Goli Otok-A Titoist Hell for Marxists

[tir1944]

Goli Otok is a barren,horrible island in Croatia(Yugoslavia).
The Titoists turned it into a concentration camp in 1949 where tens of thousands of Marxists were incarcerated and put to unimaginable torture and humiliation.The prisoners were forced to brutally beat each other and those who didn't renounce Marxism and swear loyalty to Tito were beaten in most bestial ways,several times a day,forced to swim in shit and other horrible things.Ex-Nazis were hired as guards.Some 4000 people were killed there.Thousands were sent to G.Otok just for expressing any sympathy for Russia.
It is said that GO was one of the most horrible prisons ever,worse than every GULAG(according to K.Steiner who spent 7000 days in different GULAG camps).

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Goli_otok_zatvor.jpg

[ComradeOm]

Wait, now we're against locking up Marxists in brutal prison camps? I'm confused. And how do we know that these weren't all traitors, spies and fascists who deserved their fate?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Tito sent Stalinists, Ustasha, Chetniks, and other nationalists there. Most got out after a certain amount of time.

it is my opinion that they shouldn't have been released. At least not the Ustasha, Chetniks, and Nationalists.

[tir1944]

These people were indeed "traitors" to the Titoist clique,but most of them were honest Marxists who didn't want to betray the whole Communist movement.
"We" are indeed against locking up honest Marxists.

[tir1944]

Tito sent Stalinists, Ustasha, Chetniks, and other nationalists there.
It was founded as a prison for "Stalinists".
Ustashe and co. served as prison guards! They were allowed to torture Communists.V.Dapčević wrote about this in "Ja,Ibeovac" which is free to read on the net.

[ВАЛТЕР]

They were traitors to the idea of brotherhood and unity, and wanted to join Stalinist bullshit. Had we had their way we would have had jack shit to eat, and Yugoslavia would have never been a prosperous nation as it was. Stalins' imperialism and insistence that the Yugoslavs align with him is to blame for the camps existence.

[tir1944]

They were traitors to the idea of brotherhood and unity, and wanted to join Stalinist bullshit.
How were they "traitors to the idea of b.&u.,pray tell?
Also they didn't want to "join" anyone,they wanted to fight against the Titoites removing the country from the international communist movement.


Had we had their way we would have had jack shit to eat, and Yugoslavia would have never been a prosperous nation as it was.
This is baseless speculation and nonsense.
Hungary (and some other countries too) was,at least according to the GDP per capita,ahead of SFRY in 1989.
SFRY was hardly prosperous anyway.


Stalins' imperialism and insistence that the Yugoslavs align with him is to blame for the camps existence.
No,it's Titoist betrayal that is to blame.

[ВАЛТЕР]

How were they "traitors to the idea of b.&u.,pray tell?
Also they didn't want to "join" anyone,they wanted to fight against the Titoites removing the country from the international communist movement.

The "international" communist movement was basically operated from Moscow.


This is baseless speculation and nonsense.
Hungary (and some other countries too) was,at least according to the GDP per capita,ahead of SFRY in 1989.
SFRY was hardly prosperous anyway.GDP doesn't matter, standard of living does. Yugoslavs had a great standard of living.

And 1989? We're talking about TITO's Yugoslavia, not the treacherous fucks who came after him.


No,it's Titoist betrayal that is to blame.Titoist betrayal? because Tito saw that each individual nation should strive towards Communist goals in its own method? Instead of following lock-step with what Moscow had in mind? :laugh:

[Roach]

So, a comedy about an ex-prisoner from this place was done and became a classic of Yugoslav cinema. Don't you guys think it is of extremely poor taste to joke about this kind of thing?

[tir1944]

The "international communist movement" was basically operated form Moscow.Where should it have been operated from then? Tirana,Prague or Warsaw?
BTW,the headquarters of Informbureau were actually in Belgrade IIRC.



GDP doesn't matter, standard of living does. Yugoslavs had a great standard of living.It'be great if we had some data to compare the SOL in SFRY and,let's say Hungary or Bulgaria...
And i don't see how the SFRY had such a great standard of living anyway.Kosovars were living in abject poverty and Bosnia wasn't that better off either.


Titoist betrayal? because Tito saw that each individual nation should strive towards Communist goals in its own method? Instead of following lock-step with what Moscow had in mind? :laugh: Titoist "striving towards Communism"=restoration of capitalism under red flags and demagoguery.


Don't you guys think it is of extremely poor taste to joke about this kind of thing?
Yugoslav cinema joked with everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.R.:_Mysteries_of_the_Organism

[ВАЛТЕР]

So, a comedy about an ex-prisoner from this place was done and became a classic of Yugoslav cinema. Don't you guys think it is of extremely poor taste to joke about this kind of thing?

Hahah, You have no idea about how humor works in the Former YU. It doesn't surprise me you may find it a bit tasteless. However in the Balkan nations, nothing is holy when it comes to comedy.

[tir1944]

Hollywood has produced tons of most disgusting and vile trash,however,from what i know,they've yet to make a "comedy" mocking an Auschwitz survivor...

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I warned you about authoritarian socialism, bro, I told you dog...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Where should it have been operated from then? Tirana,Prague or Warsaw?
BTW,the headquarters of Informbureau were actually in Belgrade IIRC.

