Info on the eastern bloc [Archive]

Deicide

28th February 2012, 03:17

The monthly wage was a joke. Most people either had an illegal business, worked in a illegal business or stole, or all three, if you did something illegal, you lived good, if you didn't, you lived miserably in most cases. The placed was a corrupt mess. In all seriousness though, the guys in the Mafia were filthy rich. And still are rich. The guys high up in the ''communist'' party were stinking rich too.

Most people (primarily the youth) thought communism was a ridiculous joke and Lithuania is a very small country in which everyone pretty much knows everyone.

There's a few jokes Lithuanians used to say ''Communism for the party'' which hints at the party corruption and inside dealing. ''Socialism in one party'' which does the same and ''Communism when I'm dead'' Which is a piss take of Kruschev's ''Communism in 20 years!'' slogan and of the constant goal of ''moving'' towards Communism lol.

''Socialism in one party'' is my favorite :D

Although the old people generally liked the communists. One of the reasons is because the commie's brought them out of serfdom and greatly increased the standard of living for the peasants. One of my granddads loved them (although I don't know whether he actually believed in communism), because he was a ww2 vet and ww2 vets were treated like heroes and got free houses and special treatment, etc.

If you want to ask me anything, PM me. I'll go into more details, etc, etc. Although I'm busy with uni work atm.

Edit - My grandma was actually quite high (well, mid level) in the party in Kaunas (the second biggest city), so she got special treatment too and they used to hang a picture of her in the town hall. Although she thought communism was nonsense, but you could get further in society by joining the party. This was during the late 60s and early 70s.

So yeah, if you wanted a decent existence, join the party and lick ass. Or steal or run a business or work in one.

For example, if you worked in a government approved job, the wages were around 80 to 120 rubles per month. If you worked in an illegal business, you could make that in a day or two. So.. you can see why corruption was so wide spread. My mum used to work an official day job then come home and work for a illegal business.

By the way, if this post doesn't make sense, I'm very tired so I rushed it, I'll edit it later. If I can be arsed.

Oh and the only reason most people turned up to those party rallies and military demonstrations was because you got paid to go. And it was a day of work.

Edit - Stalins era in Lithuania was horrific. At the least, a hundred thousand people disappeared during Good Ol' Stalin times. They either went for a holiday in Siberia or were just shot. People were snitching on each other, making up lies, etc, etc to get others sent to Siberia.

Ismail

28th February 2012, 03:20

EQ: Was Albania really all that bad?(I support Hoxha and his regime on its ideological grounds) Some have claimed that the living standard in Albania after it broke from the Eastern Bloc was horrible and they were "the poorest country in europe". This is most likely an exaggeration, but I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.It wasn't "bad" at all until the 80's. In the 1950's, 60's and 70's it had some of the highest economic growth rates in Europe (as noted by Adi Schnytzer in Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: The Case of Albania), and living standards continuously increased during that same period.

It was the "poorest country in Europe" in 1912 (at the time of independence), in 1944 (liberation from fascism), in 1961 (when the USSR severed diplomatic and economic ties), in 1978 (when China did the same), in 1985 (when Hoxha died), in 1990 (when capitalist restoration began) and to this very day (Kosovo might beat it though.) It still made great economic progress during the 1944-1985 period, as noted by James S. O'Donnell in A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha, by Peter R. Prifti in Socialist Albania since 1944, in Ramadan Marmullaku's Albania and the Albanians, etc.

In 1990 its life expectancy, as noted by Arjan Gjonça in his 2001 book Communism, Health and Lifestyle, was slightly higher than those of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, etc.

Lei Feng

28th February 2012, 04:16

You could talk about how the US went in and killed a bunch of Greeks during the communist uprising there.

Deicide is from Lithuania but is anti-Stalinist.

Living conditions in the Eastern Bloc were pretty shitty so you're not gonna be able to use that argument. You could talk to Ismail. He knows a lot about Albania's Hoxha years.

Hmm, but the living conditions couldnt have been completely identical across all of the Eastern Bloc countries :confused: I have heard that the DDR had a better living standard than some of the other surounding nations.

Also, how was life in the Soviet Union compared to the Eastern Bloc?

Oh, and could you guys provide some info on Democratic processes in the USSR and Eastern Bloc? I doubt that it could have been to totalitarian shit hole the Bourgeoisie claims it is.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 04:17

Oh, and could you guys provide some info on Democratic processes in the USSR and Eastern Bloc?

LOL!

There wasn't any.

Sure, you could vote.

But only for the party :laugh:

totalitarian shit hole

Most of the crazy shit calmed down after Stalin. That's when Lithuania was a proper' totalitarian state. After that, it was ok, if you didn't get involved in politics or academia that went against the party.

By ok, I mean people weren't being sent to Siberia (from what I know at least). But the KGB were still kidnapping activists, students, professors, etc, etc that stepped out of line during Kruschev and Brezhnev years.

It wasn't hard to notice if your neighbour suddenly disappeared for days or forever lol. During Stalin's time, entire families would disappear over night.

Lei Feng

28th February 2012, 04:25

LOL!

There wasn't any.

Sure, you could vote.

But only for the party :laugh:

Ah, but wouldnt that depend on the era? I mean, politics within those countries couldnt have been that way since their inception right after WWII :confused: what of Soviet Workers Councils in those countries?

gorillafuck

28th February 2012, 04:29

what of Soviet Workers Councils in those countries?this is not something that was a characteristic of the eastern bloc.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 04:31

Ah, but wouldnt that depend on the era? I mean, politics within those countries couldnt have been that way since their inception right after WWII :confused: what of Soviet Workers Councils in those countries?

It was even worse during Smetonos rule, which was during Stalin's time.

Things got better under Kruschev and Brezhnev.

But no, there wasn't any ''proper'' democracy.

Although! The workers could get their bosses fired, really, really easy. You could get your boss fired if he/she didn't speak to you nice, haha.

Lei Feng

28th February 2012, 04:37

It was even worse during Smetonos time, which was during Stalin's reign.

Things got a little better under Kruschev and Brezhnev.

But no, there wasn't any ''proper'' democracy.

Although! The workers could get their bosses fired, really, really easy. You could get your boss fired if you didn't speak to you nice, haha.

Hmmm, interesting. But what is "proper democracy" in your eyes? After the war, Stalin was pressured to install Bourgeois democracy in Eastern Europe.
I am not sure if the totalitarian view of the Eastern Bloc is from actual educated views, or if it is a misconception due to the contradictions between Proletarian and Bourgeois Democracy.

After all, Communism, as an ideology is supposed to empower the Working and Peasant classes, so democracy amongst them(not for the Bourgeoisie) should have been an important issue.

Oh, and as for their bosses getting fired easily: its good that Khruschev and other revisionists at least allowed workers some power in that sense.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 04:40

After all, Communism, as an ideology is supposed to empower the Working and Peasant classes

Exactly. The USSR wasn't communism. It was ridiculous joke carrying a communist flag. In the Lithuanian SSR the workers only had superficial power, I:E, being able to get their bosses fired, having songs praising them, etc, etc.

They didn't have any real power. The party had power, and the party was the Kremlins *****.

If I was you I'd kiss that precious American soil of yours! Consider yourself lucky for not being born where I was.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 04:53

In a bite sized chunk.

Life was simple. Hell the government pretty much did everything for you. If you didn't get involved in politics/activism/academia that wasn't allowed. If you kept your mouth shut and worked, you got good food and a roof over your head. If you started getting too loud... By getting involved in the above. Well things wouldn't of been nice for you. And remember, you could never leave the USSR.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 05:22

Some positive things.

Free education, very good education, illiteracy was a very, very extreme exception and still is. Most people spoke 2 or 3 languages. Well, actually, everyone spoke 2 languages, Russian and Lithuanian. Cinema was free, swimming baths were free, clubs were free, gym was free, Ice rink was free, etc, etc. Health care and lawyers were free too.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 05:37

Lithuania is actually rated ''very high'', which is the highest possible rating, on the United Nations human development index.

Higher than Albania, so fuck you Hoxha! ;)

Ostrinski

28th February 2012, 05:38

Deicide

28th February 2012, 05:41

Also. I imagine the living conditions in the Soviet Union were better than the Eastern Bloc as the SU took resources out of those countries to rebuild areas that were destroyed during the war and to industrialize the nation.

Lithuania had above average living standards in the USSR. By 1990 Lithuania had one of the highest GDP's in the USSR too (although it lagged behind western europe and the states).

Edited - for accuracy

Ostrinski

28th February 2012, 05:47

The baltic countries, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had the highest living standards in the USSR. By 1990 Lithuania had the highest GDP too.Hmm. What were the reasons for that?

Lei Feng

28th February 2012, 05:49

Exactly. The USSR wasn't communism. It was ridiculous joke carrying a communist flag. In the Lithuanian SSR the workers only had superficial power, I:E, being able to get their bosses fired, having songs praising them, etc, etc.

They didn't have any real power. The party had power, and the party was the Kremlins *****.

If I was you I'd kiss that precious American soil of yours! Consider yourself lucky for not being born where I was.

I can understand that. But, at which time period did you live there? I mean, wouldnt there be differences between the Khuschev and brzhnev eras?

And what do you mean about "precious American soil"? I'm not proud to live in an imperialist nation that exploits the third world and as been one of the largest Terrorist organizations in history. Just because the living standard in the US outmatches many other countries doesn't make it a better place.

As for your comment on the numerous services provided by the government such as education, i see that as a positive, despite the revisionism and betrayal of the working class.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 05:55

Hmm. What were the reasons for that?

Us Lithuanians are work horses ;)

EDIT - I was incorrect, it wasn't the highest, but it was above the average.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 06:10

wouldnt there be differences between the Khuschev and brzhnev eras?

Differences about what exactly?

You couldn't abort the party program under either of them. If that's what you want to know. Remember, there was no revolution in Lithuania. It was invaded and occupied by the Nazi's (around 90% percent of Lithuanian Jews were killed) and then it was annexed by the Soviets and set up as a Kremlin puppet state. Nothing could be changed if the Kremlin didn't want it changed. Nothing important that is. Change came when Gorbachev's reforms caused an explosion of nationalism (which was highly suppressed). But it always existed. In fact, Lithuanian partisans were even waging a guerrilla war against the Soviets during the 50s.

And what do you mean about "precious American soil"? I'm not proud to live in an imperialist nation that exploits the third world and as been one of the largest Terrorist organizations in history. Just because the living standard in the US outmatches many other countries doesn't make it a better place.

Don't worry it was a joke.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 06:16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E6oMa-GvNY

Here's the Lithuanian SSR anthem. If any of you are interested.

Ostrinski

28th February 2012, 06:19

DDR had best ssr anthem imo

_SHPndn_5Y8

Deicide

28th February 2012, 06:30

DDR had best ssr anthem imo

_SHPndn_5Y8

That's cool, I've never heard it before.

Corbeau

28th February 2012, 06:31

Deicide

28th February 2012, 07:09

I'd recommend visiting Lithuania, especially if you like that european ''feel'', it's beautiful country. Food is great!
http://www.fjctravel.lv/img/trakai.jpg
http://5to12.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/vilnius11_55bsm.jpg
http://www.artandeducation.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/13d5a_apr26_nida.jpg
http://www.world-city-photos.org/Vilnius/Vilnius_Panoramas/vilnius_panoramas.jpg
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-LIJU4KYm1VI/TIptIBIClFI/AAAAAAAAI0k/Gh_7XW22Bu8/Nida_148.jpg
http://vilnius.icograda.org/assets/images/thingsToDo/vilnius_photo_05_560.jpg
http://cultureshock.kristiejoy.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/112.jpg
http://www.baltictravelcompany.com/img/content/Lithuania/Coast%20Country/Splash/lithuania-fishing-SPL.jpg
http://www.fjctravel.lv/img/Kaunas.jpg
http://www.lithuania.gr/images/kaunas2.jpg
http://www.happytellus.com/img/kaunas/laisves-st---kaunas--lithuania_3860.jpg
http://triptolatvia2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/vilnius-old-city.jpg?w=510
http://www.budgettravel.lv/eng/px/cities/kaunas.jpg
http://wiki.techcampglobal.org/images/6/6c/Vilnius_city.jpg
http://www.travel-visit-places.com/wp-content/uploads/vilnius20old20town1.jpg
http://www.luxnet.at/gallery/d/2844-7/lt-vilnius-03.jpg

Sorry for turning your thread into a vacation advertisement OP, but I couldn't resist, most people, in the UK at least, can't point out Lithuania on a map. And here we have a thread about the eastern bloc! I had to take advantage ;)

Deicide

28th February 2012, 07:32

From what I remember there's still a statue of Lenin and Stalin still standing in Lithuania! Edit - Found pics, they've obviously been moved from their original locations.

http://baltic-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/11988.jpg

http://www.jeremytaylor.eu/lithuania/gruta/gruta04b.jpg

Ostrinski

28th February 2012, 07:44

I definitely want to go to Lithuania now, it looks beautiful. Might need to get my pic taken with Lenin too :lol:

To OP: This might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Doesn't have much to do with the Eastern Bloc states but its relevant in understanding western foreign policy during the cold war.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 07:56

I definitely want to go to Lithuania now, it looks beautiful. Might need to get my pic taken with Lenin too :lol:

It's a very cheap place (for foreigners at least) it didn't adopt the euro, for example, 1 U.S. dollar = 2.57249947 Lithuanian litai.

I haven't been there myself in almost 4 years, I'll be going this summer.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 09:19

All the ''best'' workers had large photographs hanged up in the town halls in every city/town.

With a little message saying ''Worker X is helping us work towards communism'' blah blah and other similar nonsense.

Just thought I'd mention that..

as I am planning on defending the Eastern Bloc nations in the argument

That's a waste of time. It's not a place you want to defend, if you have any shred of compassion for humanity.

