Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]

Yugoslavia

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

What do you think about Yugoslavia

It was an excellent Socialist state
10
26%
It was mostly good
21
55%
Neutral
2
5%
It was mostly bad
1
3%
It was a horrible Socialist state
3
8%
Other
1
3%
 
Total votes : 38
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jul 2011, 11:37
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Nov 2011, 11:50
Especially considering that China was still in a goddamn famine that year.

Why were all the "true socialist states" according to Maoists and "anti-revisionists" in reality such shitholes and most "evil revisionist states" actually very decent places to live?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 23 Nov 2011, 11:58
Neuron wrote:
Especially considering that China was still in a goddamn famine that year.

Why were all the "true socialist states" according to Maoists and "anti-revisionists" in reality such shitholes and most "evil revisionist states" actually very decent places to live?


Comrade, I agree 100%.
In religion, there is no room for improvement - everything is already set and defined, all has been already devised and the followers' task is to duly perform things which were written in scripts. That's pretty much how the Chinese abused the Marxist thought and science - they took it as religion and felt they were the chosen ones to decide who the heretic is.

But if one takes human development into consideration, then one has to adapt to changes and strive to make a better life.
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Nov 2011, 06:07
Quote:
In religion, there is no room for improvement - everything is already set and defined, all has been already devised and the followers' task is to duly perform things which were written in scripts.

Maybe,except that this doesn't have anything to do with Marxism Leninism.
Quote:
That's pretty much how the Chinese abused the Marxist thought and science - they took it as religion and felt they were the chosen ones to decide who the heretic is.

I don't really know much about Maoism so i'd like if you could elaborate on this more.How exactly did they took it as a religion etc?

Quote:
Why were all the "true socialist states" according to Maoists and "anti-revisionists" in reality such shitholes and most "evil revisionist states" actually very decent places to live?

How was Hoxha's Albania a shithole.BTW,by 1970 the whole country (even the smallest villages) was electrified and the country started to export energy.
Yugoslavia could only have dreamt about such an accomplishment in 1970,in fact many small villages in the ex-YU state don't have electricity even today!
Quote:
From the then-point-of-view it is clear that the article is pure demagogy, using marxism as the ultimate truth and therefore reducing the marxist science to religion. Yugoslavia at the time was developing its own way to socialism, the self-management socialism.

OK,but how exactly is it pure demagoguery and in what way is it using marxism as the ultimate truth and reducing the science to religion?
You should elabore on that...
Quote:
It has got to do A LOT with credibility. It is Ok to change opinions and admit being wrong earlier. Have we ever heard of China that they were sorry for the mistake of criticizing Yugoslavia back in 1962 when today they're 100x worse than Yugoslavia ever allegedly was? I don't think so. So, having someone change economic regime from socialism to capitalism without blinking with an eye does not make me trust that person/state.

If you want to disregard the Chinese arguments for these reasons you seem to think are facts,we still have a whole book Hoxha wrote on the Yugoslav "self-administration".
You may want to comment on it...
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /index.htm
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 24 Nov 2011, 09:54
Loz wrote:
I don't really know much about Maoism so i'd like if you could elaborate on this more.How exactly did they took it as a religion etc?

They took it as religion in the very same manner as you have shown in the "China's system" thread (http://bit.ly/sGdzho) - you quoted "facts", "arguments", dogmas (you numbered them from 1 to 4) and thus set the definition and did not want to deviate from it a single inch. The reason I'm calling them dogmas is because you (and Chinese in 1962) do not to discuss the validity or any kind of (let me use the word) revision because that would basically spoil their entire argument (which is about revision anyway;)).

Loz wrote:
How was Hoxha's Albania a shithole.BTW,by 1970 the whole country (even the smallest villages) was electrified and the country started to export energy.
Yugoslavia could only have dreamt about such an accomplishment in 1970,in fact many small villages in the ex-YU state don't have electricity even today!

I wish you could re-live Albania of 1970s and 1980s and re-live Yugoslavia of 1970s, 80s. It is totally valid if you prefer living in Albania over life in Yugoslavia. Some people are masohists...