So really? We should all jump when Stalin says so?

Informbiro had no business being in BG. We did nto want anything to do with Stalinist authoritarianism.


It'be great if we had some data to compare the SOL in SFRY and,let's say Hungary or Bulgaria...
We do, go ask a Bulgarian or Hungarian what he/she thought of Yugoslavia at that time.

I have asked one of my good friends grandmother, a Russian who lived in the Soviet Union and worked as a Chemist and she said the Soviets viewed Yugoslavia as some kind of dream. At one point when visiting they were shocked to see that a waiter at a restaurant had his own car to drive. Amazed that people could travel freely. etc.


And i don't see how the SFRY had such a great standard of living anyway.Kosovars were living in abject poverty and Bosnia wasn't that better off either.

Oh, they live much better now I'm sure.

I am from Bosnia, my family is from Bosnia, and it is an undisputable fact that much of the population lived GREAT.


Titoist "striving towards Communism"=restoration of capitalism under red flags and demagoguery.

Restoration of Capitalism? Really? Is that what you call factories operated by the workers. Maybe he should have acted more like Stalin? Stalin was a lunatic and it is insane that people even look at him now as anything short of a historical curiosity. HE alone is the reason why Communism is looked at the way it is.

The fact that you titled this thread as "A Titoist hell for Marxists" is really childish and a strawman argument. You are looking to get a reaction so you can feed your delusions of Stalin as a great Marxist.

[Agent Equality]

A stalinist complaining about sending people who disagree to camps to die? what has this world come to? :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

This thread is laughable.

"Yeah, [my tendency] sent people to labour camps, but they were traitors therefore it was just"

[tir1944]

So really? We should all jump when Stalin says so? No,but the Titoist clique had no right to betray proletarian internationalism and break with the whole communist movement.


We did nto want anything to do with Stalinist authoritarianism. Many did want actually,although UDBA and mass repressions and intimidations took care of that.



We do, go ask a Bulgarian or Hungarian what he/she thought of Yugoslavia at that time. Yes,Yugoslavia had the "privilege" to be the "showcase of capitalism" in the "Eastern Block",however they got all that money back,with dividends,in the 80s where Yugoslavia practically collapsed because of the massive foreign debt to the West.


Oh, they live much better now I'm sure.No.


I am from Bosnia, my family is from Bosnia, and it is an undisputable fact that much of the population lived GREAT.I don't know.How come more than half a million people went to Germany because the unemployment was so high?
Other socialist countries had no unemployment.


The fact that you titled this thread as "A Titoist hell for Marxists" is really childish and a strawman argument. You are looking to get a reaction so you can feed your delusions of Stalin as a great Marxist.
No comment.


This thread is laughable.No,you are.

[ВАЛТЕР]

No,but the Titoist clique had no right to betray proletarian internationalism and break with the whole communist movement.

He had every right to steer the country away from Soviet Imperialism. Because that's what it was. Imperialism. Wrapped in a pretty red banner.

"proletarian internationalism" at that time was basically whatever the Soviet Union decided was the best course of action for its own gain against the west. Stalin's ONLY quarrel with Yugoslavia was that he could never control it. Never. So he did the next best thing, talk shit on it like a child. Because that is all Stalin was. A fucking child that threw tantrums when he got mad. Yugoslavia wasn't going to be intimidated by him so he pouted about it.




Many did want actually,although UDBA and mass repressions and intimidations took care of that.

No, not that many obviously, since if Stalin had that much support in Yugoslavia he would have forced his way in. Because that is what Stalin knew how to do best. Use force. He didn't want to make the same mistake as the Germans and attack a unified Yugoslavia, where we would have dragged the fight into Bosnia and fought in the mountains for 100 years if need be. (Family members were commanding officers in the units that were preparing for the Soviet attack, the entire strategy that was laid out to them was to drag the Soviets into Bosnian mountains. Where we would win.)


Yes,Yugoslavia had the "privilege" to be the "showcase of capitalism" in the "Eastern Block",however they got all that money back,with dividends,in the 80s where Yugoslavia practically collapsed because of the massive foreign debt to the West.



"Showcase of Capitalism?" Yugoslavia was far from being a western capitalist state.

Stop comparing Tito's Yugoslavia to the Yugoslavia that came AFTER him. The debt and whatnot would easily have been paid off had the IMF not purposely set conditions after Tito's death which were impossible to meet without serious problems. They knew it would cause people to struggle to make ends meet and to question the system. The west had much to gain from collapsing Yugoslavia and couldn't wait to do so.




I don't know.How come more than half a million people went to Germany because the unemployment was so high?
Other socialist countries had no unemployment.


Once again. Yugoslavia AFTER Tito =\= Yugoslavia during Tito. or thew only actual proper socialist Yugoslavia. Was there mass unemployment in the 50s 60s and early 70s? No.

[khad]

Yes,Yugoslavia had the "privilege" to be the "showcase of capitalism" in the "Eastern Block",however they got all that money back,with dividends,in the 80s where Yugoslavia practically collapsed because of the massive foreign debt to the West.