Defend the workers that were oppressed.

daft punk

28th February 2012, 12:52

Hello, comrades. I am back with another question. But here's some background: my high school history class is about to start our unit on the cold war, now that we've finished WWII, and my teacher has alluded to the "lack of democracy" in socialist republics in post-WWII eastern europe. We might have some in-class debates as well on topics to do with the eastern bloc since we are starting this unit, such as the marshall plan, the lives of the working class/common people, the division of Berlin, the living standard, politics, and the hungarian uprising.(This is mostly going to be on pre-Khuschev era Eastern Bloc, around when Stalin was still alive).

So, please, comrades, could you help out by providing some information on the prior mentioned topics? This will greatly help me in my debate(as I am planning on defending the Eastern Bloc nations in the argument), that and I am really curious to know.

It'd be cool if some people who had lived in the Eastern Bloc(even post-stalin) could talk about what it was like living there.

Thanks

EQ: Was Albania really all that bad?(I support Hoxha and his regime on its ideological grounds) Some have claimed that the living standard in Albania after it broke from the Eastern Bloc was horrible and they were "the poorest country in europe". This is most likely an exaggeration, but I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.

Overview:

Stalin's plan was for these countries to become capitalist. Communists were instructed to form coalitions with capitalists to this end. However these coalitions failed, and Marshall Aid backfired as well. Truman started the cold war because he was fed up with Stalin's inability to deliver capitalism as promised. As capitalism collapsed, these countries ended up adopting Stalinist type regimes and became deformed workers states.

A good description of all this is here:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-1.htm

The evidence is strong. Some Trotskyists believe that it was a con, and Stalin wanted these states to become Stalinist all along, but I am far from convinced of that, it is more an assumption. He proabably played it both ways anyway, either outcome was ok. The advantage of these countries going capitalist would have been to keep friendly with the west which was a big priority for Stalin. Either outcome prevented socialism though, which was also a top priority for him.

After the war, Stalin was pressured to install Bourgeois democracy in Eastern Europe.

exactly, and as far as I can tell Stalin did try to deliver it.

There is some distinction between the Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia and Albania. Actually, Yugoslavia was the closest to what we may call real socialism (not "real-socialism"). The communists actually made all the preconditions to give the workers the power. There was self-management in all the factories (officially since 1950) and the guys in power actually seemed to have good intentions (yes, there is a proverb about that). However, corruption gets everywhere and the fact that the workers were officially allowed to rule their factories didn't mean that they did so, especially in such an underdeveloped country where nobody actually knew what democracy was and was accustomed to fear and listen to their boss without protesting much or at all.

However, there is a fact that people *definitely* lived better in socialist Yugoslavia than today in post-Yugoslavian countries (with the possible exception of Slovenia). Education was free and much better organised than today (I'm in education so I know) and, the popular fact is that, although you had only one or two kinds of biscuits in the store, you could afford them, while today there are dozens, but a lot people can't afford them.

As for democracy, it was low, but I know for a fact that people *could* get elected into lower levels (municipality council) even of not members of the Party. The regime became much more liberal during the '50s and even when there was a student uprising in '68 (which I believe there wasn't any in the rest of the Eastern Bloc) Tito used mostly manipulation and less oppression to suppress it (although some Belgrade university people got hit; no prison, though, only lost their jobs).

There is probably a lot more, but I'm off to work at the moment. However, "defending" the Eastern bloc won't be easy because, as someone already said, it wasn't really communism. As Trotsky said, those were "degenerate workers' states", not communist societies. However, what can definitely be said is that in at least half of them communism (or whatever it was) brought enormous industrial progress. At least that's true for Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, maybe Hungary and definitely some parts of Yugoslavia. For Poland, Czech and DDR not so.

Yugoslavia was an almost feudal country in 1941 and in the '50s it was the second biggest world growing economy, right after Japan.

Have a read of the link above and let me know what you think.

daft punk

28th February 2012, 13:05

Here is another article on Stalinist policy in Europe at the end of WW2

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/cochran/1946/11/eeurope.htm

E.R. Frank

The Kremlin in Eastern Europe

(November 1946)

"Who could have been sure in 1944 that the scoundrels of Stalinism would again succeed in stemming the revolutionary tide, in resuscitating half-dead European capitalism and providing it with another breathing spell?"

"
The approach of the Red Army in Eastern Europe in 1944-45, in the case of every country, gave an impetus to the revolutionary uprising. The masses, believing in their ignorance that the Red Army was still the banner-bearer of the socialist revolution, took over the factories and various governmental institutions, upon the retreat of the Nazi armies, confident of the support of the approaching troops. By the same token, most of the big capitalists and landlords, who had all collaborated to one degree or another with the Nazis, fled before the Red Army, fearful not only for their property but their lives.
In the existing circumstances, with the absolute breakdown of the capitalist apparati, it would have been almost child’s play for the Red Army to consolidate the people’s victory, to protect and secure newly-created Soviet states and thus to set all of Europe aflame. But alas, the Red Army entered Eastern Europe as an executor of the counter-revolutionary politics of the Kremlin. It did not support the uprisings of the masses; it suppressed them."

Ismail

28th February 2012, 14:33

There is some distinction between the Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia and Albania. Actually, Yugoslavia was the closest to what we may call real socialism (not "real-socialism"). The communists actually made all the preconditions to give the workers the power. There was self-management in all the factories (officially since 1950) and the guys in power actually seemed to have good intentions (yes, there is a proverb about that).Not really, no.

"It was evident from the beginning that if workers' councils were to have unlimited authority in each individual production unit the result would be a system of free competition differing from the nineteenth-century model only in the ascription of ownership to particular concerns; no economic planning would be possible. Accordingly, the state reserved to itself various basic functions concerning the investment rate and the distribution of the accumulation fund. The reforms of 1964-65 further reduced the powers of the state without abandoning the idea of planning; the state was to regulate the economy chiefly through the nationalized banking system.

... The gap between more and less economically developed parts of the country tended to grow wider instead of narrowing; pressures on wages threatened to push down the investment rate below what was socially desirable; competitive conditions led to the appearance of a class of rich industrial managers whose privileges excited popular discontent; the market and competition caused an increase in inflation and unemployment."
(Lezsek Kolakowski. Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origin, Growth, and Dissolution Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978. pp. 475-476.)

"What self-respecting Communist country would admit the unpalatable truth of widespread unemployment—which is by definition impossible under a socialist system—or allow 300,000 of its experts and workers to seek employment abroad and even organize their temporary migration? With public ownership of the means of production, banks, commerce, etc. workers should not strike against themselves; but this allegedly socialist country reports some two hundred work stoppages per annum... In a Communist state, can peasants not only own their land but privately import and operate tractors; can individuals run trading businesses, restaurants, and motels? Can a Communist country ever contemplate allowing foreign investments of risk capital and setting up partnership projects? Can a ruling Communist party admit that it has turned into a brake on social development instead of remaining the infallible vanguard and motor of advance toward full communism? Whatever the answers, all this has already happened or is happening in Yugoslavia."
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. p. 52, 54.)

"While other Communist governments let out only a trickle of tourists and for the time being at least would not even dream of allowing hundreds of thousands of their proud socialist citizens to be 'exploited' by foreign capitalists, the Yugoslavs are becoming more and more business-minded, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of migrants. The press and the officials freely admit that, given the existing domestic situation, they can see only blessings, such as fat remittances, acquisition of new skills, and a reduction in the amount of unconcealed unemployment. In fact, any slackening of demand in the West for foreign workers would be a severe loss. It is amusing, but also typical, that Yugoslav newspapers followed the 1966-67 recession in Germany with anxiety instead, as one might have expected, of being light-hearted about this confirmation of the 'inevitable doom of capitalism.'"
(Ibid. p. 107.)

I don't think any "real socialism" would inspire Deng Xiaoping and other "market socialists" either. "Workers' self-management" was demagoguery not dissimilar to "workers' ownership" of factories and what have you put forward by the Swedish social-democrats in the 70's and 80's. Which is of course why the Yugoslav "League of Communists" got along well with Western social-democratic parties.

As for Lithuania, it was heavily subsidized by the USSR. Yet for instance the Church remained a significant factor in public life (whereas Albania was the only country to close down every single religious institution and outlaw the practice of being a clergyman, i.e. it became the "world's first atheist state.") And, of course, it operated on the state-capitalist basis of the post-50's Soviet economy. All that mattered in the eyes of the average Lithuanian (who after the 40's lacked any real possibility for education in Marxism-Leninism) was high living standards, which the revisionists conflated with "socialism" and "communism."

Free education, very good education, illiteracy was a very, very extreme exception and still is. Most people spoke 2 or 3 languages. Well, actually, everyone spoke 2 languages, Russian and Lithuanian. Cinema was free, swimming baths were free, clubs were free, gym was free, Ice rink was free, etc, etc. Health care and lawyers were free too.The same can be said for Albania (except the 2 or 3 languages part.) Albania also had the world's most egalitarian wage structure (as noted by Miranda Vickers amongst various others.)

Omsk

28th February 2012, 14:46

Deicide

28th February 2012, 14:54

As for Lithuania, it was heavily subsidized by the USSR

Interesting, I didn't know this, what was subsidized exactly?

Lithuanian farms were roughly 50% more productive than the USSR average. 50% percent of total output was actually exported all over the USSR. The majority of food produced in Lithuania went to Russia. There was never any problems of starvation or lack of food here, like there was in Romania, for example. And the forced collectivisation didn't end in famine. Although tens of thousands were either killed or deported to labour camps during the process.

Yet for instance the Church remained a significant factor in public life

Yeah this country has an obsession with religion and building Churches.

Omsk

28th February 2012, 14:55

All the Baltic countries,including Lithuania made great advances during their time in the USSR.

Ismail

28th February 2012, 15:02

Interesting, I didn't know this, what was subsidized exactly?Well its cultural preservation (printing books and periodicals in Lithuanian, etc.) was obviously subsidized, but that isn't what I meant. Perhaps "subsidized" is the wrong word (the Soviets certainly didn't use it), but for instance:

"In 1970, Latvia was second only to Estonia in living standards throughout the USSR... since 1940 Soviet policy has been to concentrate on the redevelopment of Latvian industry, and in the 1970s Latvia was the most industrialized of all the Soviet republics with 38% of its labour force employed in industry in 1971..."
(Al Szymanski. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books Ltd. 1984. p. 72.)

I doubt Latvians did that on their own.

Investments is a more accurate word. I recall reading other sources that the Baltics had tons of Soviet investments (obviously in the most promising new industries, e.g. telecommunications) compared with most other republics, and that this in a sense constituted "bribery" (as it were), since higher living standards = less of a reason to recourse to nationalism = Baltics are calm.

Deicide

28th February 2012, 15:04

"In 1970, Latvia was second only to Estonia in living standards throughout the USSR... since 1940 Soviet policy has been to concentrate on the redevelopment of Latvian industry, and in the 1970s Latvia was the most industrialized of all the Soviet republics with 38% of its labour force employed in industry in 1971..."
(Al Szymanski. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books Ltd. 1984. p. 72.)

That's talking about Latvia, not Lithuania, but Lithuania was highly industrialised too.

Ismail

28th February 2012, 15:06

That's talking about Latvia, not Lithuania, but Lithuania was highly industrialised too.I know. I mentioned that quote because I was trying to demonstrate that the Soviets had a big hand in industrializing the Baltics, and I don't have more detailed sources in my physical possession at the moment.

This matters a fair bit since after the 1950's an increasingly unbalanced nationalities policy was followed by the Soviet revisionists. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/sovnatq.htm

Deicide

28th February 2012, 15:36

Here's something interesting, roughly 90% percent of the Lithuanian economy was planned from Moscow :laugh:

Deicide

28th February 2012, 15:39

Moscow devotes a great deal of attention to the development of industry in Lithuania and in the other Baltic republics. Obviously, it has specific motives for this. In the opinion of Communist leaders, the industrial proletariat is the main support of a Communist regime, whereas Lithuania, until the Soviet occupation, was an essentially agricultural country. In the eyes of Moscow, therefore, Lithuania's industrialization is equivalent to its "Communization". But this is not the only value Moscow sees in the industrialization of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The industrialization of a country would be considered a desirable and laudable endeavor if it were carried out in the interest of the country concerned. But the motives which guide Moscow in industrializing these countries are far from being in the best interests of the countries involved.

In the years following World War II, industry was being developed faster in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia than in the Soviet Union as a whole. Taking 1940 as the baseline, by 1959 Lithuania had increased its industrial production 9.1 times, while the Soviet Union as a whole had increased its industrial production only 4.8 times in the same period, according to Soviet sources.1 Apparently, industry in the other Soviet republics had not been given the same attention. For instance, the industrial production of Byelorussia in 1959 was 3.8 times greater than in 1940, of Ukraine - 3.4 times, of RSFSR - 4.5 times, of Uzbek - 3.8 times, etc. The only other republic whose rate of industrial development approached that of the Baltic countries was Moldavia, which was occupied by the Soviet Union at about the same time as Lithuania. The industrial production of Moldavia increased 8.3 times in the period between 1940 and 1959.2

One may doubt the accuracy of Soviet statistics, especially in the area of industrial production. There are some who believe that in comparing Lithuania's industrial output in later years with that of 1940, the Soviets intentionally mislead by taking as the baseline only a portion of Lithuania's industrial output in the year 1940, i. e., that portion which was produced after Lithuania was annexed to the Soviet Union in July of that year; this would mean that the industrial production of only the last 5 or 6 months of 1940 comprises the baseline figures. Whatever the case may be, there is enough other evidence to show that the rate of industrialization in Lithuania during the postwar years was higher than in the USSR as a whole. For example, other Soviet sources indicate that the growth of industrial production in Lithuania in the years 1946 -1950 was 37% while in the Soviet Union as a whole there was a growth of 21.8% during the same years. Again, between 1951 and 1955, Lithuania's industrial output increased 21% per year, while the increase in the Soviet Union as a whole was 13.1% per year in the same period.3

http://www.lituanus.org/1963/63_2_02.htm - For full.

thÃ¤lmann

28th February 2012, 16:14

Some positive things.

