Hello from Jugoslavija

[Zagorac]

Hello!

My name is Zagorac! I came from Croatia. My english is not very good but i understand everything.

I'm 18 years old. But i don't think that years are important.

That's all for now!

Es mejor mori de pie que vivir des rodillos!

[More Fire for the People]

Welcome!

What is your opinion on Josep Tito?

[Marxistinn]

Welcome to RevLeft.

Post much & Prosper.

[Tekun]

Welcome brother, may ur stay be an informed one

I like the Zapata quote :)

[rioters bloc]

what does it mean?

[Lamanov]

Pozdrav iz Banjaluke.

Sta si po politickoj orjentaciji?? :hammer:

[workersunity]

Welcome Comrade, Post much and Prosper

[Lord Testicles]

Welcome to the board comrade, enjoy.

oh and workersunity, Marxistinn has alraedy used your quote.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:05 PM
Hello!

My name is Zagorac! I came from Croatia. My english is not very good but i understand everything.

I'm 18 years old. But i don't think that years are important.

That's all for now!

Es mejor mori de pie que vivir des rodillos!
welcome!

croatia is an awesome country, was there last year

hmm...what do you think is the better beer: Karlovacko or Ozujsko? I cant decide, also cuz the Ozujsko one was colder :)

[Tekun]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 17 2005, 10:56 AM
what does it mean?
The Zapata quote?

It means: I rather die on my feet, then live on my knees

^One of the best quotes of all time :D

[Zagorac]

Hello again from me!

1. I think that Josip Broz Tito was the biggest men of XX century. And what do you think?

2. Druže DJ-TC ja sam po političkom uvjerenju komunista. Ti druže?

3. My opinion is that Ožujsko is better but i prefer Velebitsko! Where were you? Adriatic sea?

4. I rather die on my feet, then live on my knees - La passionaria (Dolores Ibaruri)

[More Fire for the People]

1. I think that Josip Broz Tito was the biggest men of XX century. And what do you think?
I do not really consider him a Marxist-Leninst but more of a pragramtic socialist, at least he created a national unity and limited worker control in Yugoslavia. It's evident that he played an important role in national unity as after he died Yugoslavia began to break up.

[Zagorac]

Lenin sad that we must change us with time. Stalin made mistake in USSR but Tito didn't. He made multy etnic country.

What he did in WWII nobody couldn't done something simular because people trust him and he was and he stil is our lider in our's harts.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Welcome comrade! :)
"When you have given everything, you have everything to gain"

[Led Zeppelin]

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bestofimages/004_Tito_PaulVI.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/thumb/0/0b/Tito-in-elizabeth.jpg/180px-Tito-in-elizabeth.jpg

Let's not forget those.

Also let's not forget Tito's Capitalist economic reforms.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:44 AM
1. I think that Josip Broz Tito was the biggest men of XX century. And what do you think?
Tito may have been "the biggest man" but it's not in the nature of real communists to be "the biggest men", but rather to be real men who don't betray their principles.

Tito was certanly not a real communist. We can put him next to all the "communist" tyrants, Mao, Stalin etc.


2. Druže DJ-TC ja sam po političkom uvjerenju komunista. Ti druže?

Ja sam marksista / lijevi-komunista.
Pravi, originalni i beskompromisni.

Izvini, al' posto hvalis Tita moracu da posumnjam u tvoju komunisticku osnovanost i izucenost, te da te oznacim kao 'titoistu'. Ako zelis, dostupan sam za dalju diskusiju.

P.S.

Za tebe, jedan sajt za "domace" ljude. ;)

Pobunjeni um / Insurgent Reason (http://www.yu.marksist.com/index2.htm)

[Zagorac]

Druže DJ-TC,

Tito je bio vrhovni komandant i vođa komunista od 1939. godine. Ona je donio odluku da se brani zemlja i da se pruža otpor okupatoru onda kada je cijela europa bila pokorena. Nitko nije davao otpor dok su naši ginuli za sve ove koji sada pljuju po nama.

Nitko se nije usudio Staljinu reći ne osim njega, i da ne nabrajam što je sve kasnije napravio jer će ispasti da ga previše hvalim.

On je bio samo čovijek kao i mi svi no bio je drug, bio je vođa.