No.
I don't know.How come more than half a million people went to Germany because the unemployment was so high?
Other socialist countries had no unemployment.
And this is what it basically comes down to. Other communist nations pulled themselves up by the sweat of their own brow, and Yugoslavia made compromises with the West that it had to pay for dearly.

Not that I don't appreciate what Tito did for his country overall (Yugoslavia had every right to forge its own independent path), but I don't appreciate this sectarian bickering, nor this garbage about the rest of the Eastern Bloc consisting of nothing but unwashed savages. The Soviet economy in the 80s was worth USD 2.5 trillion, and per capita income in both the USSR and countries like the GDR was double that of the SFRY.

GDP might not tell the whole story, but the fact of the matter is it's a hell of a lot more objective measure of a country's overall prosperity and human development than the fact of being able to manufacture and partially consume western brands and work for western companies as migrants.

[Искра]

When you have national state and when you have enemies of regime inside of it what do you do? You get rid of them. It's quite simple. Communism has nothing to do with discussion, because Yugoslavia or Soviet Union were not communist or socialist.

And all these anti-revisionist bullshit is quite boring.

"Socialism in one state" is revisionism. Get over it.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Also, a Stalinist is going to cry about how Stalinists got stuck in a prison camp? However when anybody else gets stuck in one because dear leader Stalin sent them there it is justified. Stalinists have too much blood on their hands to even begin to point fingers at people for sticking others in camps.

[Искра]

So, a comedy about an ex-prisoner from this place was done and became a classic of Yugoslav cinema. Don't you guys think it is of extremely poor taste to joke about this kind of thing?
No, movie is briliant. It's good critique of all you idiotic paranoid Stalinists and how funny you are. Also, it's black humor - something which is really distinctive when it comes to Serbian cinema. After all you should watch Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian movies about 90's war to see how you can make fun of everything and make anti-war message.

[Jose Gracchus]

And this is what it basically comes down to. Other communist nations pulled itself up by the sweat of its own brow, and Yugoslavia made compromises with the West that it had to pay for dearly.

"People's" Poland didn't take Western loans? The Eastern Bloc was not dependent on any Soviet subsidy? Is that your claim?

What is your source for the valuation of the USSR economy, and for what year?

[North Star]

No,but the Titoist clique had no right to betray proletarian internationalism and break with the whole communist movement.


Tito betrayed proletarian internationalism? The origins of the Tito-Stalin split lie not in some sort of supposed revisionism on the party of the CPY and Tito but that Tito sought to help the Greek Democratic Army in the Greek Civil War. Stalin on the other hand decided to respect the percentages agreement he made with Churchill which stipulated Greece was to be in the UK's sphere of influence. So Stalin sold the Greeks out to British imperialism. Stalin also did not like Tito's initiative of a Balkan Federation with Bulgaria despite the fact that well you know socialism is supposed to bring nationalities together! Now under theories approved by Stalin, the PCI was allowed to have an Italian Road to Socialism and Stalin personally approved the CPGB's British Road to Socialism which is pretty fucking reformist (socialism will come to the UK through an elected coalition government of Labour and the CPGB!). Yet apparently Tito's Yugoslav Road to Socialism was somehow revisionist and in league with the imperialists... It was that supposed friend of imperialism Tito that almost brought the US to attack Yugoslavia over its role in the Greek Civil War. Or how about this: Stalin and Tito were both dictators whose interests clashed. Stalin was a chauvinist believing he had every right to lead the Communist Bloc and all Tito wanted to do was promote slavic unity and not slavishly follow Moscow. Though both were dictators at least Tito was behaving in an anti-imperialist fashion. Stalinists like to call Tito revisionist with his worker's self management system yet that system was not introduced until the 1950's! Yugoslavia initially used 5 year plans like the USSR! So what is it that fundamentally made Tito a revisionist at that point other than refusing Moscow's interference in Yugoslavia through USSR-SFRY joint-stock companies? Care to give us an in depth political economy of SFRY 1945-1950 to show how Tito was a revisionist? I don't consider either of them to be socialist, but at least Tito had a decent foreign policy instead of the opportunism coming out of Moscow which killed any chance of revolution in Western Europe.

[ComradeOm]

"We" are indeed against locking up honest Marxists.And how do you distinguish between 'honest' and 'dishonest' Marxists? Would it be safe to say that the difference lies in the adherence to Stalin's line?

[Roach]

No, movie is briliant. It's good critique of all you idiotic paranoid Stalinists and how funny you are.

Sorry, but I don't like to be viewed as inferior just because of my political affiliation. Also, do you know me to say I am paranoid? Do you know a significant number of ''Stalinists'' to say that there is an epidemic of this mental condition inside this political group? Are there any scientific psicological studies that link ''Stalinism'' to paranoia? Just because in a recent historical period, the name Stalin became associated with paranoia, does that mean that all those who follow his political line must have this particular personality trait?


Also, it's black humor - something which is really distinctive when it comes to Serbian cinema.

I can't really judge the movie, I have not seen it, neither I can say that I'm an expert on Former-Yugoslav cinema, for example, the movie that tir linked (W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism) seemed pretty interesting, it touched a wide variety of subjects and from the little youtube videos that I have watched the direction appeared to be of good quality, I highlight this particular clip that is able to catch the viewers attention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HhTEoIA4P8 , despite being a rather disturbing and non-sensical scene, you simply can't look away. Again, I can't really drawn any definite conclusions, for I have not watched it either. I am just uncomfortable with the thought of mocking one's traumatic experience.