Cinema was free, swimming baths were free, clubs were free, gym was free, Ice rink was free, etc, etc. Health care and lawyers were free too.

although iam not a fan of the post ww2 eastern bloc countries, this sounds like a dream for every lower class western citizen. these things are not normal if youre poor...

Ismail

28th February 2012, 16:38

Speaking of Lithuania, one can read the English-language Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on it here: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Lithuanian+Soviet+Socialist+Republic

Tavarisch_Mike

28th February 2012, 16:56

Its good to remember that the different countries in the eastern bloc where, indeed, differetn when it comes to livingstandard and even the political life. To Op i can just say that my impression is, also, that the DDR was one of the better one. In the 70s they had the same GDP as great the UK, but with fairer spreading. Intheire parlament (Reichstag) there where also some other parties. Not that Moscow would have allowed any of them to gain any power if they won a election.

There have recently comed many polls that shows that peopel in the former eastern bloc miss many parts of the old society compared to today.

Ismail

28th February 2012, 18:35

The GDR was into "consumer socialism." Their society, outside of the benefit of having a good history (there was quite a lot of study there of the lives and works of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, and various other German communists), wasn't dramatically different from Sweden by the 80's in terms of consciousness and economic matters.

Intheire parlament (Reichstag) there where also some other parties. Not that Moscow would have allowed any of them to gain any power if they won a election.It wasn't called the Reichstag, it was called the People's Chamber (Volkskammer), and those parties were part of the National Front organized and led by the SED. They recognized themselves as subordinate to the SED and only really existed to establish contact with Western parties of similar ideologies and for the government to try involving avowed liberals, Christians, etc. in the political process while allowing them to retain their identities. They weren't opposition parties and they didn't compete for seats. Poland and Czechoslovakia also had other parties with the same status. In Bulgaria the Agrarian National Union (which had a long and initially progressive history) worked under the BCP and didn't even have its own party program. The DPRK and China have other parties as well which operate like their former East German, Polish and Czechoslovak counterparts.

Hungary and Romania had other bourgeois parties initially but by 1948 they became one-party states. Vietnam also had multiple parties until 1988.

In Yugoslavia and Albania, despite a brief coalition government in the former, there were no other parties.

There have recently comed many polls that shows that peopel in the former eastern bloc miss many parts of the old society compared to today.This is correct.

Corbeau

1st March 2012, 22:45

Ok, first I need to clear up something I had a discussion about a long time ago, and that is a definition of "socialist". If we define "socialist" as "everything is owned by the government and the economy is fully planned" then yes, Yugoslavia was less "socialist" then the Warsaw Pact. There was less thorough planning on all levels than further east and some things were left to the initiative of the local bosses/enterpreneurs/officials. There were discussions all along about how much initiative should be allowed and the rulers were experimenting and correcting the course the whole time. Yes, in the end it turned out to be halfway between eastern socialism and western capitalism, but I don't see that as necessarily bad. It is a fact that people in Yugoslavia had more freedom and lived better than in the east. And it definitely wasn't "living on debt"; the economic crisis of the '80s was a result of many factors, some of them external, and could have been surpassed if there hadn't been a war.

However, at the same time, Yugoslavia was more democratic than the east. Goli Otok was closed in 1956 (during the need to keep security tight because of conflict with the USSR) and no such penitentiary existed afterwards. (Yup, the police weren't blossoms and blooms and there were political executions by the secret service abroad, but a number of the victims had it coming. Many of the emigrants who survived the evil UDBA returned in 1990 and caused hundreds of thousands dead.) There were open discussions about how to proceed on the economic front and as a result the economy wasn't as straightforward and tight as in the east.

Politically, Tito was far, far, far more revolutionary than Stalin. The split in '48 was due to Stalin wanting to honour the 50-50 agreement with Churchill, but also because the Yugoslavians didn't want to keep their hands to themselves: they were actively supporting and supplying the communists in Albania and Greece. Which is to be expected from a grassroot movement that was created in its own blood and fire.

Regarding self-management, I did say that it was only official, while in reality things were pretty different due to many reasons.

About the war and why it happened, I agree that it was because of the rotten foundations, but that rot preceded communism by decades, if not by centuries. In 1990 the war didn't start, it simply re-emerged. The communists simply delayed something that would have happened anyway and much earlier if Stalin and Churchill had their way.

Ismail

2nd March 2012, 00:54

Politically, Tito was far, far, far more revolutionary than Stalin. The split in '48 was due to Stalin wanting to honour the 50-50 agreement with Churchill, but also because the Yugoslavians didn't want to keep their hands to themselves: they were actively supporting and supplying the communists in Albania and Greece. Which is to be expected from a grassroot movement that was created in its own blood and fire.I guess "actively supporting and supplying the communists in Albania and Greece" is Titoist-speak for working to dominate the affairs of the Communist Party of Albania and turning Albania into a puppet state, and later on ceasing to aid the Greek CP in exchange for the Greek bourgeoisie recognizing Yugoslav claims on Macedonia. The "far, far, far more revolutionary" Tito collaborated with the West in opposing Hoxha's "Stalinist" government, and denounced the "aggression" of the USSR and China in the Korean War.

Milovan Đilas and other Yugoslav sources note that the split with Stalin was in no small part due to the fears Tito and Co. had about the "Russians" beating them in terms of gaining influence over Albania. In fact the split became increasingly open as a result of Yugoslav interference in Albania, the pressure on Nako Spiru which eventually ended in his suicide, the Yugoslav "request" to station a number of troops in Albania to safeguard its control over the country vis-à-vis the USSR, etc.

The Greek CP made a number of tactical mistakes which harmed it far more than the Soviets did. Albania was considered the "worst offender" in terms of assisting the Greek CP by the end of the 40's. As for "actively supporting and supplying the communists in Albania," well, let's see:

"Finally, it should be re-emphasized that the Communist takeover in Albania was in one respect unique. It had no parallel in the other East European countries where Communist governments were installed, since Albania was not 'liberated' either by the Red Army directly or by Tito's partisan formations, none of whom set foot on Albanian soil either during the war or immediately after the seizure of power. Neither Stalin nor Tito supplied any war material to the Albanian National Liberation Army, although, as has been demonstrated above, it was Tito's emissaries who supplied the ideological and technical advice and direction. The Communist seizure of power in Albania, therefore, was the most indigenous of all the Communist takeovers in Eastern Europe, because the Albanian Communist Party was the only one to seize power without direct military aid from foreign Communists. In this respect Albania differs from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and China, for in each of these countries the local Communists received substantial aid from the Red Army."
(Thomas T. Hammond (ed). The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1975. p. 292.)

"Following an initial failure, two Yugoslav emissaries, Miladin Popovic and Dusan Mugosa, convinced representatives of three of Albania's communist groups to meet with them in Tirana at the beginning of November 1941. After six days—and twenty years of struggle—the fifteen communists present at this meeting elected a provisional central committee of seven and in so doing founded the Albanian Communist Party (ACP) ...

Mugosa himself has written, 'True, the movement was fragmented and lacked coordination. True we assisted in establishing proper discipline and cooperation among the various groups. Yet this should not be interpreted to mean that the Albanians could not accomplish this task themselves. They possessed capable leaders who would have, in time solved their administrative problems. We were invited to assist and did so.'"
(Bernd J. Fischer. Albania at War, 1939-1945. Indiana: Purdue University Press. 1999. pp. 123-124.)

"The Yugoslav comrades were not sent to Albania as 'Yugoslavs,' they were sent as Communists. And Tito did not give personal instructions about work in other countries; he passed on instructions from the Comintern....

In December 1942, the letter of September 22 arrived in Albania... containing the Comintern's directives for the national war of liberation, a letter that recognized the Albanian Communist Party as a section of the Communist International, and it was on the basis of this letter that the Albanian Communist Party called its conference in March 1943 and elected its central committee. The man chosen as secretary-general was Enver Hoxha. The conference sent its greetings to the Comintern:

'No power on earth will be able to prevail on our party to betray the great ideals of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, the great ideals of the Communist International.'

The Communist Party of Albania was formed as a section of the Communist International—not by 'Tito.' And the directives that the Comintern sent via Tito were not decisions on matters of detail or directives on questions of detail. They concerned the general political line to be followed; they expressed the Communist world party's cumulative experience."
(Jan Myrdal. Albania Defiant. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1976. pp. 138-139.)

Stalin was an active revolutionary in his youth just as the 1920's-30's Tito was. Stalin also seemed quite prescient, since he named Đilas, Ranković and other Yugoslavs as "dubious Marxists," and of course Đilas later embraced anti-communism while Ranković terrorized Kosovar Albanians and became a symbol of Serbian xenophobia.

Corbeau

2nd March 2012, 07:30

I guess "actively supporting and supplying the communists in Albania and Greece" is Titoist-speak for working to dominate the affairs of the Communist Party of Albania and turning Albania into a puppet state
Didn't you just quote a slightly different interpretation?

and later on ceasing to aid the Greek CP in exchange for the Greek bourgeoisie recognizing Yugoslav claims on Macedonia.
Emphasize "later on".

The "far, far, far more revolutionary" Tito collaborated with the West in opposing Hoxha's "Stalinist" government,
Again, "later on". Also, with respect to everything Hoxha's regime did for Albania (getting it out of feudalism, although we've seen how successfully when it all reverted back when the Berlin Wall fell), it was a rigid orthodox dictatorship, definitely more rigid than the Yugoslav one.

and denounced the "aggression" of the USSR and China in the Korean War.
Firstly, it was a game of survival. Remember, the time when this happened was Stalin's tight grip on Yugoslavian borders and the need to find support anywhere simply in order to survive.

Secondly, Korean War was an imperialist free-for-all and you could have denounced everybody and leave with clear conscience. Are you saying that the communists got involved in the Korea war for the love of their neighbour or for the imperial interests they have been playing since they begun their existence?

Milovan Đilas and other Yugoslav sources note that the split with Stalin was in no small part due to the fears Tito and Co. had about the "Russians" beating them in terms of gaining influence over Albania. In fact the split became increasingly open as a result of Yugoslav interference in Albania
Do you really believe that the split was over a small neighbouring country, the poorest and most backward in Europe? Yes, Albania was one of the issues, but only as an indicator of drastically different concepts. Stalin wanted to soothe the West because he didn't have the atomic bomb and they did. Tito was eager to export revolution. Yes, during the split the roles reversed but, again, it was a matter of survival. When there are two superpowers in the game and one squeezes you and is threatening your existence, you don't have the luxury to turn your back on the other one. Approaching the West doesn't make Yugoslavia less communist.

Ismail

2nd March 2012, 14:04

Didn't you just quote a slightly different interpretation?No?

Emphasize "later on"."So the Yugoslavs were great revolutionaries who opposed the non-revolutionary Stalin... until they didn't."

Firstly, it was a game of survival. Remember, the time when this happened was Stalin's tight grip on Yugoslavian borders and the need to find support anywhere simply in order to survive.A "game of survival" is not a sufficient argument. Yugoslavia maintained a non-revolutionary foreign policy, allying with either bourgeois nationalist (and anti-communist) persons like Nasser and Indira Gandhi (who the Soviet revisionists also backed), or simply saying stuff like this:

"We Jugoslavs have discarded classic deviations between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism. History has erased such a distinction. Life now pushes toward the evolutionary progress... I think that even in the United States there is a tendency toward socialism. A big change began with your New Deal and your economy retains many of its features. For example, state intervention in the economy is much larger."
(Tito, quoted in Cyrus Leo Sulzberger. The Last of the Giants. New York: Macmillan. 1970. p. 270.)

Not to mention that as late as 1979 Yugoslavia was still siding with imperialism in places like Cambodia, where it denounced Vietnamese "aggression" alongside the USA and China, and recognized Pol Pot's government in exile in the UN while the US, Britain, Thailand, etc. began arming the Khmer Rouge and other rebels aligned with said exile government.

Secondly, Korean War was an imperialist free-for-all and you could have denounced everybody and leave with clear conscience. Are you saying that the communists got involved in the Korea war for the love of their neighbour or for the imperial interests they have been playing since they begun their existence?The North was subject to aggressive intrigues and attacks. Bruce Cumings' history of the Korean War is good, but you could also read the chapter on it in Killing Hope if you want a shorter overview.

It wasn't an "imperialist free-for-all" and leftists recognized that fact at the time, most notably I.F. Stone.

Do you really believe that the split was over a small neighbouring country, the poorest and most backward in Europe? Yes, Albania was one of the issues, but only as an indicator of drastically different concepts. Stalin wanted to soothe the West because he didn't have the atomic bomb and they did. Tito was eager to export revolution. Yes, during the split the roles reversed but, again, it was a matter of survival. When there are two superpowers in the game and one squeezes you and is threatening your existence, you don't have the luxury to turn your back on the other one. Approaching the West doesn't make Yugoslavia less communist.Approaching the West doesn't make a country "less communist," depending on what that approach means. Albania, for instance, traded with Italy. Bit different from this:

"Nevertheless, the growing tension with the Soviet Union and the rest of the Communist bloc brought about a patriotic surge of support within Yugoslavia for the new regime. Tito and the Communists had been losing popularity between 1945 and 1948 with a substantial part of the 94 per cent of the population who did not belong to the party. Now a majority of the people rallied behind them...

Before long, however, they were to get an additional source of support, perhaps unexpectedly... Following the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform, the Truman administration took a decision to offer economic assistance which would help keep an independent Yugoslavia afloat. US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a communication with the American embassy in Belgrade in early 1949, said that it was in the 'obvious interest' of the United States that 'Titoism' should continue to exist as an 'erosive and disintegrating force' in the Soviet sphere. In November 1950, President Truman sent a letter to Congress in support of a Yugoslav Emergency Relief Act, making no mention of Yugoslavia's Communist political and economic structure, but using a strategic argument: 'The continued independence of Yugoslavia is of great importance to the security of the United States. We can help preserve the independence of a nation which is defying the savage threats of the Soviet imperialists, and keeping Soviet power out of Europe's most strategic areas. This is clearly in our national interest.'"
(Archie Brown. The Rise and Fall of Communism. New York: HarperCollins. 2009. pp. 208-209.)

