On a scale of 1 to based. How based was this dude?
>Personally leads Yugoslavia through her darkest moments of WW2 with little to no Soviet assistance
>Following WW2, unifies Yugoslavia under a single party.
>Has the balls of steel to defy Stalin at nearly every turn.
>Gave zero fucks about the Percentages Agreement and openly supported the National Liberation Front during the Greek Civil War
>Successfully implemented a based version of market socialism that defies porky's logic
>Held Yugoslavia together as a single ethnic state with his bare hands
Yugoslavia reverted to capitalism.
>had labor markets
>no economic planning
>anarchy in production
The only good thing was more economic self-management, besides that it was shit
It wasn’t socialism but it wasn’t capitalism either. There was no wage labour and thus no capitalist-worker exploitation after all.
>Says fuck you to US and USSR and founded the non-aligned movement
Dude was absolutely based af.
Shit. I forgot about that part. Thanks fam
Tito said fuck you to Stalin, yet was on good terms revisionists Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
Yugoslavia had the dubious honor of being the first revisionist and social imperialist state. It had imperialist ambitions to annex Albania and Bulgaria.
Tito was not a communist. He was an opportunistic NATO ally during the Cold War. He enriched himself with IMF loans while imposing austerity on his people. I'd compare him to Trotsky, Khrushchev,and Deng. All extolled Marxist principles while betraying them.
>Tito was not a communist. He was an opportunistic NATO ally during the Cold War
Don’t be retarded, he was firmly neutral and pursued relationships with both sides to Yugoslavia’s benefit. You’re also forgetting that the whole split with Stalin happened because Tito refused to allow the Greek communists to be sold out to British imperialists and Nazi collaborators. Yugoslavia was kicked out of the cominform because they refused to tolerate blatant Great Power chauvinism on the part of the Soviets, who carved up Europe with the British like it was still the fucking 19th century.
>Tito was not a communist. He was an opportunistic NATO ally during the Cold War.
Fun fact, he made a secret pact with NATO to have Fascists build underground bases in Croatia.
No really, look it up.
He was a good commander but I don't know anything beyond that. Any good reading on Tito/Yugoslavia?
>Tito was a NATO ally
The non aligned movements sole mission statement was guaranteeing the independence of states that were neither NATO / WP Allies
Neither of these men "betrayed" Marxism
This does admittedly sound very cool in terms of trying to check Soviet proto-imperialist tendancies. But "non-aligned" does seem like a shitty excuse for not supporting the only existing form of socialism against the western aggression that was constantly trying to and eventually succeeded horrifically at toppling it. It seems like they could have criticized certain aspects of the USSR and their bloc without some mock "centrist" position that sounds like it ended up tacitly supporting US imperialism. I know very little about the situation I'm mostly basing my understanding off of what others are saying here so anyone feel free to correct me.
Why would you not support the WP?
Some Marxists such as Tito Mao and Hoxha began to view the WP (And the USSR's leading role in it) as 'Social-Imperialism' and 'The Soviet empire' and believed that the USSR dominated the other WP states in ways similar to imperial vassals
Thus why Mao ruled out joining CMEA / WP
Why Hoxha declared Albanian neutrality after 1968
And why Tito along with India founded a seperate power bloc (NAM)
>But "non-aligned" does seem like a shitty excuse for not supporting the only existing form of socialism
Except it was the Soviets who expelled the Yugoslavs from the Comminform for not towing the line on Greece, it wasn’t Tito who initiated the split. Stalin made an agreement with Churchill that gave the British a free hand in Greece, and they immediately proceeded to set up a government headed by Nazi collaborators and brutally crush the KKE. Stalin refused to help them, and when Tito kept smuggling them weapons and openly criticized Stalin for abandoning them, Yugoslavia was expelled.
>It seems like they could have criticized certain aspects of the USSR and their bloc without some mock "centrist" position that sounds like it ended up tacitly supporting US imperialism.
While I understand the logic of this argument, it seems to me like it’s inevitable conclusion is that during the Cold War every communist should have just acted as a lackey for the Soviet state regardless of how it conflicted with the interests of workers or socialism in their own countries, or the principles of socialism in general. It reduces the entirety of the worker’s movements to agents of Soviet geopolitical interests.
>such as Tito
Tito and the Party which he ended up guiding for almost four decades (The league of communists of Yugoslavia) never abandoned Marxism as its guiding ideology and continued to develop a socialist economy
>Except it was the Soviets who expelled the Yugoslavs from the Comminform for not towing the line on Greece, it wasn’t Tito who initiated the split. Stalin made an agreement with Churchill that gave the British a free hand in Greece, and they immediately proceeded to set up a government headed by Nazi collaborators and brutally crush the KKE. Stalin refused to help them, and when Tito kept smuggling them weapons and openly criticized Stalin for abandoning them, Yugoslavia was expelled.
Damn that does look really fucking bad for the USSR, what was Stalin or his govs excuse for this?
Well if I’m going to be fair to Stalin, the deal also included a British promise not to undermine communism elsewhere in the Balkans. It was pure realpolitik on Stalin’s part, and could be defended from that perspective. However it also shows that far from being motivated by any kind of reactionary tendency, the Tito-Stalin split was caused by Tito’s refusal to reject the betrayal of the Greek revolution. Of course that didn’t stop the Soviets and their modern day brain dead followers from trying to paint Tito as some kind of reactionary for refusing to abandon the Greeks.