[Roach]

And how do you distinguish between 'honest' and 'dishonest' Marxists? Would it be safe to say that the difference lies in the adherence to Stalin's line?

Would you call ''Stalinists'' honest Marxists?

[Nox]

FFS you idiots they were obviously all fascists and spies (and trotskyist traitors).

[mrmikhail]

You know, as an apparently Stalin-loving Stalinist Tir, you seem to have quite a few hypocritical views. You are going to denounce Tito for sending his political enemies, who many very well might have been foreign agents (NKVD), plotters against the government, or saboteurs. The fact that they might have been Stalinists only feeds to this possibility, if a group's mission is to destabilise your nation, that makes them worthy of the title traitors, and should be dealt with as such, which Tito did. Now when Stalin did this exact same thing, mostly out of his own paranoia, you apparently find it perfectly fine, but Tito doing it is a total betrayal.

On the International communist movement, Stalin disbanded the Third International during WW2, the Cominform was actually founded by Tito, but Stalin managed to take the leadership position and IIRC expelled Yugoslavia from it. Stalin's version of "internationalism" was anti-revolutionary and supported party building and, as previously stated, working with parties such as Labour in Britain to obtain Socialism through elections, which is entirely revisionist, so abandoning it is hardly abandoning international socialism in general, it's just refusing to be Stalin's *****.

On another note, I attended several years back a conference on leaders and freedom, which had many political speakers of different points of view, and from many different events (Bosnian war, Iranian Revolution, Vietnam War ect.) and the speaker from Bosnia, talking largely on the Siege of Sarajevo but also on Bosnia in general praised at how much better life was when Bosnia was apart of Yugoslavia, and how he wished Bosnia could return to those days of Slavic unity. So I find your argument against them to be quite ignorant at best.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

Ah i remember this i was on vacation on this island

[tir1944]

You know, as an apparently Stalin-loving Stalinist Tir, you seem to have quite a few hypocritical views. You are going to denounce Tito for sending his political enemies, who many very well might have been foreign agents (NKVD), plotters against the government, or saboteurs. The fact that they might have been Stalinists only feeds to this possibility, if a group's mission is to destabilise your nation, that makes them worthy of the title traitors, and should be dealt with as such, which Tito did. Yes and i also disapprove of Nazis dealing with "enemies of the state".How could i possible be such a hypocrite,eh? Well,look,it's not the form but content that matters.Tito was specifically targeting Marxists Leninist.
I don't oppose the repression of enemies of the people in a proletarian state,however i oppose the opression of Marxists in a capitalist/revisionist state Tito's SFRY was.
I hope it's a bit clearer now.



On another note, I attended several years back a conference on leaders and freedom, which had many political speakers of different points of view, and from many different events (Bosnian war, Iranian Revolution, Vietnam War ect.) and the speaker from Bosnia, talking largely on the Siege of Sarajevo but also on Bosnia in general praised at how much better life was when Bosnia was apart of Yugoslavia, and how he wished Bosnia could return to those days of Slavic unity. So I find your argument against them to be quite ignorant at best.No one's denying this,however it just shows how fucked up Bosnia is today.

[Rafiq]

A stalinist complaining about sending people who disagree to camps to die? what has this world come to? :rolleyes:

A libertarian who complains about being hypocritical in that someones ideology is asscociated with bad things criticizes bad things of another? What has this world come to...

[Rooster]

Yes and i also disapprove of Nazis dealing with "enemies of the state".How could i possible be such a hypocrite,eh?

*cough* "I don't oppose the repression of enemies of the people in a proletarian state"*cough*


Well,look,it's not the form but content that matters.

Oh fuck off, what does that even mean?


Tito was specifically targeting Marxists Leninist.

And?


I don't oppose the repression of enemies of the people in a proletarian state,however i oppose the opression of Marxists in a capitalist/revisionist state Tito's SFRY was.

What about trotskyists, anarchists or even old bolsheviks?


I hope it's a bit clearer now.

No, it's not.

[tir1944]

What about trotskyists, anarchists or even old bolsheviks?
If you ask me,they should have been supressed but not killed.

[Rooster]

If you ask me,they should have been supressed but not killed.

What about your thread about Stalin not killing enough?

[mrmikhail]

If you ask me,they should have been supressed but not killed.

And why should old Bolsheviks and Trotskyists be suppressed? If you'd red your history correctly you'd note that the economic plan of Stalin was created by the Left Opposition (Trotsky), just implemented far too late after Kulaks had already became too powerful. And the old Bolsheviks were the very people who led and organised the very revolution in the first place, how are they a threat, eh? Stalin's paranoia automatically makes them traitors?

[tir1944]

What about your thread about Stalin not killing enough? That was poetic language.
Besides,here i talked about things the way i'd prefer them now,however you can't change history...


And why should old Bolsheviks and Trotskyists be suppressed?Why not? Because they were obviously working against the Soviet state.
Trotsky admitted that there were plans to assasin Stalin and some other Party members...

[Rooster]

Why not? Because they were obviously working against the Soviet state.
Trotsky admitted that there were plans to assasin Stalin and some other Party members...

