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

Rate the socialist states

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 22 Jun 2013, 04:56
Eire, a lot of us had problems with Stalin when we first started out. I think this is natural, especially in the West, where Stalin is regularly placed side by side with Hitler, sometimes even accused of greater crimes. It seems that often times even communists cannot escape the psychological conditioning against the man, and I believe that at least in part this is the reason that so many radical Leftists turn to Trotsky -to say to those who criticize communism through using Stalin as an argument that "we are communists, but we reject Stalin's crimes." This I believe is generally counterproductive, and undermines peoples' understanding of the Western Left.

I believe that if your studies of the Stalin and his era continue, you may eventually come to a more balanced view. Judging by how you've rated the socialist countries and their leaderships in the 60s and 70s, I think that you'll eventually come to realize that these societies, the USSR especially, were built upon a political and socio-economic base constructed by Stalin, only with improvements in the spheres of socialist legality, increased tolerance for opposing views, a greater commitment to internationalism, etc. Brezhnev and his colleagues were the products of the Stalin era. To reject Stalin and Stalinism outright is to reject the Soviet project, because as history ordained it, most of the achievements and accomplishments of the Soviet period were brought about either during his leadership -industrialization, collectivization, the victory in the Second World War, reconstruction, the leaps forward in science, education and medicine, etc. Those achievements that came after were based on modified versions of the political and economic model created under Stalin.

Having read all this, you may now be forced to reevaluate your rating of the post-Stalin USSR negatively. However, consider that Alexander Yakovlev, arguably the most destructive ideological opponent of socialism in its history, has written that the plan to destroy socialism lay at first in the rejection of Stalin and Stalinism. As he once wrote: "[in the leadup to perestroika, we] informally developed a plan: to hit at Stalin and Stalinism through Lenin, and then, if successful, at Lenin and revolutionism in general through Plekhanov, the Social Democrats, liberalism, and ‘ethical socialism.’” The people of the USSR, a country guided by the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, fell for the trap of rejecting the greatest part of their history, and this helped lead to their rejection of socialism as a whole. It's important to take a balanced view; otherwise you will never get a complete understanding of Soviet history, of socialism and communism in general. The same naturally goes for Trotsky haters.
"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
Soviet cogitations: 987
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 22 Jun 2013, 08:41
Hell, I still have a lot of problems with Stalin. I'd still support him against any bourgeoisie. That doesn't mean we can't critically evaluate the USSR under his leadership, and, like soviet78 said, the USSR was pretty much Stalinist until its bitter end and the dismantling of the USSR under Gorbachev.

soviet78 wrote:
"we are communists, but we reject Stalin's crimes."

This here, I think, is a big problem with the left these days. No wonder we are considered "dreamers" and "idealists" if we don't have the courage to take responsibility for other communists' actions.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Jun 2013, 01:02
The main reason many modern Socialists/Communists shy away from Stalinism is simple chauvinism/racism. Lenin, Stalin, and the rest were foreigners who had the nerve to assassinate their God-appointed Tsar, and then oppose the will of Imperial Capital. Why do you think the first and foremost charge against Communists is always, "Well, they tried it in Russia, 900 billion people died, and it failed"? The implication is that Communism is a good enough doctrine for crazy eyed, bearded foreigners, but could never work in good, clean, God fearing America/Britain/wherever else.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 221
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Feb 2013, 06:55
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 23 Jun 2013, 08:18
soviet78 wrote:
Eire, a lot of us had problems with Stalin when we first started out. I think this is natural, especially in the West, where Stalin is regularly placed side by side with Hitler, sometimes even accused of greater crimes. It seems that often times even communists cannot escape the psychological conditioning against the man, and I believe that at least in part this is the reason that so many radical Leftists turn to Trotsky -to say to those who criticize communism through using Stalin as an argument that "we are communists, but we reject Stalin's crimes." This I believe is generally counterproductive, and undermines peoples' understanding of the Western Left.