> Tito and the Party which he ended up guiding for almost four decades (The league of communists of Yugoslavia) never abandoned Marxism
Anon, did you - by any chance - learn about Marxism from youtube?
What is there wrong with that statement? It is factually correct in literally every way
The LCY established a Socialist economy and a Dictatorship of the Proletariate within the framework of Marxism-Leninism
>Stalin then turned to the uprising in Greece: ‘The uprising in Greece will have to fold up.’ (He used for this the word svernut, which means literally to roll up.) ‘Do you believe’ - he turned to Kardelj - ‘in the success of the uprising in Greece ?’ Kardelj replied, ‘If foreign intervention does not grow, and if serious political and military errors are not made.’ Stalin went on, without paying attention to Kardelj’s opinion: ‘If, if! No, they have no prospect of success at all. What, do you think that Great Britain and the United States - the United States, the most powerful state in the world - will permit you to break their line of communication in the Mediterranean? Nonsense. And we have no navy. The uprising in Greece must be stopped, and as quickly as possible.’
>Someone mentioned the recent successes of the Chinese Communists. But Stalin remained adamant: ‘Yes, the Chinese comrades have succeeded, but in Greece there is an entirely different situation. The United States is directly engaged there - the strongest state in the world. China is a different case, relations in the Far East are different. True, we, too, can make a mistake. Here, when the war with Japan ended, we invited the Chinese comrades to agree on a means of reaching a modus vivendi with Chiang Kai-shek. They agreed with us in word, but in deed they did it their own way when they got home: they mustered their forces and struck. It has been shown that they were right, and we were not. But Greece is a different case - we should not hesitate, but let us put an end to the Greek uprising.’
>Not even today am I clear on Stalin’s motives in condemning the uprising in Greece. Perhaps he thought that to create still another Communist state - Greece - in the Balkans, when not even the others were reliable and subservient, could hardly have been in his interest, to say nothing of possible international complications, which were becoming more and more threatening and even if they did not drag him into war, they might endanger positions he had already won. Stalin’s motive for trying to pacify the Chinese revolution was undoubtedly opportunism in his foreign policy. He may well also have anticipated future danger to his own work and to his own empire from the new Communist great power, especially since there were no prospects of subordinating it internally. At any rate, he knew that every revolution, just because it is new, becomes a new epicentre of revolution and shapes its own government and state, and this was what he feared in China, especially as it was a phenomenon as portentous as the October Revolution.
From Djilas' 'Conversations with Stalin' recalling the meeting between Stalin, Molotov and co. with the Yugoslav and Bulgarian delegations.
>best socialist country ever to exist
>socialists trying to find ways to present it as a capitalist country
Whose side are you on, fuckers? But go argue how fucking Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were Real Communists(tm) who established Communist Paradise(R). For fucks sake.
>best socialist country ever to exist
And it died with Tito, Yugoslavia literally died with Tito, how can you say it was the "best" socialist country to ever exist when it didn't outlive it's leader?
>when it didn't outlive it's leader?
You just invented that criteria. Why should that even be a valid metric to measure 'success'?
And people will argue that when Stalin died an era of anti-Stalinism and revisionism was ushered. The Soviet Union, according to many people here, didn't outlive its leader, either.
>no wage labour
Honestly I feel like Stalin was in the right here.
>best socialist country
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the DDR and the USSR all had a higher HDI than Yugoslavia in 1990.
Wage labour did exist but that does not disqualify Yugoslavia from having a Socialist economy / state in place
>Honestly I feel like Stalin was in the right here.
Does that mean you feel the same way about Spain then?
>best socialist country ever to exist
But dude it had markets therefore it must be bad!!!!
GOTTA SOURCE ON THAT BUCKO?
Becuase that sounds like some latter-day SerbNat bullshit who cry about Tito was a Croat fascist that obressed the boor Srbski.
>You’re also forgetting that the whole split with Stalin happened because Tito refused to allow the Greek communists to be sold out to British imperialists and Nazi collaborators.
That's a funny way of saying "wanted to annex Albania."
Now you're just plain lying, anon. How about you just read the damn Resolution: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1948cominform-yugo1.asp
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Yugo history can attest to the truth in that document regarding the prevalence of nationalist sentiments embraced by the party. The casual chauvinism with which Yugoslavs regarded the Eastern Bloc isn't something you'll see mentioned in these 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧market socialism🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 circlejerks. Read Hoxha.
>That's a funny way of saying "wanted to annex Albania."
But Stalin and the Soviet position was in support of a Yugoslav-Bulgarian-Albanian federation? as was Hoxha at the time
Reminder the BCP wanted to dissolve their own country so much that after they couldn't join Yugoslavia (due to the Tito-Stalin split), they applied to join the USSR THREE FUCKING TIMES.