Također sam spreman za daljnju raspravu.

You say that Tito was dictator? If people loves their president then he isn't dictator, he is lider.

[Pandii]

Welcome comrade :)
Happy posting.

[Lamanov]

How many communists were killed before he took over?

Demagogy is of no intrest to me. It wasn't his alone decision to defend the country but of the many people involved in the process. That's not the question anyway.

There were alot of people who said "no" to Stalin long before him. They rotten in Syberian gulags and Tito lived in a royal palace. Their conflict is of simply pragmatic political nature which does not change the similar essence of both of their historical figures. Their similar anti-communist and counter-revolutionary character.

[Zagorac]

Tito was men just like us, read his biografy before WWII and you'll know how men Tito was.

zapravo kad smo već domaći ne želim pisati stranim jezikom jer se ne mogu dobro izraziti pa ću našim. Tito je bio čovijek iz naroda za narod. Uvijek je bio pravi komunist i nije popuštao od svojih načela.

To što nije završio u gulagu ne umanjuje značaj tog djela. Tito je imao i radio je pogreške ali svi leliki ljudi ih rade baš kao i mi.

Zašto ga ti, marksista napadaš? nas lijevo orijentiranih u Jugoslaviji ima relativno malo i međusobno se svađamo. Republikanska Španija je propala baš zbog anarhista i političara koji nisu imali hrabrosti podržati prpletersku ideju, ideju komunizma.

Umjesto da budemo ujedinjeni mi smo razjedinjeni i to je naš glavni problem!

[Lamanov]

Ja ga napadam upravo zato sto sam marksista. Da sam u njegovo vrijeme zivio u Jugi i imao ovakva svhvatanja kakva sada imam, shvatanja koja su potpuno ekvivalentna marksistickim - lezao bi u zatvoru.

Ljudi moraju da se odreknu iluzija i formula koje nas ubjedjuju da smo nekada bili na pravom putu. Nismo. Ja razumjem da je mladim ljudima inicijalno tesko da razluce sta je elementarni marksizam i stvarni komunizam a sta je ideologija koja se sluzila marksistickom terminologijom a bila daleko od njega, sve u sluzbi titoistickog i staljinistickog drzavnog kapitalizma. Ali sustinski nikakve tezine ni velike mudrosti tu nema. Ko se malo bolje potrudi - shvatice sustinu procesa koji su se odigravali - kako kod nas tako i vani.

Nas lijevo orjentiranih ima relativno malo. Istina. Mi smo podjeljeni, istina. Ali to je samo jedna nuzna pojava u ovom procesu transformacije. Jugoslovenska radnicka klasa i studenti su od samih pocetaka formiranja pokreta bili uskraceni za stvarni revolucionarni pokret, upravo pod diktatom vec formirane birokratske diktature u Sovjetskom Savezu. Potom, nakon II-SR, 40 godina otupljivali smo u uslovima laznog socijalizma misleci da je stvarnos ono sto u stvari nije. Sasvim je normalno da rusenjem takvih lazi i iluzija prolazimo kroz jedan tezak proces saznanja i reorganizacije, ali ipak, mi po prvi put u istoriji sada imamo priliku da u uslovima razvijenog i zrelog kapitalizma izgradimo jedan pravi komunisticki pokret, bez lazi i ideologije.

Nismo slabi zato sto smo podjeljeni, vec smo podjeljeni zato sto smo slabi.

[Zagorac]

Nadam se da si u pravu druže, vidjet ćemo što će vrijeme donjeti i da li će novi komunizam biti bolji od starog.

A u čemu je Tito pogriješio po tvome? Što je trebao napraviti a nije?

[Lamanov]

Ne bih odmah pričao o Titu i suštini Jugoslovenske revolucije. Vjerujem da sam Tito ne zaslužuje toliku pažnju. Bar ne od strane komunista... pravih..

Prvo moram da ti 'objasnim' nesto.

