Yugoslavia

[communard resolution]

Nobody on a collective farm thought Marxism was working.

Most people in socialist Yugoslavia did think it was working, and I know many such people personally. 'True Marxists' will shout "but it wasn't real Marxism", and in many respects they may be right. But the Yugoslav people didn't care whether it was Marxism-by-the-book or not because it worked for them.

[Bud Struggle]

Most people in socialist Yugoslavia did think it was working, and I know many such people personally. 'True Marxists' will shout "but it wasn't real Marxism", and in many respects they may be right. But the Yugoslav people didn't care whether it was Marxism-by-the-book or not because it worked for them.

This is an interesting post, Nero. I don't know if you have posted elsewhere about your or your friends experiences in Yougoslavia, but I'd be interested in reading about them. Tito seems to be the one Communist leader never mentioned around here.

It also would be interesting to read your thoughts about the breakup of Yugoslavia and what the heck went wrong over there when Communism fell apart.

Tom

[communard resolution]

This is an interesting post, Nero. I don't know if you have posted elsewhere about your or your friends experiences in Yougoslavia, but I'd be interested in reading about them.

I'm not from Yugoslavia myself, but I know a lot of people who are due to family circumstances, and I'm down there often. What exactly would you like to know about their experiences?


Tito seems to be the one Communist leader never mentioned around here.Tito is never mentioned around here because his system doesn't fit neatly with any classic revolutionary theory (even though it was implemented by means of a genuine popular revolution and backed by the majority of the people until at least Tito's death). Marxists-Leninists will say he was a 'revisionist' and outright capitalist for straying off a path that was obviously not working in the Eastern Bloc (which is where I'm originally from). Trotskyists and Left Communists will say that he was a Stalinist and/or a capitalist. Anarchists will not give him the time of day for obvious reasons (authoritarianism, etc etc). They all dislike him, and yet the people who were there loved him.

The truth is that his system was an unusual, but very modern and clever mix of seemingly opposed elements: one-party state and democracy (workers self-management), socialism and free market mechanisms, dictatorship and anarchism (workers councils).

Most importantly, it worked for the people.


It also would be interesting to read your thoughts about the breakup of Yugoslavia and what the heck went wrong over there when Communism fell apart.That's an incredibly complex issue, and I doubt anyone knows the truth about what really happened. I understand that after Tito's death there were several wannabe-Titos in all parts of Yugoslavia. In order to gain personal power in their respective regions, they began stirring nationalist sentiments to put people against each other. Even so, it took them about ten years until shit really hit the fan.

You could say that the national question was one that Tito effectively didn't manage to solve. I would think he did the best he could as the period of his reign was one of unprecedented peace between, say Serbs and Croats. I spoke to people who grew up in the 70s: they say that most of the time, they weren't even aware whether their friends were Croat or Serb. Then in the 80s, it suddenly became an issue. "The government is doing too much for the Serbs", "the government is doing too much for the Croats", "all military leaders are Serbs", etc. Go to Stormfront if you want to read how today's Serb nationalists still claim that "Tito favoured Croats" while Croat nationalists claim the opposite.

Also, Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in 1984 entitled "US policy towards Yugoslavia", advocating "expanded efforts to promote a quiet revolution to overthrow the Communist Party". In order to fully understand what happened and how it was done, it would be helpful if the full uncensored document was available to the public, but unfortunately it isn't. The effects of the 1970s Oil Crisis (state debt) began to be felt in 1980s Yugoslavia, and I imagine the West would have taken advantage of that.

Lastly, one of the most common criticisms is that the Yugoslav system was too dependent on the benevolent dictator Tito himself while lacking the necessary mechanisms to keep things going after his death. I suppose we would have to determine what checks and balances to install next time around. I'm myself still in the process of finding out how it all worked, why it worked, and why it derailed in the end.

[communard resolution]

Didn't you recently mention you were with the Communist Party USA?

What are you TomK?

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry, been in and out today. I'm a member of the CPUSA. But my day job though is owning a factory among other stuff.


I'm not from Yugoslavia myself, but I know a lot of people who are due to family circumstances, and I'm down there often. What exactly would you like to know about their experiences? Mostly I'm interested in--it seems to me--that idea there that communism onder Tito was a cult of personality. It just died right after he died. Also it is amazing that Tito did what on one in hostory has ever been ablwe to do--bring peace to the Balkins. An amazing feat.