Damn. I never had figured Stalin for such a coward
Stalin was good buddies with Churchill so signed the naughty document: which gave Stalin eastern europe in exchange for Britain having strong ties with Yugoslavia and Greece. While the influence in Yugoslavia never materialised beyond a diplomatic level they basically ran Greece for a decade and a bit. Then Cyprus happened…
>I never had figured Stalin for such a coward
Have you ever paid attention to any of Soviet foreign policy? Or the Comintern policies? Or the Comintern itself being dissolved entirely to appease porky?
I wouldn't exactly call it 'cowardice' per se, but there was a very strong attitude against any revolutions or shake-ups that might disturb the geopolitical status quo or lead to a direct confrontation between the USSR and the capitalist powers. Be it greece, china, spain, france, poland or japan the orders from the Comintern for the local communist parties were always to not take power whenever an opportunity to try presented itself.
Stalin's policy was always to consolidate an strengthen the USSR as an unassailable bastion of socialism at all costs. If there was a 'long-term plan' there at all it was to wait capitalism out, make a better society that was safe from imperialism within the iron curtain and hope it would survive its isolation for longer than capitalism could survive itself.
Alas they didn't make it by some 20/30 years.
i do think that if only they'd made it just that bit longer the plan could've worked and capitalism would've died by now with the USSR modern and ready to pick up the pieces and bring about communism
>But Stalin and the Soviet position was in support of a Yugoslav-Bulgarian-Albanian federation?
Indeed they were. However, Tito's position was not a federation of equals, but just adding Bulgaria and Albania as Yugo republics to be ruled from Belgrade. Once Hoxha realised that, he backed the fuck out. In fact, the whole shitfest of a centralised-but-not-really federation Yugo had going on was the absolute worst way to go about preserving a state divided by ethnic lines.
Seems to me the Soviets were more than okay with the Yugoslav proposal though, at least that's the conclusion that was arrived at during their negotiations.
>the whole shitfest of a centralised-but-not-really federation Yugo had going on was the absolute worst way to go about preserving a state divided by ethnic lines.
I cant say I know much about the situation but the multiple genocides that came with balkanization seem to support that there was something fundamentally wrong with their way of organizing a multiethnic state. Of course some revival of nationalism, even extreme nationalism, is expected when reactionary forces take over but balkanization was such a bloody clusterfuck it doesnt seem possible that the Yugoslav ethnic policies didnt have some kind of contribution there.
Personally, I consider any testimony by Đilas to be on the same level as Hoxha, ie. questionable unless confirmed by other sources. At the time he wrote Conversations With Stalin, he had every reason to slander pretty much any communist he had come in touch with beforehand.
Also, if I recall correctly, an interpretation of that passage by Ivo Banac in his book about the split is that Stalin was trying to manipulate the Yugoslav leadership into openly announcing their chauvinist-nationalist intentions in order to denounce them with the full support of other communist parties. Seems legit to me.
As far as I understand Tito had decent domestic policy, but poor foreign, including friendship with west and hostility with socialist east,
One simple fact: unequal development.
To paraphrase Srećko Horvat: at the beginning of Yugoslavia the wealth gap (infrastructure, production capability, etc.) between Kosovo and Slovenia was 1:3; at the end of Yugoslavia it was 1:8.
This is what the market does. This is what Marx meant by anarchy in production and distribution. If I were a 21st century market "socialist" my number one priority would be to tackle this fact and come up with ways to counter this tendency of the market as best as I could, preparing for the inevitable.
If you think that 70+ years of a market regime is normal for a communist-oriented country, you are mistaken, deluded even. At best the market can be a transitionary phase for a socialist country.
One more thing: the resulting ethnic tensions and the inevitable breakup – under a Marxist lens, at least – can not but be explained but by said uneven development: the federated ethnicities/cultures reacted to economic realities, and expressed them through chauvinism.
Every attempted explanation that tries to put it in terms of one or the other people's (/leader's) fault is completely unmarxist in its method.
Deal with it.
See also: second part of this book (from p.55 onward).
Please don't put Dilas and Hoxha on the same level.
Dilas was your typical opportunist back in his youth, starting as a self-proclaimed Stalinist. After falling out with the party he suddenly realizes that "nomenclature:bad" and writes his theory about the "New class," wherein he introduces the term "red bourgeoisie:" a supposed new class that dresses itself in red clothing – a position completely in opposition to the Marxist method (for one, the nomenclature did not own the means of production).
His critique of the bureaucracy, etc. is the usual run-of-the-mill contrarianism. This is not to say that there was no problem with the bureaucracy – for from it –, but that his rejection of the bureaucracy in a modern, industrial, and urbanized society was misguided. We simply need it, but we need better, more accountable versions of it.
>for from it
far from it
Thanks for the book comrade.
Thank me after you've read it.
>That's a funny way of saying "wanted to annex Albania."
That’s not what the split was about.
On a general level, you're absolutely right. Đilas was an absolute opportunist brainlet when compared to Hoxha who was actually a Marxist.
However, I do remain somewhat skeptical regarding Hoxha's memoirs, mostly due to the fact he was never willing to engage in self-criticism. The most glaring is the way he described his relationship with the Chinese right before the Sino-Soviet split. Because those memoirs were written after Albania's split with the Chinese, he tried to paint this picture of having been suspicious of them from the very start, rather unconvincingly imo.