Source.

Also, what about the rest of my post? Like the part about you being a hypocrite?

[mrmikhail]

Why not? Because they were obviously working against the Soviet state.
Trotsky admitted that there were plans to assasin Stalin and some other Party members...

That sounds like bullshit Stalinist fabricated evidence to me, or perhaps your own? How about one source, not from a die hard Stalinist with a hard on for everything that Stalin did?

[tir1944]

Source.Thanks to Ismail...

"Shortly before they left for Russia, Trotsky's emissaries, Konon Berman-Yurin and Fritz David, were summoned to special conferences with Trotsky himself. The meetings took place in Copenhagen toward the end of November 1932. Konon Berman-Yurin later stated:
'I had two meetings with him [Trotsky]. First of all he began to sound me on my work in the past. Then Trotsky passed to Soviet affairs. Trotsky said: 'The principal question is the question of Stalin. Stalin must be physically destroyed.' He said that other methods of struggle were now ineffective. He said that for this purpose people were needed who would dare anything, who would agree to sacrifice themselves for this, as he expressed it, historic task. . . .

In the evening we continued our conversation. I asked him how individual terrorism could be reconciled with Marxism. To this Trotsky replied: problems cannot be treated in a dogmatic way. He said that a situation had arisen in the Soviet Union which Marx could not have foreseen. Trotsky also said that in addition to Stalin it was necessary to assassinate Kaganovich and Voroshilov. . . .
During the conversation he nervously paced up and down the room and spoke of Stalin with exceptional hatred. . . . He said that the terrorist act should, if possible, be timed to take place at a plenum or at the congress of the Comintern, so that the shot at Stalin would ring out in a large assembly.'"
The Great Conspiracy. The Secret War Against Soviet Russia

by M. Sayers, A. E. Kahn



Like the part about you being a hypocrite? There's nothing hypocritical about what i wrote,think again.

[mrmikhail]

That sounds like bullshit Stalinist fabricated evidence to me, or perhaps your own? How about one source, not from a die hard Stalinist with a hard on for everything that Stalin did?

*cough*

[tir1944]

cough
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Great%20Conspiracy/GC-AK-MS-chapter17.htm
cough

[mrmikhail]

cough
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Great%20Conspiracy/GC-AK-MS-chapter17.htm
cough

You mean the book that was written on "evidence" found in the confessions of those who were convicted at the Moscow Trials?

so, evidence obtained by torture is completely and without a doubt creditable.


I believe it! :rolleyes:

[tir1944]

Why do you think the Moscow trials weren't fair?
Provide sources please.

[Per Levy]

Thanks to Ismail...

"Shortly before they left for Russia, Trotsky's emissaries, Konon Berman-Yurin and Fritz David, were summoned to special conferences with Trotsky himself. The meetings took place in Copenhagen toward the end of November 1932. Konon Berman-Yurin later stated:
'I had two meetings with him [Trotsky]. First of all he began to sound me on my work in the past. Then Trotsky passed to Soviet affairs. Trotsky said: 'The principal question is the question of Stalin. Stalin must be physically destroyed.' He said that other methods of struggle were now ineffective. He said that for this purpose people were needed who would dare anything, who would agree to sacrifice themselves for this, as he expressed it, historic task. . . .

In the evening we continued our conversation. I asked him how individual terrorism could be reconciled with Marxism. To this Trotsky replied: problems cannot be treated in a dogmatic way. He said that a situation had arisen in the Soviet Union which Marx could not have foreseen. Trotsky also said that in addition to Stalin it was necessary to assassinate Kaganovich and Voroshilov. . . .
During the conversation he nervously paced up and down the room and spoke of Stalin with exceptional hatred. . . . He said that the terrorist act should, if possible, be timed to take place at a plenum or at the congress of the Comintern, so that the shot at Stalin would ring out in a large assembly.'"The Great Conspiracy. The Secret War Against Soviet Russia by M. Sayers, A. E. Kahn
There's nothing hypocritical about what i wrote,think again.

except of course trotsky never met yurin and david, these 2 guys also claimed to have visited trotsky son in copenhagen even though he wasnt even there since he didnt got a permission to go to denmark. also when will you bring up "hotel bristol" while yo're at it?

seriously, stop this bs, read some real history and not lies.

about the topic, yeah tir is pretty hypocritical here, a marxist-leninist killed in yugoslavia not good, bolsheviks and other lefitsts killed in ussr a-ok. the point both events are fucked up and hardly deserve defense.

[Per Levy]

Why do you think the Moscow trials weren't fair?
Provide sources please.

torture confessions and no other evidence, sounds hardly fair. well, if you want to talk about this start a thread about this OR just look through the other countless threads on the topic.

[mrmikhail]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1956/xx/trials.htm

[Rafiq]

Tir I know it would appear that I usually defend you when people confont you about being just a troll, but in this case I cannot help it but assume you are one.

most of the threads you make are all flame bait. They are counter productive and carry no intellectual value whatso-ever.

Please, stop.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The problem with Titoist Yugoslavia is not the fact that Yugoslavia had death camps, but that they didn't have enough.