Tito is never mentioned around here because his system doesn't fit neatly with any classic revolutionary theory (even though it was implemented by means of a genuine popular revolution and backed by the majority of the people until at least Tito's death). Marxists-Leninists will say he was a 'revisionist' and outright capitalist for straying off a path that was obviously not working in the Eastern Bloc (which is where I'm originally from). Trotskyists and Left Communists will say that he was a Stalinist and/or a capitalist. Anarchists will not give him the time of day for obvious reasons (authoritarianism, etc etc). They all dislike him, and yet the people who were there loved him. A true folk hero of sorts.


The truth is that his system was an unusual, but very modern and clever mix of seemingly opposed elements: one-party state and democracy (workers self-management), socialism and free market mechanisms, dictatorship and anarchism (workers councils). seem close to the way that China is looking to day. I remember they even put out a car that was sold in the west--the Yugo. That's was pretty good for a Communist country at the time to put out a product that could compete in the West.


Most importantly, it worked for the people. But did "Comunism" work or was it just the iron will of Tito?


That's an incredibly complex issue, and I doubt anyone knows the truth about what really happened. I understand that after Tito's death there were several wannabe-Titos in all parts of Yugoslavia. In order to gain personal power in their respective regions, they began stirring nationalist sentiments to put people against each other. Even so, it took them about ten years until shit really hit the fan. Well that part of the world has some very stron Nationalistic, boardering on Fascist tendancies--it's interesting that those things could be sublimated for so liong and then come back like it was 1546 all over again.


could say that the national question was one that Tito effectively didn't manage to solve. I would think he did the best he could as the period of his reign was one of unprecedented peace between, say Serbs and Croats. I spoke to people who grew up in the 70s: they say that most of the time, they weren't even aware whether their friends were Croat or Serb. Then in the 80s, it suddenly became an issue. "The government is doing too much for the Serbs", "the government is doing too much for the Croats", "all military leaders are Serbs", etc. Go to Stormfront if you want to read how today's Serb nationalists still claim that "Tito favoured Croats" while Croat nationalists claim the opposite.

Also, Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive in 1984 entitled "US policy towards Yugoslavia", advocating "expanded efforts to promote a quiet revolution to overthrow the Communist Party". In order to fully understand what happened and how it was done, it would be helpful if the full uncensored document was available to the public, but unfortunately it isn't. The effects of the 1970s Oil Crisis (state debt) began to be felt in 1980s Yugoslavia, and I imagine the West would have taken advantage of that. That darned Ronnie was a trouble maker, that's for sure! :lol: But while The US might have had a small part in Yougoslavia's troubles--the problem was still festering in the country and the people it self to fall apart so devistatingly and so suddenly.



Lastly, one of the most common criticisms is that the Yugoslav system was too dependent on the benevolent dictator Tito himself while lacking the necessary mechanisms to keep things going after his death. I suppose we would have to determine what checks and balances to install next time around. I'm myself still in the process of finding out how it all worked, why it worked, and why it derailed in the end.Really interesting. I'm from Poland (well my parents are) myself and it seemed that the death of Communism was pretty cut and dry there--the people just didn't want it. No big shot leaders--or cult of the personality--but everyone there was "Polish" so there was a sense of national unity (besides they HATED the Russians.)

Yougoslavia is an interesting story. And if I'm not mistaken it seems the economy was slightly like the Chinese is today.

Thanks for getting back.

Tom

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Although it's not entirely accurate, Yugoslavia operated on many mutualist principles, and despite being the source of attack from the USA and USSR it faired pretty well. Living standards were comparable to France.

Here's what someone who lives in Bosnia right now says of Tito. She was born in the 80s, so take that into consideration:


There are many different views regarding Tito here, Dream Theater. However, it is very safe to say these views are overwhelmingly positive in my country - perhaps more so than in any of the other republics.

The positive opinions of him range from viewing him as some sort of infallible idol to sober opinions about how managed to hold the country together. The negative opinions of him are largely experience-based and specific to individual families.

[JimmyJazz]

Nero, this is interesting. While I was looking for books on workers' councils to make an Amazon list, I found quite a few about workers' councils and workers' control in Yugoslavia.