I believe that if your studies of the Stalin and his era continue, you may eventually come to a more balanced view. Judging by how you've rated the socialist countries and their leaderships in the 60s and 70s, I think that you'll eventually come to realize that these societies, the USSR especially, were built upon a political and socio-economic base constructed by Stalin, only with improvements in the spheres of socialist legality, increased tolerance for opposing views, a greater commitment to internationalism, etc. Brezhnev and his colleagues were the products of the Stalin era. To reject Stalin and Stalinism outright is to reject the Soviet project, because as history ordained it, most of the achievements and accomplishments of the Soviet period were brought about either during his leadership -industrialization, collectivization, the victory in the Second World War, reconstruction, the leaps forward in science, education and medicine, etc. Those achievements that came after were based on modified versions of the political and economic model created under Stalin.

Having read all this, you may now be forced to reevaluate your rating of the post-Stalin USSR negatively. However, consider that Alexander Yakovlev, arguably the most destructive ideological opponent of socialism in its history, has written that the plan to destroy socialism lay at first in the rejection of Stalin and Stalinism. As he once wrote: "[in the leadup to perestroika, we] informally developed a plan: to hit at Stalin and Stalinism through Lenin, and then, if successful, at Lenin and revolutionism in general through Plekhanov, the Social Democrats, liberalism, and ‘ethical socialism.’” The people of the USSR, a country guided by the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, fell for the trap of rejecting the greatest part of their history, and this helped lead to their rejection of socialism as a whole. It's important to take a balanced view; otherwise you will never get a complete understanding of Soviet history, of socialism and communism in general. The same naturally goes for Trotsky haters.


I think I will give Stalin another look since I have learned so much from most of your post in the past.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 23 Jun 2013, 19:34
Although Stalin definitely made some mistakes during his tenure as General Secretary, he undoubtedly made numerous significant achievements as well. His industrialization and collectivization led to a decisive victory in the Great Patriotic War and the liberation of eastern Europe from the Nazis. Stalin was not only one of the greatest leaders of the USSR, but also one of the greatest communists of all time. Most people, especially Westerners, disregard Stalin as a tyrant without actually looking past the dark side of his administration. He turned Russia from a backwards agrarian society into an industrial world superpower in a very short period of time.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 24 Jun 2013, 04:20
The absolutely single most valuable thing I was ever taught about history was "Everything in context".


The second you take something on it's own, without viewing it in the context it belongs in, you are creating a lie.


As marxists, we should always view the context, and reach the conclusion that must occur.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Jul 2013, 13:58
How was Hoxha "insane"? It's also worth noting that Ceaușescu and Kim Il Sung were both on very good terms with Tito, who shared their approval of "national roads to socialism."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 15 Jul 2013, 22:36
Ismail wrote:
How was Hoxha "insane"? It's also worth noting that Ceaușescu and Kim Il Sung were both on very good terms with Tito, who shared their approval of "national roads to socialism."

Calling Tito a nationalist is like calling Hoxha sane. It's an oxymoron. FYI, Yugoslavia was a multi-national federal state with 6 republics and 2 autonomous regions, so I don't see how a leader of such a country could be called a nationalist. When nationalists finally got their say in Yugoslavia (in the 1980s), Yugoslavia quicly dissolved (that was after marshall Tito's passing).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 16 Jul 2013, 02:56
EdvardK, the "national road to socialism" here means "independently from external (primarily Soviet) influence and/or interference", not national as in adherence to nationalist values.

Also Ismail, Hoxha was insane because he was willing to abandon the entire world socialist movement for the sake of so-called 'ideological purity', which resulted in ramshackle socio-economic development, Mao-style radicalism by decree, and very little to show for it after a generation of rule, not to mention the fact that most communists rejected then and reject today the absurd idea that the USSR reverted to capitalism after Stalin.
"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
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 03:56
EdvardK wrote:
FYI, Yugoslavia was a multi-national federal state with 6 republics and 2 autonomous regions, so I don't see how a leader of such a country could be called a nationalist. When nationalists finally got their say in Yugoslavia (in the 1980s), Yugoslavia quicly dissolved (that was after marshall Tito's passing).
The USSR was a multi-national federal state as well. That doesn't change the fact that Great-Russian chauvinism exhibited itself with the restoration of capitalism there. In Yugoslavia the Albanians of Kosovo were oppressed, and Tito even said to Hoxha that he "could not" agree to cede Kosovo to Albania because he felt appeasing Great-Serbian nationalism was a better option.