Tito wanted to "export revolution" via annexing Albania, Bulgaria and probably Greece and subjecting them to Yugoslav control. When that failed his "revolutionary" inclinations made him back reformism and bourgeois nationalists. Some "revlutionary."

Corbeau

5th March 2012, 20:59

I think you're hitting the strawman here. I never claimed that Yugoslav communists were the immaculate emanation of redder-than-blood revolutionaries. I'm simply claimimg they were more democratic and more revolutionary than the Eastern Bloc version of "communism" which actually had strong elements of fascism.

Come to think of it, even the West was more communist and revolutionary than the Eastern Bloc. That is, until the EB collapsed and the capitalists lost the need to play socially conscious.

Ismail

6th March 2012, 02:55

I'm simply claimimg they were more democratic and more revolutionary than the Eastern Bloc version of "communism" which actually had strong elements of fascism.Yet some elements of how the Yugoslav economy were managed invited comparisons with Mussolini's corporatist policies.

The fascists cribbed from the communists, hence they used bastardized versions of mass organizations, the role of one party, etc. Anything that looks like "strong elements of fascism" (outside of, say, some nationalistic themes in 1980's Romania or the modern DPRK or something) is just fascism taking things from socialism, not the other way around.

I still don't know how Yugoslavia is "more revolutionary" when it backed reformism in Europe and the USA and allied with bourgeois anti-communists. Its "democracy" also invites the question, as Lenin among various other Marxists posed it, of whom it served. For instance Milošević and Co. utilized the "democratic" process to dominate Yugoslavia by replacing the leaderships in Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Vojvodina with men loyal to him. The Yugoslav legislature "democratically" decided to bicker over all sorts of problems which were rooted in the capitalist nature of the economy and which naturally gave rise to tensions between the nationalities.

Come to think of it, even the West was more communist and revolutionary than the Eastern Bloc. That is, until the EB collapsed and the capitalists lost the need to play socially conscious.I don't think you can talk about who was more "revolutionary" than others when you make such statements. Unless you can explain how Somoza, Franco, Operation Condor, the Shah of Iran, South Vietnam, South Korea, etc. are "more communist and revolutionary" than, say, Georgi Dimitrov or Ho Chi Minh.

Corbeau

7th March 2012, 08:28

Yet some elements of how the Yugoslav economy were managed invited comparisons with Mussolini's corporatist policies.

The fascists cribbed from the communists, hence they used bastardized versions of mass organizations, the role of one party, etc. Anything that looks like "strong elements of fascism" (outside of, say, some nationalistic themes in 1980's Romania or the modern DPRK or something) is just fascism taking things from socialism, not the other way around.
Who cares where they took it from? The fact remains that such degree of suppressing individuals on behalf of the state is fascism. Especially if the cause of discontent wasn't some idealistic disagreement with the course the society is taking but plain good old lack of food and basic resources.

Besides, fascism is a mode of government, socialism and communism are modes of economy. They are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately.

I still don't know how Yugoslavia is "more revolutionary" when it backed reformism in Europe and the USA and allied with bourgeois anti-communists.
Because it was pushed there by the eastern dogmatism. Yugoslavia simply backed those who would back it while trying to clear its own path, not following anyone or anything blindly.

Its "democracy" also invites the question, as Lenin among various other Marxists posed it, of whom it served. For instance Milošević and Co. utilized the "democratic" process to dominate Yugoslavia by replacing the leaderships in Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Vojvodina with men loyal to him.
Are you twisting the facts or simply misinformed? The leaderships in Montenegro, Kosovo and Vojvodina were forced to resign by street protests, not "democracy". And that was in the last few years of Yugoslavia, when Milošević had already effectively torn it to pieces.

The Yugoslav legislature "democratically" decided to bicker over all sorts of problems which were rooted in the capitalist nature of the economy and which naturally gave rise to tensions between the nationalities.
People need to get rid of the myth that everything will be fine and all tensions will cease once the economy is fixed and everybody starts livig well. Nationalism did start out of economic needs but then grew into something that became almost a religion. Tensions didn't rise because of the economic crisis. Hostility was always there, it was only suppressed by Tito's authority (and the institutions). Once that dissolved, it was a matter of time when the barrel would explode.

Besides, "free market" does not equal "capitalism". "Free market" is a way of exchange. "Capitalism" is about who owns stuff.

I don't think you can talk about who was more "revolutionary" than others when you make such statements. Unless you can explain how Somoza, Franco, Operation Condor, the Shah of Iran, South Vietnam, South Korea, etc. are "more communist and revolutionary" than, say, Georgi Dimitrov or Ho Chi Minh.
By "revolutionary" I mean the workers' rights and the social aspect of the communities. Paradoxically (or not), workers had more say in Britain, France and Germany than in any "socialist" country, probably including Yugoslavia.

Ismail

8th March 2012, 00:44

Who cares where they took it from? The fact remains that such degree of suppressing individuals on behalf of the state is fascism. Especially if the cause of discontent wasn't some idealistic disagreement with the course the society is taking but plain good old lack of food and basic resources.That's an unduly broad definition of "fascism."

Because it was pushed there by the eastern dogmatism. Yugoslavia simply backed those who would back it while trying to clear its own path, not following anyone or anything blindly.By rejecting "eastern dogmatism" it made friends with such diverse figures as Richard Nixon, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Indira Gandhi and Nicolae Ceașescu. That isn't "dogmatic," but it certainly isn't revolutionary or particularly leftist.

Albania didn't follow anyone or anything blindly either, yet it was able to denounce all of those figures. I wonder why?

Are you twisting the facts or simply misinformed? The leaderships in Montenegro, Kosovo and Vojvodina were forced to resign by street protests, not "democracy". And that was in the last few years of Yugoslavia, when Milošević had already effectively torn it to pieces.Milošević gained his popularity by posing as the "savior" of the Serbs against the dreaded Kosovar Albanians and used "anti-bureaucratic" sloganeering (of which the protests were a part) to cement this view of himself. His movement would have never gotten anywhere had Yugoslav "democracy" not allowed him to exploit national sentiments for his own ends, just as Soviet press laws and so on did not allow reactionary nationalist currents in the Ukraine, Baltics, Turkmenistan, etc. to spread until after Glasnost.

Nationalism did start out of economic needs but then grew into something that became almost a religion. Tensions didn't rise because of the economic crisis. Hostility was always there, it was only suppressed by Tito's authority (and the institutions). Once that dissolved, it was a matter of time when the barrel would explode.Yet why did it exist under a supposedly "equal" Yugoslavia? Why was Kosovo by far the poorest part of the Federation, with a populace that from the outset wanted to unite with Albania (as it was promised it would be able to do) being denounced as "Stalinist" and "nationalist" and suppressed well into the 1960's? Why was Slovenia allowed to become the richest part of the Federation while much of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia were clearly behind, and to the extent that Slovenian persons regarded the Federation as something holding Slovenia down?

Nationalism and especially chauvinism grow due to economic matters, at least among the masses. It seems a bit strange how a rise in xenophobic attitudes in Yugoslavia followed capitalist-style austerity measures and general economic decline.

Besides, "free market" does not equal "capitalism". "Free market" is a way of exchange. "Capitalism" is about who owns stuff.And the goal of socialism, among other things, is to gradually abolish the market. You could disagree, of course, but that'd put you more in line with Proudhon (who the Yugoslav leadership actually promoted) rather than Marx.

By "revolutionary" I mean the workers' rights and the social aspect of the communities. Paradoxically (or not), workers had more say in Britain, France and Germany than in any "socialist" country, probably including Yugoslavia.Explain how. The miners strike in 1980's Britain and May 1968 in France don't exactly look to me like examples of the working-class having "more say."

"Workers' rights" in bourgeois democracy are based on imperialism allowing for the giving out of crumbs to help allay discontent with the system. When pushed the capitalist state gives out a few more crumbs as a temporary measure. When pushed some more it resorts to violence.

Grenzer

8th March 2012, 01:50

Congratulations, Corbeau. You're a newcomer here but you already discovered one of the few things that everyone from Marxist-Leninists to anarcho-syndicalists can agree on: Market socialism is not socialism; but garden variety social-democracy.

Ismail is already doing a good job of demolishing the case for market socialism, so I think I'll just watch on this one.

I also have to say your definition of fascism is WAY off.

DarkPast

8th March 2012, 19:20

Stalin also seemed quite prescient, since he named Đilas, Ranković and other Yugoslavs as "dubious Marxists," and of course Đilas later embraced anti-communism while Ranković terrorized Kosovar Albanians and became a symbol of Serbian xenophobia.

Oh how ironic this is, coming from the guy who is responsible for killing off more communists in purges than any bourgeois ruler. Stalin's purges cut short the lives of cream of the Bolsheviks and "did in" hundreds of thousands of workers. And what about Stalin's murderous policies in the Ukraine? The mass deportations targeted at specific ethnic groups? The purgings of so many communist parties in Eastern Europe (the Polish one being a prime example, but while we're at Yugoslavia we can mention the "disappearance" of Tito's predecessor Milan Gorkić).

Compared to this, Đilas's "anti-communism" and Ranković's "terror" are child's play. But it's a good thing Stalin, with his superhuman powers of prescience, saw right through those two "dubious Marxists" from the start. After all, the idea that Đilas might have turned anti-communist because of his disillusionment first with Stalin's - and later Tito's - regime is preposterous, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Tito wanted to "export revolution" via annexing Albania, Bulgaria and probably Greece and subjecting them to Yugoslav control. When that failed his "revolutionary" inclinations made him back reformism and bourgeois nationalists. Some "revlutionary."

Wow, here I was thinking you couldn't be more hypocritical... What did the USSR under Stalin do in the Baltic States and Eastern Poland? What about all those puppet regimes in Eastern and Central Europe? Guess that doesn't count as "annexation" or "control" when good ol' Uncle Joe is doing it.

And Stalin had no problem making pacts with the bourgeoisie, either. Let's not forget that it was none other than Stalin who directed Tito and other resistance leaders to cooperate with bourgeois nationalists through Popular Front tactics. And Stalin went one step further, and made deals with the Nazis.

Ismail

8th March 2012, 19:50

Oh how ironic this is, coming from the guy who is responsible for killing off more communists in purges than any bourgeois ruler. Stalin's purges cut short the lives of cream of the Bolsheviks and "did in" hundreds of thousands of workers. And what about Stalin's murderous policies in the Ukraine? The mass deportations targeted at specific ethnic groups? The purgings of so many communist parties in Eastern Europe (the Polish one being a prime example, but while we're at Yugoslavia we can mention the "disappearance" of Tito's predecessor Milan Gorkić).The "cream of the Bolsheviks" like Bukharin and other rightists? That's nice. In Albania a lot of "old communists" from the 20's and 30's were executed or were expelled in the 40's-60's as well for rightist positions.

But yeah, let's talk a bit 'bout the Yugosalv repression of "Stalinists."

"The persecution of Communists ['Stalinists,' or 'Cominformists'] in Yugoslavia that began in 1948-49 was probably one of the most massive persecution movements that Europe had yet witnessed, including those of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1940s, Germany in the 1930s, and the repression of Communists during the Nazi occupation. What happened in Yugoslavia was a truly immense phenomenon considering the number of inhabitants and the number of Communists. According to official sources that were long kept secret, the purges affected 16,371 people, 5,037 of whom were brought to trial and three-quarters of whom were sent to Goli Otok and Grgur. Independent analysis by Vladimir Dedijer suggests that between 31,000 and 32,000 people went through the Goli Otok camp alone. But even the most recent research has been unable to come up with a figure for the number of prisoners who died as victims of executions, exhaustion, hunger, epidemics, or even suicide—a solution chosen by many Communists to escape their cruel situation."
(Stéphane Courtois & Mark Kramer. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. 1999. p. 425.)

I like how you put "terror" in quotation marks when it comes to Ranković though, because not only did the Yugoslavs admit that he did indeed terrorize the population of Kosovo, but the Albanian Government regarded it as practically genocidal in intent. Various bourgeois works can attest to the fact that the 1940's and 50's were not good times to be an Albanian in Kosovo.

After all, the idea that Đilas might have turned anti-communist because of his disillusionment first with Stalin's - and later Tito's - regime is preposterous, isn't it?It's indicative of his liberalism, which he was always advocating.

Wow, here I was thinking you couldn't be more hypocritical... What did the USSR under Stalin do in the Baltic States and Eastern Poland?He was apprehensive about "sovietizing" the Baltic states. Allow me to quote a long excerpt:

"There is evidence of Stalin's mistrust of native Communists. In October 1939, he told the Lithuanian Foreign Minister that it was no concern of the Soviet Union how the Lithuanian government dealt with its Communists; and, even more bluntly, he informed the Latvian Foreign Minister: 'There are no Communists outside Russia. What you have in Latvia are Trotsk[y]ists: if they cause you trouble, shoot them.' In the deportations of June 1941, not a few Party members found themselves in trains bound for the interior of the Socialist fatherland.