Loz wrote:
OK,but how exactly is it pure demagoguery and in what way is it using marxism as the ultimate truth and reducing the science to religion?
You should elabore on that...

See my first comment above.

Loz wrote:
If you want to disregard the Chinese arguments for these reasons you seem to think are facts,we still have a whole book Hoxha wrote on the Yugoslav "self-administration".
You may want to comment on it...

I'm sure ALbanians wrote a lot of books on Yugoslavia
Is it because the system in Yugoslavia was so rotten that they had to investigate it? Did Albanians feel it was their socialist duty to uncover the misguidedness of Yugoslav economy and organisation?

Here's a little quote from an American point of view "Yugoslavia pursued a surprisingly
independent foreign policy and maintained leadership of the international nonaligned movement
that created a competing ideology to challenge the established spheres of influence of the two
superpowers."

This one is interesting as well (all markings are done by me): "Yugoslavia remained outside [of the Warshaw pact] and set out to
develop a unique system of economic administration that was labeled socialist self-management.
The new system was perceived to be a more accurate implementation of the Marxist theory that
put forward the idea that the means of production should be owned and operated by the workers.
Tito and the Yugoslavs believed that their system was more dynamic and just than the Soviet
system which they considered to be static because the Soviet communist state had simply
replaced the capitalists of the West in exploiting the worker class
."
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Nov 2011, 10:33
Quote:
They took it as religion in the very same manner as you have shown in the "China's system" thread (http://bit.ly/sGdzho) - you quoted "facts", "arguments", dogmas (you numbered them from 1 to 4) and thus set the definition and did not want to deviate from it a single inch. The reason I'm calling them dogmas is because you (and Chinese in 1962) do not to discuss the validity or any kind of (let me use the word) revision because that would basically spoil their entire argument (which is about revision anyway;)).

Dogmas are something that's taken for truth without any consideration.On the other hand you're perfectly free(and welcome) to dismantle the articles about Yugoslavia i brought up previously.

Quote:
I wish you could re-live Albania of 1970s and 1980s and re-live Yugoslavia of 1970s, 80s. It is totally valid if you prefer living in Albania over life in Yugoslavia. Some people are masohists...

You're being dishonest,because this is in the line of "If you love communism so much why don't you move to Cuba etc" arguments.
But i'll tell you this,if Socialist Albania was still around,i'd try to move there.Living in socialism beats living in this failed state any
way...

Quote:
See my first comment above.

There's no real arguments though.You really should comment the sources i gave,that is,the arguments brought out there.

Quote:
I'm sure ALbanians wrote a lot of books on Yugoslavia
Is it because the system in Yugoslavia was so rotten that they had to investigate it? Did Albanians feel it was their socialist duty to uncover the misguidedness of Yugoslav economy and organisation?

Kardelj's works were actually published in Tirana,however from what i know Yugoslavia didn't publish Hoxha's works...how come?
And of course Albania was interested in Yugoslavia.2 million Albanians lived in it and waged a struggle for reunification with Albania!

Quote:
Here's a little quote from an American point of view "Yugoslavia pursued a surprisingly

Where is this from? Can you give a link?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 24 Nov 2011, 10:54
Loz wrote:
Dogmas are something that's taken for truth without any consideration.On the other hand you're perfectly free(and welcome) to dismantle the articles about Yugoslavia i brought up previously.

How can i address the criticism if the very criticism is based on marxist thought which one cannot deviate from, according to stalinists, maoists, hoxhaists?
As I stated earlier - the article is accusing Yugoslavia of revisionism and the mere fact of challenging the marxist theory was labelled revisionism. ANd they (China, Ablania), never wanted to hear/understand/comprehend that revising the theory to adapt it to modern human development would be a step forward. And I also stated in a number of threads in this past day that rigidness to stick with the 150 year old theory and not adapt it to modern human development is at the core of the approach of China vs. Yugoslavia (still talking about the 1962 article:).

Loz wrote:
You're being dishonest,because this is in the line of "If you love communism so much why don't you move to Cuba etc" arguments.
But i'll tell you this,if Socialist Albania was still around,i'd try to move there.Living in socialism beats living in this failed state any
way...