Ovako: mi komunisti se danas na osnovu nase sustinke istorijske uloge i postojanja u vidovima teorije i prakse djelimo na dve strane. Jednu stranu predstavljaju apologisti zastarjelih shvatanja i miskoncepcija oko toga sta komunizam predstavlja i kako se ostvaruje. Takvi ''komunisti'' su epigoni starih dogmata koji se smatraju ''Lenjinovim naslijednicima'', i osnovu svoje teorije i prakse vuku iz devijantne i kontrarevolucionarne trece internacionale koja je pretvorena u aparat boljševicke partije, koja je sama postala aparatom birokratske diktature i državnog kapitalizma u Sovjetskom Savezu. Takvi ''komunisti'' su uzeli marksizam i pretvorili ga - koristeci se njegovom terminologijom - u ideologiju novonastalih ''socijalistickih'' sistema i njegovih vladajucih klasa (birokratije, ili takozvane ''crvene buržoazije'') - a ustvari takav ''marksizam'' više nije bio marksizam nego njegova potpuna suprotnost - istrgnuta iz sve i jednog njegovog revolucionarnog i progresivnog suštinskog elementa. Takvi ''komunisti'' su obicno udruženi u hijerarhijske partije, koriste se dogmama pokojnih ''velikih voda'' (Staljin, Tito, Mao...) i obicno nisu u kontaktu sa stvarnošcu koja ih okružuje. Sanjaju snove o novim revolucijama i o sebi kao o njihovim ''avangardama'' gdje oni preuzimaju vlast ''vodeci radnicku klasu''. Nista od navedenog nema apsolutno nikakve veze se pravim marksizmom i komunizmom.

A reci cu ti nesto i o tome - pravom... ovako: Druga grupa smo mi, pravi komunisti. Anti-autoritativni, beskompromisni, nedogmatični, otvoreni i potpuno naučni. Za nas marksizam nisu Marksovi citati kao proročke knjige u koje se mora vjerovati nego metode kojima su ti citati pisani. Naša politika je ukidanje politike. Mi objedinjujemo naučni pogled na svijet i socijal-humanizam u praksi kojoj je cilj potpuno uništenje antagonističkog klasnog društva u bilo kom obliku. Mi ne težimo da se izdignemo iznad masa nego smo dio njih - a masovni revolucionarni pokret je kulminacija svih naših težnji. Mi se protivimo svakoj vrsti autoriteta koji uspostavlja vlast čovjeka nad čovjekom - nadređenih i podređenih. Naš cilj je da proletarijat, samosvjestan i samoaktivan SAM preuzme vlast i uspostavi svoju - u eksternom obliku - klasnu diktaturu - a u internom - potpunu i apsolutnu direktu demokratiju, ukidanje svakog autoriteta i eksploatacije.

Struja kojoj ja pripadam (tako smatram) naziva se 'lijevi komunizam', ili 'komunistička ljevica'. Nastala je u Drugoj Internacionali u jeku borbe između revolucionara i reformatora, kao lijevi dio revolucionarne struje - naspram desnog dijela - boljševika-lenjinista. Njeni najznačajniji predstavnici su Rosa Luxemburg, Otto Ruhle, Anton Pannekoek, Paul Mattick, Karl Liebknecht, Amadeo Bordiga - naspram boljševika (Lenjin, Trocki, Zinovjev, Radek, itd.). Boljševička struja se nakon dvadesetih godina djeli na dvije strane: Staljinisti i Trockisti. Danas mnogi Trockisti polako naginju lijevici, kako se pojedinci odruču propalih i sitnoburžujskih Lenjinovih formula i nekih dogmi Trockog (kako sam ja to uradio), dok Staljinisti uglavnom umiru od starosti... polako ali sigurno.


Jel ti bilo sta od ovoga poznato??

[Zagorac]

Druže DJ-TC, hvala na ovom postu, priznajem da sam jako puno naučio. Znam mnogo stvari ali nikada to nisam gledao sa te strane.

Ja sam još mlad i učim, tek sada izgrađujem mišljenja. Zanima me što je sa Engelsom, kakvog on učešća ima u tvojim idealima?

[Lamanov]

Engels definitivno stoji odmah uz Marksa. Ima dosta vaznih djela koja je napisao, pogotovo ona koja su doprinjela istorijskom materijalizmu [materijalisticko shvatanje istorije] ('Porjeklo porodice, privatnog vlasnistva i drzave', 'Anti-Duhring', 'Uloga rada u pretvaranju majmuna u covjeka' itd.). A posto ja studiram istoriju, dosta mi je licno doprinjeo u naucnom i metodskom smislu.