[mrmikhail]

The problem with Titoist Yugoslavia is not the fact that Yugoslavia had death camps, but that they didn't have enough.

uhhhh......okay then :confused:

[Rafiq]

uhhhh......okay then :confused:

He's reffering to a chit chat thread made by Tir that sais something similar about Stalin, he's joking.

[Pretty Flaco]

The problem with Titoist Yugoslavia is not the fact that Yugoslavia had death camps, but that they didn't have enough.

yeah, they could of just turned the whole country into a death camp. death to everything!

[tir1944]

Tir I know it would appear that I usually defend you when people confont you about being just a troll, but in this case I cannot help it but assume you are one.
Just a short question:have you ever heard of Goli Otok before reading this thread? I'm inclined to say that many people haven't,so i at least made a small contribution...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They see me trollin'...

Yeah, this really is the height of hypocrisy from tir, as usual.

At least he's not doing his thing of, "hey guys, here's a source *links to source* what do you think about the murder of 1,000,000,000 innocents?" *sits back and watches thread unfold*.:rolleyes:

[tir1944]

Yeah, this really is the height of hypocrisy from tir, as usual.
Where's the hipocrisy.



At least he's not doing his thing of, "hey guys, here's a source *links to source* what do you think about the murder of 1,000,000,000 innocents?" *sits back and watches thread unfold*.:rolleyes:
Eh,no,read the OP,I didn't ask "what do you think of...",i just posted a (relatively) informative thread about something i assumed most people here weren't familiar with.
Sorry if this thread was of no use to you.

[mrmikhail]

He's reffering to a chit chat thread made by Tir that sais something similar about Stalin, he's joking.
Ahhh I gotcha.


Just a short question:have you ever heard of Goli Otok before reading this thread? I'm inclined to say that many people haven't,so i at least made a small contribution...

I have heard of it and read much into it. You didn't really make much of a contribution, aside from accusing Titoists of being anti-communists, oppressive, and pro-western, as well as taking up for the Moscow Trials which most people of intellect agree were nothing but show trials with torture derived confessions and baseless anti-Stalin conspiracy theories.

[tir1944]

I have heard of it and read much into it.
I asked Rafiq,not you.;)


You didn't really make much of a contribution, aside from accusing Titoists of being anti-communists, oppressive, and pro-western
I personally didn't accuse Tito of neither of these things,the facts speak for themselves though,fact which you have so nicely brought up.:)
Titoist regime was opressive as we can see,it was also pro-western (not somethign new of shocking) and,well,even Pol Pot called himself a "communist" for that matter.

[mrmikhail]

These people were indeed "traitors" to the Titoist clique,but most of them were honest Marxists who didn't want to betray the whole Communist movement.



Also they didn't want to "join" anyone,they wanted to fight against the Titoites removing the country from the international communist movement.

Hungary (and some other countries too) was,at least according to the GDP per capita,ahead of SFRY in 1989.
SFRY was hardly prosperous anyway.

No,it's Titoist betrayal that is to blame.


Where should it have been operated from then? Tirana,Prague or Warsaw?
BTW,the headquarters of Informbureau were actually in Belgrade IIRC.

It'be great if we had some data to compare the SOL in SFRY and,let's say Hungary or Bulgaria...
And i don't see how the SFRY had such a great standard of living anyway.Kosovars were living in abject poverty and Bosnia wasn't that better off either.
Titoist "striving towards Communism"=restoration of capitalism under red flags and demagoguery.



No,but the Titoist clique had no right to betray proletarian internationalism and break with the whole communist movement.

Many did want actually,although UDBA and mass repressions and intimidations took care of that.

Yes,Yugoslavia had the "privilege" to be the "showcase of capitalism" in the "Eastern Block",however they got all that money back,with dividends,in the 80s where Yugoslavia practically collapsed because of the massive foreign debt to the West.



Yes and i also disapprove of Nazis dealing with "enemies of the state".How could i possible be such a hypocrite,eh? Well,look,it's not the form but content that matters.Tito was specifically targeting Marxists Leninist.
I don't oppose the repression of enemies of the people in a proletarian state,however i oppose the opression of Marxists in a capitalist/revisionist state Tito's SFRY was.
I hope it's a bit clearer now.

you said every bit of that, short memory eh?

[tir1944]

I stated facts.
Now point out where exactly did i accuse the Titoists of " being anti-communists, oppressive, and pro-western".

[mrmikhail]

Anti-communist= where you stated they were capitalists and against the international communist movement

Oppressive= stating how they "oppressed" Stalinists in Yugoslavia

Pro-Western= where you stated "Yes,Yugoslavia had the "privilege" to be the "showcase of capitalism" in the "Eastern Block",however they got all that money back,with dividends,in the 80s where Yugoslavia practically collapsed because of the massive foreign debt to the West."

I think that covers it all, I'm sure everyone else will agree, no?

[tir1944]

All right then,no point in arguing about semantics how...say,did i state fact or lies?
That's what matters in the end.

[mrmikhail]

All right then,no point in arguing about semantics how...say,did i state fact or lies?
That's what matters in the end.

In my opinion they would mostly be lies, or at best exaggerated truths. Stalinism was not the centre of the socialist movement, there were a few internationals (socialist or second international, and the fourth international to name two) so Tito didn't abandon any sort of international communism, you are looking at it from a Stalinist point of view, which is if someone didn't jump when Stalin said so they were counter revolutionary.

