Titoism, did it work?

[RadioRaheem84]

The workers self management social order he created sounds appealing, but Tito's cozying up to the West and then taking loans from them seemed like an extremely bad move.

Anyone have any stats on Tito's Yugoslavia? Did the self management work? Could the loans from the West have been avoided or was the market socialism just a failure that it resorted itself to seek out loans?

[Искра]

Ok, to answer on your question: no, Titoism didn't work. Simple answer would be that reason was in great difference between theory and practice.

As I pointed in several such threads I have great interest in Yugoslavia, since that was unique socialist experiment in the World, so I read quite a lot on this subject. Still, I can not help you regarding stats and similar stuff, because most of the stat I read and used in my work was from books on Croatian and Slovenian, which I returned to library (also I don’t have scanner). Also, there’s one text by Communist Party of China full of stats, but it’s not accurate (to put it “polite”), since CP of China was more concerned with defending its own ideological background then writing facts (as I pointed in other thread). Maybe you should check what you have in your library or on your collage (or somewhere where you could find such literature) and if authors are coming from Yugoslavia I can give you some kind of a background about their work. I guess that in USA and UK you should be able to find books from Branko Horvat about market socialism as he almost won a Nobel Prize for an economy.

Regarding “western loans” we should never forget that Yugoslavia wasn’t only socialist country which got help from West. Soviet Union also got help from West while they were negotiating Alliance against 3rd Reich. Also, we should also never forget that all so-called “socialist” economies were state capitalist. I’m not trying to justify “Western loans”, but to point that in capitalist economical system foreign debt isn’t anything so uncommon. Only country in the world without any foreign debt was Albania after Hoxha said that China was revisionist and that was because they were “left alone in the World”. So, Eastern Block countries also had their (Soviet) loans and debts etc. Also, it’s important to point out that today Croatia has bigger foreign debt that Yugoslavia used to have in its deeper crisis.

Did self-management worked? No, it didn’t. I pointed out main reason and now I’m going to explain it. After, Communist party of Yugoslavia was kicked out of Comintern and Yugoslavia declared “revisionist”, Yugoslav intelligentsia started to create unique Yugoslav version of Marxism-Leninism. Today you call this version Titoism and sometimes we in ex-Yugoslavia call it Kardeljism (after Tito’s right hand and leading Yugoslav Marxist Edvard Kardelj). This version of ML was based on Lenin’s State and Revolution in which Lenin, as we all know, advocated “disappearance of state”.

So, what did exactly Titoism advocated?

First, it was disappearance of state in order so that Yugoslavia can reach communism. It’s important to emphasise that this “idea” also came as opposition to Stalinism. Stalinism was declared revisionist, nationalists and beaucratic deviation of Marxism-Leninism. Yugoslav leadership was against Stalinism and one-party state. According to Tito and Kardelj state should firstly disappear from “market”, from economical sphere and give it to workers councils at factories and workplaces. Workers councils should run economy. In workers councils all workers should discuss and vote on how to run their workplace. There should be also some kind of “experts” who will give their advices to workers, but decisions should be up to workers council. There were also communal councils which should act as political bodies (I still don’t know much about them - sorry). Yugoslav leadership was against one-party state (like in Soviet Union), but they were also against plural-liberal democracies (like Milovan Djilas proposed, but then he was forced to emigrate). Their “invention” was called direct democracy which was, according to Kardelj’s speech from 1968, above “West and East”. Yugoslav leadership also declared that in order to achieve communism Communist party must dissolve. Therefore Tito renamed Communist Party of Yugoslavia into Union of Communists. In reality change was only in name, as Yugoslavia was still one-party state in Soviet Union style, even there were greater political liberties. There’s also one important concept regarding Yugoslavia. That was “no minority-no majority” concept which tried to establish equality between Yugoslav nations in order to suppress nationalism. Regarding economy – economy was still planned. I wasn’t exact like in Soviet Union and its puppet states, but it was planned, with bigger liberation of marked, where numerous of workers run enterises and cooperatives were formed, but also certain private property enterprises were allowed. Sometimes some “radical leftists” from ex-Yugoslavia tell this joke: Yugoslavian economy was based on Marx on table, but also on Proudhon under the table. In the end, all ideas of Yugoslav political elites failed. Workers didn’t run their workplaces, but “experts” did. Later “experts” manage to get some capital trough corruption and to form their enterprises and later demand greater liberalisation of market and economy. Concept of “no minority-no majority” failed with political liberalisation as Yugoslav national elites were afraid to become “minorities” so they decide for independence of their republics.

Uf, I can’t remember now what more to write. I hope that I answered on all of your questions... If I haven’t ask more...

I'll try to find one book where there's article on Yugoslavia (on English) to upload it here.

[Iron Felix]

Allow us to look at Yugoslavia. Right, it doesn't exist anymore. Not much of a success is it, since you know, it failed.

[Искра]

Allow us to look at Yugoslavia. Right, it doesn't exist anymore. Not much of a success is it, since you know, it failed.
I really don't get what did you want to prove with this post, since you know, all socialist systems failed. Still, there are a lot of things which we can learn from them.

[Triple A]

Allow us to look at Yugoslavia. Right, it doesn't exist anymore. Not much of a success is it, since you know, it failed.

Titoism failed because there is no Yugoslavia.
Has avatar of Lenin.

The irony:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Rafiq]

Tito's Yugoslavia is gone. So no.

[Rafiq]

I really don't get what did you want to prove with this post, since you know, all socialist systems failed. Still, there are a lot of things which we can learn from them.

That's true, one of which is learning what we should not do, should the day come the proletariat seizes class power.

[Mitja]

all socialistic countries faild. But as far as i think neo-socialism should work we just need it to give it a try

[m-l Power]

Tito implemented an outsaid aid "socialism", at least so was it called by he and his followers.

The result of that politic was the maintenance of the capitalist relations in Yugoslavia, the contradiction between capital and work didn´t dissapeared and the commodity production continue to exist. As Stalin said, it was a false socialism. Churchill himself was the man who gave to Tito all his credibility since the beginning of his power.

[Искра]

Tito implemented an outsaid aid "socialism", at least so was it called by he and his followers.

