Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Yugoslavia under Tito = capitalist

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,288
    Rep Power
    65

    Default Yugoslavia under Tito = capitalist

    I already believe that Tito was a revisionist and Yugoslavia was essentially capitalist. So let's not waste time arguing that point... what I'm looking for is detailed evidence about Yugoslavia's economy that can shed more light on this issue.

    I've already read a fair bit, but I'd be keen for more.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    530
    Organisation
    CPGB-ML Sympathizer
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    This is 95% irrelevant, but I was doing a marathon of low-budget euro-horror this weekend and came upon a Barbara Steele movie called She Beast. Joint English-Italian-Yugoslav production.

    It was utter shite because Barbara Steele was hardly in it. But anyway, the entire premise of the movie was taking the piss at life in the East Bloc, with some shaggy dog story about a witch in a lake thrown on top.

    I raise this only because first of all most of the other East Bloc countries were funding their own native film industries, not using cultural development as a source of foreign direct investment. Second, it was totally - though tongue-in-cheek - anti-communist.

    Also, if I didn't say so before, it was shite.The Long Hair of Death was a pretty good Steele flick, however. So...um...there you go!
    The SOCIAL ORDER OF THE FUTURE ...blends the fullest democratic control with the most absolute expert supervision, something unthinkable of any society built upon the political State. — James Connolly, "Industrial Unionism and Constructive Socialism"

    We will sing of the great crowds AGITATED BY WORK PLEASURE AND REVOLT; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops...Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars! — FT Marinetti et al., "The Futurist Manifesto"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    702
    Organisation
    Sympathizer of the party
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    This is an abuse of notation!
    "It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it" - Pirkei Avot

    The longer a drought lasts the more likely it is to continue.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Yugoslavia was very collectivist and workers had self-managment after '68. That was not essentialy capitalist.

  5. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Milos For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    America
    Posts
    126
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I suggest reading Yugoslav-"Self-Adminstration" by Enver Hoxha. Hell, a lot of Hoxha's writing is spent blasting Tito and other revisionists. I'm sure you'll find an answer there. Marxist Internet Archive has Hoxha's works.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,058
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Tito was largely revisionist, but even if he were a real ML it still would have been shit. Course he was a Capitalist, as are all state-capitalists.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tablo For This Useful Post:


  9. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,384
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    *yawn*.. Tito was a proud "Marxist-Leninist," was he "revisionist" when his regime expropriated the Yugoslav bourgeoisie years before the "People's Republics" got Stalin's go-ahead to do the same? So when Soviet regime before 1953 gave incentives to managers, allowed millionaires to accumulate wealth in USSR, held back the revolutionary process in Eastern Europe, forbade peoples colonized by Britain and France to rebel, and cut off aid to Greek Communists, that wasn't "revisionist?" "Revisionism" when Lenin used the term had a clear meaning, but in the mouths of some people it seems to mean nothing else than going against Stalin


  10. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    986
    Organisation
    Not affiliated
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I don't think Tito was being a "revisionist", he was merely trying to maintain a delicate diplomatic balance, not an easy task when wedged between the Warsaw Pact and Nato. The Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia's existence was always precarious, trading with both the Western and Eastern powers but not aligning itself militarily with either.

    Personally, I find the model of socialism in Yugoslavia to a very interesting and unique one, especially with the establishment of workers councils in the towns to oversee production, something that was unheard of in the Stalinist USSR and its Eastern European satellites.

    Yes, it is true that there was a private sector(1/5-1/4 of the economy?), and this came to destroy Yugoslavia in the end, especially after Tito died and his successors made the fatal mistake of borrowing large loans from the IMF, which put Yugoslavia at Washington's mercy when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and they had no alternative trading partner.

  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Barry Lyndon For This Useful Post:


  12. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Alastair View Post
    I already believe that...Yugoslavia was essentially capitalist.
    and this conclusion has nothing to do with tito's foreign policy stance towards the soviet bloc, i suppose?

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to it_ain't_me For This Useful Post:


  14. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,288
    Rep Power
    65

    Default

    ^ No, it has more to do with the kind of economy Yugoslavia had.

    So far, no useful/interesting links for Comrade Alastair.