>taking anything written by Enver “Cuba is imperialist and the Mujahideen are good” Hoxha seriously
While his theories about social imperialism are pretty shit, his book on how the Yugo economy works is actually quite decent. If for nothing else then because of the numerous times he quotes Kardelj (whose works are incredibly difficult to find in English).
I strongly believe that if non-Yugo anons on leftypol could actually read the utter shit Kardelj wrote and passed on as Marxist economic theory, Titoposters would be laughed off the website for good.
I'm totally unversed in Albanian communist history. (Let's be honest here: it is somewhat arcane historically…) What you are talking about seems entirely possible to me. (I'd rather us restrict ourselves to the topic at hand, hence:)
More on Dilas:
I know that it is somewhat of a fallacious kind of argumentation, but here it goes. To look at the 'essence' of any kind of leftist theory, just look at its later followers.
I'm from the region of post-socialist Eastern-Europe, and it is typically anarchists and leftcoms who take Dilas as sacrosanct. Their typical thinking is: "really existing socialism was shit, therefore Dilas' analysis was correct. Down with the red bourgeoisie!"
Needless to say, these pseudo-comrades substitute actual Marxist analysis for a 'proper Name' (not accidentally praised at the time by the West). For them this person's account, which 'proves' their own biases and superficial analysis, is 'objective.'
One example would be G.M. Tamás, from Hungary.
>expresso Stalinist source
Not worth paying attention to
>dozens of worthy posts to reply to
>posts tired memes
Makes one THUNK
>look it up
>not just providing a source
>I strongly believe that if non-Yugo anons on leftypol could actually read the utter shit Kardelj wrote and passed on as Marxist economic theory, Titoposters would be laughed off the website for good.
I wouldn’t disagree, I don’t think it’s really up for debate that market socialism isn’t socialism, although I’d argue that it’s not capitalism either. What irks me about people attacking Tito is when they try to claim that neutrality is equivalent to being pro-Western, or deny that the USSR had a highly chauvinistic attitude to its allies in Europe which contributed to the split. As far as Yugoslavia’s ambitions in Albania are concerned, as abhorrent as they may have been, they don’t mean that the Soviet attitude to Yugoslavia wasn’t itself paternalistic and un-socialist. I think Mao actually made a point to this effect at the time, arguing that Yugoslavia was both the victim and perpetrator of national chauvinism, from the USSR and towards Albania respectively.
>expecting more from an obvious shitpost
Tbh, I had no idea Đilas still had clout with left circles today. In Yugo, he's the dissident darling of liberals and other "intellectual anti-communists," but not much else.
>Yugoslavia was both the victim and perpetrator of national chauvinism, from the USSR and towards Albania respectively
I like this take, haven't heard it before.
I might be wrong, but I actually think a degree of paternalism from the USSR was warranted (or at the very least, excusable) after WWII. The Party of October was sure to have a better grasp of how to run a socialist state than parties with zero experience in statecraft.
Yugoslavia in particular would have benefited from looking up to the USSR more. There's a reason why there were distinct Communist Party branches for Ukraine and Belarus, while Russia didn't have one of its own. Yugo should have adopted the same model, and not have allowed Serbia to have a distinct branch. Doing so would have allowed for more stable governance without constant accusations of Serb hegemony that slowly set the stage for the whole thing to fall apart. Instead, you ended up with everyone else being afraid of Serb hegemony, while the Serbs were afraid everyone else wanted to carve them up. Recipe for disaster.
>Tbh, I had no idea Đilas still had clout with left circles today. In Yugo, he's the dissident darling of liberals and other "intellectual anti-communists," but not much else.
It's pretty much the same everywhere in post-socialist Eastern-Europe, sadly. The groups are threefold:
>uncritical and nostalgic "communists"
>and a very few 21st century communists
The intellectual I alluded to, for instance, believes himself to be an ancom, while daily supporting socdems, idpol, etc., even going as far as participating in funding "Marxist" parties every four years or so. Total dismay.
>allowed Serbia to have a distinct branch. Doing so would have allowed for more stable governance without constant accusations of Serb hegemony that slowly set the stage for the whole thing to fall apart
As I said before (search: uneven development) this is not a proper Marxist take. You are literally moving the goalpost from economic analysis to a supranational, political one. Stop it.
Unequal development does not necessarily result in civil war and genocide. To detach the economic from the political is anything but Marxist. A better political structure would have made it harder for party structures to be co-opted by chauvinist wreckers, for one. Not saying that it would have saved Yugoslavia, just that it might have averted years of needless bloodshed.
>saying fuck you to the USSR
>a good thing
If the USSR didn’t want it’s allies in Eastern Europe to tell them to fuck off then they shouldn’t have treated them the way they did.
the ussr reverted to capitalism also. Self management allows better planned production in the long term because you have better feedback between planners workers and consumers
the only thing so far I can find on it is some "yugoslavia can into space" documentary "exposing" Tito selling Soviet space program material to the US.
Good ole Joe never annexed nuffin tho
So what China has done
>>> Tito and the Party … (The league of communists of Yugoslavia) never abandoned Marxism
> What is there wrong with that statement? It is factually correct in literally every way
It is quite obviously wrong. Marxism is about abolition of market exchange, while Tito argued that market exchange is okay.