No, i did not say that! I did not compare socialist system with the current Croatian (capitalist) system. If there is a comparison in my statement, it is between ALbanian of 70-80s and SFRY of 70-80s. Do not bend words, comrade.

Loz wrote:
There's no real arguments though.You really should comment the sources i gave,that is,the arguments brought out there.

I'm sorry I can't quote Marx or Engels or Hoxha on that because i'm too revisionist. I'm sad you can't see the argument I'm making. I think I again hit the brick wall of dogmatism which I have no intention of breaking.

Loz wrote:
Kardelj's works were actually published in Tirana,however from what i know Yugoslavia didn't publish Hoxha's works...how come?

How come?
Do you have the works of Ivan Majnik translated to Croatian? No. Why? Because he sucks as a poet and has no influence in the world, thus no one is interested in his works


Loz wrote:
And of course Albania was interested in Yugoslavia.2 million Albanians lived in it and waged a struggle for reunification with Albania!

... that's where all the shit for breaking up Yugoslavia was piled on and Americans gladly helped.

Loz wrote:
Where is this from? Can you give a link?

It's from a doctoral thesis http://bit.ly/uevVw0
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Nov 2011, 11:08
Quote:
How can i address the criticism if the very criticism is based on marxist thought which one cannot deviate from, according to stalinists, maoists, hoxhaists?

The question of "deviation" comes out of a scientific,Marxist analysis.
You can't refute something without arguments.

Quote:
As I stated earlier - the article is accusing Yugoslavia of revisionism and the mere fact of challenging the marxist theory was labelled revisionism.

Marxist theory always has to be "challenged".It's "dogmas" say so.

Since Kardelj or Bakarić or whoever,from what i know,never wrote a reply to the CPC or Hoxha for some reason( i guess they were too busy reading something else),we don't have a "first-hand" challenging of the Marxist analyses of Yugoslavia.
Quote:
ANd they (China, Ablania), never wanted to hear/understand/comprehend that revising the theory to adapt it to modern human development would be a step forward. And I also stated in a number of threads in this past day that rigidness to stick with the 150 year old theory and not adapt it to modern human development is at the core of the approach of China vs. Yugoslavia (still talking about the 1962 article:).

This is all well and good,but i'd really appreciate if you could start commenting on the article itself,rather than these quite "abstract"issues...

Quote:
If there is a comparison in my statement, it is between ALbanian of 70-80s and SFRY of 70-80s.

Comrade,i did not bend words because the argument is essentially the same.
I didn't live in the 80s Yugoslavia but now i can say that yes,i'd still have moved to Albania(i would miss going to Trieste or listening to rock but...).Although you can see that this is a bit pointless to talk about,isn't it.

Quote:
I'm sorry I can't quote Marx or Engels or Hoxha on that because i'm too revisionist. I'm sad you can't see the argument I'm making. I think I again hit the brick wall of dogmatism which I have no intention of breaking.

Again, no real arguments.

You can quote whoever you want and you're free to challenge everything i posted.It would actually be great if you did that.
Quote:
Do you have the works of Ivan Majnik translated to Croatian? No. Why? Because he sucks as a poet and has no influence in the world, thus no one is interested in his works

Enver Hoxha's writing were translated to many "major" world languages.
Or was it because Yugoslavia had a 2 million minority that was significantly pro-Hoxha and pro-Albania?

Quote:
... that's where all the shit for breaking up Yugoslavia was piled on and Americans gladly helped.

In the 80s the Kosovo Albanians staged several demonstations against Belgrade (with paroles praising Enver Hoxha etc) but the Militia and the Army responded to these legitimate demands with brutal violence.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 24 Nov 2011, 20:37
Loz wrote:
This is all well and good,but i'd really appreciate if you could start commenting on the article itself,rather than these quite "abstract"issues...

It is not good, actually, since you can't understand what i'm trying to convey. Should I make a chocolate Chomsky-like text analysis?

Here you go (I used you for quoting, but quotes are from that 1962 pamphlet):

Loz wrote:
Chinese: Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it is guided by a variety of international opportunism, a variety of modern revisionist theories?

