/marx/ - Marxism

emancipation done right

>>1068
>yugoslavia
>socialist

Go drink bleach tito

butthurt

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

"The climax of the CPY's anti-Marxism-Leninism was reached at its Sixth Congress (1952), when the party changed its name to League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY), a symbolic return to Marx's League of Communists. In a report to the congress, Tito assailed the Soviet Union: the USSR was responsible for creating international tensions; it had transformed the once independent East Central European countries into 'mere colonies in the heart of Europe'; Stalin was pushing North Korea into 'an aggressive war'; it was imperative to revise the 'imperialist division' of Poland and Germany, which 'favored' the Soviet Union; in the USSR, 'the condition of workers was worse than in even the most reactionary capitalist country'; Stalin's extermination of non-Russian nations 'would make Hitler envious.' Every speaker at the congress competed with Tito in hurling hostile epithets at Stalin. Kardelj accused the USSR of imperialist ambitions on a worldwide scale and stated that the 'Soviet government undoubtedly bears the largest part of responsibility for the condition of the permanent cold war.' He scorned 'various naive pacifists in the West,' advocated the unification of Germany on the basis of free elections in both parts of the country, and hinted that Yugoslavia might formally join an anti-Soviet defense pact."
(Milorad M. Drachkovitch (ed). East Central Europe: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. 1982. p. 355.)


"By late 1949 and early 1950, theoretical thinking among our top people not only had abandoned Stalin, but also was working its way back to the roots, from Lenin to Marx. Kardelj maintained that one could prove anything with quotations, but that it was impossible to separate Lenin from Stalin completely. After all, Stalin was an outgrowth of Lenin.

As we made our way back to Marx, we often paused in our critical ponderings on the Leninist type of party."
(Djilas, Milovan. Rise and Fall. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1985. p. 267.)

"A representative Labour delegation, headed by Morgan Phillips and Hugh Seton-Watson, had spent some time in Yugoslavia in 1950, holding candid talks with our leadership. These talks, which I conducted in large measure, had done much to bring us closer. Official relations with the Labour government also grew more open and cordial. Thus the British Labourites, along with other European socialists, provided a bridge toward collaboration with the West, while also freeing us from our ideological prejudice that only Communists truly represent the working class and socialism."
(Ibid. p. 273.)

"Filled with curiosity and joyous anticipation, we went to see Churchill at his London house, an establishment no larger or more luxurious than the average middle-class villa at Dedinje—the type that our top Yugoslav officials acquired after the war. We found him in his bedroom, in bed. He begged our pardon for receiving us thus and at once invited us to dinner. We had a prior engagement for dinner with the British government, and so had to decline, with genuine regret. Churchill then said, 'I have a feeling that you and we are on the same side of the barricade.' We confirmed his feeling, whereupon he inquired with delight, 'And how is my old friend Tito?'"
(Ibid. p. 275.)



"For, from its 7th congress of April 1958, the Yugoslav party held that Communists 'should no longer be concerned primarily with questions relating to the overthrow of capitalism', that it was possible to achieve socialism without a revolution and that Communist parties need not enjoy a power monopoly in pursuit of socialism."
(Geoffrey Stern. The Rise and Decline of International Communism. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 1990. p. 177.)

Tito, truly the Marx of the 20th century.

>>1087
So do you think that the "New Deal" was an example of socialism in the USA? Or that communist parties could achieve socialism via peaceful methods? Do you think that Nasser, Nehru, Indira Gandhi and the like were examples of socialist leaders?

Do you support the fact that Yugoslavia was the only self-proclaimed "socialist" country in Eastern Europe to have extensive unemployment, where many workers had to go abroad in search of wages? Or the fact that, like his friend Ceaușescu, Tito accrued billions of dollars in debt to the West and the government had to impose austerity measures that directly hit the wages and living standards of the working-class?

Killing fascist collaborators is not a uniquely "Titoist" position, and was in fact carried out at a time when Yugoslavia and the USSR under Stalin were allies. What was uniquely Titoist, however, was this:

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

"Workers' self-management" was demagogy. The enterprises were hardly different from those in capitalist countries. Capitalists themselves were aware of this.


"One thing that impressed me in observing [Yugoslav] enterprises was the deference paid to the manager by the employees as we walked through the shop floor. The relation was the same as in a capitalist enterprise, even though in principle the manager was hired by the workers rather than the other way around. In practice, the manager was chosen by a managing committee selected by the workers for a term of some years. It was in the workers' self-interest to choose a competent manager."
(Friedman, Milton and Rose D. Friedman. Two Lucky People: Memoirs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1998. p. 424.)

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

"If a traveler chooses to spend the end of April and the beginning of May in the Balkans and happens to cross from Bulgaria into Yugoslavia, he is invariably struck by an amazing contrast. In Sofia, or in the smaller towns and villages near the Yugoslav border, he sees red banners everywhere, slogans hailing the Soviet Union and Bulgaria marching shoulder to shoulder proudly toward communism. On the 1st of May he is confronted with columns of people bearing the traditional flags and pictures.