Lacking instructions from Moscow, the local Communist Parties seemed to have played safe and followed the prevalent popular front line. The Lithuanian Communist Party programme of 1939 urged the mobilisation of all democratic forces to overthrow the Černius government, and the Party sought alliance with the Social Democrats. In common with the Parties of Latvia and Estonia, its programme issued in 1940 was democratic in tone rather than Communist. The governments which were established in June 1940 seemed to offer a genuine opportunity for a reintroduction of democratic liberties, and as such they gained the passive and even active support of many democrats and Socialists who had suffered under the old regimes. The authoritarian regimes which had been set up in the early 1930s in Latvia and Estonia and in 1926 in Lithuania had all shown signs of collapse before the outbreak of war in 1939. They had suppressed political liberties and had failed to replace them with anything other than poor imitations of Austrian Fascism. The percipient comment of the British Minister to Riga on the state of affairs in Latvia is equally applicable to Estonia and Lithuania. The Collapse of the Ulmanis regime, 'literally overnight':

'left a political vacuum which, as the result of M. Ulmanis' totalitarianism, could be filled by no alternative middle-class organisation, and the swing to the left was therefore unduly abrupt, partly no doubt owing to the influence exercised by the USSR but also owing to the absence of any mobilisable political forces to challenge or correct those of the town workers.'
The evidence available would suggest that considerable sections of the urban proletariat, including the Jewish and Russian minorities, supported the new order, whilst many democratic and left-wing intellectuals were prepared to give the new regimes a chance to fulfil their promises. The new governments, composed of left-wing democrats rather than Communists, did indeed appear to represent a fresh wind of change in an atmosphere which had become stagnant during the last years of the dictatorships. All-round wage increases were decreed in June, laws against hoarding and speculation were passed, whilst assurances were given to peasant landholders that their land would not be touched. The bastions of the old order were speedily demolished and replaced by new organisations. In Latvia, for example, the law of 26 June provided for the creation of workers' committees in factories employing more than twenty persons, whilst on 8 July a law establishing the politruk system in the army was passed. The Estonian trade unions, which had managed to preserve much of their independence during the Päts' regime, were taken over by the Communists on 20 June. The Kaitseliit guards were dissolved on 27 June, and replaced by a workers' militia under the direct control of the Communist-dominated Ministry of the Interior. Widespread purges of local government and the bureaucracy occurred in the last days of June and early July, with Communists installed in vital positions. Nevertheless, the lack of Party members in all three countries—and, quite possibly, Soviet mistrust of local Communists—meant that 'progressive elements' willing to serve the regime were used. In rural areas, there appears to have been less change, and appointees of the old regimes remained in office... The left-wing intellectuals who formed the governments of Latvia and Estonia remained in favour and high office until the purges of 1950, when they were accused of bourgeois nationalism and replaced by more reliable Soviet-trained Communists."
(Martin McCauley (ed). Communist Power in Europe, 1944-1949. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 1977. pp. 29-31.)

In The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers, the chapter on the Baltics notes that the move to "sovietize" them came from the fact that the Soviets feared the pro-German foreign policies of the states and wanted territory to use in the inevitable war with Nazi Germany. The book Stalin's Wars also notes the urban popularity the Baltic governments initially received shortly after the overthrow of the reactionary bourgeois regimes.

And what about Eastern Poland? The Bolsheviks since Lenin's time considered it "snatched" territory (ditto with the Baltics.)

"The annexed territories did not belong to the core of the Polish state and did have an anti-Polish national liberation movement. Before the war, five million Ukrainians lived in Poland as an oppressed minority....

Compared to 1939, the Poland of 1945 was 20 percent smaller, but no matter how badly the war had hit German Pomerania and Silesia, the basic infrastructure there remained superior to that of the eastern Polish provinces lost to the USSR, and the three-hundred-mile-long Baltic Sea coast offered opportunities for new industries such as shipbuilding."
(Constantine Pleshakov. There Is No Freedom Without Bread! 1989 and the Civil War That Brought Down Communism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. pp. 30-31.)

What about all those puppet regimes in Eastern and Central Europe? Guess that doesn't count as "annexation" or "control" when good ol' Uncle Joe is doing it.Well let's see, in Czechoslovakia the communists were popular enough to take power without any real Soviet assistance. In Albania they took power with neither Stalin nor Tito sending any material assistance. Considering that Hoxha was easily the most pro-Stalin of all the leaders and the "puppet" leaders of Poland, Romania, East Germany and Bulgaria had opportunists in their ranks who denounced Stalin after he died, I think your argument is a wee bit faulty.

And Stalin had no problem making pacts with the bourgeoisie, either. Let's not forget that it was none other than Stalin who directed Tito and other resistance leaders to cooperate with bourgeois nationalists through Popular Front tactics.Actually Stalin agreed with Hoxha in criticizing the Varkis agreement the Greek CP made, to give one example. Of course during wartime there were various Fronts that were created in Soviet territory between bourgeois and communist forces. But then you call the liberated states "puppets" when they were ruled by these Fronts in which the communist parties clearly came up on top anyway.

And Stalin went one step further, and made deals with the Nazis.Ooo, not the Nazis! Lenin made deals with Imperial Germany, but the Nazis, man, that's messed up.

Yeah, so what? Britain and France decided that Bolshevism was a bigger danger to their interests than Nazism. Not Stalin's fault they weren't interested in an alliance. Even the Trots recognized this back then. "Stalin feared an attack on the part of Hitler and he was trying his best to get the capitalist democracies into a military alliance with the Soviet Union. The Communist parties were shouting for collective security, defending capitalist democracy and calling for a war against fascism." - The Militant, June 14, 1941.

Here's a nice introductory read for you: http://leninist.biz/en/0000/ALS00000/SE128.06-The.Fight.For.Peace.Fails

Corbeau

9th March 2012, 01:02

That's an unduly broad definition of "fascism."
I wasn't trying to define fascism, I was discussing one aspect of it. If you wish to enlighten me, feel free to, but on a different topic.

By rejecting "eastern dogmatism" it made friends with such diverse figures as Richard Nixon, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Indira Gandhi and Nicolae Ceașescu. That isn't "dogmatic," but it certainly isn't revolutionary or particularly leftist.
Just to quote your quote:

Ooo, not the Nazis! Lenin made deals with Imperial Germany, but the Nazis, man, that's messed up.

Yeah, so what? Britain and France decided that Bolshevism was a bigger danger to their interests than Nazism. Not Stalin's fault they weren't interested in an alliance. Even the Trots recognized this back then. "Stalin feared an attack on the part of Hitler and he was trying his best to get the capitalist democracies into a military alliance with the Soviet Union. The Communist parties were shouting for collective security, defending capitalist democracy and calling for a war against fascism." - The Militant, June 14, 1941.
So you're forgiving Stalin for siding with Hitler, but can't forgive Tito for cooperating with the above mentioned for exactly the same reason? Hm, sorry, but I need to call on the "h" word here.

Albania didn't follow anyone or anything blindly either, yet it was able to denounce all of those figures. I wonder why?
My uneducated guess would be that, country effectively being in the stone age, they didn't so much get used to the technical benefits of civilization so they could afford to be picky and exclusive with their politics.

Milošević gained his popularity by posing as the "savior" of the Serbs against the dreaded Kosovar Albanians and used "anti-bureaucratic" sloganeering (of which the protests were a part) to cement this view of himself. His movement would have never gotten anywhere had Yugoslav "democracy" not allowed him to exploit national sentiments for his own ends, just as Soviet press laws and so on did not allow reactionary nationalist currents in the Ukraine, Baltics, Turkmenistan, etc. to spread until after Glasnost.
I'm sorry, I'm trying to untangle this and find a point, but I must admit that I'm failing miserably.

Why was Kosovo by far the poorest part of the Federation
Because it started off as such and was nearly impossible to catch up, regardless of the funds and effort shovelled into the task?

Why was Slovenia allowed to become the richest part of the Federation while much of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia were clearly behind,
What do you mean "allowed to become the richest"? See above. Slovenia was the richest from before Yugoslavia. Are you suggesting that what should have been done was the Slovenian factories moved from the spot they were the most efficient and planted to the area where people wouldn't know what to do with them?

and to the extent that Slovenian persons regarded the Federation as something holding Slovenia down?
Yeah, well, nobody is perfect.

Nationalism and especially chauvinism grow due to economic matters, at least among the masses.
Please explain the mere existence of conservatives and nationalists in Sweden, Finland and Norway.

It seems a bit strange how a rise in xenophobic attitudes in Yugoslavia followed capitalist-style austerity measures and general economic decline.
...or could it be that they were all caused by the fourth factor, the loss of control from the Party? (As in: it has been noted that cities that have more prostitutes also have more priests. What is the explanation of this fact? This is not a joke but a realistic exercise in deductive thinking.)

And the goal of socialism, among other things, is to gradually abolish the market. You could disagree, of course, but that'd put you more in line with Proudhon (who the Yugoslav leadership actually promoted) rather than Marx.
Ok, if you like your stuff neatly arranged, feel free to replace word "market" by the word "exchange".

Explain how. The miners strike in 1980's Britain and May 1968 in France don't exactly look to me like examples of the working-class having "more say."
The working class in these countries at this given say still had more say than in the Eastern bloc.

"Workers' rights" in bourgeois democracy are based on imperialism allowing for the giving out of crumbs to help allay discontent with the system. When pushed the capitalist state gives out a few more crumbs as a temporary measure. When pushed some more it resorts to violence.
Agreed. However, it is a disgrace for the eastern communists that even in such bourgeois democracies workers had more rights than in the alleged "workers' states". A fact to be dwelled on.

Ismail

9th March 2012, 05:07

So you're forgiving Stalin for siding with Hitler, but can't forgive Tito for cooperating with the above mentioned for exactly the same reason? Hm, sorry, but I need to call on the "h" word here.Stalin didn't "side" with Hitler. He never claimed that "National Socialism" was a perfectly fine road, he didn't claim that the existence of Nazi Germany meant that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism was becoming "outdated," he made no theoretical or otherwise amendments. Stalin agreed to a non-aggression pact because the British and French governments had no intention of allying with the USSR against Nazi Germany.

This is the same sort of argument that Maoists use when they see Nixon meeting with Mao and say "oh, it's just like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact." Except it isn't. Tito's "compromises" were directly followed by liberalism, reformism, etc. and lasted for decades not as temporary expedients, but were hailed as "understandings" of the material realities which apparently existed. Molotov and others were talking at the time of the pact of a Nazi invasion of France, which would result in protracted clashes between the two armies and the prospects of proletarian revolution across Western Europe as Lenin predicted it. That didn't materialize, of course, but it does demonstrate the fundamental difference between The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and what Yugoslavia did. What the Soviets did they felt was in the interests of the world proletarian revolution. What Yugoslavia did was felt to be in the interests of... Tito.

My uneducated guess would be that, country effectively being in the stone age, they didn't so much get used to the technical benefits of civilization so they could afford to be picky and exclusive with their politics.This is assuming that the vast majority of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, etc. lived wonderfully pre-1945. I also like how you insinuate that Albanians were uncivilized savages.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to untangle this and find a point, but I must admit that I'm failing miserably.You were the one trying to apologize for Yugoslavia's capitalist relations producing nationalism, xenophobia, etc.

Because it started off as such and was nearly impossible to catch up, regardless of the funds and effort shovelled into the task?Why was it "nearly impossible to catch up"? Is it because from the 1940's-60's it was treated as a disloyal part of the Serbian motherland inhabited by Muslim "invaders" and "Stalinists" who were basically not worthy of existing in it?

What do you mean "allowed to become the richest"? See above. Slovenia was the richest from before Yugoslavia. Are you suggesting that what should have been done was the Slovenian factories moved from the spot they were the most efficient and planted to the area where people wouldn't know what to do with them?It became the richest in Yugoslavia as well, and by that I mean that, in relative terms, its economy grew while others at times lagged behind. Economic growth in Kosovo, for instance, actually made it poorer as time went on because it was lagging behind so badly.

If you're making a Federation based on equality between the nationalities, you can't have one republic do wonderfully and the others lag behind. Obviously relatively minor inequalities will exist (as the USSR in the time of Lenin and Stalin demonstrated), but that's a fair bit different from what occurred in Yugoslavia.

See for instance: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/04/06/how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars/

Please explain the mere existence of conservatives and nationalists in Sweden, Finland and Norway.I'm not aware of any notable Neo-Nazi or fascistic groups in those countries. I am aware of reactionary anti-immigrant groups, and indeed such sentiments are a product both of reactionary bosses trying to play off "populist" images and how they "care" for Finland and its people against the "Muslims," etc., and the product of the misery capitalism causes to the third world which allows the prospect of those being forced to emigrate in search of jobs in which they are generally guaranteed the lowest funds and the worst living conditions, which are then exploited by said reactionaries, etc.

...or could it be that they were all caused by the fourth factor, the loss of control from the Party? (As in: it has been noted that cities that have more prostitutes also have more priests. What is the explanation of this fact? This is not a joke but a realistic exercise in deductive thinking.)Well then that was the fault of Tito and Co., was it not? After all they denounced the concept of a vanguard party as Lenin and Co. understood it as the product of "backwards" societies.

Ok, if you like your stuff neatly arranged, feel free to replace word "market" by the word "exchange".Nothing wrong with exchange. Stalin wanted to replace the market in the Soviet countryside with products-exchange. The terms are not synonymous, as you can see.

The working class in these countries at this given say still had more say than in the Eastern bloc.Yet you provide no examples.

Agreed. However, it is a disgrace for the eastern communists that even in such bourgeois democracies workers had more rights than in the alleged "workers' states". A fact to be dwelled on.No they did not.

CommunityBeliever

9th March 2012, 11:25

This is the same sort of argument that Maoists use when they see Nixon meeting with Mao and say "oh, it's just like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact." Except it isn't.
That argument effectively demonstrates the hypocritical nature of Hoxhaists. After meeting with Richard Nixon, comrade Mao didn't claim that Western imperialism was a perfectly fine road or that the existence of the American empire meant that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism was becoming outdated, he made no theoretical or otherwise amendments. Comrade Mao was a strong opponent of American imperialism:

"U.S. imperialism is the most ferocious enemy of the people of the entire world ... In Asia, U.S. imperialism has forcibly occupied China’s Taiwan, turned the southern part of Korea and the southern part of Vietnam into its colonies, kept Japan under its control and semi-military occupation, sabotaged the peace, neutrality and independence of Laos, plotted to subvert the Royal Government of Cambodia, and committed intervention and aggression against other Asian countries. More recently, it has decided to send a U.S. fleet to the Indian Ocean, menacing the security of all the countries of South-east Asia." (Mao Zedong. U.S. Imperialism Is The Most Ferocious Enemy Of The World’s People. January 12, 1964)

Furthermore, comrade Mao consistently pointed out the U.S imperialism is the biggest imperialism in the world and he advocated the defeat of all Western imperialists. In particular, he suggested that the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America unite to drive US imperialists back where they came from. Comrade Lin Biao echoed this anti-imperialist stance when he said "The socialist countries should regard it as their internationalist duty to support the people’s revolutionary struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America." (Lin Biao. The International Significance of Comrade Mao-Tse Tung’s Theory of People’s War September 3, 1965)

"Comrade Mao Tse-tung spoke of the ever-growing national and democratic movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. He said that what imperialism fears most is the awakening of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples, the awakening of the peoples of all countries. We should unite and drive U.S. imperialism from Asia, Africa and Latin America back to where it came from...