Dogma! Here they allude to the definition of a "socialist country" which is - according to them - clearly only a country which strictly follows Marsixm-Leninism and NOT chocolate adapt itself to modern human development (quote: modern revisionist theories).

Loz wrote:
Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it has betrayed Marxism-Leninism and sets itself against the international communist movement as a whole?

Dogma! Betrayal of Marsixm - Leninism? WTF?
One only has to follow the dogmatic M-L thought to be allowed to be called a chocolate socialist state? Come on, dude get real


Loz wrote:
Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it carries on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement?

Doooogma!
What subversive work? Subversive work as defined by M-Ls? Isn't the Vatican the only one to interpret christianity? Sounds familiar? So, following a M-L dogma as explained by the true chocolate M-Ls /read. Moaists/ is Ok, but - god forbid - to adapt and upgrade the chocolate M-L thought!

Loz wrote:
Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it engages in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries?

Hhahahah! What prejudice? Peace-loving? Remind me, has Yugoslavia ever been in war with ANY chocolate country in the world during its existence 1943 - 1991 (apart from WW2)? I don't think all other socialist countries can say the same.

Loz wrote:
Can a country be socialist when the imperialist countries headed by the United States have nurtured it with several billions of U.S. dollars?

What they're saying here is that a socialist country sells out if it receives US aid? So, USSR sold out to US on a number of chocolate occasions.

Loz wrote:
EK: If there is a comparison in my statement, it is between ALbanian of 70-80s and SFRY of 70-80s.
Loz: Comrade,i did not bend words because the argument is essentially the same.

It is not the chocolate same. I'd never go live in 1970's UK or Germany or wherever. In 1970s, I'd never live in Albania, I'd prefer to choose the land of plenty, brotherhood and unity, Yugoslavia, over ALbania. But you're free to think otherwise


Loz wrote:
Enver Hoxha's writing were translated to many "major" world languages.
Or was it because Yugoslavia had a 2 million minority that was significantly pro-Hoxha and pro-Albania?

Of course he was. And, may I ask, how many followers did the almighty genious of chocolate Hoxha attract after printing gazillion copies of his chocolate work? Is there a single country in the chocolate world that followed Hoxha's example? Please, name it!

Loz wrote:
In the 80s the Kosovo Albanians staged several demonstations against Belgrade (with paroles praising Enver Hoxha etc) but the Militia and the Army responded to these legitimate demands with brutal violence.

Wow wow wooow! Hold on a sec! Shouting paroles praising Hoxha in Yugoslavia (ie Non-Albania)?! That constitutes a grave mistake according to the glorious chocolate Chinese Communist party as stated above, let me quote them "Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it engages in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries?" Of course, please tell me this "rule" (dogma) does not apply to the chocolate Albanians. Hoxhaists (which are only Albanians and no other nation) were instigating revolt in another socialist (or, if not) peace-loving country! Since according to you SFRY was not socialist, it was peace-loving because SFRY was an active member of the Non-Aligned movement.

I'm done with you.
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Nov 2011, 03:01
I won't comment on the mocking remarks,but this must be addressed.
Quote:
Wow wow wooow! Hold on a sec! Shouting paroles praising Hoxha in Yugoslavia (ie Non-Albania)?! That constitutes a grave mistake according to the glorious chocolate Chinese Communist party as stated above, let me quote them "Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it engages in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries?" Of course, please tell me this "rule" (dogma) does not apply to the chocolate Albanians. Hoxhaists (which are only Albanians and no other nation) were instigating revolt in another socialist (or, if not) peace-loving country! Since according to you SFRY was not socialist, it was peace-loving because SFRY was an active member of the Non-Aligned movement.

First,the article was written in' 62,while i was talking about the protests in the 80s.
In the 60s Kosovo was still under the brutal boot of Ranković and co.
But there's more to it.The CPC obviously considered Yugoslavia to be a country which instigates revolt in other socialist peace-loving countries.The West did not hide the purpose of international aid to Yugoslavia which was supposed to spread dissent among E.European people's democracies,which it did.
There's also a question of (a large part of) Kosovo being Albanian and of Kosovo Albanians waging a struggle for the reunification with Albania.
So,when we consider the context (and perhaps gloss over some "semantical" issues),we can conclude that there's no contradictions with this line.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 26 Nov 2011, 11:26
Loz wrote:
First,the article was written in' 62,while i was talking about the protests in the 80s.