The result of that politic was the maintenance of the capitalist relations in Yugoslavia, the contradiction between capital and work didn´t dissapeared and the commodity production continue to exist. As Stalin said, it was a false socialism. Churchill himself was the man who gave to Tito all his credibility since the beginning of his power.
I know that my post was longer than people usually post here, but still you could read it. As I sad all socialist countires implemented outside aid and Churchill and Rosevelt also gave food and raw materials to Stalin.

Stalinist criticism of Yugoslavia is wrong and full of oxymorons. For example after WW2 Yugoslavia followed Comintern's line in hardcore way. So differences between Yugoslavia and Soviet Union begin only after 50's. Still, Stalinists claim that Yugoslavia was "wrong" from the start is just stupid and has nothing to do with facts but its only about demagogy. To say that "contradiction between capital and work didn't dissapeared" is truth, but it was common thing in Eastern Block. So, yeah it was a false "socialism", but then again all socialisms were false as they were state capitalist reagimes.

[Nox]

Titoism was not Socialism. It was progressive, but not Socialism.

[Искра]

Titoism was not Socialism. It was progressive, but not Socialism.
If you consider Soviet Union socialist, then Yugoslavia was also.

Titoism as ideology is socialist ideology as much as other variations of Marxism-Leninism are.

[RedSonRising]

I consider the experiment very valuable. While the Yugoslav style of curtailing the state in opposition to Stalinist practices was problematic and arguably reinstated the hierarchy of capitalism in the country (and the eventual split), I've seen/read about a respectable level of autonomy in cooperative workplaces that traditional Marxist-Leninists often miss out on in their emphasis on structural design. I'm not educated enough to give a concrete answer on whether or not it "worked", but it seems that the thought process behind the model found some success in the progressive gains made by the working class under Titoist leadership. There's also the condition of outside support to consider; balancing non-alignment with careful alliances between both east and west doesn't exactly seem conducive to changing social relations within the country and maintaining them, especially over the time period right before its dissolution.

[tobbinator]

While Yugoslavia did collapse, that was due to extreme nationalism amongst the Republics, not because of any Titoist policies.

I think that the general ideas of Titoism are good, but, as with every system, need a fair bit of improvement to be implemented effectively.

I commend Tito for his non-aligned foreign policy but it was a major mistake to take out loans with the west.

I generally like the emphasis Titoism gives on worker self management which was far more defined than in any other "socialist" system of the era, it only needed some improvement.

Call me a bit of a Titoist, but it's what I am, a revised one at that.

[Искра]

While Yugoslavia did collapse, that was due to extreme nationalism amongst the Republics, not because of any Titoist policies.
This is not true. Titoists policies share great responsibility for that, still as I pointed in serveral discussions regarding Yugoslavia, main reason was political liberalisation. I'll try to find my post here on that subject, because I wrote 4 Word pages on that.


I think that the general ideas of Titoism are good, but, as with every system, need a fair bit of improvement to be implemented effectively.I personaly have great sympathies for some of ideas behind Titoism, but because of its practice it was just a matter of time before whole system collapses into neoliberal capitalism.


I commend Tito for his non-aligned foreign policy but it was a major mistake to take out loans with the west.
I don't see problem with Non-Aligned policy. Capitalist/imperialist states make their alliances all the time. It has nothing to do with communism.


I generally like the emphasis Titoism gives on worker self management which was far more defined than in any other "socialist" system of the era, it only needed some improvement. A lot of improvement! Still, Yugoslavia made a nice try.

[Искра]

Here's my post on political liberalisation of Yugoslavia: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2250406&postcount=40

[punisa]

No time for large posts, sorry.

But do consider this when talking about Yugoslavia:
In 1982, Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 54, a "Secret Sensitive" document. The Directive advocated "expanded efforts to promote 'a quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy." In 1984, the Reagan administration directly targeted Yugoslavia with NSDD 133, "United States Policy toward Yugoslavia", calling for increased intervention (Covert Action Quarterly, Winter 1992). With Tito gone, the U.S. moved to reorganize this sovereign nation. A successful socialist state outside the Western bloc would not be tolerated.
source: http://www.zianet.com/lapaz/yugo1.html

[KurtFF8]

There is an excellent critique of Yugoslavia's "market Socialism" in Michael Lebowitz's book "Build It Now: Socialism for the 21st Century" It's certainly worth checking out. I'm sure the articles can be found online too (Although I no longer have a copy so I can't look up the chapters right now)

[Искра]

There is an excellent critique of Yugoslavia's "market Socialism" in Michael Lebowitz's book "Build It Now: Socialism for the 21st Century" It's certainly worth checking out. I'm sure the articles can be found online too (Although I no longer have a copy so I can't look up the chapters right now)
Yeah, it's really good. Also, he made a lecture on Yugoslavia. I have transcription on Croatian...

[NorwegianCommunist]

Tito's Yugoslavia is gone. So no.

Did Titoism work when Yugoslavia where a country? =)

[Krano]

I would say it worked atleast in the aspect of peace keeping and living standards, no offence to anyone living in former Yugoslav countries currently, but most of
the countries now known for poverty and violence not much to be proud of anymore.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

all socialistic countries faild. But as far as i think neo-socialism should work we just need it to give it a try

What is neo-socialism?

[Ismail]

"Titoism" worked in terms of a decent standard of living for most of the population. It achieved this via loans from the IMF and from the exporting of laborers in countries like West Germany and so on. Then, like other capitalist states, the economy entered into an economic crisis when it could not pay the gigantic debts it owed to the IMF. At this same time the economic system in Yugoslavia itself was clearly based on market mechanisms and thus both enterprises and, ominously, republics began competing with each other and accusing each other of being favored by the federal government. After 1985 openly xenophobic views were being expressed by demagogues from various nationalities, most notably Serbs like Milošević. Since the federation decentralized itself to death the end result was horrendous civil wars.