Drago mi je da mogu da pomognem. Posebno mi je vazno da mladi ljudi koji pocinju da shvataju kako je kapitalizam umiruci sistem ne zalutaju u pogresne vode "komunizma", za zastarjelim i iskrivljenim idejama - koje su nazalost najrasprostranjenije - vec da polako i naucno izgradjuju misljenja i poglede, i da se upoznaju sa citavim spektrom.

[Zagorac]

Je li moguće spojiti i uzeti najbolje od pravog i iskrivljenog komunizma. Tako da se ovaj iskrivljeni vrati na pravi put a da se uzme najbolje od njega?

P.S. Po čemu si uzeo nadimak, jako je neobičan. Ako nije tajna?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:57 PM
Je li moguće spojiti i uzeti najbolje od pravog i iskrivljenog komunizma. Tako da se ovaj iskrivljeni vrati na pravi put a da se uzme najbolje od njega?
Nemoguce, jer iskrivljeni komunizam nema kao originalno svoje nista pozitivno.


P.S. Po čemu si uzeo nadimak, jako je neobičan. Ako nije tajna?

Iskreno, zaboravio sam... :lol:
... a koristim ga svugdje, bez obzira! :P

[Lamanov]

PS: adresa mog skoro pokrenutog sajta (bloga):

Praxis (srpsko-hrvatski jezik) (http://crveni.blogspot.com/)

:hammer:

[beatlesjiliang]

welcome and hi.

[Stam]

ja isto mislim da je tito bio diplomatska legenda za svoje doba

[Lamanov]

Kako god...

Ono sto je bitno je da Tito nije bio pravi komunista... ali ni malo.

Zato moras da se odlucis: ili se bavis pravim komunizmom ili se divis crveno-burzujskim diplomatama. Ovo prvo pak zahtjeva bezuslovno odbacivanje Titoizma kao istorijske falsifikacije i potpuno beskorisnog i mrtvog sranja. Nema druge.

[Ouroboros]

Hi Zagorac, Welcome to the board.

I'm also from Croatia, actually Zagreb.

Tito? I think that Tito greatest "mistakes" were atrocities after world war II (30-60000) and Informbiro resolution (5000). After these atrocities we must consider him mass criminal, there is no way out of that. Tt was quite in the spirit of the time, when French killed some 10 000 people without court after WWII, and single bomb on Hiroshima took some 70 000 lives etc, however, these were huge crimes.

Less important, but still important is that Tito personally lived as an emperor; with cult of personality and unspeakable luxury. It shows that he never fully accepted communist ideas to his heart. I think he was more of avantourist than communist. Tito had some 16 wifes, counting only those he married and children with? Certainly not an average man.

However, what he really did in Yugoslavia was largely successeful experiment.
As you probably know, both economy and social values (solidarity, social differences, security, culture, science, drug abuse, stability of the family ...) were significantly better in Yugoslavia than it is in modern, capitalist Croatia. At the time he had best foreign policy in the world - non-aligment. Yugoslavia was full of the students from poor countries. All that done in the country of many selfish, lazy, cruel nations as we Croats, as well as Serbs really are. If I have a choice, I'd leave this capitalims we have and return back to Yugoslavia in my youth, 1970's without any doubt.

And that IS success, huge success that can certainly encourage us to build society based on solidarity, repeating what Tito did well, and improving over his mistakes. DJ TC's claim that "distorted communism" has nothing valuable is, I believe, too sharp - even feudal and capitalist societies had some innovations that could be considered valuable forever. In fact, ideas of self-management in Yugoslavia and transformation of the Party into League make Tito communism relatively close to left communist ideas - although they were not really pushed far.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:04 PM
DJ TC's claim that "distorted communism" has nothing valuable is, I believe, too sharp - even feudal and capitalist societies had some innovations that could be considered valuable forever.
Reality can sometimes be really sharp. That's the way things are.


In fact, ideas of self-management in Yugoslavia and transformation of the Party into League make Tito communism relatively close to left communist ideas - although they were not really pushed far.

It had absolutely no resemblance to left-communists. Not even close! I suggest you work on your theory.

