Is yugoslavia a socialist country?

[tir1944]

IS YUGOSLAVIA
A SOCIALIST COUNTRY?

By CPC,1963.


A critical view on "Yugoslav Socialism"


http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Interesting, up until this thread I have yet to come across this article; have you heard of Hoxha's article on Yugoslavia?

click here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm)

[tir1944]

Yes,and that's a very good article too.

[Agathor]

I read the first few pages and had to stop.
I'm sure you can find a more reliable source than the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

[Искра]

I read both texts ages ago when I was writing an article on Yugoslavian self-management. I have to say that both of them are pretty useless, because they only provide “Marxist-Leninist” dogmatic slander (especially Hoxha who called Tito and Kardelj anarcho-syndicalists haha) and they can be used only to “represent” ML’s point of view on Yugoslavia. So, in general analysis they are pretty much useless. We can not judge Yugoslavian socialism without whole context of socialist regimes in general. Yugoslavia was a state capitalist regime as much as it was USSR, China, Albania etc. Still, there are a lot of important differences. So, yes if you consider USSR socialist then Yugoslavia was a socialist. Also, I have to point out that to claim otherwise while you have only read Hoxha’s and CPC’s texts is quite stupid, because these texts do not provide enough information and at the end they are pre-Internet tendency wars whose purpose is not just to attack Yugoslavia on ideological level, but also, and this is more important, to defend their own ideological “background” which was threatened by attempts of Yugoslav communist intelligentsia to redefine what Marxism-Leninism is. After all, Titoists still consider themselves Marxist-Leninists.

As I can guess where this discussion will lead to and also what kind of responses from ML’s camp I’ll get, I won’t write huge post now, but I’ll rather respond to false claims.

Still, I’d like to point three things that make difference between Yugoslavia and rest of the Eastern Block.

First is of course economical, second was ideological and third was related to foreign politics.

After WW2 Yugoslavia followed all Comintern directives just like all other Soviet satellites. But, as Yugoslavia was only socialist country which liberated itself by its own military power, or in other words: without intervention of Soviet Union (of course, Red Army participated in liberation of Belgrade, but that was after Yugoslav partisans defeated most of Axis forces). This gave Tito more power than other Soviet satellites countries leaders had and since YCP was not so obedient to follow orders from Moscow Resolution of Informbiro happened (of course, this is to simplified, but I guess that this is not so important for this discussion). After that Yugoslavia started to change make changes in its ideological and economical background. Since, YCP was attacked by Comintern who was only “authorised force” to say what Marxism-Leninism is, Yugoslav leadership said that Stalinism is beaurocratic deviation of Leninism (which ML’s used to accuse them of Trotskyism) and started to develop its own ideology of socialist self-managment (which ML’s used to accuse them of anarcho-syndicalism). Yugoslav intelligentsia found inspiration in Lenin’s State and Revolution and declared that all socialists’ states must fade away – and first place for state to fade away from is market. Market should be regulated by workers and community councils. (Before you all start to write how word “market” means that some economy is capitalist, go and read some economical books and you’ll realise that “market” is just an economical mechanism – which will exist always, and which existed in all socialist countries you like.) They also declared that Party should be abolished as its threat to democracy (Kardelj stated that while Eastern Block has one party system and Western Block pluralist democracies, which are both wrong systems of repression and exploitation, Yugoslavia has – direct democracy.) and they cause that socialist countries turn into beaurocratic machineries. Of course, as we all know this was nice on piece of paper but in reality Yugoslavia was as beaurocratic as Soviet Union and Party never stopped to exist (even it changed a name into Union of Communists). On economical level workers councils never in reality manage workplaces, as workplaces were managed by technocracy. Also, Yugoslavia allowed bigger forms of private property, especially after 1974 (smaller forms of private property also existed in Soviet Union). Regarding foreign politics we all know for Non-Aligned Movement, so I don’t have to write more about that. Still, I would like to point that it’s kind of funny when ML’s accuse Yugoslavia for taking USA’s money etc., which is fact I don’t dispute, but also I would like to point that Soviet Union took USA’s money and raw materials when they were negotiating conditions of alliance in WW2. Also, we know all about these Ford factories and stuff. So, Yugoslavia wasn’t “worst” then Soviet Union. Differences are in ideological demagogy, attempt of self-management in Yugoslavia and greater liberation (both political and economical) in Yugoslavia. In the end, both systems failed.