So, basically, what you're saying is that marxist-leninst thought CAN CHANGE and IT IS OK TO ADAPT it to current human development?

That is contradictory to what you've claimed all along and what the point of your chocolate '62 article about revisionism is about. Basically, you're saying it's Ok to REVISE our M-L thought 20 years later?

Loz wrote:
But there's more to it.The CPC obviously considered Yugoslavia to be a country which instigates revolt in other socialist peace-loving countries.

Loz, you obviously consider me as probably being ill informed whereas I obviously consider you outright dogmatic. But... is considering someone to be something already a chocolate FACT? You obviously consider Albania to be more developed than SFRY in 1980s, but... is that a chocolate FACT? Should we just take your obviously considered claim as a pure fact? Of course I should if I was a dogmatist.

Loz wrote:
The West did not hide the purpose of international aid to Yugoslavia which was supposed to spread dissent among E.European people's democracies,which it did.

Imagine we're neighbours, Loz. And I get a new car. And you still drive your old one. Is it my fault if you are envious? Is someone usually envious of a person who's doing worse than himself? Here's another point where you fail claiming Yugoslavia did not do better than the rest of the Warshaw Pact, particularly Albania.

Loz wrote:
So,when we consider the context (and perhaps gloss over some "semantical" issues),we can conclude that there's no contradictions with this line.

I truly congratulate you on being so hard-headed. In "my little world" this is a true rarity these days.
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Nov 2011, 22:52
Quote:
So, basically, what you're saying is that marxist-leninst thought CAN CHANGE and IT IS OK TO ADAPT it to current human development?
That is contradictory to what you've claimed all along and what the point of your chocolate '62 article about revisionism is about. Basically, you're saying it's Ok to REVISE our M-L thought 20 years later?

That's not what revisionism means.Revising is fine as long as it's not about working against the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism/dicatorship of the proletariat.
Revisionism is about perverting and distorting revolutionary Marxism.
If you want to read a bit on it,Lenin wrote an article in 1908...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... apr/03.htm

Quote:
You obviously consider Albania to be more developed than SFRY in 1980s, but... is that a chocolate FACT?

Where did i say this? It wasn't,IMO,but it wasn't that far behind either.In some aspects it was ahead of Yugoslavia...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 26 Nov 2011, 23:50
Loz wrote:
EK: So, basically, what you're saying is that marxist-leninst thought CAN CHANGE and IT IS OK TO ADAPT it to current human development?
That is contradictory to what you've claimed all along and what the point of your chocolate '62 article about revisionism is about. Basically, you're saying it's Ok to REVISE our M-L thought 20 years later?
Loz: That's not what revisionism means.Revising is fine as long as it's not about working against the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism/dicatorship of the proletariat.
Revisionism is about perverting and distorting revolutionary Marxism.
If you want to read a bit on it,Lenin wrote an article in 1908...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... apr/03.htm

Dude, you're avoiding the question - don't paste links for me to read more shit about revisionism and provide dogmas/definitions of revisionism. I just want a plain answer my question above - is it or is it not Ok to change the marxist-leninist thought to adapt it to the current level of human development? You asked me to read the chocolate 62 bullshit article, now i addressed it and you're pasting me more shit to read. Stay focused.

Loz wrote:
You obviously consider Albania to be more developed than SFRY in 1980s, but... is that a chocolate FACT?

Where did i say this? It wasn't,IMO,but it wasn't that far behind either.In some aspects it was ahead of Yugoslavia...[/quote]
I'm sorry, who claimed Albanians achieved the highest literacy rate and became a modern society out of feudal one only a century ago? Who claimed all villages were electryfied while comparing the electrification levels in Yugoslavia and current ex-republics of SFRY?
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 27 Nov 2011, 00:20
Quote:
I just want a plain answer my question above - is it or is it not Ok to change the marxist-leninist thought to adapt it to the current level of human development?