Was Yugoslavia oppressive? Only to a certain degree, it was mostly free, as I said before the Bosnian praised the system so I cannot imagine that there would be much oppression at all....especially if compared to Stalin or Mao.

Was it pro-western? No, it was the leader of the non-aligned movement and maintained a balance between the two blocs during the cold war, while holding strict independence from both factions with it's own road to Socialism, mind you worker self management is far more socialistic than the Soviet model.

[ComradeOm]

Why do you think the Moscow trials weren't fair?
Provide sources please.How about the use of torture to extract false confessions? Or the fact that the charges were completely bizarre? Source: any decent history book. I'll give you Molotov's admissions (ie, that suspects were "worked over" to extract confessions and that they may not have been guilty of the specific crimes they were charged with) in Getty's Road to Terror

But please answer my previous question. How do you distinguish between 'honest' and 'dishonest' Marxists?

[Rafiq]

Just a short question:have you ever heard of Goli Otok before reading this thread? I'm inclined to say that many people haven't,so i at least made a small contribution...

Yes, I have.

Why should it matter now?

[tir1944]

How do you distinguish between 'honest' and 'dishonest' Marxists? Honest Marxist don't engage in sabotage,diversions and plots against the proletarian state.I'd rather have one socdem who defends the USSR than 10 "Revolutionary Marxists" who plot against it.



In my opinion they would mostly be lies, or at best exaggerated truths. Yes,now elaborate and provide evidence.
And yeah,Tito's Yugoslavia wasn't a part of any international at the time of GO,not even Trotskyte ones.



Stalinism was not the centre of the socialist movement, there were a few internationals (socialist or second international, and the fourth international to name two) so Tito didn't abandon any sort of international communismYes,Trotskytes have had quite a few "internationals"...:laugh:
The communist movement(except for some irrelevant groups) at that time was lead by the Soviet Union,and rightly so.




you are looking at it from a Stalinist point of view, which is if someone didn't jump when Stalin said so they were counter revolutionary.No,i'm looking at it from a Marxist and internationalist point of view.


Was Yugoslavia oppressive? Only to a certain degree, it was mostly free, as I said before the Bosnian praised the system so I cannot imagine that there would be much oppression at all....especially if compared to Stalin or Mao.Yes,in 40s-50s Yugoslavia you'd be free unless you were a Marxist.
And,again,this tells more about how shitty Bosnia is today.


Was it pro-western? No, it was the leader of the non-aligned movement and maintained a balance between the two blocs during the cold war, while holding strict independence from both factions with it's own road to Socialism, mind you worker self management is far more socialistic than the Soviet model. Lol,"nonalignment and balancing between blocks".
Explain to me how come Yugoslavia got massive Western aid,even significant military assistance after the break up with the rest of the communist movement? Was it a coincidence perhaps?


mind you worker self management is far more socialistic than the Soviet model. What is this "Soviet model"?


Yes, I have. Good then.Any comments from you on this subject?

[Искра]

I think that this song is biggest contribution to this thread.

NyV3tcKYiO0

[Per Levy]

Honest Marxist don't engage in sabotage,diversions and plots against the proletarian state.

the sad truth of course is that there were no plots, no sabotage and diversion by the old bolsheviks or the left opposition. and the uusr was no proletarian state, it was a party dictatorship over the proletariat, just to be clear on that. oh and btw sources for your silly claims on plots and so on, and please have more then torture confessions please.


I'd rather have one socdem who defends the USSR than 10 "Revolutionary Marxists" who plot against it.

oh good, we know then where you stand, on the side of socialdems and not on the side of revolutionary marxists.

[tir1944]

oh good, we know then where you stand, on the side of socialdems and not on the side of revolutionary marxists.
Lol you really had to turn this into a strawmen didn't you.
I'm on the side of rev. marxism however i prefer to have my "friends" and "enemies" clearly delineated,if you know what i mean.

[Rooster]

Lol you really had to turn this into a strawmen didn't you.
I'm on the side of rev. marxism however i prefer to have my "friends" and "enemies" clearly delineated,if you know what i mean.

What about your claims of plots and such by the old bolsheviks?

[tir1944]

This is not a topic to discuss that particular matter though.
I'm not making things up,and i have already provided the sources i have.
If you want to talk about the Moscow Trials you can make a new thread.

[Yugo45]

Strange.. From Croatian nationalist I hear the same thing about Goli Otok, however, they change the word "Marxist" with the word "Croat". From Serbian, the same thing, but instead of Marxist, it's a "concentration camp for Serbs". And From Stalinists, I hear it's a "concentration camp for Marxists"

Who do I beilive :confused::confused::confused::confused:

[Rooster]

This is not a topic to discuss that particular matter though.
I'm not making things up,and i have already provided the sources i have.
If you want to talk about the Moscow Trials you can make a new thread.

Considering you opened the thread with this


where tens of thousands of Marxists were incarcerated and put to unimaginable torture and humiliation

and then went on to say


most of them were honest Marxists who didn't want to betray the whole Communist movement.
"We" are indeed against locking up honest Marxists.