And there is the fact that Yugoslavia's capitalist system led to austerity measures and inequality between the republics, which culminated in genocide.

Tito's nationalism expressed itself ideologically as well, hence why Titoism exists. Hence why he was on such good terms with fellow nationalists Ceaușescu and Kim Il Sung, who likewise spoke of "different roads to socialism." It is why Tito encouraged right-wingers like Imre Nagy and Gomułka. It is why he praised FDR's New Deal as a step towards socialism in the USA.

soviet78 wrote:
EdvardK, the "national road to socialism" here means "independently from external (primarily Soviet) influence and/or interference", not national as in adherence to nationalist values.
No, by "national road to socialism" one means a bourgeois-nationalist deviation from the road to socialism. No one denies that there will be distinctions in how the proletarian revolution and socialist construction are carried out in various countries, but it certainly won't be by violating Marxism-Leninism, by replacing it with bourgeois-nationalist ideologies such as Juche or Maoism.

Quote:
Also Ismail, Hoxha was insane because he was willing to abandon the entire world socialist movement for the sake of so-called 'ideological purity',
The Albanians were economically blockaded and faced attempts to overthrow their government on the part of the Soviet revisionists. In fact I even wrote a whole article on the subject of the split a few months back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Albanian_Split

The world socialist movement denounced Soviet revisionism.

Quote:
which resulted in ramshackle socio-economic development,
Albania had some of the highest growth rates in the world in the 60's-70's. Quality of life continuously increased during those two decades.

Quote:
Mao-style radicalism by decree,
Be more specific. Let us not forget either the "socialist legality" of Soviet revisionism, which invaded Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, which legitimized the new Soviet bourgeoisie and declared that class dictatorship (and thus class struggle) had come to an end in Soviet society.

Quote:
and very little to show for it after a generation of rule,
In the span of 4 decades Albania went from a feudal relic to a relatively modern and socialist state. Illiteracy was abolished, electricity was made a part of every home no matter how remote, access to health care and education showed great strides, etc.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 11:34
soviet78 wrote:
EdvardK, the "national road to socialism" here means "independently from external (primarily Soviet) influence and/or interference", not national as in adherence to nationalist values.

Point taken.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 11:56
Ismail wrote:
In Yugoslavia the Albanians of Kosovo were oppressed,

Please, tell me more about how the oppression is usually the reason for a nation to procreate uncontrollably and have up to 10 kids per family in such a brutal environment. Afterall, that's how shiptars got to become a majority in Kosovo and Metohija regions - after 4 decades of brutal oppression, yes?

Ismail wrote:
And there is the fact that Yugoslavia's capitalist system led to austerity measures and inequality between the republics, which culminated in genocide.

Please, tell me more about your sound economic theory and how SFRY was a capitalist country. For it seems that all capitalist countries will perish in genocide, either in 2013 or 2014, yes?

I am in doubt, however, whether Hoxha was insane or just fantastically incompetent because a normally developed person would not ruin its country and make it a laughing stock for generations to come. Please, tell me about one (ONE, 1) hi-tec product that comes from Albania (now or ever in the past) which can beat the majority of Western competitors? No one has been able to name three accomplishments that Albania gave to the world throughout its entire existence - that was some 6 months or so ago... (or was it only two and no one came up with any).
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 15:21
EdvardK wrote:
Please, tell me more about how the oppression is usually the reason for a nation to procreate uncontrollably and have up to 10 kids per family in such a brutal environment. Afterall, that's how shiptars got to become a majority in Kosovo and Metohija regions - after 4 decades of brutal oppression, yes?
Perhaps they had to repopulate after the Yugoslav state deported so many of them to Turkey, classifying them as "Turks" both under the monarchy and under Titoite "socialism" in the 40's and 50's. As for this idea that the birth rate somehow turned Serbs into a minority within Kosovo, see Noel Malcolm's work on the subject, which disproves such a claim.

Quote:
Please, tell me more about your sound economic theory and how SFRY was a capitalist country.
I could just as easily quote bourgeois works sympathetic to the Yugoslavs. Before I do so, however, I'd just like to note that Yugoslavia was the only "socialist" country that claimed unemployment was normal under socialism, and in fact so many Yugoslavs were told to go to West Germany to find work due to high unemployment at home.

