tito, 1950)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/tito/1950/06/26.htm

[4 Leaf Clover]

Kardelism was rejected by all marxists-leninists , including Che Guevara , and many others

[RED DAVE]

If you comrades are willing to discuss further, I recommend this read and we can comment on it.

Workers Manage Factories in Yugoslavia (Josip Broz Tito, 1950)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/tito/1950/06/26.htmVery interesting. Here are a few very telling quotes. What is obvious is that, unlike in the USSR, the seizure of power did not involve the control of industry by the workers. What the article deals with is an attempt, five years or so after the revolution, to give the workers control, which they did not have. It is also says, flat out, that the workers did not have control of production in the USSR.


...

How do things look in the Soviet Union thirty-one years after the October Revolution? The October Revolution made it possible for the state to take the means of production into its hands. But these means are still, after 31 years, in the hands of the state. Has the slogan "the factories for the workers" been put into practice? Of course not. The workers still do not have any say in the management of the factories. They are managed by directors who are appointed by the state, that is, by civil service employees. The workers only have the 'possibility and the right to work but this is not very different from the role of the workers in capitalist countries. The only difference for workers is that there is no unemployment in the Soviet Union, and that is all.

Therefore, the leaders of the Soviet Union have not, so far, put through one of the most characteristic measures of a socialist state, that of turning over the factories and other economic enterprises to the workers so that they may manage them. Since the Soviet leaders consider state ownership as the highest form of social ownership, the fact that they have not turned over the means of production to the workers to manage probably issues from such a conception of state ownership. Besides, this is altogether in accordance with the strengthening of their state machine. That is also a fact that anyone can ascertain for themselves, if they want to learn the truth.

...

There have been people who think that the problem of management of the means of production is solved simply by appointing the best workers directors or managers. Such a measure is a good thing because we get people in those positions in whom we can have faith, in whom the state of the working people can have faith. Through such worker-directors who emerged from the ranks of the working people themselves, the people's state can keep a better check on the running of business. Such a director also understands the needs of the workers better and will concern himself with them. He will also take good care of the state, meaning the people's, property. This was the most urgent measure connected with the state's taking over of the means of production. But, of course, things cannot remain at this point if we want to avoid the many inconveniences which might crop up from this over a long period of time. That is one thing. The second is that the slogan "the factories for the workers" has still not been realized nor could the idea of the withering away of state functions in economy be realized this way either.

As I have already pointed out, the draft of the bill we are considering is of tremendous importance for the further correct development of our socialist country but it still does not solve the question. It is simply one step further toward communism. The state functions in the management of economy are not yet ceasing completely, but they are no longer the exclusive factor. They are getting weaker because the working people are being drawn into the management. They are being drawn in gradually, and not all at once. That means they, as the producers, are getting their rights to manage production. Why is this being done gradually, and not all at once? How long will this gradual process unfold? No answer as to the exact length of time can be given because this depends on various circumstances. It depends on the pace of cultural development, meaning the extensive training of the workers so that they may be capable in every way of running factories, mines, transport, etc., successfully for the benefit of the community. Without that the workers would not be capable of keeping a check on the production. Without cultural advancement, the workers would not be able to get sufficient technical knowledge for management. This depends on the tempo of development of production forces, etc.

This cultural advancement of the working people is all the more important in our country, and represents one of its most difficult problems, because our country was one of the most backward in Europe as regards the degree of development of production forces. Our industry has just begun to develop in full swing. Therefore, the pace with which all the functions of management in the economy are transferred to the working people depends on the tempo of development of production forces. This, in turn, depends on the workers themselves, on their production of consumer commodities, on their economizing rather than wasting, etc. Lenin said: "Communism begins where there is self-sacrificing mastery of hard work, concern by the ordinary workers for the productivity of labor, for watching over every pood of wheat, coal, iron and other products which are not for them personally, or for their "near" or "far" relatives, but for all of society." (Lenin, Book XXIV, p. 142, Russian edition — free translation).

...RED DAVE