  15. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    U$
    Posts
    781
    Organisation
    PSL All Day, Every Day
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Lyndon View Post
    Yes, it is true that there was a private sector(1/5-1/4 of the economy?), and this came to destroy Yugoslavia in the end, especially after Tito died and his successors made the fatal mistake of borrowing large loans from the IMF, which put Yugoslavia at Washington's mercy when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and they had no alternative trading partner.
    Did Tito make any attempts to break down the private sector or did he just let it exist?

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Podgorica , Montenegro
    Posts
    621
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    all i can say about economy , is that Tito's idealism created broken economy , which was almost completely autonomous. Yugoslavia produced both material and goods , but it had very little export. In many factories , workers worked on normative system , like make 20 dresses is the norma for complete payment , if you make under you get less money , if you make more , you get more. This often caused products to be of lesser quality.

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    257
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    if yugoslavia was capitalist or not, is basically only a economic question. the different companys worked for profit and had competition between each of them. it wasnt a planned economie. it was capitalism, and even if the company is owned by workers, it doesnt change it. but there are also other points, the top managers earned often more then 100 as much than an ordinary worker...because of the autonomy, they could do what they want with the money of the factory. that single point didnt make them capitalist, but it shows a tendency.
    the wage differences were also a problem in stalins SU,as somebody mentioned before, but not as much as this( 30 as much was the biggest difference.)

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to thälmann For This Useful Post:


  19. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    4,404
    Organisation
    none...yet
    Rep Power
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thälmann View Post
    if but there are also other points, the top managers earned often more then 100 as much than an ordinary worker...because of the autonomy, they could do what they want with the money of the factory. that single point didnt make them capitalist, but it shows a tendency.
    This is an important point.
    The top managers' position was different in two ways, as you've stated: (much) higher level of income and much higher level of autonomy in decision making, not only on issues such as the distribution of money (i.e. capital) of the factory, but also on the very issue of organization of production.
    These managers were mostly high ranking officials of the Party, and the existence of local workers' councils mostly did not counteract the "local sheriffs" (Party officials appointed to a highest rank within the productive unit) who basically had their hands completely free in certain areas, depending on the historical conditions.
    So, the situation as I see is the following: certain portion/structures of the CP appropriated surplus value of workers' labour and decided how should it be used. That's, people, state capitalism (alongside the existence of private property!).
    FKA LinksRadikal
    “The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels

    "The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society

    "Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rust Belt Republic
    Posts
    2,567
    Organisation
    APL sympathizer
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsukae View Post
    Tito was largely revisionist, but even if he were a real ML it still would have been shit. Course he was a Capitalist, as are all state-capitalists.
    How original of you.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Nolan For This Useful Post:


  22. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bedford,Texas
    Posts
    996
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    The only thing I've seen aout the Yugoslavian economy was by the Chinese communist party in the 60s, though I dont hold much to it.

    I've been trying to find something that leads to there being some form of workers management in Yugoslavia, but so far nothing I've searched up.
    Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

    “Congratulating Stalin is not a formality. Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.” – Mao Tse Tung

  23. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    146
    Organisation
    Numerous
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother No. 1 View Post
    The only thing I've seen aout the Yugoslavian economy was by the Chinese communist party in the 60s, though I dont hold much to it.

    I've been trying to find something that leads to there being some form of workers management in Yugoslavia, but so far nothing I've searched up.
    Different definitions. You could say that workers' self-management existed under Stalin too if you looked to the unions and believed workers had a say in the 'democratic process'. Some believe that workers' self-management existed under Mao, some say it existed in the DDR with a better system than in Russia. Some believe that workers' self-management existed in all of these different political contexts.