So called "self-management" was a limited self-control of the enterprises which had no management authority nor it had a democratic structure. Notion that workers had real "controll" is pure fantasy which should be forgotten along with that pile of Kardelj's books lying on the floor in my basement. :lol:

It's about time we get serious people.

[Ouroboros]

Reality can sometimes be really sharp. That's the way things are.

Ha. Maybe it looks like reality to you, but it looks more like fantasy to me ...

(worker councils in Yugoslavia) had absolutely no resemblance to left-communists. Not even close!


It depends on the point of view, i.e. how much one likes the idea of workers councils. You like that idea, so if it did not worked as you expected in Yugoslav practice, it is because it was not radical enough. From my point of view, it is exaclty opposite. I think workers councils already had too much power in Yugoslav practice, and giving them even more power would make things worse - and meaningless. From that point of view, difference betwen Yugoslav self-management and left communism is less significant.

So called "self-management" was a limited self-control of the enterprises which had no management authority nor it had a democratic structure. Notion that workers had real "controll" is pure fantasy ...

Depends what do you think on with "real controll" - if you think on some control, it is trivial that they had *some* control. If you think on something like "full control," then it is straw man argument, because I do not remember anyone ever claimed that workers had full control over factories in Yugoslavia...

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:19 PM
Ha. Maybe it looks like reality to you, but it looks more like fantasy to me ...
Ehh.. kay.. :huh: :rolleyes:


It depends on the point of view, i.e. how much one likes the idea of workers councils. You like that idea, so if it did not worked as you expected in Yugoslav practice, it is because it was not radical enough.

It's not my perspective that matters, or yours even less, but the perspective of the revolutionary proletariat and it's historical role.

"Idea" of workers' councils is not just an idea - it was a reality which stopped the World War and threatened the existence of the bourgeoisie. It's historically the culminating product of the mass movement -- the driving force of the revolution.


From my point of view, it is exaclty opposite. I think workers councils already had too much power in Yugoslav practice...

And that's why you're not a real communist.


...and giving them even more power would make things worse - and meaningless. From that point of view, difference betwen Yugoslav self-management and left communism is less significant.

In left communist and Marxist theory-practice workers' councils are a product of a class action, directly implied in the revolutionary mass action. They are a product of a class itself and the bearer of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

On the contrary - "workers' councils" in Yugoslavia were decreed by a constitution from above. They were needed as a governing assistence-tool for the bureaucracy and the party - the soul product of development of state capitalism.


If you think on something like "full control," then it is straw man argument, because I do not remember anyone ever claimed that workers had full control over factories in Yugoslavia...

Well, of course. Thats the point of my objection. Isn't "self-management" supposed to be a full self-management, a full control? Yes, it obviously is - unless you're a lying Titoist bureaucrat or a party ideologist.

[Ouroboros]

DJ TC, full control over factories would mean that some workers have control of their shovel only, and there are another 100 workers who have full control over nuclear central worth billion of dollars, right?

Now tell me, if they are in full control, they can sell nuclear central to foreign country and spend rest of their lives on some tropical island as rich millioners. Or transfer value of the central into luxurious life on some other way. And how could you prevent them from doing it if they are in the full control?

What should we do with that central? Who should control it?

[Lamanov]

Workers don't own the means of production they work on, they control it. They're not it's shareholders, but they "share" all socialized production-force.

Using Yugoslavian example is silly anyway, because it wasn't in coherence with reality to expect a right-from-the-start-state-capitalism to turn into a proletarian dictatorship.


Hmm... just to add this remark (even though scenario is very unlikely):

Workers can "sell" the power-plant, illegaly - but the new "owners" won't have much use of it when armed brigade of red workers show up to take it back. :lol:

[Ouroboros]

OK, but, if workers are not allowed to sell this powerplant, and they are not allowed to exctract value from it - then their control is quite a limited. Someone else beside workers must control each way that could be used for extraction of value.

Furthermore, even extraction of the value which is used for improving working conditions should be limited - because value of the power-plant is so huge that even with very small extraction, workers in the power plant can live like kings in working willage they build around power plant, while workers who work with single shovel cannot extract nothing but a toothpick from their shovels.

But, if you do not allow to workers even to improve their own working conditions without asking permission from someone, then not much control would left in their hands.

Exactly what kind of control over means of the production workers could have?