> Good ole Joe never annexed nuffin tho
Soviet Union did not expand as a nation, but as a driving force of Revolution. Such a thing cannot be said about SFRY.
The refutation here is that "social imperialism" is a bullshit concept.
That's a mockumentary about as serious as the one about the mermaids a few years back
>comparable to the USSR
>bastion of socialism
my sides are in orbit
>I'm unable to read, please help me
No problem, friend. May I direct you to: >>2812815
May your eye-sight and reading comprehension grow better by the day!
Iirc that's a comedy film…
>Soviet Union did not expand as a nation, but as a driving force of Revolution.
>”The victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing”
People on the left should finally read fucking post modernists like baudrillard an Foucault for their analysis of the postmodern society and its power dynamics since, and it hurts me that I even have to say it, a revolution like 1918 will never ever happen in a first world country again which these retarded ☭TANKIE☭ larp about 24/7
I mean at least read society of the spectacle since it pretty much did that, not much in detail but from a marxistic perspective
Sry I somehow managed to post this in the wrong thread it was meant for the "what fields should leftists learn about" one
t. sanctimonious mouthbreather espousing the virtues of vulgar economism.
nothing spells sanctimonious like use of the word 'sanctimonious'
That was in response to the last part in black, biding it’s time, developing capital until it wins at capital
Then you clearly didn't understand what it meant.
China isn't just 'developing capital' and that you consider a notion like 'winning at capital' to be anything other than contradictory betrays your and other dengist shills' deeply unmarxist attitude
< we should not provide help to revolutions in other nations because of some quote
Well, Engels lucked out. If he wasn't long dead, he'd have to do some explainations (assuming, of course, that you did not rip the quote out of context or somesuch).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t help revolutions, I’m saying we shouldn’t go around imposing socialism on people who don’t want it. Often the working class is possessed by reactionary spooks, and are hostile to socialism despite being in its own interests. In situations like these attempting to force socialism on them accomplishes nothing.
> I’m not saying we shouldn’t help revolutions, I’m saying we shouldn’t go around imposing socialism on people who don’t want it.
We shouldn't? How many Capitalists want Socialism? I'm feeling we should shelve the whole idea, as we are not going to ever get any noticeable amout of Capitalists on board.
In fact, even Petit-Bourgeois don't give a fuck about socialism.
> Often the working class is possessed by reactionary spooks, … In situations like these attempting to force socialism on them accomplishes nothing.
What is this "working class"? If one worker out of thousand is "possessed by reactionary spooks", does this mean that revolution should not happen?
If it doesn't, if it is permissible to force this worker into socialism, then you don't have an argument - you are only bargaining about specific share of "working class" that is permissible to subject to threats and violence.
>How many Capitalists want Socialism?
None, but I’m talking about workers.
>If one worker out of thousand is "possessed by reactionary spooks", does this mean that revolution should not happen?
You have a pretty optimistic view there m8. The vast majority of workers in most countries unfortunately are hostile to socialism, I’m talking about situations like that. If you try to impose it on them then all you do is anger and alienate them, while being forced to do away with proletarian democracy since nobody actually supports you.
> You have a pretty optimistic view there m8.
And you are ignoring my point.
>>Personally leads Yugoslavia through her darkest moments of WW2 with little to no Soviet assistance
wrong there even monument in belgrade that honor dead 1000 soviet troops that liberate belgrade
>>Following WW2, unifies Yugoslavia under a single party.
before war yugoslavia was under dictatorship because of growing tensions and murder in parlament when racic was murdered
>>Has the balls of steel to defy Stalin at nearly every turn.
or stalin dint have power like in poland
>>Gave zero fucks about the Percentages Agreement and openly supported the National Liberation Front during the Greek Civil War
>>Successfully implemented a based version of market socialism that defies porky's logic
yes by investing most of money in slovenia and croatia since muhhh yugoslavia is not big serbia which now serbia pay for those loans he took
>>Held Yugoslavia together as a single ethnic state with his bare hands
he dint held he OWN yugoslavia and as soon he died soros and other jews wanted to give "freedom" to balkan by funding nationlist partys in every modern state
>On a scale of 1 to based. How based was this dude?
i will give it 2 since he was in prison in moscow for short time
tbh, you're the one ignoring his point as you're diverting what is really a question of pragmatism and how to most effectively spread revolution into a some search for a universal principle of justification for revolutionary action.
Its self-evident that a socialist government, any government, which does not have the support of at least a plurality of the population it governs is going to have to resort to widespread repressions in order to maintain control, these are not desirable and should be avoided. Sometimes we must realise that revolutionary conditions in one country coincide with a particularly reactionary mood in another and that an attempt to bring revolution from the outside to a region where the population opposes it will only consolidate reaction.
Sure with sufficient military might and state power it would be possible to subjugate the entire world to a single state even if not a single person wanted it, but realistically revolutionary forces will never have that sort of might, we always have been and almost certainly will be strained with limited means and to gamble on exporting the revolution to countries where a revolutionary mood does not dominate is foolish adventurism.
What is your point exactly? That we should impose socialism on countries even where the bulk of workers a right wing?