There is quite a difference in the Yugoslav towns, particularly in the capital. To be sure, May Day is a public holiday, yet there is hardly any red or decoration of any color. At the most one sees here and there a solitary weather-beaten picture of the Holy Trinity of Communism displayed on the façades of party or union headquarters. When one reaches Belgrade, the picture changes even more dramatically. Instead of the apostles of revolution, with or without beards, the main boulevards are lined with huge billboards displaying such symbols of capitalism as General Motors or Ford, sprinkled with advertisements for Mercedes or Citroen and other leading motor companies. For the past few years, May Day has coincided with the Belgrade motor show and the 'masses' march to the fairground to admire and in some cases even to buy cars, rather than to imitate their fellow Communists in neighboring countries."
(Ibid. p. 75.)

"But how to explain the case of the Union Bank of Belgrade, one of the largest banks in the country, which holds one-fifth of the aggressive savings deposits? … the governor of the Central Bank explained that… his proposal that a system of special reserves be held in securities of the Central Bank had been rejected by the bankers for fear of a 'disguised centralization of funds.' Another amusing and highly revealing story was reported in the same period. From this small Balkan country no fewer than two hundred firms submitted competitive bids to build a factory for Libya. Only one-third of those enterprises would suffice to carry out such construction in Yugoslavia itself.

A few weeks later, many Yugoslav households and industries felt tangibly what J.K. Galbraith has called the 'natural inclination' of the modern corporation toward 'a brutal and anti-social egotism,' even under the conditions of socialist self-management. From one day to the next, the Electric Power Community, representing power companies in the different republics, cut off power for four hours, blaming shortages on the weather. An angry government hastened to make it clear, however, that the companies had given no advance warning and that for a considerable time the thermoelectric (coal using) plans had been working below optimal capacities. The power companies had deliberately kept the output of thermoelectric plants at low levels and overused hydroelectric power. Why? Simply because of prices and costs. Since water-generated electricity costs one-third to one-fifth as much to produce as thermal power, and since the rates charged to the customers are nevertheless the same, this meant a large—and unauthorized—profit for the electric companies. Furthermore the electric power system is not truly unified. As Borba, the leading Belgrade daily, pointedly remarked: 'Certain power communities behave in this field as if they owned it. Poor connections among the various regions, mutual bargaining and relations, which have nothing to do with real business relations, explain the curious fact that in some republics power supply has often been cut while at the same time there has been plenty of power in other republics.'"
(Ibid. pp. 89-90.)

"One hears Yugoslav Communists say things that would warm the heart of any 'free enterprise' advocate. State intervention? Must be cut to an absolute minimum. Price controls? Very undesirable—imposed temporarily for some vital goods, but to be removed as soon as possible. Taxes? Accepted with great reluctance and should not stifle efforts to maximize profits. Yet, one also catches, in addition to Adam Smith, echoes of every conceivable socialist idea—not just Marx, let alone Lenin, but the early socialists and syndicalists, Owen, even more Proudhon, plus a strong dose of anarchism or anarchosyndicalism."
(Ibid. p. 92.)

"The real changover actually started in 1954, when state financing was abolished and investment funds were separated from the state budget. Starting with the meager concession of being able to elect or dismiss the workers' councils, by the end of the fifties the enterprises planned their production independently, marketed their products, bought raw materials, decided on employment, made their own arrangements with foreign firms, and enjoyed increasing freedom in investing their capital and distributing their profits. Though projected bold reforms in 1961 were temporarily frustrated by bureaucracy, the enterprises could henceforth divide their net earnings independently once they had paid their federal and local taxes.

Parallel reforms in 1953 to 1964 gradually introduced a working market mechanism with government control maintained through price and investment, fiscal and monetary policies. State administration was drastically reduced; the six republics and the communes (there are at present 517 such local administrative districts) were given increased powers in political and economic decisions. Ministries were abolished and only a few administrative state secretariats remain. Enterprises are no longer in any way subordinate to the central institutions; they form their own branch associations and set up business chambers to represent their interests.

The constitutional reform of 1953 established a bicameral basis in local self-government and also at republican and federal levels, and the new Constitution of 1963 made the entire system even more complicated, with a corporate structure resembling in some ways Mussolini's Italy…. [with] a so-called Council of Producers elected on a vocational basis in enterprises, thus excluding self-employed peasants and artisans…"
(Ibid. pp. 98-99.)

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

"In short, the cooperatives that are based on voluntary association in the form of contracts with peasants resemble the cooperative ventures one would expect to find in the Scandinavian countries and have hardly anything in common with the collective farms of the Soviet Union or elsewhere in Eastern Europe."
(Ibid. pp. 112-113.)

I'm aware that compared to nowadays Yugoslavia was certainly better, but there are plenty of Romanians who feel nostalgic for the Ceaușescu era as well.

And yeah, last time I remembered capitalism is inherently exploitative. Forcing Yugoslav workers to work abroad under capitalism because they couldn't find work at home was an example of just how "socialist" the Yugoslav system was.

As for the Berlin Wall (which you've alluded to in your post), see: http://williamblum.org/aer/read/133 ("The Berlin Wall – Another Cold War Myth")

Some other stuff you talk about was in the rest of Eastern Europe as well, e.g. "Large organized volunteer groups that built parts of public infrastructure."

As for the reference to "deranged leader," Tito certainly had a personality cult, and was also well-known in the West for his lavish lifestyle quite unlike that of Stalin or Hoxha. Not to mention he literally proclaimed himself "President for life." Not very democratic.