[Nox]

Market Socialism sounds like some sort of weird contradiction to me...

Only in Yugoslavia!

[Искра]

Market Socialism sounds like some sort of weird contradiction to me...
It's a wrong term to describe what Yugoslavian economy looked like as market was present also in Soviet Union. As I pointed out "market" is just an economical mechanism. The problem with capitalism is not because of market, but because of capital etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's a wrong term to describe what Yugoslavian economy looked like as market was present also in Soviet Union. As I pointed out "market" is just an economical mechanism. The problem with capitalism is not because of market, but because of capital etc.
Just to briefly comment on this.
Of course that certain economists make claims amounting to the market being only an economical mechanism (but so is capital, within this framework) which will last forever, since it's the job of the capitalist apologia to come up with the most clever of ways to argue that capital is eternal, and that its abolition would amount to a cataclysm.
Of course, the market as a historically determined economic mechanism is far older than capitalism. But, capital cannot exist without the market, and consequently, if a global social revolution would abolish capital - it would necessarily abolish the relations of market exchange as well. But that's the problem of an international spreadout of revolution, and not conceivable or solvable within the confines of a single national economy. Social plannng of production according to human needs is completely at odds with market exchange in any way modified.

[Искра]

I would advise you to borrow a book ABC samoupravljanja by Branko Horvat. I'm influenced by this book and there you'll be able to read more about market related issues.

Also, I would like to repeat that agree that market is related to capitalist economy and that is why I consider wrong to call Yugoslav system - market capitalis, as market also existed in Soviet Union. So, fact that there was market in Yugoslavia is not what makes this system different than SU. Market is not a key issue.

[Thirsty Crow]

Also, I would like to repeat that agree that market is related to capitalist economy and that is why I consider wrong to call Yugoslav system - market capitalis, as market also existed in Soviet Union. So, fact that there was market in Yugoslavia is not what makes this system different than SU. Market is not a key issue.
Yeah, I get that. It's just that what you said, that the market is an absolutely indispensable and necessary economic mechanism, even for a classless society (that's the way I interpreted it) - well, that's a huge concession to market socialism (not talking about Yugoslavia here) and an abandonment of planned production, which is in my opinion a necessary element of a classless global society/ies.

[Искра]

I have to admit that I have hard time to explain myself in English. I just started to read more about econimical theory in general and I have some troubles with puting that in English. Regarding planned production, of course I agree that it's necessary element of classless society, but that doesn't exclude existance of market. I'm probably using "market" here in a way that most of you don't, since as I said its from a book by Yugoslav econimics Horvat, who was discussing market socialism in it. He said that market is mechanism of "suplay and demand" and that worker councils have to plan then economy according to this information.

[Mitja]

wrong: WAS yugoslavia a socialist country

p.s: it was something close to socialism

[Rafiq]

It's a wrong term to describe what Yugoslavian economy looked like as market was present also in Soviet Union. As I pointed out "market" is just an economical mechanism. The problem with capitalism is not because of market, but because of capital etc.

But it is important to note that the abolition of capitalism involves the abolition of markets as well.

[Agathor]

But it is important to note that the abolition of capitalism involves the abolition of markets as well.

No.

[Искра]

No.

Please don't try to turn this into trolling and flameing...

We should discuss here if Yugoslavia was socialist or not. To discuss market we should open another thread.

[Agathor]

Please don't try to turn this into trolling and flameing...

We should discuss here if Yugoslavia was socialist or not. To discuss market we should open another thread.

The discussions are inseparable

[tobbinator]

I would consider Yugoslavia as socialist due to its strong implementation of worker self management, which was far more defined than in other "socialist" countries of the era.