Understanding the breakup of Yugoslavia from a materialist perspective

[Lobotomy]

I get the basics of how the breakup of Yugoslavia went down, but I have only studied it from a bourgeois liberal perspective and not a Marxist perspective.

The dominant narrative seems to be that Yugoslavia was always riddled with deep-seated ethnic tensions, and that Tito simply stifled them for a while. The already-existing tensions heightened after Tito's death, and this is the main factor to blame for the bloodbath of the 90s. This explanation is obviously unsatisfactory from a materialist perspective. How would a Marxist explain what caused the breakup of Yugoslavia into smaller states?

[Pravda]

Whats so special about Yugoslavia? I mean, all eastern european communist states broke up to national states.
However, why was breakup so bloody is different question. Which i dont know how to answer.

[Durruti's friend]

I'm an anarchist, but I can try and give you a partial reason.

It's an easy one - Yugoslavia was in a state of recession and the economy went downhill. Hyperinflation began and the Yugoslav Dinar became worthless. People wanted to change their money into Deutsche Marks, but that was impossible because the Dinar wasn't convertible. Also, foreign debt. Wages were reduced because the IMF demanded so.

In those circumstances, nationalism rises with no problems.

But there are people on this forum who have lived through the 80s and could know more on that subject than me.

[subcp]

This is the best analysis of Yugoslavia I've come across:

http://libcom.org/library/class-yugoslavia-aufheben-2

It lays bare the illusion that Titoism is a political theory rather than a grouping of policies forced by Realpolitik; places the ethnic tensions in their proper place in the overall whole of the internal political and economic contradictions of the 'Socialist Federation', and traces the thoroughly capitalist economic history of the nation from the War to the break-up of Yugoslavia.

[tuwix]

I get the basics of how the breakup of Yugoslavia went down, but I have only studied it from a bourgeois liberal perspective and not a Marxist perspective.

The dominant narrative seems to be that Yugoslavia was always riddled with deep-seated ethnic tensions, and that Tito simply stifled them for a while. The already-existing tensions heightened after Tito's death, and this is the main factor to blame for the bloodbath of the 90s. This explanation is obviously unsatisfactory from a materialist perspective. How would a Marxist explain what caused the breakup of Yugoslavia into smaller states?

I think the main reason it was that Yugoslavia wasn't a free nations alliance. It was creation of elites and national elites with backing of people has destroyed it.

I don't think that the economy has anything to do in greater extent. The tensions between nations were strong. The threat of soviet or imperialist intervention was the main reason what maintained this country in one piece. And I don't think that Tito understood Marx much.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I recommend Michael Parenti's book on it. Here is short summation of his argument:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

[kasama-rl]

I wrote an essay that tried to describe the break up of Yugoslavia from a Marxist and materialist perspective.

It is called "How Capitalism caused the Balkan Wars."

http://kasamaproject.org/international/1228-60how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars

It describes both the internal nature of Yugoslavia under Tito, the interpenetration (and intensification) of national hostilities in the development of Yugoslav society, and then how the external intrigues of imperialists triggered the explosion (which let to that awful civil war, then followed by U.S/Nato aggression directly).

[CyM]

The nationalized planned economy, despite the bureaucratic control and inefficiency, laid the basis for massive leaps forward economically. This allowed the development of peaceful relations between peoples for a time.

When it came to a grinding halt, and the bureaucrats were looking towards converting themselves into a capitalist class, the economic collapse brought everything back to the surface. The bureaucrats also played the national card, each national bureaucracy competing with the others for their priviliges during the final days. As soon as they returned to capitalism, this all exploded to the surface in the worst slaughter, backed by different imperialist forces in each case.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

http://kasamaproject.org/international/1228-60how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars

It's no wonder people think the RCP is a CIA outfit, when they publish absolute garbage like this.

You gonna go see the new Avakian movie, Ely? lol

[fractal-vortex]

Yugoslavia broke apart for the same reasons as the USSR. It is the drive by bureaucracy for privatization, i.e. a need to split up state property. They thought that it is easier done in smaller "national" states.

[goalkeeper]

The economic and political decentralisation created local ethnic power bases within the republics. The only unifying element of the state after Tito's death was "commitment" to Communism, but by the late 1980s the farce of Yugoslav socialism was all but admitted and nationalism stepped in.

[Diogenese]

Parenti's book is a good suggestion, also "Weight of Chains" documentary has some good info on the breakup although it attempts to justify Serb actions or something. I wish I had the patience to write a full reply but the topic makes my blood boil.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's no wonder people think the RCP is a CIA outfit, when they publish absolute garbage like this.

You gonna go see the new Avakian movie, Ely? lol

Well looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

[Leo]

Here's an article written by communist revolutionaries from former Yugoslavia about the nature of Tito's regime:

http://www.birov.net/0,,1544635,00.html

[Narodnik]

As Parenti said- divide and conquer. The populations of all the ex-yugoslavian states today are in debt slavery to western capital, the same capital that bought all the best water and ore sources, and the best arable land in the ex-yu, none of which was the case during Yugoslavia. Kosovo has one of the most profitable lignite deposits in the world, NATO involvment there sure as wasn't about, as they said, "humanitarian concerns". They bomb a car factory and a cigarette factory, and then they buy them cheaply, how's that connected with "humanitarian concerns"? When topics like this are talked about, there really isn't much to talk about- it's all capitalism's fault, and that's it.