So it "worked" in a way similar to other capitalist countries. It was a capitalist state that grew due to foreign investment from other capitalist states and based much of its economy around exporting labor to the West, resorting to austerity measures in the 80's when the economic crisis hit. Its "workers' self-management" was demagoguery, similar to how social-democrats in the British Labour Party and Swedish Social-Democratic Party in the 70's and 80's advanced "workers' control" in their respective countries. Tito and Co. were very big on "returning to Marx" (much like Gorbachev called for the CPSU to "return to Lenin") much in the same way Deng Xiaoping called on the CCP to valiant uphold Marx by "advancing the productive forces," aka open up the economy to foreign investment while pretending to follow Marx.

Enver Hoxha wrote a critique of Yugoslavia in 1979: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_yugoslav_selfadministration_a_capitali st_theory_and_practice.pdf

Here's an example of Titoism in action:

"But how to explain the case of the Union Bank of Belgrade, one of the largest banks in the country, which holds one-fifth of the aggressive savings deposits? ... the governor of the Central Bank explained that... his proposal that a system of special reserves be held in securities of the Central Bank had been rejected by the bankers for fear of a 'disguised centralization of funds.' Another amusing and highly revealing story was reported in the same period. From this small Balkan country no fewer than two hundred firms submitted competitive bids to build a factory for Libya. Only one-third of those enterprises would suffice to carry out such construction in Yugoslavia itself.

A few weeks later, many Yugoslav households and industries felt tangibly what J.K. Galbraith has called the 'natural inclination' of the modern corporation toward 'a brutal and anti-social egotism,' even under the conditions of socialist self-management. From one day to the next, the Electric Power Community, representing power companies in the different republics, cut off power for four hours, blaming shortages on the weather. An angry government hastened to make it clear, however, that the companies had given no advance warning and that for a considerable time the thermoelectric (coal using) plans had been working below optimal capacities. The power companies had deliberately kept the output of thermoelectric plants at low levels and overused hydroelectric power. Why? Simply because of prices and costs. Since water-generated electricity costs one-third to one-fifth as much to produce as thermal power, and since the rates charged to the customers are nevertheless the same, this meant a large—and unauthorized—profit for the electric companies. Furthermore the electric power system is not truly unified. As Borba, the leading Belgrade daily, pointedly remarked: 'Certain power communities behave in this field as if they owned it. Poor connections among the various regions, mutual bargaining and relations, which have nothing to do with real business relations, explain the curious fact that in some republics power supply has often been cut while at the same time there has been plenty of power in other republics.'"
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. pp. 89-90.)

[The Young Pioneer]

In the film a few of you recommended to me Weight of Chains, it identifies Croatia as having the highest debt of all the former Yugoslav states. Why was that? I don't think the film said, but maybe I have bad memory lol.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I guess that in USA and UK you should be able to find books from Branko Horvat about market socialism as he almost won a Nobel Prize for an economy.

I thoughts there is no official Nobel Prize for Economics? It is really called "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel."

It is not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel during 1895.

The Prize in Economics, as it is referred to by the Nobel Foundation, was established and endowed by Sveriges Riksbank, Sweden's central bank, during 1969.

[Искра]

I thoughts there is no official Nobel Prize for Economics? It is really called "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel."

It is not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel during 1895.

The Prize in Economics, as it is referred to by the Nobel Foundation, was established and endowed by Sveriges Riksbank, Sweden's central bank, during 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branko_Horvat


His most widely known study is The Political Economy of Socialism (published in 1982 in English, in 1984 in Croatian, and in 2001 in Chinese). The American Society of Economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Society_of_Economists&action=edit&redlink=1) has nominated Horvat for the Nobel Prize for economy for this study.

[Omsk]

I think Kontra and i agree on just one thing.

Yugoslavia was rotten to the core.

[The Cheshire Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branko_Horvat

I know many people call it the Nobel Prize, but it is not part of the official Nobel Prizes that were 'found' by Alfred Nobel. As I said, the Nobel Prize for Ecnonomics was found by the Swedish Central Bank (The Sveriges Riksbank).

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/

[Искра]

Ok. I don't know much about it. I've just gave you a source for my claim.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I don't really know much about it either, but I think the official site of the Nobel Prizes is slightly more solid than a Wikipedia page (regarding a topic about the Nobel Prizes, that is).;)

[Tovarisch]

I think it did work. Titoist Yugoslavia had the highest standards of living in the eastern bloc. Health care was free, education was free, and every worker was entitled to a month of vacation. I know many Balkan people who don't like the way things are going in Serbia and Croatia now, and dream about how good Yugoslavia was

It's not Tito's fault that the dumbass Miloshevich fucked everything up. Saying Tito is a failure for what Miloshevich did is like saying that Lincoln is a failure because Johnson fucked up the Reconstruction

[Tovarisch]

Tito's Yugoslavia is gone. So no.
Because you know, Tito kind of died 32 years ago

[Искра]

I think it did work. Titoist Yugoslavia had the highest standards of living in the eastern bloc. Health care was free, education was free, and every worker was entitled to a month of vacation. I know many Balkan people who don't like the way things are going in Serbia and Croatia now, and dream about how good Yugoslavia was

It's not Tito's fault that the dumbass Miloshevich fucked everything up. Saying Tito is a failure for what Miloshevich did is like saying that Lincoln is a failure because Johnson fucked up the Reconstruction
Question is what is purpose of existance of Yugoslavia... was it to reach communism or to have "highest stardands of living"? So, what was it: communism or capitalism?

As strategy for reaching communist society, Yugoslavia is classical example of Stalinist failure. It is also an example of failure of idea of self-managemant.

[Omsk]

It's not Tito's fault that the dumbass Miloshevich fucked everything up. Saying Tito is a failure for what Miloshevich did is like saying that Lincoln is a failure because Johnson fucked up the Reconstruction

Another un-marxist analysis.A bad one too.

Milosevic was just a cup of petrol to a huge fire.

[Ismail]

Another un-marxist analysis.A bad one too.