Have you read anything good on the NATO intervention? I've had a few people throw that at me as the supposed final word on the necessity of 'humanitarian intervention', and I haven't been able to refute it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

When i went to slovina mos of the people i talked to said he was good (although as for the dictatorship they said the candidates now are the same and then they had workers councils) also apparently there has only just started being rich and poor people there.

that being said i feel that titoism requires a good dictator (having a dictator sucks whatever but id still pick tito over brown) and when he dies are things not likely to fall apart due to people trying to get into power?

[avantgarde]

Yugoslav 'self-administration' perpetuated regional jingoism and pretty much assured it's own breakup into rival states constantly at war with each other despite being bankrupt. That is what happens when you divide the working class based on region, factory, industry, whatever.

Plus 'Titoism' was financed by Western capital and a market economy existed in the country.

[communard resolution]

Yugoslav 'self-administration' perpetuated regional jingoism and pretty much assured it's own breakup into rival states constantly at war with each other despite being bankrupt. That is what happens when you divide the working class based on region, factory, industry, whatever.

Here's the first to-be-expected, standard issue leftist view of a very complex issue. In a region such as the Balkans, and taking into account its history, I think Tito went as far as he possibly could at that point uniting the different ethnicities in one country while leaving intact the notion (or better: illusion) of relative regional autonomy.

In fact, the Yugoslav administration treated 'regional Jingoisms' very harshly, e.g. the nationalist provocateurs during the 'Croatian Spring'.


Plus 'Titoism' was financed by Western capital and a market economy existed in the country.It traded with the East, it traded with the West. It was not "financed by Western capital".

And yes, it was a mixed economy with various components.

I'm off now - more later.

[avantgarde]

Here's the first to-be-expected, standard issue leftist view of a very complex issue.



It traded with the East, it traded with the West. It was not "financed by Western capital".

And yes, it was a mixed economy with various components.

I'm off now - more later.
Their is no 'mixed economy', there is socialism or there is capitalism, you can only have one ruling class, and thus one economic base.

The lesson of 'Titoism' is that there can be absolutely NO COMPROMISE with capital--period. No "market socialism," no "free trade zones," no retreat from the goal of total and complete elimination of capital and capitalist social relations--period.

[communard resolution]

The lesson of 'Titoism' is that there can be absolutely NO COMPROMISE with capital--period. No "market socialism," no "free trade zones," no retreat from the goal of total and complete elimination of capital and capitalist social relations--period.

No, the lesson of Titoism is that it produced the happiest working class on earth, which is infinitely more important than than anti-revisionist nitpicking.

[avantgarde]

No, the lesson of Titoism is that it produced the happiest working class on earth, which is infinitely more important than than anti-revisionist nitpicking.
So do many first-world capitalist countries in Europe through monopolization and exploitation of the neo-colonial world to 'pamper' their own workers. It seems to me your just a jingoist. I mean even IF the working class in Yugoslavia was kept happy = who cares, it was only possible by importing Western consumer products made with exploited (basically slave) labor.

You think that how the proletariat in ONE country is doing is more important than the proletariat as a whole, THAT is chauvinism, next you'll be telling me that 'Yugoslavian' 'socialism' was 'unique' and more fascist nonsense.

[communard resolution]

It seems to me your just a jingoist.

You're out of your mind.


and more fascist nonsense.

Wow, ten posts in and you've already proven you're incapable of a civil debate without personal attacks. I will therefore ignore all further comments coming from your direction.

I really don't care what it 'seems' to you I am.

[avantgarde]

You're out of your mind.



Wow, ten posts in and you've already proven you're incapable of a civil debate without personal attacks. I will therefore ignore all further comments coming from your direction.

I really don't care what it 'seems' to you I am.
Well it 'seems' to me that the OI is where you belong. It also 'seems' to me that you are another jingoistic tankie obsessed with some historical 'nation'. How about this, take your 'theories' to some RP forum.

[communard resolution]

Well it 'seems' to me that the OI is where you belong.

That's good for you if you think that.

[communard resolution]

How about this, take your 'theories' to some RP forum.

No one cares what you think.

[avantgarde]

No one cares what you think.
Ouch! Talk about personal attacks!