>That we should impose socialism on countries even where the bulk of workers a right wing?
If you don't believe in the necessity and correctness of such an action you're not a socialist.
And if you don’t believe that such a venture is doomed to fail and can only damage the cause of socialism in the long term then you’re stupid. What are you going to do? Act as an occupying force indefinitely? How can you construct a worker’s democracy if the workers hate you? You can’t, and without worker’s democracy all you have is a dictatorship of bureaucrats, which will easily allow for corruption, incompetence, and revisionism to roam unchecked. You will also have a situation where a popular uprising AGAINST socialism could happen literally at any moment. You’re effectively making the job of the CIA easier by trying this shit, socialism can only be founded on the bedrock of worker’s democracy. This isn’t theoretical either, his is based on the actual experience of socialism in Europe. To this day Balts are salty about being annexed by the Soviets, despite having the highest standards of living in the Union. Even from a purely practical standpoint imposing socialism on a population that doesn’t want it and where the conditions aren’t right can only end in disaster.
A dirty fascist.
Anyone who worships this faggot is a traitor to Comrade Stalin.
Imagine posting this unironically.
Idk, degenboy yugo. You tell me. What were Tito's thoughts on women's rights? would he be ok with your current sex offending behaviour, or would he have you spend 1 years in jail eating broccoli soup?
Regardless of your answer, he does look very sexy and based. I wish there hadn't been petty tension between him and the other guy, Hoxha.
All this thread proves is that Tito is based and Stalin cocksuckers so called "tankies" are retarded
go rape yourself with a rake, chetnik
See what’s more likely though is that a bulk of the population are left wing but not avowed communists, a bulk are liberal and a bulk a far right, what you lose is the leftistss who are in anyway democrats or patriotic and suddenly their national liberation aims align with those of the national bourgeois
This. Invasions tend to make people align with their governments, even if they are sympathetic to socialism. This is literally the kind of mentality of burgers when they constantly think they’ll be hailed as liberators bringing freedumbs.
IDE TITO PREKO ROMANIJE, PREKO ROMANIJE
It’s for the same reason that Spain and Ukraine should have been left to become autonomous regions. Muh holodomor propaganda likely would not exist if this was the case, or the same famine would have happened but people wouldn’t believe it was deliberately the fault of Stalin. A republican win might have been the differences between the spread of European communism and not, would hitler have been so successful in invading France if a socialist Spain had been its southern neighbour? Sino Soviet split also retarded on all sides
REMOVE YOURSELF CHETNIK
>MUHHHH HOD DARE YOU RUIN MY OPINION YOU FUCKING NAZI
my worst mistake was being part of you cunts cant wait until we start treating gommunist as mental disorder like good old days
also i like how none of you give me any arguments funny
Oh you're still here?
>also i like how none of you give me any arguments funny
I don't argue with retards.
croatia is serbia now dont say otherwise dont hurt my feelings ok ty
since you wont convince me why iam wrong i will do same thing as you
>Oh you're still here?
yes since pol is overrun by libtars and retarded posts i decided to chill on lefty with my old pals seeing if you still function on cool symbols and not logic
anyway iam disappointed i dont see any anarcho syndicalism threats i used to be very active on those one but what can i do
>yugoslavia was fascist.
you my friend have absolute no knowledge about yugoslavia
so was east germany fascist too ?
also here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7KoJxSgSc
>Yugoslavia was fascist
In all my life I have never heard such a shit take.
Also tbh, best Yugoslav song.
>yugoslavia was fascist
>I don't even know how you would want to prove that it wasn't.
How about you prove that it was?
>Maybe start by explaining the suppression of student in the late 60's.
Right because students were never repressed in the Warsaw Pact, unless you are going to say that the USSR was fascist too.
>I don't even know how you would want to prove that it wasn't.
you have no clue how much you made me laugh i still cant stop laughing why are you talking about something you dont know like it took me 10 second to google out he was socialist not fascist and yugoslavia was never fascist there where NDH or ustashe (croatia) but they last only from 1941-45
> This one has the greatest nostalgia effect
Well Tito's Yugoslavia doesn't conform to Umberto Ecco's 14 pts of fascism.
Also the Student protests of 68 were suppressed everywhere, at-least Tito conceded some reforms (unlike, say, De Gaulle).
>so was east germany fascist too ?
East Germany had the original NazBol Gang help create it so depends.
>Great Man History, culture idolizing party, education revolving around Tito as messiah, etc. etc.
That’s all just standard ML shit, and it’s not fascist per say.
>As I said, on all levels but name and iconography, yugoslavia was fascist.
Except for economic policy, treatment of ethnic minorities, presence of a bourgeois class, political structure, actual ideology, etc.
>when the effects, the policies and the developments where all in their essence no different than what Mussolini or Franco had done.
Really? Show me where they made worker’s subordinate to corporate syndicates and openly fused bourgeois and state power.
Who is worse, the "lmao tito was literally a capitalist bro he had 50 nato bases in belgrade and ate komsomol youth for breakfast" retards or the "the hero tito who stood up to the tyrant stalin and his 15 zillion victim purges" retards?
This post hurt my brain. Let's debunk your idiocy bit by bit, but first here's an actual definition of fascism by Dimitrov:
>"Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.... The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country."