Milosevic was just a cup of petrol to a huge fire.Not to mention that the man who lit the match was none other than Tito himself, by treating Kosovo as a neo-colony filled with "Stalinist" or otherwise "nationalist" elements that had to be continuously watched from the 1940's-60's because of their apparently diabolical desire to unite with Albania. Thanks to the Yugoslav leadership and its flawed nationality policies (whose flaws stemmed from the capitalist economic system they embraced) Miloševiċ was able to rise up and talk about how the Kosovar Albanians were apparently trying to destroy the glorious Serb nation and the glorious eternal Serb land of Kosovo guaranteed by none other than God himself, while Kosovar Albanians themselves lacked any political power to counteract such demagoguery because otherwise they'd be accused of being part of a plot hatched up by Albania to sever Kosovo from Yugoslavia.


Titoist Yugoslavia had the highest standards of living in the eastern bloc.Thanks to copious amounts of US and IMF aid and the practice of selling laborers to other countries. Again, when the 80's hit that "highest standard of living" was undercut pretty quickly when the government decided that the IMF mattered more than the actual people of the country.


Health care was free, education was free, and every worker was entitled to a month of vacation. I know many Balkan people who don't like the way things are going in Serbia and Croatia now, and dream about how good Yugoslavia wasPeople say the same things about the USSR and East Germany. Doesn't make them socialist. Albania had vacations for workers (within other parts of Albania) as well, and it goes without saying that education and health care were free. But socialism is primarily a question of the relationship with the means of production on the part of the working-class.

[Rafiq]

Because you know, Tito kind of died 32 years ago

And Yugoslavia no longer exists.

If it "worked", as in, was able to function, while hoarding off Imperialism and Internal threats, it would still be around.


Same thing applies with Albania. Hoxhaists shut their mouths when I tell them this, and evade the topic.

[ed miliband]

And Yugoslavia no longer exists.

If it "worked", as in, was able to function, while hoarding off Imperialism and Internal threats, it would still be around.


Same thing applies with Albania. Hoxhaists shut their mouths when I tell them this, and evade the topic.

i have no desire to defend "titoism" or "hoxhaism" - but isn't yr big thing "material conditions"?

in which case - surely "material conditions" come above the ideology of a single leader

tho i guess if you have beef with a tendency/ideology yr "material conditions" can go down the drain

[Искра]

Well only Hoxhaist here is Ismail who trolls every Yugoslavia topic. But hell yeah he's a mod.. so he can do that ;)

[Ismail]

And Yugoslavia no longer exists.

If it "worked", as in, was able to function, while hoarding off Imperialism and Internal threats, it would still be around.

Same thing applies with Albania. Hoxhaists shut their mouths when I tell them this, and evade the topic.There's quite a difference in how both "fell," as it were.

Yugoslavia fell because its economy was riddled with debt and the various republics felt that other republics were trying to take advantage of them since the capitalist economic mechanisms of the country clearly created inequalities between them.

Albania fell because it lacked both spare parts and materials necessary for further economic construction, and because of constantly declining living standards since it had no allies and every state on earth pretty much wanted to see it cast aside its "Stalinism." Unlike Yugoslavia whose economic woes can be traced to its capitalism (and its responses to said woes, including classic capitalist-style austerity measures), Albania's woes were because it actually maintained a socialist stand at home and abroad. The only significant economic reform conducted was in January 1990 or so, and it was more along the lines of Khrushchevite economic reforms than Gorbachev's Perestroika. Of course the reformist leadership is also to blame for taking such stands, but they were helped by the fact that Albania's economy was simply collapsing otherwise.

As James S. O'Donnell notes, though, Albania's economy could have continued onwards if it had easier access to spare parts and up-to-date technologies.

Another big difference is that Albania placed its trust in what it viewed as a rising Marxist-Leninist movement worldwide. Yugoslavia did nothing of the sort, it was inspirational only to European social-democrats. As late as 1989 Albania maintained a militant stand on foreign affairs, but in that year Alia and his aide Çarçani called the GDR "socialist" and "admitted" that "mistakes" were made by the Albanian government in relation to its character. This was when the struggle against revisionism effectively ended since soon after that Albania sought the establishment of diplomatic relations with both the USSR and USA.


Well only Hoxhaist here is Ismail who trolls every Yugoslavia topic. But hell yeah he's a mod.. so he can do that ;)Not my fault Yugoslav (Serbian, Montenegrin and Macedonian) history seems to intersect with Albanian history a lot, notably and especially in the 1941-1948 period but also before and afterwards. Of course you don't like that I'm attacking wonderful Yugoslavia and praising icky "Stalinist" Albania. After all, Hoxha lacks such attractive liberal buzzwords as "non-aligned movement" (of all countries aligned with imperialism) and "workers' self-management" (in practice sharing similarities to the "syndicalism" of Mussolini's Italy.)

[Rafiq]

i have no desire to defend "titoism" or "hoxhaism" - but isn't yr big thing "material conditions"?

in which case - surely "material conditions" come above the ideology of a single leader

tho i guess if you have beef with a tendency/ideology yr "material conditions" can go down the drain

It had nothing to do with ideology. The "ideology" was, yes, a reflection of material conditions... Shit material conditions.

The point is, is that, the system in place, both in Yugoslavia and Albania, failed to address the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production efficiently.

Hoxhaists tend to talk about Albania as a functional society, that "worked" because no revisionism was existent. If it was truly a functional society, it would still be here. It would be efficient enough in addressing Imperialism, and internal threats. It did not.

[Roach]

Hoxhaists tend to talk about Albania as a functional society, that "worked" because no revisionism was existent. If it was truly a functional society, it would still be here. It would be efficient enough in addressing Imperialism, and internal threats. It did not.

After all your talk of material conditions, materialism, idealism and ''we as marxists...'' you are blaming Albania for not being able to transcend those same material conditions that you talk about so much. Because despite what it might look Pro-Albania Marxist-Leninists are not idealists, and we actually blame things on material conditions, actually most of us hold today a very down-to-earth line that it was, not impossible, but highly unlikable for the PPSh to hold its principled Marxist-Leninist line in face of the advances of American Imperialism and the rise of Neo-liberalism in the 90s. Reasons for that were imperialist pressure, the growth of opportunistic conciliatory sentiments among the PPSh and an overall internal detrition due to isolation.

