Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Bourgeois economists recognised Yugoslavia as capitalist

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 17 Feb 2007, 02:38
Quote:
Most advanced [turning to capitalism] of all [in the Eastern bloc] is Yugoslavia, which, freed from Stalinist rigidity earlier than its fellows, in only a dozen years has de-socialized so fast and so far that its economy is now hardly more socialistic than that of France. The fact that people calling themselves “communists” are still governing the country is irrelevant to the basic social and economic facts. Central planning in Yugoslavia has virtually disappeared. The private sector not only predominates in agriculture but is even strong in industry, and the public sector itself has been so radically decentralized and placed under free pricing, profit-and-loss tests and a cooperative worker-ownership of each plant that true socialism hardly exists any longer. Only the final step of converting workers’ syndical control to individual shares of ownership remains on the path toward outright capitalism. Communist China and the able Marxist theoreticians of Monthly Review have clearly discerned the situation and have raised the alarm that Yugoslavia is no longer a socialist country.


Professor Rothbard, who was a lassiez-faire capitalist.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 17 Feb 2007, 09:24
what private sector? you mean a few bakeries, butcher shops, pubs and candy shops really mean the country has gone lassiez-faire?
seriously, i dont know of any particular private sector in yugoslavi.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 17 Feb 2007, 15:58
This is well known. Yugoslavia essentiall;y went Revisionist after the break with the Soviet bloc. By the 1970s, the British economy was more socialistic than the Yugoslav economy. And that is not praise of the British economy, it is condemnation of the Yugoslav economy.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 17 Feb 2007, 16:15
yes, that is a common truth that is spread by anti-yugoslav revisionists. yugoslavia had all the characteristics of a socialist state and experienced high economic growth due to it's relative openess to the world. there was a small private sector of mostly shopkeepers and several smaller compaines, but all corporations and factories were nationalised after 45, so it is mipossible to compare british economy to the yugoslav.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 17 Feb 2007, 16:34
It is one thing that Yugoslavia sold out socialism through its association with Western markets and the IMF, but your accusation of Yugoslavia being capitalist is unfounded.


In tandem with some public sector industries, there was workers' ownership of private sector industries, which I was always told to believe constituted socialism: the fact that workers controlled the means of their production, and that the economy was geared towards the workers' rights and concerns.

From what I see, the damage that Yugoslavia did to the socialist movement was not its domestic economic policy, but rather its political friendship with the devious Western governments and its denunciation of Stalin; isn't it true that Yugoslavia boasted one the happiest working classes in the world?
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 17 Feb 2007, 17:03
Quote:
there was a small private sector of mostly shopkeepers and several smaller compaines, but all corporations and factories were nationalised after 45, so it is mipossible to compare british economy to the yugoslav.

It is not impossible at all. A large part of all heavy industry in Britain was nationalised after 1945; the Labour government, in the name of the working class, took control of the commanding heights of the economy. The fact that it degenerated into bureaucratism and inefficient state capitalism before being finally killed off by Thatcher in the 1980s is another matter. But the kind of system we had in Britain between, say, 1950 and 1980 was not fundamentally different from that of Yugoslavia during the same period.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 18 Feb 2007, 16:50
are you saying that the british industry was controlled by the workers and not the beurocrats?
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 18 Feb 2007, 16:58
Quote:
are you saying that the british industry was controlled by the workers and not the beurocrats?

Not at all. I'm not idiotic enough to make the mistake many British 'socialists' made and equate nationalisation with socialism. I specifically said that the Labour government took control of the commanding heights of the British economy in the name of the working class. The workers themselves did not control these nationalised industries, the bourgeois bureaucrats did. The British state apparatus remained a bourgeois state apparatus. The 'socialism' in Britain in the post-War period was a pious fraud employed by the bourgeoisie to head off working class radicalism. But the point I am making is that the 'socialism' in Yugoslavia was not much better. Production for profit rather than production for need is not socialism.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 18 Feb 2007, 18:58
as far as i remember we had workers in charge of factories. those factories were controlled by the goverment, which is true. but to condem the goverment to work in favour of a profit is just ignorance. tito's regime managed to industrialise entire yugoslavia from a backward agragian state to a strong and stable economy which can be seen today in it's former republics. those republics are in fact economicly stronger and safer to live in than the former soviet republics, which can be atributed to the successful managment of the former socialist regime. not to mention the legacy of public education and healthcare, which is still strong and well protected by the citizents, despite the attempts of the current neoliberal goverments to privatise it.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1103
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jul 2006, 10:21
Party Member
Post 19 Feb 2007, 13:04
Quote:
Most advanced [turning to capitalism] of all [in the Eastern bloc] is Yugoslavia, which, freed from Stalinist rigidity earlier than its fellows, in only a dozen years has de-socialized so fast and so far that its economy is now hardly more socialistic than that of France.


It's amaizing as to how Western sources correlate decentralisation w/ abandoning Socialism. That's RIDICULOUS. Tito had a mixed economy, but it was a far cry from a capitalist one! He followed Nehruvian Socialism.

Instead of having a central planning comittee setting nationwide production quotas, you would have joint decision between the labour and the managerial staff, per factory, per industry. The data would get conveyed to the statistics office in the locality. From here on, a surplus target of 5%-10% was added, for national development progs. But still- the productivity quotas are set per factory with a 10% surplus imposed.

And even in large companies like SOKO, the managerial staff would be elected thru a worker election. But of course you had rules as a worker to compete in an election- (i.e. management training, etc). All these skill building sessions were free, in Tito's Yugoslavia.

So, you had a good mix of qualification and democracy within the industry.

Also, Yugoslavia had many subcultures who had an inherent mercantile culture- mainly the suburban Bosnians. The merchant class, in particular- is a VERY essential and central element in BOsnian agrarian culture. Bosnia was a sensitive issue to Tito. After WWII, most % of BOsnians were from the agrarian locales. Streamrolling over this mercantile culture would alientate the Bosnian community and many sensationalist / fanatics within Bosnia would attribute this as "punishement" metted out to them due to the Bosnian Mufti's allegence w/ the Nazis. This was a danger Tito could ill afford, and so he didn't interfere w/ the mercantile class- but he did set profit ceilings.

There were large scale landowner agrarians in Yugoslavia- true that. But they couldn't exploit their workers like say, Dole or any Western MNC. For most cases, perks nd essentials etc., would still be state covered. Unless I'm mistaken, even the large landowners had to operate on a 51:49 profit sharing agreement w/ the provincial government + the workers' expenses etc. got covered from that amount


I'd call Tito a Socialist but we all knew he wasn't a Communist. And for SURE -NOT- a bloodthirsty capitalist!!!

Decentralisation does not mean capitalism. That's just the Western media trying to pathetically discredit Socialist regimes in general.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Nov 2007, 22:25
Pioneer
Post 04 Dec 2007, 00:19
Yugoslavia was socialist. There is nothing to dispute. Companies were state owned, there was free health care and free education up to university including the right to have a job. No unemployed and no beggars.

Which means it was socialist!

(Just because small business were allowed to exist doesnt mean that it wasn't socialism). Theoretically socialism can exist even if everything is privatised and is fairly distributed and no one suffers in poverty. The aim of socialism isn't state ownership, but equality.
When the red stars unite, the dawn of a new day comes. The red sun is rising and and the sacred ideal guides us to paradise on earth. Our socialist ideal is brighter than sun!
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.