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

stalin vs tito

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Sep 2007, 16:15
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 22 Sep 2007, 16:37
who do you think is to blame for the split between the USSR and Yugoslavia? do you consider it to be a fault or a blessing (as the yugoslav communists would maybe put it)?
liberty lies in our hearts and once it dies there, no constitution can save it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10797
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Sep 2007, 16:49
Stalin wanted greater unity amongst the Eastern 'Communists States.' Tito did not want to give up Yugoslav autonomy.

I would consider the split as a fault. Splitting up the communist movement can only harm us more than it could ever possibly help us. i.e. look at how it hurt our comrades in Greece.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 39
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Dec 2007, 18:33
Pioneer
Post 12 Dec 2007, 00:53
Quote:
Stalin wanted greater unity amongst the Eastern 'Communists States.' Tito did not want to give up Yugoslav autonomy.


And good for him. I'd rather defend an autonomous socialist state such as Yugoslavia than give in to the unity of the "Communist Movement", whatever the hell you mean by that. If you think Stalin was any sort of Communist, you are mistaken. Tito merely resisted the totalitarianism seeking to destroy his country.

Quote:
I would consider the split as a fault. Splitting up the communist movement can only harm us more than it could ever possibly help us. i.e. look at how it hurt our comrades in Greece.


I disagree with splits in general, but not a split against an oppressive force. Yugoslavia opted for its freedom over unity with sorry excuses for Marxists, and even more pathetic Leninists.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 12 Dec 2007, 01:00
The issue of Tito was (and remains) a very important one.

Tito was originally a Communist leader in the Balkans/Yugoslavia. He led a guerilla army against the Nazis in the 1940s, and as the Nazis were defeated in europe, the Yugoslav partisans liberated the balkans and created a unified country called Yugoslavia -- that combined many Balkan nationalities. But Tito quickly took a path different from the other revolutionaries of that time... Before Tito, there had been revisionists-out-of-power (like Bernstein) who urged Marxists to adopt non-revolutionary policies. Then there were revisionists-in-power (like Bukharin) who urged pro-capitalist policies in the USSR... but Tito was the first time that such a capitalist roader got OVERALL power. And studying this, Mao Tse-Tung was able to do two things:

a) He was able to sum that "the rise of revisionism to power is the rise of a new capitalist class" -- even if the capitalist roaders still called themselves "Communists"

b) He was able to have a sense of what was going on when the new crew in the much-respected Soviet Union started adopting "revisings" of socialist policies -- and Mao was able to lead real Communists to oppose and resist the Krushchevite attempt to destroy the international Communist revolution.

As for what the policies Yugoslav revisionism and capitalism were...

Let me point to a valuable early resource: The Communist Party of China wrote a series of famous open letters in 1963 challenging Krushchev when he came to power. They are called "The Great Polemic." One of them is called "Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?". It lays out a historic, early analysis of capitalist restoration -- (which was, as a I said a very new thing in the world -- no one had seen it before, and many people didn't think it was possible!)

It is here >>>> http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html

Here is another source. It is from the more recent article "Prelude to Genocide:
How Capitalism Caused the Balkan Wars" from the old Revolutionary Worker.
http://rwor.org/a/v20/1000-1009/1001/kosobk.htm

The evidence of this revisionism was on several levels:

1) First, the Titoites opened themselves to the U.S. This was a time when the U.S. was violently "encircling" the "socialist camp" after WW2 (the McCarthy Period and Korean war.) And the Titoites cozied up to the U.S., and took their distance from the socialist countries like USSR and China.