It seems you are oblivious to the fact, or refuse to accept, that Yugoslavian 'socialism' was built on the back of consumer goods from capitalist countries, made with virtual slave labor. Although I doubt you care for all the exploited workers who paid with their sweat for Yugoslavian 'socialism', as in your jingoistic mind all that matters is the YUGOSLAVIAN workers were 'happy' (they sure weren't happy when they were being ethnically cleansed afterwards).

[communard resolution]

Ouch! Talk about personal attacks!

"No one cares what you think" precisely because of your debating style of calling people jingoists, fascists, etc - those are personal attacks. You've instantly disqualified your comments from being taken into consideration, and have therefore failed at enlightening us in regards to the correct path towards socialism (if that was ever your intention).

And you may as well save your breath rather than going into this:


It seems you are oblivious to the fact, or refuse to accept, that Yugoslavian 'socialism' was built on the back of consumer goods from capitalist countries, made with virtual slave labor. Although I doubt you care for all the exploited workers who paid with their sweat for Yugoslavian 'socialism', as in your jingoistic mind all that matters is the YUGOSLAVIAN workers were 'happy' (they sure weren't happy when they were being ethnically cleansed afterwards).because you are not being listened to anymore.

[avantgarde]

"No one cares what you think" precisely because of your debating style of calling people jingoists, fascists, etc - those are personal attacks. You've instantly disqualified your comments from being taken into consideration, and have therefore failed at enlightening us in regards to the correct path towards socialism (if that was ever your intention).

And you may as well save your breath rather than going into this:

because you are not being listened to anymore.
My 'debating style' is simply calling out reactionism and petty-jingoism when I see it, you obviously cannot handle criticism so you instantly fall back on the 'im being persecuted!!' ploy, which I can see right through.

I AM calling you a fascist because that's clearly what you are.

[communard resolution]

My 'debating style' is simply calling out reactionism and petty-jingoism when I see it, you obviously cannot handle criticism so you instantly fall back on the 'im being persecuted!!' ploy, which I can see right through.

:lol: Sure. Just as you already know what I will say before I say it ("next you'll be telling me... blah blah blah") and comment on it in advance. Not only are you a True Socialist, you're also a genius. Then again, you're not called the 'avantgarde' for nothing.


I AM calling you a fascist because that's clearly what you are.:laugh:

Clearly. And you're a clown. And a paranoid and choleric one at that.

[Plagueround]

My 'debating style' is simply calling out reactionism and petty-jingoism when I see it, you obviously cannot handle criticism so you instantly fall back on the 'im being persecuted!!' ploy, which I can see right through.

I AM calling you a fascist because that's clearly what you are.

Look at this, a member posts their experiences with a country that actually attempted a socialist/communist system, the impact it had on the people, admits to their flaws, and attempts to provide an analysis of what happened, and some fucking "new user" comes along and rips them apart with standard "party line" insults. You're likely a sock puppet attacking Nero in fear of revealing your normal user name, or maybe you are just a dense chickenshit. Either way, you're wasting precious bandwidth.

[avantgarde]

Look at this, a member posts their experiences with a country that actually attempted a socialist/communist system, the impact it had on the people, admits to their flaws, and attempts to provide an analysis of what happened, and some fucking "new user" comes along and rips them apart with standard "party line" insults. You're likely a sock puppet attacking Nero in fear of revealing your normal user name, or maybe you are just a dense chickenshit. Either way, you're wasting precious bandwidth.
Wow, well as I can see ultralefts love to insult members in place of argument. It is because of the theoretical bankrupt position of Tito and the Yugoslav 'communism' that Yugoslavia abandoned the world revolutionary process in favor or the 'non aligned movement', the favorite home of any red-tinted nationalist country you can think of. Furthermore he fails to explain how a system which is based on importing goods made with slave-capitalist labor is 'just' or the appropriate action for a supposedly 'socialist' country. By importing so many consumer goods, Yugoslavia was just pushing up the exploitation of the workers in the neo-colonial world to produce these items.

You fail to see capitalism as a global system. That is why it's important for socialist countries not become neo-colonial outposts depended on capitalism, but to develop their own nation industries,

Funnily enough, another Balkan country, Albania, took exactly this line.