And now some quotes:

"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.)

Quote:
Please, tell me about one (ONE, 1) hi-tec product that comes from Albania (now or ever in the past) which can beat the majority of Western competitors? No one has been able to name three accomplishments that Albania gave to the world throughout its entire existence - that was some 6 months or so ago... (or was it only two and no one came up with any).
China manufactures all sorts of "high-tech" products, that doesn't make it socialist. I don't see your point, you only seem to be asking this ridiculous question as a way to insult "shqiptars" (which, for those who don't know, is a derogatory word in the former Yugoslavia; one might as well use "kebab.")
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 16 Jul 2013, 23:59
Ismail wrote:
Perhaps they had to repopulate after the Yugoslav state deported so many of them to Turkey, ... under Titoite "socialism" in the 40's and 50's.

What a claim
Let me get this straight, please: so, Tito's communists deported the "majority" population in Kosovo, which according to you was Albanians anyway, to Turkey (hahaha), and then those same Tito's communists who governed and ruled the "occupied" Kosovo for almost half a century LET ALBANIANS REPOPULATE? This is some strange shit here...

Ismail wrote:
Yugoslavia was the only "socialist" country that claimed unemployment was normal under socialism, and in fact so many Yugoslavs were told to go to West Germany to find work due to high unemployment at home.

So, you prefer to live in a world of make-believe and take every word written 150 years ago about the then-world as complete and utter truth for eons to come? So, if Marx said there would be no unemployment in communism, we should pretend to be that way? By the way, Yugoslavia was not in communism, we were in socialism. Big difference. B I G
FYI, do you know what happened with the "gast arbeiters" who went to Germany to look for their daily bread? They rebuilt the Germany, earned money, SENT IT BACK HOME, that money went to federal reserves, and we could build roads, infrastructure, etc. with all that money.

Ismail wrote:
And now some quotes:

...from the same book by some author who is obviously not impartial but goes to great lengths to prove that everything he has allegedly seen in SFRY is a huge mistake...

Ismail wrote:
"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?

SFRY, obviously. We were proud of ourselves and did not read Marx' Das Kapital as you shiptars - as if it were a bible and holy word of the lord jesus christ himself. What a bunch of baloney - isn't it better to be pragmatic and try to make ends meet depending on the situation you're in?

Ismail wrote:
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...

Please, tell me more how it is better to live in a system where workers have no right to say what's on their mind because such a system is definitely better than letting them speak their mind and - if not heard - strengthen their points by stopping work and making others hear them and try to understand them? So, it is better to live in a soviet-shiptar system where workers would be shot or incarcerated if they spoke their mind?

Ismail wrote:
... can peasants not only own their land but privately import and operate tractors; can individuals run trading businesses, restaurants, and motels? ...

Please, tell me how is this bad if all that helps the people to achieve their goals and ensure survival for themselves and their families? Wouldn't it be better to not to have those tractors and starve to death just to show how Marx was right?
SFRY was not communist, it was a socialist country, and your highly esteemed author of this pamphlet does not know the difference. I bet he was impressed with Albania's staunch backwardness as they surely did prove Marx to be right, am i correct?

Ismail wrote:
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. p. 52, 54.)

This "impartial" author wrote some very impartial pamphlets, such as "Tito, the enemy of the Hungarians", etc. A real role model for an impartial journalist, please name more of such great journalists to support your wild theories.

Ismail wrote:
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.

Unbelievable. So, everyone has to throw the money out of the window for fancy no-use military parades on May Day because Marx or Stalin said so? And this guy even talks of Lenin, Marx, Engels as the holy trinity, making it sound like religion, which stuff that you believe in really was! hahaha

Ismail wrote:
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."

... such as Albania where the vast majority of the population was poor, uneducated, illiterate, and never saw a mercedes on their shabby roads.

Ismail wrote:
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) plants 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.

Please, tell me more how saving money and running a cost-efficient system is unsocialist and how a real communist country must spend way over its possibilites just to prove there are no "profits" left, as Marx said 150 years ago that this is bad. Really B A D.