2) They pursued other bourgeois nationalist policies that were opposed to internationalism. Particularly they tried to gobble up neighboring nationalities (the way Milosevic later did) -- they opposed independence for Albania and tried to take it over. They demanded parts of Bulgaria, and proposed a "Southern Slav federation" -- which they would have controlled. (These are documented in the new books printed containing Dimitrov's memoirs from that period, and his correspondence with Stalin... I think I have some of them on my other computer)

3) Closely related, their policy was to combine state capitalism with private capitalism within Yugoslavia. This took many forms over time -- but one key (and rather famous) component of it was (ironically) called "worker self-management." On paper the workers ran each large enterprise. But in fact what happened was that the INTERACTION of the enterprises was left in the market (they acted as autonomous units, making deciions at the enterprise level). What this meant was that the law of the market forced each enterprise (regardless of WHO was running it on paper) to act like a capitalist enterprise -- investing their surplus in whatever made the most profitable sense for THEIR enterprise, making management decisions that served THEIR enterprise (including layoffs etc.)

A system was created that "on paper" was a form of socialism -- but in reality operated like capitalism, with unplanned production based on individual maximization of profitable investment. And inevitably this meant that the laws of capitalism, not the workers, would decide what was produced. (This history, by the way, is an excellent example to show Anarchists: because it shows why you can't just have "workers running their factories" WITHOUT CENTRALIZED SOCIALIST PLANNING.)

The RW describes some of the results of this mix of bourgeois nationalism, plus internal capitalist roadism:

"Under the weight of growing debt to the West, the Titoites carried out new "reforms" in 1965. They moved to make their currency convertible to Western currencies--so that investments could more easily flow in and profits could more easily flow out. After 1968, foreign capitalists could invest directly in the private sector. Yugoslavia became the first revisionist country to set up a stock market. These innovations of the capitalist road are now being carried out in the rest of Eastern Europe.

Yugoslav proletarians were sent off as cheap labor for northern Europe--they basically became an "export commodity." By 1971, over a million Yugoslavs were immigrant workers, over half of them in West Germany.

According to World Bank statistics, the wealthiest 5 percent of Yugoslav households earned 25 percent of the national income in the 1970s, while the poorest 20 percent of the population earned less than 7 percent. This was one of the most extreme income gaps in Europe--in fact, according to the World Bank, even India's income distribution gap was not as big!

The northern nations of Yugoslavia--Slovenia and Croatia--were more highly developed industrially and agriculturally. The three southern national areas--Macedonia, Montenegro, and the Albanian region of Kosovo--were far more undeveloped and poor. Serbia, the largest national grouping, is in between North and South and is also a relatively poor area. These divisions within Yugoslavia got even more acute because of the capitalist development pursued by Yugoslavia. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Over decades, this created a powerful basis for antagonism between the nationalities of the country and for the growth of reactionary nationalism.

Investment flows where the profits are greatest. The industrial northern nations developed rapidly after 1945, while the poorer southern republics stagnated. When the 1990s started, per capita production in Slovenia was three times as high as it was in poorer regions like Macedonia. By 1970 the per capita income of the average Slovene was over six times that of the average Kosovar. Kosovo lives in Third World conditions--comparable to Bolivia or Morocco--while in Slovenia the standard of living is closer to that of neighboring Austria."


I'll stop there, for the moment.

I hope, evenstar, that gives a sense of the way that "revisionism-in-power" means capitalism is in power.

One of the first things Khrushchev did when restored capitalism in the Soviet Union was open new ties with Tito AND start to study and applies the state capitalist enterprise models from Yugoslavia. Which is why when the Maoists upheld the correct analysis of Yugoslavia in 1963, they were really making a pointed and public warning that capitalism was now being restored in the Soviet Union (under the Krushchevites). So, if we're going to get to where we need to go today, we don't need cold, state-capitalist ideologies like Titoism... we need revolutionary, scientific form of Marxism-Leninism, and all that it entails.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Dec 2007, 01:09
i'll tell you why slovenia was richer that other republics - because it was more industrialised and many people in bosnia and serbia were unemployed because that land was more agrarian in the past so they came to slovenia to work for smaller wages and of course we got richer like that. they got jobs and free and deacent places to live. let me remind all that slovenia was also the first republic to remove the liberal cliques from the party and those purges were led by (surprise) tito and kardelj.
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: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 12 Dec 2007, 01:29
Quote:
i'll tell you why slovenia was richer that other republics - because it was more industrialised and many people in bosnia and serbia were unemployed because that land was more agrarian in the past so they came to slovenia to work for smaller wages and of course we got richer like that. they got jobs and free and deacent places to live. let me remind all that slovenia was also the first republic to remove the liberal cliques from the party and those purges were led by (surprise) tito and kardelj.