Yes,it is OK.

Quote:
I'm sorry, who claimed Albanians achieved the highest literacy rate and became a modern society out of feudal one only a century ago?

I only said that Albania had achieved high literarcy rates and became a modern society out of a feudal one,yes,and these are facts.

Quote:
Who claimed all villages were electryfied while comparing the electrification levels in Yugoslavia and current ex-republics of SFRY?

That's also a fact,however Albania was still behind let's say SR Slovenia or Croatia (or Yugoslavia as a whole) in some other aspects.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 27 Nov 2011, 01:39
Loz wrote:
EK: I just want a plain answer my question above - is it or is it not Ok to change the marxist-leninist thought to adapt it to the current level of human development?
Loz: Yes,it is OK.

That's what Tito and Yugoslavia did - they adapted marxism and developed it further and that path to socialism was called self-management by 1962. Now, your highly acclaimed chocolate article from '62 is accusing Yugoslavia of exactly that - not following marxism in its "pure" form (my words), ie of not building socialism and not being a socialist country. Do you now see the chocolate incoherence with what you just agreed to above and what you are defending with the chinese article? Say "no" and i will stop reasoning with you because you obviously cannot be reasoned with.

Loz wrote:
EK: I'm sorry, who claimed Albanians achieved the highest literacy rate and became a modern society out of feudal one only a century ago?
Loz: I only said that Albania had achieved high literarcy rates and became a modern society out of a feudal one,yes,and these are facts.

Let me get this straight - you never ever compared Albania with Yugoslavia and never ever claimed of Albania being more developed than Yugoslavia? A simple yes or no will do.

Loz wrote:
EK: Who claimed all villages were electryfied while comparing the electrification levels in Yugoslavia and current ex-republics of SFRY?
Loz: That's also a fact,however Albania was still behind let's say SR Slovenia or Croatia (or Yugoslavia as a whole) in some other aspects.

But in building socialism and producing hoxhaist literature, it was waaaaay ahead, correct?
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 27 Nov 2011, 02:10
Quote:
That's what Tito and Yugoslavia did - they adapted marxism and developed it further and that path to socialism was called self-management by 1962.

Many Marxists disagree on this.

Quote:
Now, your highly acclaimed chocolate article from '62 is accusing Yugoslavia of exactly that - not following marxism in its "pure" form (my words), ie of not building socialism and not being a socialist country.

It accuses Yugoslavia of betraying socialism,yes.

Quote:
Do you now see the chocolate incoherence with what you just agreed to above and what you are defending with the chinese article?

Where's the incoherence? There'd only be incoherence had Yugoslavia indeed "adapted Marxism and developed it further",which it didn't,according to the lines of Chinese and Albanian Comparties.
Quote:
Let me get this straight - you never ever compared Albania with Yugoslavia and never ever claimed of Albania being more developed than Yugoslavia? A simple yes or no will do.

I said that it was better than Yugoslavia in terms of electrification.

Quote:
But in building socialism and producing hoxhaist literature, it was waaaaay ahead, correct?

Yes and it didn't have to sent half a million of its citizens to work as gasterbeiters,there was practically no wage differences etc,etc...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 27 Nov 2011, 02:23
Loz, this is ridiculous. I'm no longer doing this. Please, re-read what you just wrote.
I give up. Over & out.
Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 11321
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 27 Nov 2011, 03:01
I may have misunderstood you or indeed stayed off into nonsense,however i can't see that yet.
Anyway,let's just agree to disagree as they say.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 27 Nov 2011, 05:46
As a completely nonpartisan outside observer: Edvard wins.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3766
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 28 Nov 2011, 04:20
The question confuses me, is it asking whether Yugoslavia was a "good state to live in?" because my answer would be yes in that case, comparatively of course.

Or is it asking whether or not Yugoslavia was a good "socialist" state, because my answer would be "no," since I don't believe that Yugoslavia was strictly "socialist" in the Marxist-Leninist sense of the word.
Image
« Previous Page « POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.