[Bud Struggle]

Funnily enough, another Balkan country, Albania, took exactly this line.

What line are they taking now?



Bush Street

Most countries avoid naming streets after living persons for the things these people may yet do in their lifetime that necessitate hasty renaming, but in the case of US president Bush, Albanians are pretty sure nothing more can go wrong, and have named an important city-centre street after him.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Red_or_Dead]

It seems you are oblivious to the fact, or refuse to accept, that Yugoslavian 'socialism' was built on the back of consumer goods from capitalist countries, made with virtual slave labor.

While it is true that Yugoslavia did import certain goods from the west, it is downright ridiculous to claim that the entire Yugoslavian socialism was based on them. Yugoslavia had a strong domestic industry, that could more or less take care of the domestic needs, or in some cases even exceed it, and export consumer goods. The widespread importation of foreign goods did not start until the late 1980s when Yugosocialism was already fading.


Funnily enough, another Balkan country, Albania, took exactly this line.

And funnily enough, Albania was traditionaly the poorest European country, with a level of repression that even the post-Stalin USSR paled in comparison. It goes beyond just establishing domestic industry. It has to be done with workers democracy, freedom of expression and it sure as hell helps if the country isnt alone and isolated.


No, the lesson of Titoism is that it produced the happiest working class on earth, which is infinitely more important than than anti-revisionist nitpicking.

Happiest maybe, but that happines was bought with credits. At the end of the 80s Yugoslavia was one of the most in-debt countries in the world. Infact, due to the inflation, we called ourselves the "nation of millionares". Of course, that was hardly a good thing.


Here's the first to-be-expected, standard issue leftist view of a very complex issue. In a region such as the Balkans, and taking into account its history, I think Tito went as far as he possibly could at that point uniting the different ethnicities in one country while leaving intact the notion (or better: illusion) of relative regional autonomy.


Illusion would be a much better expression. Tito never did enough to supress nationalism, which was still rampant both in culture and in the educational system (even though they somehow mixed it with socialism). Of course, when we are talking about a region that is a home to several diferent ethnic groups, three major religions (Catholicism, Islam, Orthodox Christianity) and has a history of violent ethnic and religious conflicts... Well, it was a dumb thing to do, to say the least, and I still dont get it how Tito and CPY could screw things up so bad.


Look at this, a member posts their experiences with a country that actually attempted a socialist/communist system, the impact it had on the people, admits to their flaws, and attempts to provide an analysis of what happened, and some fucking "new user" comes along and rips them apart with standard "party line" insults. You're likely a sock puppet attacking Nero in fear of revealing your normal user name, or maybe you are just a dense chickenshit. Either way, you're wasting precious bandwidth.

Agreed.

[avantgarde]

Anyone who uses 'freedom of expression' without any class context instantly looses my interest. The nature of classes in the state is irreconcilable, meaning that you cannot have 'worker's freedom' unless it's accompanied by 'repression of the bourgeois', the construction of socialism can only occur with the liquidation of it's enemies.

[Bud Struggle]

Anyone who uses 'freedom of expression' without any class context instantly looses my interest. The nature of classes in the state is irreconcilable, meaning that you cannot have 'worker's freedom' unless it's accompanied by 'repression of the bourgeois', the construction of socialism can only occur with the liquidation of it's enemies.

Damn, you are on the fast track for the Commie Club! :lol:

[Red_or_Dead]

Anyone who uses 'freedom of expression' without any class context instantly looses my interest. The nature of classes in the state is irreconcilable, meaning that you cannot have 'worker's freedom' unless it's accompanied by 'repression of the bourgeois', the construction of socialism can only occur with the liquidation of it's enemies.


I agree. But not if by enemies you mean those that speak up against what they think is wrong.

As for the repression of the bourgeois... That would be done during the revolution, when the bourgeois are striped of their power over the MoP. In socialism, the most we can do about them is to prevent them from getting back into power.

[Killfacer]

In Michael Palin's new europe (for those of you not from the UK, its basically a ridiculously nice bloke from Monty Python (a comedy) visiting eastern european countries) he is in the former yugoslavia and he meets some proper tito lovers. They all have flags and they get someone to dress up as him and applaud. Its a great honour apparently.