Well if that's true, why didn't the Yugoslav regime work to do what communists are SUPPOSED to do: enact proper socialist development and land reform that brings about equality between certain regions of the state; as Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, one of th tasks of Communists is: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. This was one reason that the populace as a whole in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was so well-balanced: they worked to break down the economic contradictions between developed and underdeveloped areas and fixed the lopsided nature of how capitalism brings development.

Tito, on the other hand, let market capitalist relations run free within the economic sphere of the Yugoslav countries, so the initial lopsided development of each country ended up remaining unequal (as the article above shows).

So the question is brought forth again: how do we actually go about carrying out a genuinely socialist programme that can help us dismantle class distinctions and economic contradictions: the way of Tito, or the way of Lenin?
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Dec 2007, 01:51
Quote:
So the question is brought forth again: how do we actually go about carrying out a genuinely socialist programme that can help us dismantle class distinctions and economic contradictions: the way of Tito, or the way of Lenin?


it's called socialism in one country, serbia was gradually industrialised but then war came and things changed. same for bosnia, it used to be a nice tourist place before the war. dont blame tito for war he didnt cause.
Quote:
Tito, on the other hand, let market capitalist relations run free within the economic sphere of the Yugoslav countries, so the initial lopsided development of each country ended up remaining unequal (as the article above shows).


he PURGED the party of liberals in the 70ies, although small and some medium business was not prohibited. i dont even know if any medium business existed.
Quote:
they worked to break down the economic contradictions between developed and underdeveloped areas and fixed the lopsided nature of how capitalism brings development.


the only reason for the split was because tito did not want to lose his power, there was no economic misunderstandings.
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: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 12 Dec 2007, 02:04
Quote:
it's called socialism in one country, serbia was gradually industrialised but then war came and things changed. same for bosnia, it used to be a nice tourist place before the war. dont blame tito for war he didnt cause.


I'm not blaming Tito for the Balkan Wars, but I'm saying the uneven development of the former Yugoslav republics came long before the wars.

Quote:
he PURGED the party of liberals in the 70ies, although small and some medium business was not prohibited. i dont even know if any medium business existed.


But as I pointed out earlier, Tito allowed there to be competition between state-owned enterprises, thus setting up a market economy that was based on competition for profit... aka CAPITALISM. Just because all industry is state-owned does not necessarily make it socialist; the majority of enterprises in Sweden are state-owned or state-funded, but that doesn't make them socialist.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Dec 2007, 02:17
Quote:
I'm not blaming Tito for the Balkan Wars, but I'm saying the uneven development of the former Yugoslav republics came long before the wars.


ahem, that issue came 100 years before yugoslavia existed, it was impossible to fix everything after a monarchical rule which was in favour of agrarian state, world war and then all those cultural diffirences and nationalism.
Quote:
But as I pointed out earlier, Tito allowed there to be competition between state-owned enterprises, thus setting up a market economy that was based on competition for profit... aka CAPITALISM. Just because all industry is state-owned does not necessarily make it socialist; the majority of enterprises in Sweden are state-owned or state-funded, but that doesn't make them socialist.


he allowed but i never heard before that he would ever set up a market economy like that, workers were still take care of better than in may other nations and they also had the right to strike and they were better taken care of and protected than in sweden. how that is capitalist i dont know.
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: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 12 Dec 2007, 02:28
Quote:
ahem, that issue came 100 years before yugoslavia existed, it was impossible to fix everything after a monarchical rule which was in favour of agrarian state, world war and then all those cultural diffirences and nationalism.