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said that U.S. imperialism is the biggest imperialism in the world today. It has its running dogs in many countries. Those backed by imperialism are precisely those discarded by the broad masses of the people. Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee, Kishi, Batista, Said, Menderes and their ilk have either been overthrown or will be overthrown by the people. The rising of the people in these countries against the running dogs of U.S. and other imperialism are also fights against the reactionary rule of imperialism itself. The Japanese people are rising in action, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said. The broad masses of the Japanese people are now holding demonstrations on a bigger scale than ever to fight against the aggressive military alliance treaty signed between the Kishi Government and U.S. imperialism. The Chinese people resolutely support this struggle waged by the Japanese people. The just struggles of the peoples of the various countries in the world, he said, have received and will continue to receive firm support from the 650 million people of China. The days of imperialism are numbered, he said. The imperialists have committed all manners of evils and all the oppressed peoples of the whole world will never forgive them. To defeat the reactionary rule of imperialism, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said, it is necessary to form a broad front and unite with all forces, except the enemy, and continue to wage arduous struggles...." (Mao Zedong. The People Of Asia, Africa And Latin America Should Unite And Drive American Imperialism Back To Where It Came From May 7, 1959)

If you recognise that Mao Zedong took an anti-imperialist stance and you believe that he didn't change his views after the Nixon meeting of 1962 then this meeting which produced the Shanghai Communiqué isn't that different from the meeting which produced the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact. However, you claim that these meetings are different based upon the ludicrious slander that Mao Zedong supported the three world's theory.

As I mentioned before in the Maoism thread, comrade Mao correctly pointed out that the USSR and the US were competing forces of imperialism. However, the three world's theory was a distortion of his thought produced by Deng Xiaoping in a 1974 meeting to the UN. In that speech he introduced the three world's theory in with the statement "Judging from the changes in international relations, the world today actually consists of three parts, or three worlds, that are both interconnected and in contradiction to one another. The United States and the Soviet Union make up the First World. The developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other regions make up the Third World. The developed countries between the two make up the Second World." (Deng Xiaoping. Speech By Chairman of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of China, Teng Hsiao-Ping, At the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly April 10, 1974)

You should recognise that by 1974 comrade Mao was severely ill and suffering from MND or ALS, lung problems, old age, and other issues that prevented him from speaking clearly or taking part in any political activities. He dropped out of the political scene at that point so the three world's theory which was introduced in this period definitely cannot be blamed upon him.

I noticed that you linked to a blog post from the espresso stalinist which supposedly proves that Mao believed in the three worlds theory. This post claims that Mao said of Deng "Choosing Deng Xiaoping is my idea; it is best that you do not object." and that he said of Deng's speech "Good. I endorse it." However, these quotes are both from glossary of political terms of the People's Republic of China December 3, 1994. This book doesn't provide further details about these quotes such as their original Chinese text or a verifiable source for them. In other words, you linked me to someone's anti-Maoist blog which has baseless slanders against comrade Mao. Another source actually claimed that Mao said "Jiang Qing: Comrade Xiaoping is to leave me, you do not object to the good. Be careful not to object to my proposal" which isn't a direct endorsement of Deng Xiaoping, therefore, I can only conclude this anti-Maoist source was use exaggeration to make propagate an erroneous slander.

Comrade Marx said "Workers of the world unite!" not workers of the world isolate yourselves in a tiny state surrounded by bunkers to protect you from everyone else who you will denounce as "revisionists". It should be abundantly clear to everyone that after the publication of Imperialism and Revolution, Enver Hoxha made a complete departure from Marxism, after that point Hoxha was clearly an hypocritical, dogmato-reviosionist, anti-Marxist. Comrade J. Werner concluded "Hoxha’s utter and complete departure from Marxism with the publication of Imperialism and the Revolution remains a fitting conclusion after having examined in greater depth some of Hoxha’s main attacks on Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought" (J. Werner. Beat Back the Dogmato-Reviosionist Attack on Mao Zedong thought May 1979)

daft punk

9th March 2012, 13:39

I see no Stalinist has dared touch my posts, thank fft.

Ismail

9th March 2012, 22:17

I fail to see how Deng Xiaoping could have been given permission by Mao to announce a "theory" to the United Nations which signified a changed line in China's foreign policy, and to have done this without Mao's knowledge either. Mao attacking US imperialism in this case means nothing. Hua Guofeng's apologia for the "Three Worlds Theory," written as a response to Hoxha's critiques also has quite a few words about US imperialism and how all revolutionaries must oppose it. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Soviet works in general also said much about US imperialism. The point is how they decided to "fight" it.

In his unsigned article, Hoxha noted that "It is true that the countries of this '[second] world' have definite contradictions with the two superpowers, but they are contradictions of an inter-imperialist character, as are also the contradictions between the two superpowers themselves...

It can never happen that the socalled countries of the 'second world', in other words the big monopoly bourgeoisie ruling there, become allies of the oppressed peoples and nations in the struggle against the two superpowers and world imperialism. History since the Second World War shows clearly that these countries have supported and still support the aggressive policy and acts of US imperialism such as in Korea and Vietnam, the Middle East, Africa, etc. They are ardent defenders of neo-colonialism and of the old order... The countries of the socalled 'second world' are the main economic and military support of the aggressive expansionist alliances of the two superpowers." (The Theory and Practice of the Revolution, 1977, pp. 20-21.)

I see no Stalinist has dared touch my posts, thank fft.You're a shrill and annoying Trot who just copy-pastes stuff from Wikipedia or Marxists.org, that's why.

CommunityBeliever

10th March 2012, 13:24

I see no Stalinist has dared touch my posts, thank fft.

I touched one of your posts in a separate thread when I mentioned the fact that the trotskyists assisted the Japanese imperialists against China. Show me what other posts you want me to "touch" and I will be glad to oblige.

I fail to see how Deng Xiaoping could have been given permission by Mao to announce a "theory" to the United Nations which signified a changed line in China's foreign policy, and to have done this without Mao's knowledge either.

However, you provided no reliable sources that Mao endorsed this theory or the reactionary policies that followed from it. Mao's health was detoriating in the 1970s from neural degenaration just as Hoxha's health degenerated in the 1980s from diabetes and other health complications. Hoxha retired a few years before his death and he let Ramiz Alia take over day to day operations. Do you blame Hoxha for everything that happened in the 1980s? I think you are just applying a hypocritical standard to demonize comrade Mao Zedong.

daft punk

10th March 2012, 14:17

Originally Posted by daft punk
"I see no Stalinist has dared touch my posts, thank fft. "

I touched one of your posts in a separate thread when I mentioned the fact that the trotskyists assisted the Japanese imperialists against China. Show me what other posts you want me to "touch" and I will be glad to oblige.

Oh, come and have a go .....

1. Posts 30 and 31 in this thread.
2. My new thread on the Moscow Show Trials
3. My thread on Platform of the Left Opposition.
4. Please give a link to the post where you allegedly mention a 'fact' (I assume that is a euphemism for lie) that Trots assisted Japanese imperialists against China.

Make it good because the Stalinist on here are borderline 'on ignore' now.

daft punk

10th March 2012, 14:19

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2380458#post2380458)
"I see no Stalinist has dared touch my posts, thank fft. "

You're a shrill and annoying Trot who just copy-pastes stuff from Wikipedia or Marxists.org, that's why.
fyp :laugh:

Ismail

10th March 2012, 22:45

Hoxha retired a few years before his death and he let Ramiz Alia take over day to day operations. Do you blame Hoxha for everything that happened in the 1980s?Nothing particularly "bad" happened in the 80's while Hoxha was alive. His wife noted in her memoirs that Hoxha was of sound mind to the end. Also he didn't "retire," more day-to-day things were managed by Alia but Hoxha always had the final say and continued to give instructions. Not to mention that he continued to write in his political diary.

Corbeau

11th March 2012, 00:05

I also like how you insinuate that Albanians were uncivilized savages.
It is a fact that Albania is economically the most backward country in Europe. Feel free to replace the word "backward" if it insults you, I mean this purely in technological and infrastructural terms.

Also, regarding putting words into my mouth, and especially words that are unusable in any serious discussion and don't really have any meaning, you are free to feel insulted over anything said, regardless whether it was meant as an insult or not - especially if it was not. It has always been a legitimate method of obtaining moral high ground in debates.

As for the rest, I quit. I'm probably not 100% right, but I feel that this discussion is running in circles and will rather spend my time by participating in another one about a different topic, or simply by reading and learning new stuff, than dragging the same thing back and forth over and over again.

Ismail

11th March 2012, 03:54

There's a big difference between "Albania was the most backwards economy and society in Europe" (which is something Albanian texts of those times would happily concur with), and insinuating that Albanians weren't "civilized" enough to care for consumer goods. Not to mention that it turns socialism into a question of access to consumer goods.

Grenzer

11th March 2012, 04:18

The "theory" of Three Worlds is a load of shit. There is not really any real intellectual basis to it. A lot of people don't even know what really defined it: when I point out what it originally meant most people go "Oh, shit." I had not heard it was Deng who presented it to the UN, so I look forward to seeing how this discussion turns out.

Daft Punk, they really do have a point. Perhaps you could show a little less.. exuberance, and more deliberation, then your position would be enhanced.. In addition, rather that simply literally restating what has been said by another source, use these to construct your own original arguments. People will start taking you more seriously if you do. If people wanted to know what Trotsky thought, they could just bring up A Revolution Betrayed on the archive.

CommunityBeliever

11th March 2012, 04:20

Stalin's plan was for these countries to become capitalist. Communists were instructed to form coalitions with capitalists to this end. However these coalitions failed, and Marshall Aid backfired as well. Truman started the cold war because he was fed up with Stalin's inability to deliver capitalism as promised.

Your Trotkyist ideology has got you thinking about everything backwards. It was not the USSR which supported the West and which worked towards capitalist restoration it was the Trotskyists. Now would you please see 'touch' on the following presentation:

BQtNtYsRwqY

Please give a link to the post where you allegedly mention a 'fact' (I assume that is a euphemism for lie) that Trots assisted Japanese imperialists against China.

Here is my previous post mentioning some of the subversive activities of Trotskyites: post #67 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2378451&postcount=67).

Nothing particularly "bad" happened in the 80's while Hoxha was alive.

What are you saying that happened that was "bad" when Mao was alive? I don't think the Shanghai communiqué is bad because it is no worse then the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

I admit that there were capitalist roaders that held reactionary ideas when Mao was alive but it is ridiculous to blame that on Mao, because Mao was so sick from ALS that he could hardly speak let alone control people's thoughts. After all it was the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping who introduced the TWT in his 1974 speech to the UN and that distorted it into a form that allowed it to be used as a justification for supporting reactionary regime Latin America and Africa and opposing the USSR in places like Angola and Afghanistan.

His wife noted in her memoirs that Hoxha was of sound mind to the end. Also he didn't "retire," more day-to-day things were managed by Alia but Hoxha always had the final say and continued to give instructions. Not to mention that he continued to write in his political diary.

So Hoxha did get ill and semi-retire like Mao did, but it was not as bad for Hoxha because he didn't have ALS. As such, Hoxha was still able to write garbage that rejected Marx's ideas of worker's unity in favor of inane sectarianism based upon the idea that Hoxha was the only true Marxist-Leninist in the world.

Hoxha's anti-Marxist work Imperialism and Revolution erroneously demonises the CCP's adaptation of socialism and the Chinese cultural revolution: "the course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian." After publishing this senseless work the Albanian state got so paranoid it built bunkers all over the place. These sectarian works and the bunkers that their implementation led to are all that remain of Hoxhaism.

Brosa Luxemburg

11th March 2012, 04:57

You could check out Michael Parenti's book "Blackshirts and Reds". It could give you some nice info. Also try an article from William Blum called "The Other Side of the Berlin Wall".

If I were you, I wouldn't argue that these societies were good (because they had some MAJOR flaws) but argue that they were better than the societies before.

Ismail

11th March 2012, 07:10

What are you saying that happened that was "bad" when Mao was alive? I don't think the Shanghai communiqué is bad because it is no worse then the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.And you'd be wrong. Even outside of the "Three Worlds Theory," which in practice called for all communists to unite with the USA and local comprador regimes, Maoism as an ideology is anti-Marxist.

Here are examples of capitalist development in the economic realm: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/chinecon.htm

I admit that there were capitalist roaders that held reactionary ideas when Mao was alive but it is ridiculous to blame that on Mao, because Mao was so sick from ALS that he could hardly speak let alone control people's thoughts. After all it was the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping who introduced the TWT in his 1974 speech to the UN and that distorted it into a form that allowed it to be used as a justification for supporting reactionary regime Latin America and Africa and opposing the USSR in places like Angola and Afghanistan.How weird that Mao, who was supposedly so sick and couldn't even speak at the time, could converse about the "Three Worlds Theory" with a foreign head of state in the same year as Deng's speech to the UN: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv10n1/mao.htm

So Hoxha did get ill and semi-retire like Mao did, but it was not as bad for Hoxha because he didn't have ALS. As such, Hoxha was still able to write garbage that rejected Marx's ideas of worker's unity in favor of inane sectarianism based upon the idea that Hoxha was the only true Marxist-Leninist in the world.The Chinese line advocated "worker's unity" with such progressive figures as Mobutu, Kim Il Sung, Ceaușescu, Pol Pot, and eventually Tito himself. Not to mention things like arguing that NATO was a "defensive" alliance against Soviet social-imperialism.