[Baconator]

I have background from the X-Yugo but oddly enough I endorse anarcho-capitalism. Heh.

Pozdrav svima iz bivse Juge.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That's not surprising. There's a large neo-fascist movement in some of the republics. You probably inherited some of their political traits. :laugh:

[Baconator]

That's not surprising. There's a large neo-fascist movement in some of the republics. You probably inherited some of their political traits. :laugh:

Actually thats quite insulting and not really funny. You're saying I support ultra-nationalism, religious bigotry, and wholesale genocide of various ethnic groups.( You clearly are laughing and trivializing these things) You know better than that and you still decide to insult without substantiating any of these claims which just makes you a bigoted prick. You've earned another troll point.

[JimmyJazz]

The lesson of 'Titoism' is that there can be absolutely NO COMPROMISE with capital--period. No "market socialism," no "free trade zones," no retreat from the goal of total and complete elimination of capital and capitalist social relations--period.

Market socialism does completely and totally eliminate privately owned capital and capitalist social relations. It leaves a market for consumer goods, but it abolishes the markets for capital and labor.

[communard resolution]

Sorry, been in and out today. I'm a member of the CPUSA. But my day job though is owning a factory among other stuff.

If people in positions such as yours are involved with communist politics, that can only be a good thing. I remember you roughly outlined the structure and plans for your factory, and I found some analogies with Yugoslavian workers councils.

The question is: would you be prepared to give up the ownership of the factory (not right now in this present situation, but in a future scenario) and leave it up to workers to run it all by themselves? Or would you always want to remain in the position you are holding now?

In other words: would you want to take things several steps further?


Mostly I'm interested in--it seems to me--that idea there that communism onder Tito was a cult of personality. It just died right after he died.Cult of personality alone doesn't govern a country. While Tito's reign was essential to the smooth running of Yugoslavian socialism, I don't think it instantly died on 4th May 1980 - it was a process of decline that spanned another decade.


But did "Comunism" work or was it just the iron will of Tito?I'm in the process of finding out. Of course, it was meant to be socialism rather than communism, and as far as I'm concerned, it worked better than in a lot of other countries. Workers had a lot more power in the factories -the voice of an unskilled worker counted as much as anybody else's who worked there, representatives were elected democratically by sovereign workers councils. Nobody could get fired unless a majority of workers decided they didn't wish to work alongside the co-worker in question any longer.

It would be interesting to try and research to what extent Yugoslav type socialism could serve as a transitory stage and what mechanisms to implement to prevent it from deteriorating next time around.

Real communism... you know, it may come some day, it may not. But if we are going to endure a transitory stage for several decades or longer, we might as well have as much fun waiting as we can. And I'm convinced waiting for communism was a lot more fun for the common Yugoslav than, say, for the common Albanian.


That darned Ronnie was a trouble maker, that's for sure! :lol: But while The US might have had a small part in Yougoslavia's troubles--the problem was still festering in the country and the people it self to fall apart so devistatingly and so suddenly.While I haven't got any detailed information (as I said, the US document in question is not accessible to the general public), I wouldn't underestimate the USA's contribution to the SFRY's downfall.

Wiki says:


In 1989, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Yugoslav federal Premier Ante Markovic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Markovic) went to Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington) to meet with President George Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Walker_Bush), negotiating for a new financial aid package. In return for assistance, Yugoslavia agreed to even more sweeping economic reforms, including a new devalued currency, another wage freeze, sharp cuts in government spending, and the elimination of socially owned, worker- managed companies. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugos lavia#cite_note-2) The Belgrade nomenclature (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgrade_nomenclature&action=edit&redlink=1), with the assistance of Western advisers, had laid the groundwork for Markovic's mission by implementing beforehand many of the required reforms, including a major liberalization of foreign investment legislation.
Really interesting. I'm from Poland (well my parents are) myself and it seemed that the death of Communism was pretty cut and dry there--the people just didn't want it. No big shot leaders--or cult of the personality--but everyone there was "Polish" so there was a sense of national unity (besides they HATED the Russians.) Yes, I know. I'm originally from Poland too. Poland was not a great place to live during 'socialism', and you cannot really expect people to spend their lives in a dump under the pretense that 'real communism' will come some time after their deaths.

I haven't replied to a lot of questions posed by other posters. Sorry I can't do that right now, but I will try in the course of this week.