[Fennec]

After all, Hoxha lacks such attractive liberal buzzwords as "non-aligned movement" (of all countries aligned with imperialism) and "workers' self-management" (in practice sharing similarities to the "syndicalism" of Mussolini's Italy.)

Are you aware Castro and Nasser were Secretary-Generals of the Non-Aligned Movement? It did include some imperialist puppet regimes, but you cannot label the whole movement that way. Name some similarities of Yugoslav self-management with fascist "national syndicalism."

[Rafiq]

After all your talk of material conditions, materialism, idealism and ''we as marxists...'' you are blaming Albania for not being able to transcend those same material conditions that you talk about so much.

You are misinterperating me. I, would not expect any country to be able to transcend material conditions. As a matter of fact, I believe most of the policies, if not all, created by the Albanian status quo were enacted as a way to respond to material conditions. But like the capitalist system, in it's many contradictions, eventually, and inevitably, all 20th century nations were doomed to destruction, because of systematic failure.

My criticism of Hoxhaism is not to be interpreted as a Criticism of the policies of the Albanian regime. It is a criticism of the conditions in which those policies were necessary. Material conditions can never be adjusted to human will. This is an obvious truth, for any Marxist. However, what humans can do, is address, and adjust to material conditions. And, sadly enough, this is exactly what the DPRK and China, and Cuba today is doing. The fact that they had the capabilities to do these things (the status quo) suggests imparity from start. I give a toast to the Marxist Leninist who is prepared to admit that the imparity was present within Stalin already, before Khruschev, Bhreznov, and Gorbachev. It was because, in those countries, their could be no proletarian dictatorship, as no proletariat (Or, should I say, no real existing majority) actually existed to begin with. Instead, you had a new class, and it's dictatorship arise within already existing bureaucratic structure. Such an event is only natural, in such conditions. For the very beurocracy arises in response to paranoia, and paranoia, from Imperialism. I can agree with Stalinists when they say these countries were in fact in danger, and that repressions on "Free speech", harsh punishments, didn't exist for no reason. But, the question arises: Do such tactics provide themselves efficient enough in hoarding off Imperialist threats? History as proof, they do not.


My criticism of Hoxhaism is a criticism of their Idealist explanation of the failure of 20th century communism. If the Soviet Union collapsed because of Revisionism, why did Albania, in it's Marxist Leninist pureness, share the exact same fate as the rest? Perhaps the issue lies within something pointed out by none other than Marx himself: That, a socialist revolution, not spreading to the Imperialist, Industrialized powers, is doomed to inevitable failure? You cannot accuse me of Ideological opportunism when I say this.


Because despite what it might look Pro-Albania Marxist-Leninists are not idealists, and we actually blame things on material conditions,

Like Trotskyists, like even some Left-Coms, etc., Hoxhaists like to knit pick when they feel like being Materialists and when they do not. You attribute the failure of Socialist Albania to "Material conditions", but assert that the failure of "Pure, Marxist Leninist Stalinism" failed because of Khruschev and his revisionism. You blame the downfall of Stalinism in Russia on revising theory, but, when it comes to Albania, of course, it's easy just to blame material condiitons.

Of course it was material conditions. The question is: Why could the Albanian Status quo not address these conditions? You must, confess that, unto such a conclusion, Socialism in one country, eventually, can not function., It cannot stop the generation of material conditions that will lead to it's destruction (like capitalism), which means, it did not, and can not, adjust itself to material conditions. For socialism in one country, there is only one way to address material conditions, eventually. And, you can ask Deng Xiaoping, for advice.


actually most of us hold today a very down-to-earth line that it was, not impossible, but highly unlikable for the PPSh to hold its principled Marxist-Leninist line in face of the advances of American Imperialism and the rise of Neo-liberalism in the 90s. Reasons for that were imperialist pressure, the growth of opportunistic conciliatory sentiments among the PPSh and an overall internal detrition due to isolation.



1. To preserve "Marxism Leninism", over adjsuting to material conditions manifested is, in itself, not only impossible but an Idealist notion.

2. Then, as a Hoxhaist, you must admit that Socialism in one country is bound to failure, eventually. I don't think there is an intelligent human being on this forum that suggests Imperialism was not responsible for the failure of 20th century communism. The question is, how can such be avoided next time around. And the answer, for those Imperialist countries to experience a revolution themselves.

[Ismail]

Are you aware Castro and Nasser were Secretary-Generals of the Non-Aligned Movement? It did include some imperialist puppet regimes, but you cannot label the whole movement that way.Really? Castro was the leader of Cuba, a neo-colony of the USSR. Nasser was an anti-communist whose geopolitical interests were aligned with the USSR. Indira Gandhi, who worked to sterilize India's poor, was also pro-Soviet. Yugoslavia itself after 1956 praised the USSR for denouncing "Stalinism" and aligned a fair amount of its foreign policy with the Soviets. There were exceptions, of course, like Tito siding with the West in denouncing the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and defending Pol Pot's regime in exile, but yeah.

Hoxha and the Albanian government denounced the "Non-Aligned Movement" as a pro-imperialist force.

Name a country participating in the "Non-Aligned Movement" whose policies did not in some way bow down to one imperialism or another.


Name some similarities of Yugoslav self-management with fascist "national syndicalism."I didn't say "national syndicalism" per se, but sure, here's an example:

"The real changover actually started in 1954, when state financing was abolished and investment funds were separated from the state budget. Starting with the meager concession of being able to elect or dismiss the workers' councils, by the end of the fifties the enterprises planned their production independently, marketed their products, bought raw materials, decided on employment, made their own arrangements with foreign firms, and enjoyed increasing freedom in investing their capital and distributing their profits. Though projected bold reforms in 1961 were temporarily frustrated by bureaucracy, the enterprises could henceforth divide their net earnings independently once they had paid their federal and local taxes.

Parallel reforms in 1953 to 1964 gradually introduced a working market mechanism with government control maintained through price and investment, fiscal and monetary policies. State administration was drastically reduced; the six republics and the communes (there are at present 517 such local administrative districts) were given increased powers in political and economic decisions. Ministries were abolished and only a few administrative state secretariats remain. Enterprises are no longer in any way subordinate to the central institutions; they form their own branch associations and set up business chambers to represent their interests.