After publishing this senseless work the Albanian state got so paranoid it built bunkers all over the place.Wrong. The bunker campaign began after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, in which the Albanians, not unjustifiably, feared being invaded.

CommunityBeliever

11th March 2012, 08:53

Dear Ismail,

Like I said before I don't support the Dengist TWT, the reactionary policies of the 1970s like the relations with Pinochet and Mobutu, or siding with the NATO imperialists against the USSR. Attacking me for these policies is a strawman. I believe these policies occurred because Mao was suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or motor neuron disease (MND) and capitalist roaders like Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai took over control of the state.

Even outside of the "Three Worlds Theory," which in practice called for all communists to unite with the USA and local comprador regimes, Maoism as an ideology is anti-Marxist.

As I have mentioned before, I don't support the Dengist TWT or the reactionary policies based upon it. Maoism is based upon the selected works of Mao Zedong up to the year 1970. Feel free to tell me what amongst these pre-1970s works is "anti-Marxist."

Works of Mao Zedong by Date (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/date-index.htm)

How weird that Mao, who was supposedly so sick and couldn't even speak at the time, could converse about the "Three Worlds Theory" with a foreign head of state in the same year as Deng's speech to the UN:

Mao made a few passing remarks in one conversation well he was really sick. Still, the TWT was mostly propagated by other people like Deng Xiaoping and not by Maoists, so please don't strawman us Maoists anymore by claiming that we believe in the TWT.

Wrong. The bunker campaign began after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, in which the Albanians, not unjustifiably, feared being invaded. I am not "wrong" because I said nothing to contradict this. I know the bunker campaign begun early I just stated that it continued after that point leading to the creation of bunkers all over the place. The Hoxhaist Albanian state failed because of its own anti-Marxist beliefs and now the only legacy of Hoxhaism is these bunkers and Hoxha's anti-Marxist works.

Ismail

11th March 2012, 09:06

I believe these policies occurred because Mao was suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or motor neuron disease (MND) and capitalist roaders like Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai took over control of the state.Yet you've provided no real evidence of this.

Feel free to tell me what amongst these pre-1970s works is "anti-Marxist."Hoxha in his works noted the anti-Marxist essence of "New Democracy," of "On the Ten Major Relationships," and so on. You apparently have read his work so it isn't necessary for me to repeat his words.

Mao made a few passing remarks in one conversation well he was really sick. Still, the TWT was mostly propagated by other people like Deng Xiaoping and not by Maoists, so please don't strawman us Maoists anymore by claiming that we believe in the TWT.So now the "Three Worlds Theory" has gone from being an invention of reactionaries to originating by Mao but being "mostly propagated by other people." The essential outlook adopted by adherents to the "Three Worlds Theory" is there in Mao's own words. The anti-communist foreign policy line the Chinese adopted (which, by the way, didn't originate in 1974) was the natural result of such anti-Marxist "analyses" of the world.

I am not "wrong" because I said nothing to contradict this. I know the bunker campaign begun early I just stated that it continued after that point leading to the creation of bunkers all over the place.No you didn't, you specifically said "After publishing [Imperialism and the Revolution] the Albanian state got so paranoid it built bunkers all over the place."

seventeethdecember2016

11th March 2012, 09:16

Check out the UN's Human Development Indexes in the late 1980s and compare them to the West.

Ismail

11th March 2012, 09:19

Check out the UN's Human Development Indexes in the late 1980s and compare them to the West.The 1990 listing has Albania almost at the level of "high human development," for what it's worth.

seventeethdecember2016

11th March 2012, 09:42

It wasn't hard to notice if your neighbor suddenly disappeared for days or forever lol. During Stalin's time, entire families would disappear over night.
It seems like your recalling something your grandparents or someone within that line said to you at some point in your life.

Sure SOME people were kidnapped and sent to *place location here* but it seems like your just repeating some pseudo-propaganda that manifested within your family member's life. It is improper, and perhaps a little immature, for me to claim this, but then again this seems to ring a familiar tune to what I hear my family talking about on topics like Turkey(my home country) or the US(my current country). The point I'm trying to make is, if people in the US can be influenced by people like Alex Jones into believing they live in a Totalitarian government, *insert name of anti-Communist Lithuanian here* could have influenced your family to do the same.

Just like in any country within the bounds of this planet, you'll see people constantly discontent with their government and making up legends about them. "9/11 was an inside job." You may not see this very much in Lithuania, since your people are still living under the Euphoria of Independence.

If you kept your mouth shut and worked, you got good food and a roof over your head. If you started getting too loud...
Agreed. If you shut up and obey, you'll be treated well. If you don't, there are special smoke-screen laws on every country in this world that will throw you in jail for simple actions. You can now be considered a terrorist in my country for: paying with paper money at hotels, using a cell phone often in public, 7 days worth of food in your house, and buying several flashlights.
"Now listen to the good American government which will feed you like a dog, and don't break our rules. Remember, we have the highest incarceration rate in the world! W00t for DEMOCRACY!"

Oh and one more thing, getting a vote every two years doesn't make a country a Democracy. That's called a Pseudo-Democracy.

daft punk

11th March 2012, 10:26

Your Trotkyist ideology has got you thinking about everything backwards.
It was not the USSR which supported the West and which worked towards capitalist restoration it was the Trotskyists.

Support this ludicrous statement.

Now would you please see 'touch' on the following presentation:

BQtNtYsRwqY

No I am not debating a link to 45 minute video. Summarise the main points. Mention what times they appear in the video. Find links to give supporting evidence. Then you have a debate.

Here is my previous post mentioning some of the subversive activities of Trotskyites: post #67 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2378451&postcount=67).

Lol. I will answer that on the thread so please have a look when I have done so.

CommunityBeliever

11th March 2012, 10:49

No I am not debating a link to 45 minute video. Summarise the main points. Mention what times they appear in the video. Find links to give supporting evidence. Then you have a debate.

I said I will 'touch' on your posts. I will do so by providing you will lectures and articles for you to study. I don't have the time to debate you ATM.

Hoxha in his works noted the anti-Marxist essence of "New Democracy," of "On the Ten Major Relationships," and so on. You apparently have read his work so it isn't necessary for me to repeat his words.

I think "On the Ten Major Relationships" is one of the most important works of comrade Mao Zedong. I also don't take issue with New Democracy and I object to the claim that it is anti-Marxist.

So now the "Three Worlds Theory" has gone from being an invention of reactionaries to originating by Mao but being "mostly propagated by other people."

It has not "gone" anywhere. It originated with Deng Xiaoping and he was the one who mainly propagated it and twisted it into a form that allowed him to support reactionaries like Pinochet and the Mujahideen. I never denied that Mao made once made a passing remark to Kaunda about TWT and I also mentioned that like other Maoists I don't support all the actions of Mao, especially when he had ALS.

Ismail

11th March 2012, 11:28

I think "On the Ten Major Relationships" is one of the most important works of comrade Mao Zedong! It certainly isn't "anti-Marxist" and neither is the practice of New Democracy. I think this is just another case of Hoxha's dogmatism. Hoxha denounced everyone else who adapted socialism to their own conditions, and since the CCP adapted socialism to Chinese conditions, Hoxha denounced them.This is a lie. To give an example of Hoxha at the 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981:

"The boundless loyalty of our Party to the immortal doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, its ability to apply this doctrine in a creative manner, in conformity with the conditions of the country and the complicated international circumstances, its determination to defend the purity of the principles of this doctrine from the attacks and distortions of many enemies, internal and external, have been and remain the fundamental basis of all the successes and victories of our people...

The example of Albania is a new experience in the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat and constitutes a valuable contribution to the theory and practice of socialism and Marxism-Leninism."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. VI. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1987. p. 355.)

"The Marxist-Leninists carefully study the revolutionary processes in their own countries, as well as the national and international conditions in which they take place. They are not dogmatic either in theory or in practice. For them, Marxism-Leninism, as a dialectical materialist world outlook, is a living, creative doctrine in ceaseless development."
(Ibid. p. 447.)

In Reflections on China Vol. II Hoxha wrote on Mao's "ten major relationships" and noted their revisionist content. The reactionary content of "New Democracy" was noted by Hoxha in his work Imperialism and the Revolution.

I never denied that Mao made once made a passing remark to Kaunda about TWT and I also mentioned that like other Maoists I don't support all the actions of Mao, especially when he had ALS.I don't think having ALS made Mao into a reactionary.

CommunityBeliever

11th March 2012, 11:32

In Reflections on China Vol. II Hoxha wrote on Mao's "Ten Major Relationships" and noted their revisionist content. The reactionary content of "New Democracy" was noted by Hoxha in his work Imperialism and the Revolution.There are Maoist sources which counter those attacks and vice versa. We are different tendencies: Maoist and Hoxhaist.

I don't think having ALS made Mao into a reactionary. Nor do I. Like other Maoists I feel that ALS exonerates Mao from blame for the reactionary foreign policies that Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping initiated in the 1970s after the death of comrade Lin Biao in 1971 and the disintegration of the opposing faction of the cultural revolution.

daft punk

11th March 2012, 11:35

I said I will 'touch' on your posts. I will do so by providing you will lectures and articles for you to study. I don't have the time to debate you ATM.

Lol!

I have answered your little story about Trotskyism in China on the other thread by the way. Only took me an hour.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2382186&postcount=69

Deicide

11th March 2012, 14:12

It seems like your recalling something your grandparents or someone within that line said to you at some point in your life.

Practically anyone in Lithuania, that was alive during Stalin's time or during the 1950s, will tell you that (and yes, this may sound like argumentum ad populum, but it isn't). Lithuania is a tiny country (according to world bank, current population is 3,320,656), everyone knows pretty much everything that happens and our history is deeply engraved in our consciousness. And then there's Lithuanian scholarship on Stalin's era (and beyond). Which is where I'm getting my history from.

Sorry to break it you, but people disappearing (i.e, being sent to labour camps in Siberia) in Lithuania isn't some nutjob Alex Jones conspiracy theory. It was very real. And it happened on mass, it wasn't an isolated incident here or there, although the mass of it occurred during the initial Stalinization of Lithuania. I find your notion that it's somehow the delusional lie of my grandparents or of some isolated 'anti-communist' (whatever that is) quite insulting, for what it's worth.

Regardless, enjoy opposing reality.

ComradeOm

11th March 2012, 14:35

Practically anyone in Lithuania, that was alive during Stalin's time or during the 1950s, will tell you that. Lithuania is a tiny country (currently 3 to 3.5 million people, est), our history is deeply engraved in our consciousness. And then there's Lithuanian scholarship on Stalin's era (and beyond). Which is where I'm getting my history fromTo put some numbers on that, according to Keep (Recent Writing on Stalin's Gulag) over 100k Lithuanians alone were deported by the Soviet authorities in the decade 1941-51

Deicide

11th March 2012, 14:46

To put some numbers on that, according to Keep (Recent Writing on Stalin's Gulag) over 100k Lithuanians alone were deported by the Soviet authorities in the decade 1941-51

Lithuanian scholarship believes it's around 150k, no more than 200k or less than 100k. But this is specifically for deportations to Siberia. But considering the size of the Lithuanian population during the 40s, which was around 2 million (perhaps a bit more). This is a monstrous number.

But hey, what are we talking about, the Soviet Union was a workers utopia during Stalin's era. All bad things are obviously just bourgeois lies or the delusions of stupid peasants or pampered intellectuals. And anyway, they deserved being sent to slave camps, because they were ''anti-communists''.

daft punk

11th March 2012, 15:15

All Lithuanians are anti-communist vermin!:) Bit like the Poles. Stalin even had to close the Polish Communist Party. And shoot the German Communist Party leaders, exiles living in Russia. And the Austrians. And most of the Hungarian Communist leaders, in exile in Russia. Bela Kun, who had led the Hungarian Soviet Republic had to be killed, naturally, as was 70 year old Adolf Warski, one of the founders of the social-democratic and communist parties of Poland. In fact more communists from Eastern European countries were killed in the Soviet Union than died at home in their own countries during Hitler’s occupation. Nice one Stalin.

Deicide

11th March 2012, 15:16

All Lithuanians are anti-communist vermin!:)

To Siberia with them!

daft punk

11th March 2012, 15:26

One leading Lithuanian communist commented that because of the decimation of the Lithuanian Communist Party’s Central Committee at the hands of Stalin and his executioners, “I alone remained alive! And I remained alive because I had been carrying out underground work in fascist Lithuania.” http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3794

Not well up on this so I googled. The USSR occupied Lithuania first, but they treated them so harshly that when the Nazis invaded there was some support from the Lithuanians according to wiki. However the 'liberators' plan was to deport or wipe out most Lithuanians.

Deicide

11th March 2012, 15:39

Deicide

11th March 2012, 15:45

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Gedimino_9_palace_in_Vilnius1.JPG

Here's the (former) central committee building (if any of you are interested).

Spoiler tagged it because the pic is quite large. There used to be pictures of Lenin draped down it during the anniversary of the revolution. ;)

daft punk

11th March 2012, 17:15

I think Stalin used bits and bobs of Nazi collaboration as an excuse for all sorts of stuff. Not something I am too well up on though. Lot of population transfers and so on.

seventeethdecember2016

11th March 2012, 23:24

Sorry to break it you, but people disappearing (i.e, being sent to labour camps in Siberia) in Lithuania isn't some nutjob Alex Jones conspiracy theory. It was very real. And it happened on mass, it wasn't an isolated incident here or there, although the mass of it occurred during the initial Stalinization of Lithuania. I find your notion that it's somehow the delusional lie of my grandparents or of some isolated 'anti-communist' (whatever that is) quite insulting, for what it's worth.

Regardless, enjoy opposing reality.
I wasn't denying anything, rather I was claiming that these kidnappings were overestimated and taken out of context. Do not forget that Lithuania was a Fascist Nation from 1926-41 under the leadership of the Lithuanian Nationalist Union. 100k Detained Fascists and suspected Fascists sounds like a very fair number. The time period your referring to was a purge and nothing more.
I was also fully expecting your discontent with my last comment, so I disregard it as a bunch of Nationalist furvor.
Really... To claim Lithuanians are more learned than Turks and Americans. I equally as insulted by your comments. Of course I don't care very much, but just pointing this out.