[hajduk]

Yugoslavia was definitly okay like state for living,we have some kind of socialism who give us lot of god ways for living as a working class or like people who doing other jobs whatever,but the problem was in nationalist diaspora who been organised himself after the W.W.II was finished,moust of those nationalist (Chetnicks,Ustashas) who was colaborate with fascist are escape in Canada,South America and Australia and from those centers are spread nationalist hate to Yugoslavia and Tito was wery careful about collective national identity for yugoslav people and didnt aloud any kind of nationalism who will make vaves and he punished anyone who start to talk in public about that,but those war criminals are start to make terroristic attacks in Yugoslavia (you have good book about this from Djordje Licina "Erased space") and also start to make terroristic attacks in world like for example Zvonko Busic who was kidnapped the plain in the manner to free one those ustashas from prison in Naked Island,so for Tito was very hard to fight against hidden nationalism who was actualy fascism and he make mistake when he was thought that new breed of politics in Yugoslavia will keep Yugoslavia as a state but he didnt know that new breed which was make by the people Slobodan Milosevic,Alija Izetbegovic and Franjo Tudjman been full of nationalist hate germs who just wait for good ocasion to spread trough yugoslav people

[communard resolution]

Nero, this is interesting. While I was looking for books on workers' councils to make an Amazon list, I found quite a few about workers' councils and workers' control in Yugoslavia.

Could you tell me the titles of those books?

[communard resolution]

Have you read anything good on the NATO intervention? I've had a few people throw that at me as the supposed final word on the necessity of 'humanitarian intervention', and I haven't been able to refute it.

As for the NATO bombing of Belgrade, I only spoke to people in Serbia about it - obviously, their opinion wasn't a good one.

As for what I heard about the UN peacekeepers, apparently they didn't do very much at all. They basically hung around waiting until it was all over so they could grab their piece of the cake, maybe raped the odd woman to pass the time. On this, people from all former YU republics I spoke to seem to agree.

[communard resolution]

And funnily enough, Albania was traditionaly the poorest European country, with a level of repression that even the post-Stalin USSR paled in comparison.

Not to mention their abortion policies, but I guess we can just file that under general repression.


Illusion would be a much better expression. Tito never did enough to supress nationalism, which was still rampant both in culture and in the educational system (even though they somehow mixed it with socialism).You're the first person I hear saying that. Could you tell me more about it? Of course nationalisms aren't going to disappear overnight, but I cannot imagine Tito not doing anything to suppress it?

From what I know, he reacted very harshly to any manifestations of nationalism - see Croatian Spring 1971.

[hajduk]

Not to mention their abortion policies, but I guess we can just file that under general repression.

You're the first person I hear saying that. Could you tell me more about it? Of course nationalisms aren't going to disappear overnight, but I cannot imagine Tito not doing anything to suppress it?

From what I know, he reacted very harshly to any manifestations of nationalism - see Croatian Spring 1971.Croatian spring was actualy in 1968 and in 1971 was just another episode of 68,and Tito was very hard on nationalism and any kind of critical oppinion about government so in that manner he opened the prison called Naked island in Adriatic sea some sort of yugoslav Alcatraz,which was in the first time been reserved for stallinist and later for those who in public speak about national identity of some nations in Yugoslavia

[communard resolution]

Croatian spring was actualy in 1968 and in 1971 was just another episode of 68,and Tito was very hard on nationalism and any kind of critical oppinion about government so in that manner he opened the prison called Naked island in Adriatic sea some sort of yugoslav Alcatraz,which was in the first time been reserved for stallinist and later for those who in public speak about national identity of some nations in Yugoslavia

Yeah, some Croat nationalists published textbooks on 'Croatian' (rather than Serbo-Croatian) language, demanded greater autonomy so all the profits coming from the tourist industry would remain in Croatia rather than being distributed across Yugoslavia, and they wanted to be able to sing their old nationalist songs.

When shown documentary footage of this movement, Tito apparently jumped up in anger shouting: "What do these fools want?", and one cannot help but agree with him.

[Bronsky]

I agree with some of what you say ….. and just to add bit more flesh to your post. I always thought Tito did a magnificent job holding the ethnic divisions in check, some times too ruthlessly but the equality was pretty evident for those who chose to see it.