True, such things aren't easy, but the USSR was able to accomplish things in 5-10 years that Yugoslavia wasn't able to accomplish in 40... which show that when put correctly into command, socialism makes anything possible.

Quote:
he allowed but i never heard before that he would ever set up a market economy like that


Read the links I posted above to learn more.

Quote:
workers were still take care of better than in may other nations and they also had the right to strike and they were better taken care of and protected than in sweden. how that is capitalist i dont know.


Socialism =/= state ownership with welfare measures. Capitalist countries like the Scandinavian countries, Spain, France, Switzerland etc. (the Third Reich!) have social welfare institutions on vast scopes that make the workers much better off than in other nations, but that still doesn't change the basic social relations of exploitation and oppression.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Dec 2007, 02:37
Quote:
True, such things aren't easy, but the USSR was able to accomplish things in 5-10 years that Yugoslavia wasn't able to accomplish in 40... which show that when put correctly into command, socialism makes anything possible.


yugoslavia wasnt ready to risk any kind of shock therapy and the long term socialism it used was positive on the end for all of us.

Quote:
Read the links I posted above to learn more.


those links arent really objective and are mostly put together by people who live far from yugoslavia

Quote:
Socialism =/= state ownership with welfare measures. Capitalist countries like the Scandinavian countries, Spain, France, Switzerland etc. (the Third Reich!) have social welfare institutions on vast scopes that make the workers much better off than in other nations, but that still doesn't change the basic social relations of exploitation and oppression.


so now yugoslavia is like nazi germany? true, yugoslavia was not communist, it was socialist and it was in the transition process which sadly halted with the death of tito. if tito would really care about free market he would never have stopped the liberal cliques in the party.
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: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 12 Dec 2007, 02:47
Quote:
those links arent really objective and are mostly put together by people who live far from yugoslavia


Are you saying that only astronauts can write about the moon, simply because they are the only ones who have been there? That Carl Sagan shouldn't have written about other galaxies simply because he had never been to another galaxy? Come now, that's a logical fallacy. The Chinese economists and analysts that did the report above used Yugoslav and Soviet sources and documents for their research and give an interesting look into what exactly Yugoslav "socialism" actually was.

Quote:
so now yugoslavia is like nazi germany? true, yugoslavia was not communist, it was socialist and it was in the transition process which sadly halted with the death of tito. if tito would really care about free market he would never have stopped the liberal cliques in the party.


Yugoslavia wasn't THAT much like Nazi Germany- to compare Hitler and Tito would be ABSURD.... but my point is, once again, that just because you have state ownership of industries and a large social welfare system it doesn't make you necessarily socialist.

I'm kinda just running around in circles now, but if I find those documents I have of the Tito-Stalin rift on my computer, I will post them here....
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 114
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Dec 2007, 14:21
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2007, 02:51
Quote:
Are you saying that only astronauts can write about the moon, simply because they are the only ones who have been there? That Carl Sagan shouldn't have written about other galaxies simply because he had never been to another galaxy? Come now, that's a logical fallacy. The Chinese economists and analysts that did the report above used Yugoslav and Soviet sources and documents for their research and give an interesting look into what exactly Yugoslav "socialism" actually was.


I noticed and was tempted to say something about his dismissal of your sources... but eh, not my battle. Well-worded.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Dec 2007, 03:06
Quote:
Are you saying that only astronauts can write about the moon, simply because they are the only ones who have been there? That Carl Sagan shouldn't have written about other galaxies simply because he had never been to another galaxy? Come now, that's a logical fallacy. The Chinese economists and analysts that did the report above used Yugoslav and Soviet sources and documents for their research and give an interesting look into what exactly Yugoslav "socialism" actually was.


true, others can write about it but it will never make them feel like they actually were on the moon. then please explain to me what yugoslav socialism was, if all my living sources are inadiquate. it's a bit ironic that chinese economists would write about yugoslav socialism since china was neither friendly to yugoslavia nor do the adhere socialism to the letter, not saying they are not socialists.