It is time for people like you to stop worshipping and humanizing Fascists.

Deicide

11th March 2012, 23:27

It is time for people like you to stop worshipping and humanizing Fascists.

:laugh: Wow, you're clinging to nonsense in desperation.

I disregard it as a bunch of Nationalist furvor.

Then you're an even bigger fool than I originally thought.

To claim Lithuanians are more learned than Turks and Americans.

Where did I make such an abstract, completely unprovable claim?

Edit - Actually, just to be disagreeable (because I think you're an asshole), we can compare these countries by the human development index (for what it's worth), Lithuania and America are in the ''very high'' category. Turkey is rated ''high''.

Ismail

11th March 2012, 23:58

^ The quasi-fascist/nationalist government of Smetonos took power via a coup (twice, actually). He wasn't a fan of Hitler and, although loyal to Mussolini for a time, abandoned relations later. The puppet (Antanas Sniečkus) that the Kremlin put into power after this guy was much worse (I.E, judging by the amount of people that died because of the policies implemented). And that's saying something.Ah yes, Smetona wasn't as bad as the evil Kremlin puppet. I mean sure, Smetona may have introduced gas chambers, but killing Jews and evil Stalinists (who we all know aren't real communists) isn't as bad as killing suspected anti-communists.

"Smetona had already signed a treaty with Germany right after the fall of Poland, in September 1939. In this treaty, the Lithuanian government pledged that 'Lithuania stands under the protection of the German Reich.'"
(Phillip Bonosky. Devils in Amber: The Baltics. New York: International Publishers. 1992. p. 84.)

Not to mention that this disliker of Hitler fled to Nazi Germany when he felt Soviet influence and the release of various communists and progressive persons in general from the jails couldn't be contained anymore.

Deicide

12th March 2012, 00:06

Ah yes, Smetona wasn't as bad as the evil Kremlin puppet. I mean sure, Smetona may have introduced gas chambers, but killing Jews and evil Stalinists (who we all know aren't real communists) isn't as bad as killing suspected anti-communists.

"Smetona had already signed a treaty with Germany right after the fall of Poland, in September 1939. In this treaty, the Lithuanian government pledged that 'Lithuania stands under the protection of the German Reich.'"
(Phillip Bonosky. Devils in Amber: The Baltics. New York: International Publishers. 1992. p. 84.)

Not to mention that this disliker of Hitler fled to Nazi Germany when he felt Soviet influence and the release of various communists and progressive persons in general from the jails couldn't be contained anymore.

Oh he was a bad guy. So I think your post is a bit ridiculous. I never said he was a fairy, or even moderate. The number of people that died under his rule was, however, smaller than those deported to gulags or shot under Antanas Sniečkus. And it wasn't a hundred thousand fascists that were killed or deported as that idiot ''havee'' is suggesting. I can't be bothered arguing about abstract levels of ''evil''. Some People on the left have this tendency of introducing false dichotomies. Both regimes were bad. Simple as.

seventeethdecember2016

12th March 2012, 01:17

:laugh: Wow, you're clinging to nonsense in desperation.
Desperation? Please! I just point out things as I see them. If you ask me, this conversation has been trivial and nothing more than that.

Edit - Actually, just to be disagreeable (because I think you're an asshole), we can compare these countries by the human development index (for what it's worth), Lithuania and America are in the ''very high'' category. Turkey is rated ''high''.
Turkey is unimportant to me, as it is a neo-Fascist country that held legal pogroms and land confiscations against my family, and other Jewish or Christians in the population, for nothing more than being Jewish or Christian. I guess also because of the fact that they couldn't do anything but say rhetoric to Israel for aggression against Palestine, so they took it out against the Jewish populations(the period I'm referring to happened in 1972). I don't know why they held attacks against the Christians, but the likely trigger was because of their problems with Greece and Cyprus(1974).

And it wasn't a hundred thousand fascists that were killed or deported as that idiot ''havee'' is suggesting. I can't be bothered arguing about abstract levels of ''evil''. Some People on the left have this tendency of introducing false dichotomies. Both regimes were bad. Simple as.
The SU came in after destroying a Fascist country, and you believe it is unreasonable to assume that many, if not all, of the 100k kidnapped weren't Fascists? Do not forget the Lithuanian Partisans resisted the Soviet Occupation, and if they had not, there wouldn't have been 100k kidnappings. It is true that Snieckus was a harsh ruler, but imagine having to deal with these terrorists everyday. And don't forget that Snieckus was kept imprisoned by the evil government before him, which is more reason to destroy these Nationalist rats.

My heart goes out to the thousands of Red Army soldiers that were murdered by these EVIL Lithuanian Nationalists.

seventeethdecember2016

12th March 2012, 01:37

I think Stalin used bits and bobs of Nazi collaboration as an excuse for all sorts of stuff. Not something I am too well up on though. Lot of population transfers and so on.
Stalin obviously learned to disagree with Brest-Litovsk, so with Germany's allowance, he took back land that was illegally(I say this boldly) taken from the Soviet sphere of influence.

Ismail

12th March 2012, 01:40

In Lithuania: Revolution From Above by A.E. Senn it is noted that Hitler was actually somewhat surprised at the Soviet move in Lithuania and didn't expect its annexation to the USSR. Estonia and Latvia were a different matter.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 13:07

Ismail

15th March 2012, 13:26

Something I forgot to mention. I've already stated the system was a mess, but I didn't give specific examples. There used to be massive queues outside shops, for up to 4-5 hours, you Americans may laugh at this, for bananas and toilet paper (people sometimes queued for toilet paper overnight) and other goods.That's a common claim stated all the time in the West. Toilet paper shortages were in the news in Cuba a few years back.

Romanian SSR were even worse.You mean Moldavian SSR? Since after the 60's Ceaușescu went his own opportunistic route, getting the good graces of Nixon, the IMF, Tito, the Chinese leadership, Kim Il Sung, etc. He criticized the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to gain cheap nationalist points at home, ditto with criticizing the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 (which was when he was turned into a "good communist" in the eyes of the West.)

Deicide

15th March 2012, 13:31

That's a common claim stated all the time in the West. Toilet paper shortages were in the news in Cuba a few years back.

It was a common, and miserable (I might add), reality for the Lithuanian people. It was a kremlin satellite state which was considered to have higher than average living standards compared to the other miserable places in the USSR.

Ismail

15th March 2012, 13:42

Deicide

15th March 2012, 13:46

"Satellite state" is a term used for the Warsaw Pact countries. Unless you're one of those "THE REAL BALTIC GOVERNMENTS WERE THOSE LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IN EXILE AGAINST THE SOVIET AGGRESSORS" types, that is.

I wanted to be extra-derogatory towards the Soviet Union than usual. Anyway, can't talk much longer, need to go wait in the queue for bogroll.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 13:46

Deicide

15th March 2012, 13:50

Even the Warsaw Pact countries were not "Satellite states" - As their governments,industry,production,and other socio-economic elements were not under the controll of the Soviets.Take for an example,Yugoslavia and Albania,both were far awway from Moscow,Yugoslavia,after 1948,and Albania after the revisionist clique completely showed its face.

90% of Lithuania's economy was directed from Moscow.

I will never understand such blind hate.

Yes, I have great hatred for regimes that discredited Communism. And you're completely correct. You didn't live in the Soviet Union (or the mess that it left behind). You will never understand. None of you Internet USSR fanboys will (probably) ever understand.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 13:57

90% of Lithuania's economy was directed from Moscow.

Lithuania was a part of the Soviet Union.

Yes, I have great hatred for regimes that discredited Communism. And you're completely correct. You didn't live in the Soviet Union (or the mess that it left behind). You will never understand. None of you Internet USSR fanboys will (probably) ever understand.

I was in something much,much worse.

But that line of argument is completely ignorable.

Ismail

15th March 2012, 14:05

Lithuania was a part of the Soviet Union.Not to mention that the USSR had central planning, so yeah.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 14:09

I was in something much,much worse.

But that line of argument is completely ignorable.

It wasn't an argument. You made a sardonic comment. I responded with an appropriate and equally sardonic comment.

NorwegianCommunist

15th March 2012, 14:11

But did Lithuania get more economic help after it become a part of USSR?
I am refering to the fact that; 90% of Lithuania's economy was directed from Moscow.

Ismail

15th March 2012, 14:11

But did Lithuania get more economic help after it become a part of USSR?
I am refering to the fact that; 90% of Lithuania's economy was directed from Moscow.Yes, it had some of the highest growth rates in the USSR and achieved industrial, agricultural, and social progress.

Omsk

15th March 2012, 14:12

It wasn't an argument. You made a sardonic comment. I responded with one.
You should have concentrated on the main point,and to me it looks like you have a off-center view of what imperialism is.

But did Lithuania get more economic help after it become a part of USSR?

Yes,what Ismail said.The Baltic countries,some part of Russia,(European parts) and the areas in central Russia,were the places which had the fastest economic growth.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 14:13

But did Lithuania get more economic help after it become a part of USSR?
I am refering to the fact that; 90% of Lithuania's economy was directed from Moscow.

Yes its economy improved greatly from the 1940s up to the late 1970s or a bit later. Then nothing happened, pretty much (and the entire place was littered with illegal businesses by then anyway). The USSR was already Socially falling apart during the 80s (even earlier perhaps).

The economic activity during the 80s (the illegal businesses, etc) in Kaunas and Vilnius was predominantly being run by the Russian Mafia, well, specifically the Lithuanian groups which were loyal to it. The politicians (yes those communist party ideologues!) were bought by the Mafiosi, they could do anything they wanted, nobody was beyond their reach. And if they couldn't buy them, then they would threaten to kidnap them or their families. You should of seen what happened when the USSR dissolved..

Ismail

15th March 2012, 14:27

Enver Hoxha noted in the 1960's the fact that a growing number of youth were becoming apolitical, that corruption in the ranks of the CPSU was growing, etc.

Here's one quote (the context is the Soviets justifying their invasion of Czechoslovakia on "ideological" grounds among others):

"Of what fight against bourgeois ideology can the Soviet revisionists speak while revisionism is nothing else by a manifestation of the bourgeois ideology in theory and practice, while egoism and individualism, the running after money and other material benefits are thriving in the Soviet Union, while careerseeking and bureaucratism, technocratism, economism and intellectualism are developing, while villas, motor-cars and beautiful women have become the supreme ideal of men, while literature and art attack socialism, everything revolutionary, and advocate pacifism and bourgeois humanism, the empty and dissolute living of people thinking only of themselves, while hundreds of thousands of western tourists that visit the Soviet Union every year, spread the bourgeois ideology and way of life there, while western films cover the screens of the Soviet cinema halls, while the American orchestras and jazz bands and those of the other capitalist countries have become the favorite orchestras of the youth, and while parades of western fashions are in vogue in the Soviet Union? If until yesterday the various manifestations of bourgeois ideology could be called remnants of the past, today bourgeois ideology has become a component part of the capitalist superstructure which rests on the state capitalist foundation which has now been established in the Soviet Union."
(Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1972. pp. 508-509.)

Deicide

15th March 2012, 14:37

^ While I agree with his observations to an extent. The illegal businesses were predominantly the consequence of ridiculously low wages, which on average, were 80 rubles per month! 80 fucking rubles! A car was 5k rubles for example.

I probably already mentioned this earlier. People could make the equivalent (depending on which business and how long they worked) to 80 rubles in one or two days (sometimes even more, depending on the kind of work) by working for the mafiosi or for a friend.

Why should anyone be a good ''communist'' and work all month for 80 rubles when they can make that in a day or two? Especially when your government is spouting nonsense about working towards ''communism''. And when you know they're corrupt bastards.

Deicide

15th March 2012, 17:26

Some more pictures of the medieval ''old'' town in Vilnius (the capital) for those that are interested.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Vilnius_Ostrobramska.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Old_Vilnius2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Vilnius_%28Wilno%29_-_cathedral.jpg

Dire Helix

16th March 2012, 03:56

Deicide is from Lithuania but is anti-Stalinist.

Anti-Stalinist my ass! My wife is an anti-Stalinist when she is not drunk. This dude is a fucking anti-communist if I ever saw one and a Lithuanian nationalist to boot! Much of the crap this reactionary filthbag is bleating about isn`t all that different from what you can expect from a typical Baltic or Russian fascist. I`ve met more of these in my life than I care to count. Surprised to be meeting their ilk on a revolutionary left forum NOT in the restricted area. With all the crap he posted here about gulags being primarily stuffed with women and children, Soviet mafia and other nonsense, I sure as hell hope he is guaranteed a place on the editors board of the next Black Book of Communism whenever that happens.

To address some of his "facts"...

Monthly wages of 80 rubles were NOT normal in the USSR. Not unless you were an unqualified janitor. 200-300 rubles per month was pretty common and you didn`t have to engage in any "illegal business" to make that much. My father was earning 360 rubles a month as a mechanic on a train in the 80s. Coal miners were making close to a thousand.

There was no serious "mafia" to speak of in the pre-1985 USSR. No legalized private property = no meaningful organized crime.

Entire families going missing was NOT normal in the post-Stalin USSR. And there was no oppressive atmosphere.

It was possible to travel to other countries although there were a few limitations.

It was a common, and miserable (I might add), reality for the Lithuanian people. It was a kremlin satellite state which was considered to have higher than average living standards compared to the other miserable places in the USSR.

90% of Lithuania's economy was directed from Moscow.

"Oh noes!!! Commies pulling the strings from afar and suppressing my national self-identity!" Cry me a fucking river! If a Russian nationalist was in your place, he`d ***** about the USSR being a dictatorship over ethnic Russians instituted by national minorities and cite the higher living standards of the Baltic SSRs as the ultimate proof. The blame game is always so predictable. Hate you fucking petty-bourgeois nationalist scumbags!