What type of Communism was in Yugoslavia?

[Nikolay]

What type of Communism did the Yugoslav government follow?

If you know could you describe it to me in detail, 'cause I'm quite curious. :) (I mainly just want to know about the economics.)

Thanks in advance.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The fake kind; there was a state, thus no communism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Revisionism and state-capitalism.

[AK]

At the risk of sounding like a smart-ass, no society can be 'communist' whilst there is still a state and social divisions in the form of classes. Some would call Yugoslavia socialist (which is what Yugoslavia claimed itself to be) and others would call it state capitalist (which is what I agree with). Yugoslavia was an oddity among the "socialist" bloc because it had heavily instituted workers' self management :thumbup1: (in a mix with central planning :().

But as with all the state capitalist systems, private ownership was embraced by the end and it all fell to shit.

[graymouser]

Yugoslavia was not "state capitalist," although it had more market features than the Warsaw Pact countries. It described its aims as market socialism, with nationalized industry but attempting to keep the industries competitive. Enterprises were "self-managed" but this meant autonomy for the bureaucrats not the workers. This did not change the class nature of the state, just as the NEP in Russia did not make it capitalist, in that nationalized property still prevailed, but it did have deforming characteristics because it was done under bureaucratic, Stalinist control. The market "reforms" meant that the Yugoslav state could apply for IMF loans but these only led to further destabilization.

[AK]

I consider state-ownership to be state capitalism - as the state has done nothing but replace the capitalists (and generally give a few more concessions to the working class). Capital is concentrated into the hands of a few - just like in capitalism. Commodities are sold on the market (in state capitalism, this typically done by competing enterprises, workplaces or state-owned companies) with the intention of delivering a profit - just like in capitalism.

If the economy is centrally planned by some bureaucracy which manages capital and labour on behalf of the state - in the "interests of the workers", that can't be socialism. Market socialism is bullshit. I only have a bit of support for the SFR Yugoslavia because workers' self-management was relatively common.

[graymouser]

I consider state-ownership to be state capitalism - as the state has done nothing but replace the capitalists (and generally give a few more concessions to the working class). Capital is concentrated into the hands of a few - just like in capitalism. Commodities are sold on the market (in state capitalism, this typically done by competing enterprises, workplaces or state-owned companies) with the intention of delivering a profit - just like in capitalism.
Yet this is simply not the case. In Yugoslavia there were market "reforms" that led to some attempts at selling for profit, but for the most part the bureaucracy was forced to sell very close to cost and re-invest heavily in infrastructure, which was a more powerful engine for development than you'd find in any actual capitalist country in the period. And the "some concessions" were actually tremendous things, free housing and nationalized health care and pensions. If this were "state capitalism" it'd be a hell of a lot more progressive than capitalism, which treats developing countries as aggregates of workers who can be put into factories that are wholly foreign owned, use the local regime to keep them down at starvation wages, and then eke every penny out of them in basic services.


If the economy is centrally planned by some bureaucracy which manages capital and labour on behalf of the state - in the "interests of the workers", that can't be socialism. Market socialism is bullshit. I only have a bit of support for the SFR Yugoslavia because workers' self-management was relatively common.
This is pretty incredible. Workers' self-management meant a collaboration between the bureaucratic caste and the expert castes in running the individual firms - as it inevitably would in a market of workers' cooperatives. It's odd that you believe that bit of propaganda but yet consider Yugoslavia to have been state capitalist.

[AK]

Yet this is simply not the case. In Yugoslavia there were market "reforms" that led to some attempts at selling for profit, but for the most part the bureaucracy was forced to sell very close to cost and re-invest heavily in infrastructure, which was a more powerful engine for development than you'd find in any actual capitalist country in the period. And the "some concessions" were actually tremendous things, free housing and nationalized health care and pensions. If this were "state capitalism" it'd be a hell of a lot more progressive than capitalism, which treats developing countries as aggregates of workers who can be put into factories that are wholly foreign owned, use the local regime to keep them down at starvation wages, and then eke every penny out of them in basic services.
Free housing? Pensions? Wow. Why can't we have no monetary system at all? We wouldn't have to worry about the market or the cost of things.

I have a bit of support for state capitalism over capitalism, but I support anarchism over state capitalism. Got it?

This is pretty incredible. Workers' self-management meant a collaboration between the bureaucratic caste and the expert castes in running the individual firms - as it inevitably would in a market of workers' cooperatives. It's odd that you believe that bit of propaganda but yet consider Yugoslavia to have been state capitalist.
Well I didn't know the other stuff about the workers' self-management before, my mistake. Thank you for informing me, btw.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yugoslavia was not "state capitalist," although it had more market features than the Warsaw Pact countries. It described its aims as market socialism, with nationalized industry but attempting to keep the industries competitive. Enterprises were "self-managed" but this meant autonomy for the bureaucrats not the workers. This did not change the class nature of the state, just as the NEP in Russia did not make it capitalist, in that nationalized property still prevailed, but it did have deforming characteristics because it was done under bureaucratic, Stalinist control. The market "reforms" meant that the Yugoslav state could apply for IMF loans but these only led to further destabilization.
All well here, excpet that one could in fact argue that Yugoslavia was state capitalist.
One group of people (Party bureaucrats) appropriated surplus value and decided how should it be used. Thus the social relations characteristic for a class society like capitalism have persisted in Yugoslavia as well.
But that may very well be a contingent issue and a matter of semantics and terminology. The basic argument of your assessment of Yugoslavia holds.

[4 Leaf Clover]

What type of Communism did the Yugoslav government follow?

If you know could you describe it to me in detail, 'cause I'm quite curious. :) (I mainly just want to know about the economics.)

Thanks in advance.

the shitty one shortly said

[∞]

Yugoslavia was not "state capitalist," although it had more market features than the Warsaw Pact countries. It described its aims as market socialism, with nationalized industry but attempting to keep the industries competitive. Enterprises were "self-managed" but this meant autonomy for the bureaucrats not the workers. This did not change the class nature of the state, just as the NEP in Russia did not make it capitalist, in that nationalized property still prevailed, but it did have deforming characteristics because it was done under bureaucratic, Stalinist control. The market "reforms" meant that the Yugoslav state could apply for IMF loans but these only led to further destabilization.

Russia during the NEP was considered by Lenin as the "State Capitalist transitional stage".