Ismail wrote:
China manufactures all sorts of "high-tech" products, that doesn't make it socialist.

I am merely asking for one and one single accomplishment of your glorious country, one which it shared with the rest of the world and made it a better place to live.
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 17 Jul 2013, 08:30
EdvardK wrote:
What a claim
Let me get this straight, please: so, Tito's communists deported the "majority" population in Kosovo, which according to you was Albanians anyway, to Turkey (hahaha), and then those same Tito's communists who governed and ruled the "occupied" Kosovo for almost half a century LET ALBANIANS REPOPULATE? This is some strange shit here...
Well they could have simply genocided them outright, but somehow I don't think that'd go over well. As it was, the Titoites themselves admitted that the 40's and 50's were bad times for Albanians, but pinned all that on Ranković after the latter's downfall, whereas Milovan Đilas noted that Tito oversaw the anti-Albanian operations and knew what was going on. There is also the fact that in the late 60's and in 1981 Albanian workers and students protested against the discriminatory policies of the Yugoslav state, and the latter case was repressed by tanks.

It's also worth noting that the Titoites had amongst them in their original government Vaso Čubrilović, who had proposed expelling Albanians under the Yugoslav monarchy and who, not long after the war, proposed basically the exact same policies to the "socialist" leadership.

Quote:
So, you prefer to live in a world of make-believe and take every word written 150 years ago about the then-world as complete and utter truth for eons to come? So, if Marx said there would be no unemployment in communism, we should pretend to be that way? By the way, Yugoslavia was not in communism, we were in socialism. Big difference. B I G
Somehow the USSR and Albania under the "insane" Enver Hoxha had 0% unemployment, thanks to their socialist systems. Yugoslavia was literally the only self-proclaimed "socialist" country in the world which had high unemployment and legitimized it. There's even a book dealing with the Yugoslav system using that title, Socialist Unemployment.

Quote:
FYI, do you know what happened with the "gast arbeiters" who went to Germany to look for their daily bread? They rebuilt the Germany, earned money, SENT IT BACK HOME, that money went to federal reserves, and we could build roads, infrastructure, etc. with all that money.
They rebuilt capitalist Germany through working as wage-laborers because the Yugoslav capitalist state couldn't afford to keep them at home. Not surprisingly the anti-communist Democratic Party promised a similar program for Albanians in 1991-1992.

Quote:
...from the same book by some author who is obviously not impartial but goes to great lengths to prove that everything he has allegedly seen in SFRY is a huge mistake...
... some author who was a respected bourgeois journalist who actually praised the Yugoslavs...

Quote:
Please, tell me more how it is better to live in a system where workers have no right to say what's on their mind because such a system is definitely better than letting them speak their mind and - if not heard - strengthen their points by stopping work and making others hear them and try to understand them? So, it is better to live in a soviet-shiptar system where workers would be shot or incarcerated if they spoke their mind?
The fact that strikes were so common is a pretty big indictment of a "socialist" system, since workers' concerns obviously couldn't be fulfilled through the trade unions.

Quote:
This "impartial" author wrote some very impartial pamphlets, such as "Tito, the enemy of the Hungarians", etc.
And Tito once wrote paeans to Stalin. What's your point? Lendvai wrote that in 1951, when he was a member of the Hungarian Working People's Party. He subsequently became an anti-communist and left Hungary. He has chapters on Albania and other countries in the book I cited. In none of these chapters does he paint a uniformly positive portrayal of the countries in question.

Quote:
I am merely asking for one and one single accomplishment of your glorious country, one which it shared with the rest of the world and made it a better place to live.
Its accomplishment, one quite difficult considering the circumstances, was to stand firm in defense of communism and proletarian internationalism in a world beset by capitalism and revisionism, and to resist the various plots of outside states from the Americans and British, from the Soviet revisionists, from the Yugoslavs and Greeks, and from the Chinese who were all intent on liquidating the socialist system.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 19 Jul 2013, 14:12
Ismail wrote:
Well they could have simply genocided them outright, but somehow I don't think that'd go over well. As it was, the Titoites themselves admitted that the 40's and 50's were bad times for Albanians, but pinned all that on Ranković after the latter's downfall, whereas Milovan Đilas noted that Tito oversaw the anti-Albanian operations and knew what was going on. There is also the fact that in the late 60's and in 1981 Albanian workers and students protested against the discriminatory policies of the Yugoslav state, and the latter case was repressed by tanks.