The constitutional reform of 1953 established a bicameral basis in local self-government and also at republican and federal levels, and the new Constitution of 1963 made the entire system even more complicated, with a corporate structure resembling in some ways Mussolini's Italy.... [with] a so-called Council of Producers elected on a vocational basis in enterprises, thus excluding self-employed peasants and artisans..."
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. pp. 98-99.)

[Roach]

As a matter of fact, I believe most of the policies, if not all, created by the Albanian status quo were enacted as a way to respond to material conditions.

No shit sherlock. The problem with revisionism as how it ruled the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia and others is not about acting according to material conditions, it is about class-interest.


But like the capitalist system, in it's many contradictions, eventually, and inevitably, all 20th century nations were doomed to destruction, because of systematic failure.

Why?


My criticism of Hoxhaism is not to be interpreted as a Criticism of the policies of the Albanian regime. It is a criticism of the conditions in which those policies were necessary. Material conditions can never be adjusted to human will. This is an obvious truth, for any Marxist. However, what humans can do, is address, and adjust to material conditions. And, sadly enough, this is exactly what the DPRK and China, and Cuba today is doing.

Counter-revolutionary lines inside Marxist circles always tried to justify themselves with the excuse that material conditions had changed and Marxism had to adapt itself to those supposed new conditions, nothing new is being done in Cuba and China, just the usual bourgeois renunciation of the principles of proletarian science through some vulgar pseudo-marxism or worse. This is a crystal clear fact to all anti-revisionists.


The fact that they had the capabilities to do these things (the status quo) suggests imparity from start. I give a toast to the Marxist Leninist who is prepared to admit that the imparity was present within Stalin already, before Khruschev, Bhreznov, and Gorbachev. It was because, in those countries, their could be no proletarian dictatorship, as no proletariat (Or, should I say, no real existing majority) actually existed to begin with.

Because of this?! This ridiculous 2nd International line, I am really startled by the fact that people still bring up this bullshit. A proletarian-led revolution can happen in any country, even if the proletariat is a minority, it all bows down to the internal contradictions of the country, how advanced class-struggle is, the level of class consciousness, the relationship between the rulling-classes and the imperialist system, and dozens and dozens of subjective and objective factors in constant motion. Since all those factors are in constant movement and change, it is impossible to point out were the proletariat will be able to sucessfully rise up in revolution.

To defend this theoretical rehabilitation to the renegades of the Second International is atrocious, it is to renounce any advancement that the proletariat might have done in the last century, not just in the political field, but also in the fields of theory and class-consciousness based on the entirely subjective petty-bourgeois assumption Marxist theory before the victory of the Russian Revolution and the stablishment of the first workers state was somehow more ''pure''.



Instead, you had a new class, and it's dictatorship arise within already existing bureaucratic structure. Such an event is only natural, in such conditions. For the very beurocracy arises in response to paranoia, and paranoia, from Imperialism. I can agree with Stalinists when they say these countries were in fact in danger, and that repressions on "Free speech", harsh punishments, didn't exist for no reason. But, the question arises: Do such tactics provide themselves efficient enough in hoarding off Imperialist threats? History as proof, they do not.

Empty, hollow rethoric. With the exception of the first sentence, unfortunately Marxist-Leninist are well aware of the class relationships inside the SU.



My criticism of Hoxhaism is a criticism of their Idealist explanation of the failure of 20th century communism. If the Soviet Union collapsed because of Revisionism, why did Albania, in it's Marxist Leninist pureness, share the exact same fate as the rest? Perhaps the issue lies within something pointed out by none other than Marx himself: That, a socialist revolution, not spreading to the Imperialist, Industrialized powers, is doomed to inevitable failure? You cannot accuse me of Ideological opportunism when I say this.

The development of Revisionism in Albania only occurred faster because of Albania's own particularities, it is ridiculous to assume that both events would be the exact same on diferent countries. But they did share similarities, for example, both revisionist trends emerged due to opportunistic bureaucratic groups inside the CSUP and the PPSh, the diference lies in why they emerged, how they developed and how was socialism overthrown by them.


Like Trotskyists, like even some Left-Coms, etc., Hoxhaists like to knit pick when they feel like being Materialists and when they do not. You attribute the failure of Socialist Albania to "Material conditions", but assert that the failure of "Pure, Marxist Leninist Stalinism" failed because of Khruschev and his revisionism. You blame the downfall of Stalinism in Russia on revising theory, but, when it comes to Albania, of course, it's easy just to blame material condiitons.

Now it is empty and hollow rethoric, material conditions being brought time and time again, like a man who is insecure about his own sexuality and must remember himself that ''he is not gay'', plus putting MLs, Left-Coms and Trots in the same basket as an attempt to create an ivory tower for ''Orthodox Marxism'' and finnaly a bunch of false interpretations on what Marxist-Leninists think of the end of socialism in Albania and in the Soviet Union.


1. To preserve "Marxism Leninism", over adjsuting to material conditions manifested is, in itself, not only impossible but an Idealist notion.

Semantics, also I did not say preserve marxism-leninism, I said preserve the PPSh Marxist-Leninist line, that is to preserve its marxist-leninist policies, to maintain the parties Marxist outlook of the world, to preserve the class nature of itself, though the terms I used have diferent meanings, in this context each one of them has virtually the same meaning. Whine about the ''idealism'' on what you prefer.


2. Then, as a Hoxhaist, you must admit that Socialism in one country is bound to failure, eventually. I don't think there is an intelligent human being on this forum that suggests Imperialism was not responsible for the failure of 20th century communism. The question is, how can such be avoided next time around. And the answer, for those Imperialist countries to experience a revolution themselves.

How? Miracles?! Again it all depends on class contradictions and that thing that you love but always ends up betraying you...oh! MATERIAL CONDITIONS. It is not just a matter of how Internationalist one is. It doesn't matter how much revisionists wish that a revolutionary flame sparkles in the Imperialist countries, this arrogant mindset is false simply because, as Lenin showed us, the revolution will occur on the weakest link of the imperialist-chain. Besides since when did men started to make history as they pleased?