How do you make a difference between honest marxists and traitors? The only criteria I can make out that you're using is that the honest marxists are honest because they're Stalinists. What's the difference between what happened there and the marxists locked up, tortured and shot because of Stalin?

[tir1944]

Strange.. From Croatian nationalist I hear the same thing about Goli Otok, however, they change the word "Marxist" with the word "Croat". From Serbian, the same thing, but instead of Marxist, it's a "concentration camp for Serbs". And From Stalinists, I hear it's a "concentration camp for Marxists"
Yes,later the GO was used as a prison for various nationalists.What's your point?


What's the difference between what happened there and the marxists locked up, tortured and shot because of Stalin?
Because the Titoists deliberately and specifically target M-Ls,aiming to exterminate them as a political force.



The only criteria I can make out that you're using is that the honest marxists are honest because they're Stalinists.
No.One can be an honest Marxist without being a "Stalinist.

[Rooster]

Because the Titoists deliberately and specifically target M-Ls,aiming to exterminate them as a political force.


As compared to Trotskyists and the old Bolsheviks in the USSR? (evidence by the way)



No.One can be an honest Marxist without being a "Stalinist.

Then what is your criteria?

[tir1944]

As compared to Trotskyists and the old Bolsheviks in the USSR? (evidence by the way)
I don't understand this question?


Then what is your criteria?
Not working against the proletarian state and the Party,for start...

[Agent Equality]

I don't understand this question?


Not working against the proletarian state and the Party,for start...

He is speaking of the old bolsheviks and trotskyists that were purged, imprisoned, and murdered by Stalin and his regime to exterminate them as a political force.

And those are very poor grounds for a Marxist to be on. An honest Marxist should stand with the proletariat no matter what, not some state and party set up in its name, but in fact ruled by bureaucrats.

[ComradeOm]

Honest Marxist don't engage in sabotage,diversions and plots against the proletarian stateAnd I'm sure that if I pushed further you'd argue that you know that the executed/imprisoned had in fact "engaged in sabotage, diversions and plots against the proletarian state" because "the proletarian state" said so. It is as it ever was

I suppose it's too much to expect a degree of understanding that Yugoslavia also considered itself to be a "proletarian state" and therefore justified in crushing political dissidents? Probably, don't worry your head about it

[tir1944]

I suppose it's too much to expect a degree of understanding that Yugoslavia also considered itself to be a "proletarian state" and therefore justified in crushing political dissidents?
Yes,and why does it matter if the Yugo. leadership considered Yugoslavia a "proletarian state"? It wasn't one.What's your point?
What matters is the class reality,not paroles and demagoguery.

[ComradeOm]

My 'point', which should be obvious, is that the same charges have been levelled against the USSR, both with regards its treatment of dissidents and its class nature. I had hoped that this might induce a degree of reflection on your part but that was never likely I suppose

Nothing left for it than to enjoy the irony

[Gustav HK]

USSR under Stalin: Socialist proletarian state. Repressed counterrevolutionary elements.

Yugoslavia under Tito: Capitalist bourgeois state. Repressed revolutionary marxists-leninists.

There is a difference :)

[Искра]

USSR under Stalin: Socialist proletarian state. Repressed counterrevolutionary elements.

Yugoslavia under Tito: Capitalist bourgeois state. Repressed revolutionary marxists-leninists.

There is a difference :)
Only according to Marxist-Leninists.

For example I consider both regimes state capitalist.

[CommieTroll]

nothing is holy when it comes to comedy.

That's the way it should be:laugh:

[MaximMK]

You have no proof for any of this stuff its just anti-communist propaganda trying to divide the communists. Tito was a honest leader everybody liked him. My grandfather was on one occasion his guard while he was staying in a hotel. Tito escaped the hotel in secret so he could walk around town without guard and openly talk to the people. He was never hiding from anyone who was against him he even attended anti-communist protests and talked to the protesters. Just stop this speculation about different communist leaders. All communists should be united instead of hating each other.

[Tim Cornelis]

You have no proof for any of this stuff its just anti-communist propaganda trying to divide the communists. Tito was a honest leader everybody liked him. My grandfather was on one occasion his guard while he was staying in a hotel. Tito escaped the hotel in secret so he could walk around town without guard and openly talk to the people. He was never hiding from anyone who was against him he even attended anti-communist protests and talked to the protesters. Just stop this speculation about different communist leaders. All communists should be united instead of hating each other.

>accuses opponent of propaganda
>says "everyone liked Tito"

Although it is true Tito was popular it is also a fact he locked up Marxist-Leninists and other dissidents.

[ComradeOm]

I thought we'd been over this? Everyone loved Tito except for those counter-revolutionary capitalist agents. Obviously there's nothing wrong with imprisoning, torturing and murdering those traitors to Yugoslav socialism. Try to keep up people

[MaximMK]

Communist leaders didn't like each other that much Enver and Tito didn't like each other and all and i think this propaganda is a product of all that. Tito was a good man when there were nationalist protests in Pristina against him one man took out a picture of him in stabbed it on the square. He than immediately went on scene and didn't hide instead he got out on the square and told them : Don't stab the picture come stab me if you hate me that much. He talked to the protesters and the protests ended. He never hid from the people he was an honest leader. All this stuff is just anti-tito propaganda.