After Tito’s death it was decided the Presidency of the Federation would pass between politicians from the separate republics. I am not clear on the length of time each President was allowed, but as you say it worked for a while.

Like many events around the late 80s early 90s the break up of the Soviet Union had enormous effects on the satellite states.
Coupled with a Germany breaking out of its diplomatic shell and the move towards a more integrated European Community. Yugoslavia or those parts that looked tasty to the Western Powers namely Croatia and Slovenia were subjected to pressure to break away from the Federation.

Croatia after listening to whispers from German diplomats argued that as she contributed more to the wealth of the Federation she should have more of a say in the running of the economy if not she wanted out. Slovenia took her queue from the Croats.

I think that is where the crisis began and Croatia was never going to listen to Belgrade after having been given the option of joining the newly formed EU.

The Western media like to forget that the first “ethnic cleansing” that took place was by the Croats against the Serbs around Krajina. The strong nationalist tendencies in Croatia came to the front the old symbols of the Nazi collaborators the Ustashia. The large number of Serbians living in Croatia felt they had no choice but to take up arms to defend themselves. Memories of the real genocide committed by Croatians fascists against Serbs in 1941 was still alive.

Poor old Milosevic, faced with Croatia being funded heavily by wealthy ex pats, Germany and the Vatican, he was in a dilemma. Take the Croat separatists on in a civil war or negotiate some sort of separation for them. This is were the USA came into play.
Warren Zimmermann the US Ambassador in Belgrade warned the Yugoslav leaders not to use force to suppress the armed and illegal Croatian paramilitaries.


So here you had the leadership of a Federation faced with an illegal break away, that was backed up by armed nationalist forces who were opposed to a large section of the population, who were committing acts of terrorism throughout the country, killings and creating thousands of refugees, but they could do nothing to stop it. This was Reagan’s Directive put into practice


Armed only with a diplomatic weapon a weak one at that. Milosevic argued that only the people who joined together to form Yugoslavia could decide to take it apart. Self determination was the right of all the people not the leadership of the republics, in the complex frame work of the federation’s laws, this is how it should have been. Milosevic claimed the Serbs in Croatia also had the right to a referendum on if they wanted to break from the federation and live in a separate Croatia.


Those who support Milosevic or at least shun away from demonising him point to this as one of many arguments against the accusation he was intent on a Greater Serbia, the opposite is the case if the facts are brought out and not distorted as they were in the 90s.


While attempting to bring the Croatian leadership to the table events took the decision out of his hands. Violent pro Croat separation demonstrations in Gospic of some 15,000 attacked the Yugoslavian Peoples Army barracks. From that point on there was only one way this crisis was going. Milosevic was a headless chicken compared to the heavily backed leader of the Creation Nationalists Trujman

[Bronsky]

Although it's not entirely accurate, Yugoslavia operated on many mutualist principles, and despite being the source of attack from the USA and USSR it faired pretty well. Living standards were comparable to France.

Here's what someone who lives in Bosnia right now says of Tito. She was born in the 80s, so take that into consideration:



I am not sure the “Workers Councils” in Yugoslavia were actually that. Workers Self Management was more like union shop floor committees that had a members on the board and helped in making certain defined decisions. The workers did not have full control of the production or distribution and each was kept as a separate factory committee never forming a combine in their trade or areas.

[wogboy]

Congratulations on a great topic:thumbup:

Flicking through the posts I can't help but notice that very little discussion has been made regarding the role of the JNA, the once great multi-ethnic army of Yugoslavia. As long as the country remained united, the existence of the JNA meant that Yugoslavia was untouchable (and Tito knew this). It is by virtue of its mult-ethnicity that enemies of the Partizans were defeated in WW2. Threats of foreign invasion in the years following made the JNA even stronger. The army was a symbol of Yugoslav pride, and it is no coincidence that the decline of the country coincided with the internal destruction of the JNA. There is no way any single republic could secede against a multi-ethnic fighting force>>>it has not the numbers or resources to do it.

As far as cracking down on hot head nationalists during Tito's time is concerned, I am a great supporter for it. Tito managed to avoid what we saw in the early 90s quite easily, and at the time received overwhelming domestic support for his actions.