[Rafiq]

No shit sherlock. The problem with revisionism as how it ruled the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia and others is not about acting according to material conditions, it is about class-interest.
A class interest is formed as a reflection of material condition. Class struggle is the biggest manifestation of material conditions as well.

The very fact you believe "revisionism ruled" anywhere is evidence of Idealism.

Why?

Because they never surpassed the capitalist mode of production, they never surpassed the existence of capital. And, no matter what kind of socialist rhetoric or red flags you use to compensate for that, when you operate within the realm of the capitalist mode of production, you gain many of it's contradictions, including class contradiction.

Counter-revolutionary lines inside Marxist circles always tried to justify themselves with the excuse that material conditions had changed and Marxism had to adapt itself to those supposed new conditions,

This isn't a question of Marxism. The "Marxism" of "Marxism Leninism" was more revised than most currents. This is a question of whether non-industrialized socialist countries could exist, lest they not adjust themselves to the material conditions of the world, i.e., the world market, Imperialism, etc.


nothing new is being done in Cuba and China, just the usual bourgeois renunciation of the principles of proletarian science through some vulgar pseudo-marxism or worse. This is a crystal clear fact to all anti-revisionists.


Proletarian science in a country with no pre-existing proletarians. Wonderful.

The policies enacted by the Cuban and Chinese status quo were of absolute necessity, lest they share the same fate as your Albanian comrades, etc.


Because of this?! This ridiculous 2nd International line, I am really startled by the fact that people still bring up this bullshit. A proletarian-led revolution can happen in any country,

I absolutely distaste Menshevites, but Lenin clearly stated himself, if the Revolution does not spread to the industrialized countries, it's doomed to failure. A proletarian-minority led revolution can indeed successfuly occur, however, only if it's followed by a series of other revolutions.

(Revolutions always spread, even reactionary ones, i.e. Iran. Sometimes, however, the revolutions fail, as they did in Germany).


even if the proletariat is a minority, it all bows down to the internal contradictions of the country, how advanced class-struggle is, the level of class consciousness, the relationship between the rulling-classes and the imperialist system, and dozens and dozens of subjective and objective factors in constant motion.

This doesn't validate the fact that a minority-proletarian revolution in a country, will eventually degenerate into Bourgeois-Society, lest it does not spread to countries that have a majority-proletarian population (Imperialist countries).


Since all those factors are in constant movement and change, it is impossible to point out were the proletariat will be able to sucessfully rise up in revolution.


Proletarian revolution is inevitable in all capitalist countries. All you need is one revolution to spark the fire, and it will spread, like fire. We could be living in socialism today, if the bolshevik revolution spread to Germany.

Tactics have a lot to do with it as well. The Bolsheviks were much more organized than their German counter parts, and the Bolsheviks weren't afraid to use Authoritarian measures to secure revolution (Plus, they had the military on their side). Today we can learn from history, and, should a proletarian revolution occur once more, an organized mass-party movement would inevitably arise out of that.


To defend this theoretical rehabilitation to the renegades of the Second International is atrocious, it is to renounce any advancement that the proletariat might have done in the last century, not just in the political field, but also in the fields of theory and class-consciousness based on the entirely subjective petty-bourgeois assumption Marxist theory before the victory of the Russian Revolution and the stablishment of the first workers state was somehow more ''pure''.


You're taking a snowball, and throwing it down a hill full of snow-piss. As the snow ball rolls down and gets bigger, you, finally, pick up the snow ball (Of piss) and brag about your achievement. This is essentially what you're doing here.

You're babbling is what you're doing.

I've been very loud in my support for the Bolshevik revolution. It was the first successful proletarian revolution in history. I even go as far as supporting, one hundred percent, the Red Terror of the secret police, the Red Army against the Makhnovtchina, etc.

The gains of the Russian revolution cannot ever count as compensation for the revolution's isolation. History is my proof.



Empty, hollow rethoric. With the exception of the first sentence, unfortunately Marxist-Leninist are well aware of the class relationships inside the SU.


Perhaps you could elaborate, instead of being so dismissive. But, what could you expect, with a person so drenched in Faux ideological mystifications. You know what they say, "I let the big other do the thinking for me (So I don't have to respond to your post, I could dismiss the post, and hold the belief that someone more intelligent than yourself exists out there, who is a Hoxhaist, who could argue against what I put forward).

I'm interested as what your thoughts are on my last sentence: That Marxist Leninist tactics in building socialism in one country do not provide themselves as efficient in hoarding off Imperialism.


The development of Revisionism in Albania only occurred faster because of Albania's own particularities, it is ridiculous to assume that both events would be the exact same on diferent countries. But they did share similarities, for example, both revisionist trends emerged due to opportunistic bureaucratic groups inside the CSUP and the PPSh, the diference lies in why they emerged, how they developed and how was socialism overthrown by them.

Perhaps it's because "revisionism" is inevitable in countries in similar situations as Albania? (Cuba, China, USSR, etc.). Or no, those policies happened for no reason, they occurred by mistake, and material conditions manifested greatly from revising Ideas, on accident :lol:? Hegelian, are we?


Now it is empty and hollow rethoric, material conditions being brought time and time again, like a man who is insecure about his own sexuality and must remember himself that ''he is not gay'',

I do not hide the fact that it's difficult to remain a consistent materialist in a society drowned in Idealist mystification. Reinforcement of materialism, for a Marxist (On a website like this) is of absolute necessity. Materialism is one of those things you cannot just throw to the side and kind of bring in whenever t best serves your "Tendency". It must be constantly reinforced.


plus putting MLs, Left-Coms and Trots in the same basket as an attempt to create an ivory tower for ''Orthodox Marxism''

They do, after all, share similarities. Orthodox Marxism cannot be compared to Marxism Leninism and Left Communism (or Trostkyism) because it's not really "In the ring", i.e., It doesn't provide itself as a third party external force in Marxism (Unlike the rest).


and finnaly a bunch of false interpretations on what Marxist-Leninists think of the end of socialism in Albania and in the Soviet Union.