Explain to me how any of this fits the SKJ.
>Great Man History
Bullshit. Venerating war heroes who sacrificed their lives for the workers' rights and mystifying historical figures in an attempt to create a mythos and identity that shifts from a class one are 2 different things.
>culture idolizing party
As the party itself was an instrument of the wokrers' political power. Anyone could join and it didn't affect anything other than having extra managerial duties.
>education revolving around Tito as messiah
see first point
>Sure, some people who only pay attention to the superficials will say
You are literally the retard that disregards the historicity of the party, it's class characteristics, the way production in the country was ran etc to proclaim it somehow fascist because "people praised tito".
>But then waited for the situation to de-escalate to imprison them, or put them on lists that made them essentially un-employable (e.g. like with Zizek).
>crushing counter-revolutionary intellegencia is fascism
Ok i can see you're trolling, had me for a second.
both are equally retarded
> What is your point exactly? That we should impose socialism on countries even where the bulk of workers a right wing?
I have no objections to this.
> tbh, you're the one ignoring his point
He is replying to my post about USSR annexing things: >>2813507
> as you're diverting what is really a question of pragmatism and how to most effectively spread revolution into a some search for a universal principle of justification for revolutionary action.
Read the thread this is not about pragmatism. This is a branch of discussion about SFRY allegedly not being socialist because there were "ambitions" to annex stuff: >>2812341
>> Yugoslavia … had imperialist ambitions to annex Albania and Bulgaria.
Which got compared to Soviet Union annexing things: >>2813212
> Good ole Joe never annexed nuffin tho
I.e. both posters accepted annexation as being inherently un-socialist. This is what is being discussed here, not pragmatism.
> Sometimes we must realise that revolutionary conditions in one country coincide with a particularly reactionary mood in another and that an attempt to bring revolution from the outside to a region where the population opposes it will only consolidate reaction.
If we can crush the reaction, I don't see any problem there.
> realistically revolutionary forces will never have that sort of might
Realistically speaking, revolutionary forces will have to constantly do on a smaller scale.
Consequently, there needs to be a firm understanding that use of violence during revolution is not inherently anti-socialist. If there isn't, we'll end up with people guilt-tripping socialists for punching (not even killing him) some Nazi. This is how revolutions end and Fascists win.
> we always have been and almost certainly will be strained with limited means and to gamble on exporting the revolution to countries where a revolutionary mood does not dominate is foolish adventurism.
There is never absolute dominance of "revolutionary mood". We will have no choice but to resort to risk-taking. Treating it like "foolish adventurism" - instead of understanding when and where risk must be taken - will lead only to paralysis of political will and surrender.
> And if you don’t believe that such a venture is doomed to fail and can only damage the cause of socialism in the long term then you’re stupid.
Not everyone considers USSR a failure.
> How can you construct a worker’s democracy if the workers hate you?
You don't seem to understand that it is material conditions - the way production is organized - that define how society functions, not desires of people. This is how Capitalism can function with workers hating their bosses.
Same reasoning applies here: if it is possible to enact revolution against the immediate wishes of a group members of which include some of the workers, there is no reason not to do it. Our revolution is socialist, not liberal.
>without worker’s democracy all you have is a dictatorship of bureaucrats, which will easily allow for corruption, incompetence, and revisionism to roam unchecked.
Better Revisionism than Fascism.
> You will also have a situation where a popular uprising AGAINST socialism could happen literally at any moment.
This is always the case.
> You’re effectively making the job of the CIA easier
As opposed to what? Not even being noticed by CIA?
> This isn’t theoretical either, his is based on the actual experience of socialism in Europe. To this day Balts are salty about being annexed by the Soviets, despite having the highest standards of living in the Union.
Balts are ruled by regime that has to constantly brainwash them with the most rabid anti-Communists just to keep them in line.
They hardly have any freedom to exepress any "saltiness" that is no authorized from the top (those that do get fined, get fired from their jobs, and go to prison).
> Even from a purely practical standpoint imposing socialism on a population that doesn’t want it and where the conditions aren’t right can only end in disaster.
Practical standpoint not imposing socialism on anyone can only end in not having any socialism whatsoever.
> Imagine posting this unironically.
I'm pretty sure that's a troll.
> It’s for the same reason that Spain and Ukraine should have been left to become autonomous regions. Muh holodomor propaganda likely would not exist if this was the case
If it wasn't totalitarian communist regime, nobody would've bothered with propaganda, eh?
Arkane would have had him sentenced to death with the addition of torture. Fuck you and God Bless Serbia.
500,000 dead chetniks/10, he was pretty based and yugopilled.
Those circumstances were met automatically whether I like it or not, thus Arkane. You understand nothing. However, I accept you opinion as valid.
>Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.
>"winning" at capital
Can you suck Muslim cock harder or is that Britan's job?
? Tito was muslim?
Never said or implied that, but apparently you did. So, Tito is/was a Muslim. Nice.
>the ussr reverted to capitalism also
Khrushchev should have been executed tbh
Yugoslavia’s behavior towards Albania postwar and Khrushchev’s partial reconciliation with Titoist revisionism (capitalism) should tell you all you need to know
Yugoslavians and Albanians look best when they are bleeding out like fucking animals, cunt. Only Serbs.