You failed to address my point about your inconsistency - why would mean Titoists (or Titoites, as you call them) REPOPULATE Albanians in Kosovo after they allegedly expelled everyone to Turkey?

Ismail wrote:
It's also worth noting that the Titoites had amongst them in their original government Vaso Čubrilović, who had proposed expelling Albanians under the Yugoslav monarchy and who, not long after the war, proposed basically the exact same policies to the "socialist" leadership.

Besides, if you allege and accuse, do it with impartial facts. Čubrilović was a minister for forests, not a "minister for ethnically cleansing shiptars from age-old Serb region of Kosovo". The memorandum about ethnically clean Kosovo was published in 1937 by him. You being a staunch hoxhaist, this may be a tough concept for you to grasp, but people DO change their stands on certain issues as they progress in life.

Ismail wrote:
Somehow the USSR and Albania under the "insane" Enver Hoxha had 0% unemployment, thanks to their socialist systems. Yugoslavia was literally the only self-proclaimed "socialist" country in the world which had high unemployment and legitimized it. There's even a book dealing with the Yugoslav system using that title, Socialist Unemployment.

I am sure Slovenia (the country i live in) could do away with its current 18% unemployment if it adopted the glorious hoxhaist (puppet stalinist) doctrine of just employing everyone without the need to actually being lean and efficient or just DO ANY WORK. You probably disagree with this notion, too, but a worker has to contribute to the company/factor at least as much as he earns from it.

Ismail wrote:
They rebuilt capitalist Germany through working as wage-laborers because the Yugoslav capitalist state couldn't afford to keep them at home. Not surprisingly the anti-communist Democratic Party promised a similar program for Albanians in 1991-1992.

Let me get this straight, please: it NOT GOOD if workers abroad earn money there and send it back to their home countries? Please, tell me more about insane hoxhaist ideas of self-sufficiency, ie autarky - i bet it is a concept everyone should embrace, yes?

Ismail wrote:
The fact that strikes were so common is a pretty big indictment of a "socialist" system, since workers' concerns obviously couldn't be fulfilled through the trade unions.

I agree that SFRY had a socialist and not a communist system. And I am sure workers would've gone on strike in your glorious USSR if they weren't fearing repercussions. Hearing about problems firsthand from workers and then solving them is the correct step towards progress. Not wanting to hear about problems from workers but oppress them (silence them) is a sure way to your type of communism which - I am happy to say - was not a part of.

Ismail wrote:
He subsequently became an anti-communist and left Hungary. He has chapters on Albania and other countries in the book I cited. In none of these chapters does he paint a uniformly positive portrayal of the countries in question.

I plead for another sanity check: the author is good when he is attacking SFRY, but he must be clearly wrong and insane (ie burgeois) when he does the same for your puppy Albania?

Ismail wrote:
Its accomplishment, one quite difficult considering the circumstances, was to stand firm in defense of communism and proletarian internationalism in a world beset by capitalism and revisionism, and to resist the various plots of outside states from the Americans and British, from the Soviet revisionists, from the Yugoslavs and Greeks, and from the Chinese who were all intent on liquidating the socialist system.

Hhaaha... Licking Stalin's feet after he was looooong 6ft underground is not an accomplishment one should be proud of. Sorry, no go.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2013, 18:03
Quote:
You failed to address my point about your inconsistency - why would mean Titoists (or Titoites, as you call them) REPOPULATE Albanians in Kosovo after they allegedly expelled everyone to Turkey?

-Cut the insults, please- That the Albanians multiplied quickly doesn't mean that they weren't oppressed.
F. ex. Black people in South Africa under Apartheid multiplied far more quickly than the Whites. What does that prove?
Obviously Yugoslavia couldn't just expel all the Kosovo Albanians, more than a million people, like Stalin did with Chechens and Tatars who were all sent to Central Asia.