If you had the capability to elaborate and furtherly destroy my post, you would have. Instead, you are dismissive. That's exactly what you think of the failure of Socialism in Albania and the Soviet Union, perhaps, but without the sugar coating. I don't pretend to speak your ideological language, and by all means, I shall never.


Semantics, also I did not say preserve marxism-leninism, I said preserve the PPSh Marxist-Leninist line,

You've any Idea how foolish this sounds? If not, it's more idealist than the former.


that is to preserve its marxist-leninist policies,

:laugh: Which isn't preserving Marxism Leninism? Or are Marxist Leninist policies alien from Marxism Leninism?

So, you think policies should be preserved and dipped into your ideological hot sauce, even in the face of material conditions that point in the other direction?


to maintain the parties Marxist outlook of the world, to preserve the class nature of itself, though the terms I used have diferent meanings, in this context each one of them has virtually the same meaning. Whine about the ''idealism'' on what you prefer.


So, Men and Women make history as they please, than? Marxism isn't vital to a successful proletarian revolution. Using Marxism to interperate and understand them is, though.


How? Miracles?!

Perhaps you should start reading Marx more than Hoxha.

A proletarian revolution in any industrialized country is inevitable at some point. It's also inevitable that it would spread, in the case of a proletarian revolution occurring in a non-industrialized countries. Tactics take off from there, in assuring them being successful.


Again it all depends on class contradictions and that thing that you love but always ends up betraying you...oh! MATERIAL CONDITIONS.

If "Material conditions" betray you, that means you're not adjusting to them.

The Bolsheviks got fucked when the German proletariat failed to overthrow the Bourgeois state.

You're understanding of Materialism is smaller than Hoxha's penis. Seriously, I've heard from you idiots that Material conditions = Marxism, that Material conditions = always communist, that material conditions = something I like :confused:

I recognize them. That doesn't mean I Like them. typical Bourgeois-Idealist thought.


It is not just a matter of how Internationalist one is.

It has nothing to do with how Internationalist you are. That's just as Idealist as the shit you believe. However, for example, if the proletarian revolution is successful in Industrialized nations, or one nation, than revolution wouldn't degenerate into shit.


It doesn't matter how much revisionists wish that a revolutionary flame sparkles in the Imperialist countries, this arrogant mindset is false simply because, as Lenin showed us, the revolution will occur on the weakest link of the imperialist-chain.

You're Idealist brain is assuming that we are at a zero-level free will society, and that it's all a matter of free will that revolution occurs. No, proletarian revolution is inevitable in capitalist countries, just as capitalist degeneration (as is going on today) is inevitable. It was tragic the revolution in Germany was crushed. That doesn't mean there can never be a chance for another.

Lenin didn't believe a revolution would have to start from the weakest link. He believed it was possible (as do I), but, this didn't happen. It started, never spread, and died. End of story.


Besides since when did men started to make history as they pleased?


Ask your buddy Hoxha, who believes that Human will, defending the revolution from revising theory, makes history. Hoxha believed revising theory made history. So, perhaps it's him and his cult who believe men and women make history as they please, just like they said Khrushcev and Deng Xiaoping did.

How absurd of you to say. But then again, how are you enjoying your big-piss snowball?

[Tovarisch]

Question is what is purpose of existance of Yugoslavia... was it to reach communism or to have "highest stardands of living"? So, what was it: communism or capitalism?

As strategy for reaching communist society, Yugoslavia is classical example of Stalinist failure. It is also an example of failure of idea of self-managemant.
It was to reach communism of course. But isn't the purpose of communism to attain the highest standards of living for everyone? As radical leftists, we're not just wanting communism for fun, we want communism because that is the best way that everyone can attain a good standard of living. Yugoslavia was not perfect in any way, but it was a lot more perfect than countries such as Russia, or France, or England, or even USA. Yugoslavia taught the world that not all "socialist" governments are evil and corrupt

[Ismail]

It was to reach communism of course. But isn't the purpose of communism to attain the highest standards of living for everyone? As radical leftists, we're not just wanting communism for fun, we want communism because that is the best way that everyone can attain a good standard of living. Yugoslavia was not perfect in any way, but it was a lot more perfect than countries such as Russia, or France, or England, or even USA. Yugoslavia taught the world that not all "socialist" governments are evil and corruptActually the whole "socialism/communism = higher standards of living" argument originated more or less with Khrushchev and gave way to legitimization of the GDR's "Consumer Socialism," Hungary's "Goulash Socialism," etc. It was based on the ridiculous argument that the USSR would defeat the USA "by example" and would outproduce the West in consumer goods, thus inspiring the masses of the USA and Western Europe to find communism attractive or something.

It had nothing to do with socialism and was based on Khrushchev's "peaceful coexistence" stands, in which class struggle meant the prospect of nuclear war and thus must be avoided.

Obviously communism (and socialism) bring higher standards of living, but that is not how class struggle is waged.

[Zulu]

Yugoslavia was not perfect in any way, but it was a lot more perfect than countries such as Russia, or France, or England, or even USA. Yugoslavia taught the world that not all "socialist" governments are evil and corrupt

Of course. Yugoslavia was eager to demonstrate to the West that socialism was such a nice thing and in order to do that they took the loans from the IMF. The West readily poured money into Yugoslavia to demonstrate to the East that socialism could be a lot nicer, if somebody weren't just so uptight on all that commie stuff... Such a big surprise the way it all ended [facepalm].

[Omsk]

Yugoslavia taught the world that not all "socialist" governments are evil and corrupt
Although the entire "evil government" simply does not stand,i will try to answer:

Was the systematic hunting and arresting of Cominformists "good" ?

The party purges were good?

The Goli Otok camp for Cominformists was good?

The UDBA was good?

You dont have a realistic view on Yugoslavia.

[Babeufist]

so-called Council of Producers elected on a vocational basis in enterprises, thus excluding self-employed peasants and artisans
Well, fascist Corporatism united together both workers and capitalists on the platform of class solidarism. Were there any capitalists in Yugoslavian "councils of producers"?

[Ismail]

Yes, capitalism reigned in Yugoslavia.

Here are two good reads:
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/capital.htm
http://marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html (http://marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html#s1) (particularly pages 145-167)