I have no clue what you are trying to say
If you want me to spell it out then I mean that The Kingdom of Serbia needs to be restored and anyone not on board needs to be hung, decapitated, and otherwise bled out as sacrifice for this Holy Cause. Most in The Balkans will be slaughtered like animals, but it is righteous and just. Muslims and gypsie scum will be tortured to death, no exceptions. Fucking animals.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Oh shit, that explains it. A fucked up Serb ultra-nationalist. You sound like some crazy animal. Reactionaries really belong in gulag after all
You want Turkish Delights because you can't put out enough or rule, then someone else will do it for you. Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Bulgars, Hungary, and the rest. True Balkans United under The New Kingdom of Serbia. I bet you don't even want to crush and grind Turkey under heel like the roach animals that they are, then reform them and force them to accept foreign rule? Don't worry, big daddy USA will take care of you.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Don't really care much about Greater Serbia or any other Balkan tribalism tbh. Turkey would most likely fuck you up in a war as well, so I'd calm down on those lebensraum dreams
Not if they had a friend indeed and a few Neutron Bombs rigged and reprogrammed to hit all major cities in Turkey. Might just write "Armenia says "Hello from the grave" on the sides of them…hyahyahahahahahah…
I don't think Serbia is capable of any of that
Serbia is closed off right now. Expansion and possible Thermo-barics being used against enemies of a Neo-Nation-State burning bright should not be discounted. We don't need the "Nuclear Option" thanks to making Thermo-Barics nearly as powerful as Nukes in low yield states. As blood boils, one must look to the past and right wrongs, no matter where one is currently located. Maybe you'd like to play as well?
>Not everyone considers USSR a failure.
If they don’t they’re stupid, considering it failed to prevent capitalist restoration within its own borders.
>You don't seem to understand that it is material conditions - the way production is organized - that define how society functions, not desires of people. This is how Capitalism can function with workers hating their bosses.
That’s a super vulgar understanding of histmat. It’s not as if you just change the mode of production and suddenly old ideas and sentiments just disappear. The superstructure still is still capable of influencing the base, as Marx writes:
>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
In other words simply getting rid of capitalism won’t get rid of religion, nationalism, or any other reactionary spooks that can motivate workers to resist socialism. Even after 70 years of socialism in Russia these things are alive and well, even among people born and raised in the USSR. Also, workers don’t simply consent to be ruled under capitalism despite hating their bosses. Capitalist states actively manufacture consent, and history shows that a foreign occupier has an insanely hard time doing this in the long term.
But if you do want to do a vulgar materialist take on this, consider that any form of socialism imposed on an unwilling population would necessarily lack a dictatorship of the proletariat. It would then be an oligarchy of bureaucrats, with little accountability or regard for the well-being of the workers themselves. Even if there isn’t exploitation in the classic sense, they heighten the risk of corruption, revisionism, etc which weakens socialism and provokes workers to anger and unrest. That’s assuming you can even call it socialism when it lacks a DotP.
>Same reasoning applies here: if it is possible to enact revolution against the immediate wishes of a group members of which include some of the workers, there is no reason not to do it.
Except capitalism doesn’t impose itself on most people in this way, it builds their consent with propaganda and often with material prosperity.
>Our revolution is socialist, not liberal.
Right, and as socialists it’s our duty to establish a society ruled by the workers that acts for the workers. That requires a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>Better Revisionism than Fascism.
Right because those are clearly the only two options here.
>This is always the case.
Lmao what? No it isn’t. If your “socialist” state is under constant threat of being overthrown by its own working class then it isn’t worthy of the name.
>As opposed to what? Not even being noticed by CIA?
Right, because nobody noticed when the Russian Revolution happened until it invaded the Baltic states. The fact is that unless a socialist state is founded on the solid foundation of proletarian democracy and genuine support from the workers, it will be riddled with holes. Spies will be everywhere, the population will be willing recruits of counterrevolution, sabotage and subversion will be rampant. The entire state will be a shaky house of cards waiting to collapse. It’s a basic rule of statecraft that no state can rely on repression alone for long.
>Balts are ruled by regime that has to constantly brainwash them with the most rabid anti-Communists just to keep them in line.
That’s not how propaganda works m8, it has to be believable. Socialism is still in living memory for many Balts, if they had fond memories of it then the government saying “socialism bad” wouldn’t change that, and wouldn’t convince anybody. You can see this in practice in countries like Hungary, where most people have a positive view of life under socialism despite being bombarded with propaganda by one of the most reactionary regimes in Europe.
Practical standpoint not imposing socialism on anyone can only end in not having any socialism whatsoever.
I didn’t say don’t impose it on anybody. Impose it on porkies, on fascists, on kulaks and landlords. Impose it on those few workers who refuse to let go of their spooks. But don’t impose it on the vast majority of the working class, doing so not only violates socialist principles, not only prevents the creation of a genuine socialism based on the DotP, not only compromises the internal security of the new state, but in the end creates a corrupt, revisionist, hated cabal of bureaucrats that every worker of the subject nation will now think of when the hear the word “socialism”.