Quote:
Yugoslavia wasn't THAT much like Nazi Germany- to compare Hitler and Tito would be ABSURD.... but my point is, once again, that just because you have state ownership of industries and a large social welfare system it doesn't make you necessarily socialist.


like i've said, yugoslavia was in a transition era and "liberalism" was being dismanteled piece by piece.
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: 114
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Dec 2007, 14:21
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2007, 03:10
What is liberalism to you?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Dec 2007, 03:54
Andrei wrote:
Well if that's true, why didn't the Yugoslav regime work to do what communists are SUPPOSED to do: enact proper socialist development and land reform that brings about equality between certain regions of the state;


Exactly! Which is precisely why anarchism will never bring communism either. You need a centralized economy to rectify 500 years of uneven capitalist development. Otherwise, what is the point? On the other hand, Yugoslavia never gave up their nominal socialism until NATO bombed it out of existence. Hmm...

Some Trot wrote:
unity of the "Communist Movement", whatever the hell you mean by that


Classic...


UNITY +
Image
=
Image
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Dec 2007, 06:43
Quote:
What is liberalism to you?


no state intervention, privatisation in all sectors, keeping the workers out of the dealings, no unions, less worker right at the expense productivity. to be very broad.
Quote:
Exactly! Which is precisely why anarchism will never bring communism either. You need a centralized economy to rectify 500 years of uneven capitalist development. Otherwise, what is the point? On the other hand, Yugoslavia never gave up their nominal socialism until NATO bombed it out of existence. Hmm...


that's the problem, there was never no capitalism there, every single system was feudalistic and with the monarchy it was agrarian for one simple reason: farmers are less educated so why keeping them to be in power? what does economy has to do with unity if every single nation had about 1000 years of slaughtering the other one? besides a lot of money from more developed parts went to less developed but things didnt change because people wanted to get rich faster so they worked in more developed parts instead.
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: 114
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Dec 2007, 14:21
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2007, 07:08
Quote:
no state intervention, privatisation in all sectors, keeping the workers out of the dealings, no unions, less worker right at the expense productivity. to be very broad.


Well that's one interpretation. Without liberal thinking, you think Marx would have ever been inspired to think and write a Communist Manifesto? It's kindof like how the Enlightenment was directly responsible for the proliferation of pre-modern European philosophy, culture, art, you name it.

Which liberal nation doesn't have unions? I'm actually curious to know.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4501
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 12 Dec 2007, 07:42
I agree with Red Rebel on the issue of the Stalin/Tito break. Whoever's fault it was (and probably each side bore some responsibility), the split was a mistake, harming the international communist movement, just as the China split did in the 1960s. Neither side's theory or practice was perfectly ideologically sound at every step, but I don't think it ever came to one side being so completely disagreeable or revisionist that working with the West and the Americans was the better option.

...

Quote:
true, others can write about it but it will never make them feel like they actually were on the moon. then please explain to me what yugoslav socialism was, if all my living sources are inadiquate. it's a bit ironic that chinese economists would write about yugoslav socialism since china was neither friendly to yugoslavia nor do the adhere socialism to the letter, not saying they are not socialists.


I have to agree with Moris on this point about sourcing. I read Maoist critiques of Soviet 'social imperialism' and the unsocialist nature of the entire system post-Stalin etc., while the vast majority of people I know that actually lived under the system, including some very intelligent and informed people, consistently tell me otherwise. It's so frustrating to hear a critique of your country by people with a great deal of theoretical, but no practical information with which to base their critique.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Dec 2007, 07:58
"Maoists" are more idealist than Trots at times. At least the Trots defend the "deformed" Workers' states! In the MLM book of fairy tales, the pure Princess Russia woke up one day and for no reason at all decided to take a drink of the State Capitalist potion, which instantly turned her into a horrible witch. Then she flew away on her broomstick to live in the magical Three Worlds Theory fairy kingdom for ever after.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.