Quote:
I plead for another sanity check: the author is good when he is attacking SFRY, but he must be clearly wrong and insane (ie burgeois) when he does the same for your puppy Albania?

But the author is right in a way. Yugoslavia planned to expel all Hungarians from its territory ( which is what happened to the German and Italian minorities ) but the Hungarian comparty pleaded them not to do this so the plan was scrapped.
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 23 Jul 2013, 15:07
EdvardK wrote:
You failed to address my point about your inconsistency - why would mean Titoists (or Titoites, as you call them) REPOPULATE Albanians in Kosovo after they allegedly expelled everyone to Turkey?
Loz already answered this.

Quote:
Besides, if you allege and accuse, do it with impartial facts. Čubrilović was a minister for forests, not a "minister for ethnically cleansing shiptars from age-old Serb region of Kosovo". The memorandum about ethnically clean Kosovo was published in 1937 by him. You being a staunch hoxhaist, this may be a tough concept for you to grasp, but people DO change their stands on certain issues as they progress in life.
Except Čubrilović was a vicious nationalist, and I already noted that in 1945 he proposed essentially the exact same solution to solving the "Albanian problem."

Quote:
I am sure Slovenia (the country i live in) could do away with its current 18% unemployment if it adopted the glorious hoxhaist (puppet stalinist) doctrine of just employing everyone without the need to actually being lean and efficient or just DO ANY WORK. You probably disagree with this notion, too, but a worker has to contribute to the company/factor at least as much as he earns from it.
In other words, you think unemployment is not innate to the capitalist system and in fact necessary for it to survive through the reserve army of labor it creates, but merely a matter of "the lazy" versus "those willing to work."

It's also amusing you call Hoxha a "puppet Stalinist." It was Tito who worked in the Comintern for two decades, who was claimed by many bourgeois analysts to be the "most loyal" to Stalin of all the Eastern European leaders (up until 1948, of course), who enjoyed Soviet support in the liberation of Belgrade and other areas, etc. By contrast Hoxha had no Comintern ties, founded the Communist Party of Albania and led the National Liberation War without a single Soviet adviser (much less troops) in the country, and even as Yugoslav sources note was initially distrusted by Stalin because he had no idea who Hoxha was.

Quote:
I agree that SFRY had a socialist and not a communist system. And I am sure workers would've gone on strike in your glorious USSR if they weren't fearing repercussions. Hearing about problems firsthand from workers and then solving them is the correct step towards progress. Not wanting to hear about problems from workers but oppress them (silence them) is a sure way to your type of communism which - I am happy to say - was not a part of.
And when the workers protested at the IMF-backed austerity measures the Yugoslav "socialist" state imposed in the 80's, strangely this was rebuffed by that same state. Just as many workers across the world oppose austerity measures adopted by every other capitalist government.

Quote:
I plead for another sanity check: the author is good when he is attacking SFRY, but he must be clearly wrong and insane (ie burgeois) when he does the same for your puppy Albania?
You were the one claiming that he was some sort of "Stalinist" or something extolling the greatness of Albania.

Also when he discusses Albania in the book he talks about how "Stalinist" and "repressive" it is. When he talks about the Yugoslav system he notes how similar it is to the capitalist systems of the West. That alone is pretty revealing.

Quote:
Hhaaha... Licking Stalin's feet after he was looooong 6ft underground is not an accomplishment one should be proud of. Sorry, no go.
Clearly aligning with such great revolutionaries as Ceaușescu, Kim Il Sung and Pol Pot, as Tito did, was a much nobler goal.
Soviet cogitations: 61
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2016, 15:31
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 18 May 2016, 06:16
USSR 6/10
Poland 5/10
GDR 4/10
ČSSR 6/10
SFRY 5/10
Albania 1/10
Bulgaria 3/10
Romania 2/10
Cuba 6/10
China 2/10
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 981
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 12 Jun 2016, 20:00
Down in the gutter - crap of all crap:
Albania 0,00 / 10

Slightly higher:
Romania 3/10
China 2,5/10

Even higher:
Bulgaria 5/10
Poland 5/10

Above average:
ČSSR 7/10
Cuba

State capitalist:
USSR 5/10

Socialist:
SFRY
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.