    I don't think you can dispute that workers cooperatively shared profits in Yugoslavia, but that doesn't say much. Older workers became owners and as such exploited younger labour, companies in competition with one another, running the economy, instead of collectivised infrastructure, led to the usual problems faced by any national bourgeoisie in any Capitalist state.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi For This Useful Post:


  25. #18

    Default

    I already believe that Tito was a revisionist and Yugoslavia was essentially capitalist. So let's not waste time arguing that point... what I'm looking for is detailed evidence about Yugoslavia's economy that can shed more light on this issue.
    Isn't it problematic to decide on a conclusion without studying any of the empirical evidence, and then to demand evidence that affirms the a priori conclusion? In any case, by arguing that Yugoslavia was a capitalist society on the basis that it did not exhibit a planned economy, the assumption seems to be that any single country can have a genuinely planned economy and therefore be socialist whilst the rest of the world remains under the control of the bourgeoisie - but this is false, because the pressures of international economic and military competition will always limit the choices of planners in ways that lead to the law of value being imposed even where the forces of market competition are not immediately present, as in so-called planned economies, and this in turn signifies the presence of capitalist relations of production, in light of Marx's view that the law of value is what makes capitalism a distinctive mode of production.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to mountainfire For This Useful Post:


  27. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bedford,Texas
    Posts
    996
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    You could say that workers' self-management existed under Stalin too if you looked to the unions and believed workers had a say in the 'democratic process'. Some believe that workers' self-management existed under Mao, some say it existed in the DDR with a better system than in Russia. Some believe that workers' self-management existed in all of these different political contexts.
    Ok, now why don't you answer the threads question instead of giving your own oppion we have little care for.
    Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

    “Congratulating Stalin is not a formality. Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.” – Mao Tse Tung

  28. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    37
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The economy of SFR Yugoslavia was much different [and sometimes opposed to] the Soviet and Eastern Bloc economies, but it was definitely not Capitalist. In fact, I would say that it was a healthy mix between Capitalism and Socialism [i.e Titoism].

    We must all note that Yugoslavia's infrastructure was devastated after World War Two, which lead to Soviet style 5 year plans being introduced within Yugoslavia, and there was a lot of voluntary work to help reconstruct the infrastructure. Privately owned shops could only employ up to 4 people, but they eventually became state owned in the 50's. Also, the Tito-Stalin split [As some of you like to call it the informbiro] made SFR Yugoslavia extremely hostile to the Soviet Union, and because of this SFR Yugoslavia was more lenient to the United States and other western countries until relations cooled down when Nikita Kruschev entered power in the USSR.

    Socialist Self-Management was implemented in the 50's and 60's, and Worker Councils supported by the Yugoslav Communist Party pretty much kept everything in check. This, comrades, was when SFR Yugoslavia really started to shine. Since the start of the 50's, Yugoslavia's Annual GDP grew by around 6-7% each year, and life in general improved for everyone with free healthcare, schooling etc. From my understanding, the average life expectancy was about 75 years which was relatively good for that era. Being a non-aligned country, SFR Yugoslavia exported a number of goods to both Eastern and Western countries. Even here in Australia you can still find some glassware and tableware with the "Made in Yugoslavia" logo on it.

    However, thanks to Reagan's plan to economically destroy Yugoslavia the economy started to falter dramatically, debts grew and worst of all Comrade Tito died in 1980. Overall, SFR Yugoslavia had Capitalist traits, but internally it was a Socialist society.

    There is a reason as to why everyone within Yugoslavia cried when Tito died, and it is because he was the most adored leader of the 20th century. I have talked to many people who lived in Former Yugoslavia, and they all say positive things about it. In fact, a close friend of mine sometimes bursts out in tears when he thinks about the life he had back in Yugoslavia, and he has constantly told me how much he wishes he could go back to how it was back when Tito was in power.

    Sure, SFR Yugoslavia did incorporate some Capitalist elements with its policies, but I will still call you a liar if you say that SFR Yugoslavia is a disgrace to Socialism in general.
    [FONT="Book Antiqua"]"We have spilt an ocean of blood for the brotherhood and unity of our peoples and we shall not allow anyone to touch or destroy it from within." - Josip Broz Tito[/FONT]

  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Crvena-Zastava For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Tito/Yugoslavia
    By Andropov in forum Learning
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 27th April 2010, 00:03
  2. Tito-Communist Rebel or Capitalist Roader?
    By Red7 in forum Learning
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10th February 2010, 19:42
  3. tito
    By reddevil in forum History
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12th October 2008, 08:08
  4. Tito
    By New Tolerance in forum History
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 6th July 2004, 16:12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •